It never occurred to me that there might be a theory regarding what Trump is doing, but these, as disturbing as they are, make sense. I had to remember that they don't exist in a vacuum; lots of people are pushing back forcefully against Trump through protests, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, Town halls when they occur, and voting in all the elections that have taken place since January 20. All this gives me some hope as does the fact that the anti-Trump Side has competent people of intellectual integrity and creativity
Diane, I have thought some about what Trump is doing, but as in my other comment, I don't have much free time to help much in "push back forcefully" as you said. Thx
Option Four: Trump knows he's very sick and likely to die before the end of his term and is trying to grab as much money, consolidate as much power, and enact as much revenge as he possibly can before he dies. He doesn't really care what happens after that.
Thanks for asking us readers to let you know our thoughts. Yes, I do think we have a risk of sliding into authoritarianism and/or ruin. I've started studying the Constitution and have quite few books on Constitutional thinking and history. I see voting as a big thing, and I'm meditating and reading on what our foundational leaders really wanted with this thing about the Electoral College--like, can the Electoral College really help or really hurt us? I stay busy with volunteer things , but I hope to comment more. Lewis in Gilmer, Texas
I subscribe to the combination theory. All the parties in the administration view Trump’s electoral talent as a vehicle for their political agendas. But for Trump himself, I think it’s 3. He has no goals outside of his own id.
Why do we assume this aging real estate magnate and TV personality (and beauty pageant impresario) is really “in charge” of anything? Was mentally challenged Biden in charge of anything? Was the wildly inexperienced Obama in charge of anything? And Bush .. whoa …
When you're talking about Turkey, it's important to remember that the system RTE ascended was stacked against him. He and the party he was in had been banned from politics. The constitution gave the army the responsibility to defend the secular order. The state apparatus was Kemalist. He was a P, not a president, and the sitting president when he ascended was part of the Kemalist elite. The media was also overwhelmingly Kemalist/secularist.
Erdogan used the EU accession process and US approval to defang the military (thanks, Bush), survived a closure case in 2007, and undertook a long process of replacing generals and judges, capturing the state (through the help of Gulen) and, finally, creating an "executive presidency" to which he ascended. fter the "coup" he purged the state of anyone not loyal to him and entered a pact with the fascist/mafia MHP.
Trump already had the Court, has a neutral military, a right-wing media apparatus, a senate map that tilts Republican. He seems to be relying on the security of that arrangement and shoring up the House with mid-decade gerrymandering. It's a recipe for competitive autocracy.
Also add on Stephen Miller's recent on-air statement that Trump has "plenary authority" - literally what Hitler wanted and got via the Enabling Act. This is a five-alarm fire for our democratic republic.
I don't know. I go back to who is behind Trump and his cabal. Someone is setting objectives.
Eg damage America with big beautiful bill and etc.
Eg enrich ourselves by rorting tariff announcemwnts and insider investments.
Eg ICE and its shenanigans.
And someone is thinking about the next steps, setting up the distraction, writing the executive orders, coordinating the message among the Maga leaders etc.
Sorry to repost this, but this was meant to be a general comment — not a reply to someone else’s comment:
Thanks for laying these options out so well. I think it’s certainly a combination of all three approaches along with a lot of luck and good on-the-fly adaptation to circumstances and opportunities. Project 2025 turns out to be an extremely well-conceived plan and it is being executed extremely well. But not without some luck. I don’t think anyone anticipated what Elon Musk suddenly brought to the project, which was the ability not simply to seize agencies and fire people, but to capture the IT and all of the data and so leave little room for the type of internal resistance based on ‘insider’ access and control that has been the staple of the administrative state for decades and has kept the agencies somewhat insulated from extreme partisan swings and presidential overreach.
I continue to take George Freeman at Geopolitical Futures very seriously, though, when he asserts that there are geopolitical forces at work here and that whoever was president now and for the near-to-midterm-future was going to have to guide or push America into inhabiting, if not dominating, the new geopolitical landscape — one that is no longer bi-polar (US vs USSR) but tri-polar and far more complex with all sorts of new challenges. He sees what’s going on as simply one manifestation of a necessary geopolitical adjustment and consistent with what we need to do and how our democracy does these things.
