dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
|
Post by dondubble on Apr 26, 2024 17:12:35 GMT -5
Better to let women bleed out or get septic than to allow an abortion. Or in other terms, Idaho.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,910
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 26, 2024 21:03:31 GMT -5
I don't understand why republican's only value the life of the baby. The mother's life has no value to them. I cannot accept that. Plenty of republicans are pro-choice. Plenty of people in general, of all political types, are neither pro or anti-choice, but think this is a private decision that needs to be left to the mom, the dad, and the healthcare provider to decide. A pack of mostly older, mostly male, and almost completely scientifically ignorant politicians should butt the fuck out.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,169
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 26, 2024 21:16:58 GMT -5
Plenty of republicans are pro-choice. Plenty of people in general, of all political types, are neither pro or anti-choice, but think this is a private decision that needs to be left to the mom, the dad, and the healthcare provider to decide. A pack of mostly older, mostly male, and almost completely scientifically ignorant politicians should butt the fuck out. Is that the wording you meant to use? Because thinking "this is a private decision that needs to be left to the mom, the dad, and the healthcare provider to decide" is pretty much the exact definition of pro-choice. One can hold no opinion personally either for or against abortion per se, if that is what you meant.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,910
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 27, 2024 12:13:58 GMT -5
Plenty of people in general, of all political types, are neither pro or anti-choice, but think this is a private decision that needs to be left to the mom, the dad, and the healthcare provider to decide. A pack of mostly older, mostly male, and almost completely scientifically ignorant politicians should butt the fuck out. Is that the wording you meant to use? Because thinking "this is a private decision that needs to be left to the mom, the dad, and the healthcare provider to decide" is pretty much the exact definition of pro-choice. One can hold no opinion personally either for or against abortion per se, if that is what you meant. I meant I wished we lived in a society where abortion was not subject to public discussion at all, and what you or I or anyone else thought would be just as unimportant as what your favorite beer is or what brand of shoes I like. Private things should be private, and a person’s medical issues are some of the most private things of all (hence the HIPAA laws).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,172
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 27, 2024 18:22:07 GMT -5
Is that the wording you meant to use? Because thinking "this is a private decision that needs to be left to the mom, the dad, and the healthcare provider to decide" is pretty much the exact definition of pro-choice. One can hold no opinion personally either for or against abortion per se, if that is what you meant. I meant I wished we lived in a society where abortion was not subject to public discussion at all, and what you or I or anyone else thought would be just as unimportant as what your favorite beer is or what brand of shoes I like. Private things should be private, and a person’s medical issues are some of the most private things of all (hence the HIPAA laws). you lived in one. for almost 50 years. now you don't. the only remaining question is if we settle for turning our country over to the dominionist horde.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 27, 2024 18:38:02 GMT -5
I meant I wished we lived in a society where abortion was not subject to public discussion at all, and what you or I or anyone else thought would be just as unimportant as what your favorite beer is or what brand of shoes I like. Private things should be private, and a person’s medical issues are some of the most private things of all (hence the HIPAA laws). you lived in one. for almost 50 years. now you don't. the only remaining question is if we settle for turning our country over to the dominionist horde. I'm not that old that I knew of a time when there wasn't public discussion of abortion.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,417
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 27, 2024 19:37:18 GMT -5
I meant I wished we lived in a society where abortion was not subject to public discussion at all, and what you or I or anyone else thought would be just as unimportant as what your favorite beer is or what brand of shoes I like. Private things should be private, and a person’s medical issues are some of the most private things of all (hence the HIPAA laws). you lived in one. for almost 50 years. now you don't. the only remaining question is if we settle for turning our country over to the dominionist horde. We have never lived in a society where abortion wasn’t discussed, judged and demonized. There is a reason it had to go to the Supreme Court to become legal in the first place. And anti-abortion activists have been chipping away at that right for a long time.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,910
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 29, 2024 7:54:06 GMT -5
So Kristi Noem, in her rush to prove how good she is at making tough decisions and how much she loves guns, wrote in her book about shooting an 18 month old dog because it wasn’t a good hunting dog, and shooting a mean goat. When she was 14.
I get that farmers and ranchers are not sentimental about animals, but Noem wants to be Trumps VP and she’s showing she’s tone deaf. There are way more dog lovers than farmers and ranchers in the voting population and they are going to be appalled that she shot a playful, rambunctious young dog instead of giving it away to be a pet for someone who doesn’t hunt.
She lacks political savvy. Trump the great marketer probably won’t let her on the ticket. Probably he’ll pick someone even worse.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 29, 2024 8:01:38 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 29, 2024 10:07:49 GMT -5
So Kristi Noem, in her rush to prove how good she is at making tough decisions and how much she loves guns, wrote in her book about shooting an 18 month old dog because it wasn’t a good hunting dog, and shooting a mean goat. When she was 14. I get that farmers and ranchers are not sentimental about animals, but Noem wants to be Trumps VP and she’s showing she’s tone deaf. There are way more dog lovers than farmers and ranchers in the voting population and they are going to be appalled that she shot a playful, rambunctious young dog instead of giving it away to be a pet for someone who doesn’t hunt. She lacks political savvy. Trump the great marketer probably won’t let her on the ticket. Probably he’ll pick someone even worse. The Borowitz Report
Puppy Breaks Into Kristi Noem’s Official Residence and Craps on Rug[/b] APR 29, 2024 PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA (The Borowitz Report)—In an incident under investigation by state police, a puppy of indeterminate breed obtained access to Gov. Kristi Noem’s official residence Sunday night and excreted on the entryway carpet. A police spokesman said that the act of canine vandalism is believed to be “political in nature.” At a hastily called press conference, a visibly rattled Noem called the puppy’s actions “a result of Joe Biden’s failed policies at the border.” “Bad puppies are swarming into our country, breaking into our homes, and committing unspeakable crimes,” she said. But, in a worrisome development for Noem, a new poll shows South Dakota’s voters favoring the puppy over her by a two-to-one margin. Puppy Breaks Into Kristi Noem’s Official Residence and Craps on Rug
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,417
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 29, 2024 13:36:47 GMT -5
So Kristi Noem, in her rush to prove how good she is at making tough decisions and how much she loves guns, wrote in her book about shooting an 18 month old dog because it wasn’t a good hunting dog, and shooting a mean goat. When she was 14. I get that farmers and ranchers are not sentimental about animals, but Noem wants to be Trumps VP and she’s showing she’s tone deaf. There are way more dog lovers than farmers and ranchers in the voting population and they are going to be appalled that she shot a playful, rambunctious young dog instead of giving it away to be a pet for someone who doesn’t hunt. She lacks political savvy. Trump the great marketer probably won’t let her on the ticket. Probably he’ll pick someone even worse. Does it really matter who he picks - for the purpose of attracting voters? I thought Pence was a smart choice because people who were disgusted with Trump on a personal level soothed themselves by putting a true evangelical Christian one heartbeat away from the big chair. I’m basing this on my sister and my MIL. They can’t be the only ones. I know my MIL has drifted away from Trump, and any version a Trump-light VP pick won’t excite her. (I don’t know where my sister is on her political journey, because I would be so disgusted by her hypocritical vote for him that I do not ask.) Trump won’t pick another Pence. He is looking for the ultimate yes-men - his clone wanna-be’s. That won’t change any voter’s minds.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,395
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Apr 29, 2024 14:06:31 GMT -5
I agree. He is not looking for anyone competent or who will make him appeal to his non core voters. He wants a yes person. He will avoid someone who is obviously radioactive, which is what Noem just did to herself. No one wants someone on their ticket who is proud of shooting their dog. One thing people can agre on. Probably worse to shoot your dog than to sexually harass someone, a la Trump
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,910
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 29, 2024 19:30:21 GMT -5
So Kristi Noem, in her rush to prove how good she is at making tough decisions and how much she loves guns, wrote in her book about shooting an 18 month old dog because it wasn’t a good hunting dog, and shooting a mean goat. When she was 14. I get that farmers and ranchers are not sentimental about animals, but Noem wants to be Trumps VP and she’s showing she’s tone deaf. There are way more dog lovers than farmers and ranchers in the voting population and they are going to be appalled that she shot a playful, rambunctious young dog instead of giving it away to be a pet for someone who doesn’t hunt. She lacks political savvy. Trump the great marketer probably won’t let her on the ticket. Probably he’ll pick someone even worse. Does it really matter who he picks - for the purpose of attracting voters? I thought Pence was a smart choice because people who were disgusted with Trump on a personal level soothed themselves by putting a true evangelical Christian one heartbeat away from the big chair. I’m basing this on my sister and my MIL. They can’t be the only ones. I know my MIL has drifted away from Trump, and any version a Trump-light VP pick won’t excite her. (I don’t know where my sister is on her political journey, because I would be so disgusted by her hypocritical vote for him that I do not ask.) Trump won’t pick another Pence. He is looking for the ultimate yes-men - his clone wanna-be’s. That won’t change any voter’s minds. Yeah I remember when Trump picked Pence he kept bragging about how he looked like a VP sent him direct from Central Casting. You don’t have to be good, you just need to look great, and lure in a particular part of the electorate. This time, I think he will pick the biggest sycophant who is also good looking. Could be the valet who brings him his Diet Coke, as long as he looks like he came from Central Castings.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 29, 2024 20:23:29 GMT -5