And I’m continually surprised that I hardly ever see anyone else factoring these sorts of considerations into their analyses. I am convinced that, if the Democratic Party could get a grip on what one might understand as this sort of geopolitical overlay, that the Party could begin to actually define and champion a more adaptive and less reactionary approach consistent with the historic American project of expanding the zone and mechanisms of governance and life under increasingly ‘liberal’ orders.
So should we expect the Democrat’s 2028 nominee to campaign on a promise towards limiting executive power?
How will they balance that against arguments that the executive branch needs to be able to fire officials to keep the bureaucracy dynamic?
What is incorrect about the argument (raised by Dan Carlin) that both parties have been in an executive power arms race and Trump is now at the crest pulling all the levers at once?
Thanks for laying these options out so well. I think it’s certainly a combination of all three approaches along with a lot of luck and good on-the-fly adaptation to circumstances and opportunities. Project 2025 turns out to be an extremely well-conceived plan and it is being executed extremely well. But not without some luck. I don’t think anyone anticipated what Elon Musk suddenly brought to the project, which was the ability not simply to seize agencies and fire people, but to capture the IT and all of the data and so leave little room for the type of internal resistance based on ‘insider’ access and control that has been the staple of the administrative state for decades and has kept the agencies somewhat insulated from extreme partisan swings and presidential overreach.
I continue to take George Freeman at Geopolitical Futures very seriously, though, when he asserts that there are geopolitical forces at work here and that whoever was president now and for the near-to-midterm-future was going to have to guide or push America into inhabiting, if not dominating, the new geopolitical landscape — one that is no longer bi-polar (US vs USSR) but tri-polar and far more complex with all sorts of new challenges. He sees what’s going on as simply one manifestation of a necessary geopolitical adjustment and consistent with what we need to do and how our democracy does these things.
And I’m continually surprised that I hardly ever see anyone else factoring these sorts of considerations into their analyses. I am convinced that, if the Democratic Party could get a grip on what one might understand as this sort of geopolitical overlay, that the Party could begin to actually define and champion a more adaptive and less reactionary approach consistent with the historic American project of expanding the zone and mechanisms of governance and life under increasingly ‘liberal’ orders.
It never occurred to me that there might be a theory regarding what Trump is doing, but these, as disturbing as they are, make sense. I had to remember that they don't exist in a vacuum; lots of people are pushing back forcefully against Trump through protests, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, Town halls when they occur, and voting in all the elections that have taken place since January 20. All this gives me some hope as does the fact that the anti-Trump Side has competent people of intellectual integrity and creativity
Diane, I have thought some about what Trump is doing, but as in my other comment, I don't have much free time to help much in "push back forcefully" as you said. Thx
Option Four: Trump knows he's very sick and likely to die before the end of his term and is trying to grab as much money, consolidate as much power, and enact as much revenge as he possibly can before he dies. He doesn't really care what happens after that.
Thanks for asking us readers to let you know our thoughts. Yes, I do think we have a risk of sliding into authoritarianism and/or ruin. I've started studying the Constitution and have quite few books on Constitutional thinking and history. I see voting as a big thing, and I'm meditating and reading on what our foundational leaders really wanted with this thing about the Electoral College--like, can the Electoral College really help or really hurt us? I stay busy with volunteer things , but I hope to comment more. Lewis in Gilmer, Texas
I subscribe to the combination theory. All the parties in the administration view Trump’s electoral talent as a vehicle for their political agendas. But for Trump himself, I think it’s 3. He has no goals outside of his own id.
Why do we assume this aging real estate magnate and TV personality (and beauty pageant impresario) is really “in charge” of anything? Was mentally challenged Biden in charge of anything? Was the wildly inexperienced Obama in charge of anything? And Bush .. whoa …
Some in his circle have plans, but Trump just has itches and he has to scratch them. Some of his scratches might support plans, but others don’t.
When you're talking about Turkey, it's important to remember that the system RTE ascended was stacked against him. He and the party he was in had been banned from politics. The constitution gave the army the responsibility to defend the secular order. The state apparatus was Kemalist. He was a P, not a president, and the sitting president when he ascended was part of the Kemalist elite. The media was also overwhelmingly Kemalist/secularist.
Erdogan used the EU accession process and US approval to defang the military (thanks, Bush), survived a closure case in 2007, and undertook a long process of replacing generals and judges, capturing the state (through the help of Gulen) and, finally, creating an "executive presidency" to which he ascended. fter the "coup" he purged the state of anyone not loyal to him and entered a pact with the fascist/mafia MHP.
Trump already had the Court, has a neutral military, a right-wing media apparatus, a senate map that tilts Republican. He seems to be relying on the security of that arrangement and shoring up the House with mid-decade gerrymandering. It's a recipe for competitive autocracy.
Also add on Stephen Miller's recent on-air statement that Trump has "plenary authority" - literally what Hitler wanted and got via the Enabling Act. This is a five-alarm fire for our democratic republic.
I don't know. I go back to who is behind Trump and his cabal. Someone is setting objectives.
Eg damage America with big beautiful bill and etc.
Eg enrich ourselves by rorting tariff announcemwnts and insider investments.
Eg ICE and its shenanigans.
And someone is thinking about the next steps, setting up the distraction, writing the executive orders, coordinating the message among the Maga leaders etc.
So yes Project 2025 and I think Putin.
Sorry to repost this, but this was meant to be a general comment — not a reply to someone else’s comment:
Thanks for laying these options out so well. I think it’s certainly a combination of all three approaches along with a lot of luck and good on-the-fly adaptation to circumstances and opportunities. Project 2025 turns out to be an extremely well-conceived plan and it is being executed extremely well. But not without some luck. I don’t think anyone anticipated what Elon Musk suddenly brought to the project, which was the ability not simply to seize agencies and fire people, but to capture the IT and all of the data and so leave little room for the type of internal resistance based on ‘insider’ access and control that has been the staple of the administrative state for decades and has kept the agencies somewhat insulated from extreme partisan swings and presidential overreach.
I continue to take George Freeman at Geopolitical Futures very seriously, though, when he asserts that there are geopolitical forces at work here and that whoever was president now and for the near-to-midterm-future was going to have to guide or push America into inhabiting, if not dominating, the new geopolitical landscape — one that is no longer bi-polar (US vs USSR) but tri-polar and far more complex with all sorts of new challenges. He sees what’s going on as simply one manifestation of a necessary geopolitical adjustment and consistent with what we need to do and how our democracy does these things.
And I’m continually surprised that I hardly ever see anyone else factoring these sorts of considerations into their analyses. I am convinced that, if the Democratic Party could get a grip on what one might understand as this sort of geopolitical overlay, that the Party could begin to actually define and champion a more adaptive and less reactionary approach consistent with the historic American project of expanding the zone and mechanisms of governance and life under increasingly ‘liberal’ orders.
So should we expect the Democrat’s 2028 nominee to campaign on a promise towards limiting executive power?
How will they balance that against arguments that the executive branch needs to be able to fire officials to keep the bureaucracy dynamic?
What is incorrect about the argument (raised by Dan Carlin) that both parties have been in an executive power arms race and Trump is now at the crest pulling all the levers at once?
"Former GOP election official buys Dominion Voting Systems, says he’ll push for paper ballots"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/former-gop-election-official-buys-191303400.html
Ironically, that’s a good thing.
Where does the massive MAGA disinformation campaign in the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention election next month fit into all of this?
Thanks for laying these options out so well. I think it’s certainly a combination of all three approaches along with a lot of luck and good on-the-fly adaptation to circumstances and opportunities. Project 2025 turns out to be an extremely well-conceived plan and it is being executed extremely well. But not without some luck. I don’t think anyone anticipated what Elon Musk suddenly brought to the project, which was the ability not simply to seize agencies and fire people, but to capture the IT and all of the data and so leave little room for the type of internal resistance based on ‘insider’ access and control that has been the staple of the administrative state for decades and has kept the agencies somewhat insulated from extreme partisan swings and presidential overreach.
I continue to take George Freeman at Geopolitical Futures very seriously, though, when he asserts that there are geopolitical forces at work here and that whoever was president now and for the near-to-midterm-future was going to have to guide or push America into inhabiting, if not dominating, the new geopolitical landscape — one that is no longer bi-polar (US vs USSR) but tri-polar and far more complex with all sorts of new challenges. He sees what’s going on as simply one manifestation of a necessary geopolitical adjustment and consistent with what we need to do and how our democracy does these things.
And I’m continually surprised that I hardly ever see anyone else factoring these sorts of considerations into their analyses. I am convinced that, if the Democratic Party could get a grip on what one might understand as this sort of geopolitical overlay, that the Party could begin to actually define and champion a more adaptive and less reactionary approach consistent with the historic American project of expanding the zone and mechanisms of governance and life under increasingly ‘liberal’ orders.