|
|
dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
|
Post by dondubble on Apr 30, 2024 0:11:05 GMT -5
Does it really matter who he picks - for the purpose of attracting voters? I thought Pence was a smart choice because people who were disgusted with Trump on a personal level soothed themselves by putting a true evangelical Christian one heartbeat away from the big chair. I’m basing this on my sister and my MIL. They can’t be the only ones. I know my MIL has drifted away from Trump, and any version a Trump-light VP pick won’t excite her. (I don’t know where my sister is on her political journey, because I would be so disgusted by her hypocritical vote for him that I do not ask.) Trump won’t pick another Pence. He is looking for the ultimate yes-men - his clone wanna-be’s. That won’t change any voter’s minds. Yeah I remember when Trump picked Pence he kept bragging about how he looked like a VP sent him direct from Central Casting. You don’t have to be good, you just need to look great, and lure in a particular part of the electorate. This time, I think he will pick the biggest sycophant who is also good looking. Could be the valet who brings him his Diet Coke, as long as he looks like he came from Central Castings. Governor Abbott?
|
|
Cheesy FL-Vol
Junior Associate
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -5
Posts: 6,765
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheesy FL-Vol on Apr 30, 2024 2:07:15 GMT -5
Yeah I remember when Trump picked Pence he kept bragging about how he looked like a VP sent him direct from Central Casting. You don’t have to be good, you just need to look great, and lure in a particular part of the electorate. This time, I think he will pick the biggest sycophant who is also good looking. Could be the valet who brings him his Diet Coke, as long as he looks like he came from Central Castings. Governor Abbott? Hardly. People with disabilities are only worthy of ridicule.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,910
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 30, 2024 7:36:31 GMT -5
Hardly. People with disabilities are only worthy of ridicule. Well, if I’m not mistaken he became paralyzed when jogging, so at least he’s not one of those loser war vets who let themselves get injured. 😳
|
|
Cheesy FL-Vol
Junior Associate
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -5
Posts: 6,765
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheesy FL-Vol on Apr 30, 2024 7:50:13 GMT -5
Hardly. People with disabilities are only worthy of ridicule. Well, if I’m not mistaken he became paralyzed when jogging, so at least he’s not one of those loser war vets who let themselves get injured. 😳 Or captured. Remember John McCain?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,417
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 30, 2024 9:02:21 GMT -5
My husband reiterated the news story to me, and then told me that he didn’t think shooting a dog because he wasn’t a good hunter was a big deal. We spent a couple grand a few years back to save a stray kitten - on the behest of my husband. Ya, but….. He told me his thoughts about shooting a dog were theoretical, and he might change his mind if the dog were real.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 30, 2024 9:19:24 GMT -5
My husband reiterated the news story to me, and then told me that he didn’t think shooting a dog because he wasn’t a good hunter was a big deal. We spent a couple grand a few years back to save a stray kitten - on the behest of my husband. Ya, but….. He told me his thoughts about shooting a dog were theoretical, and he might change his mind if the dog were real. Would have been real easy to find the dog a new home.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 30, 2024 9:29:35 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,172
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 30, 2024 10:51:51 GMT -5
My husband reiterated the news story to me, and then told me that he didn’t think shooting a dog because he wasn’t a good hunter was a big deal. We spent a couple grand a few years back to save a stray kitten - on the behest of my husband. Ya, but….. He told me his thoughts about shooting a dog were theoretical, and he might change his mind if the dog were real. listen. i hate dogs. ok? hate. i was bit in the face when i was 4 years old. it left me with lifetime trauma and fear of dogs. in 2015 i had an epiphany about this. i realized that dogs, people, all creatures really, sometimes don't recognize, due to their trauma, the difference between playful and aggressive and dangerous. and since that time, my feelings about dogs and other creatures has shifted dramatically. i now realize that if you just give animals (people are animals too) enough room, they are fine with you, for the most part. they don't give one actual fuck. as soon as you get inside their comfort zone, however, all bets are off. you can get trampled by a moose, for example. a cat might bite you. a dog might snarl. i could no more shoot a dog in the face than i could shoot a human, now. but i was not always that way.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Apr 30, 2024 12:25:41 GMT -5
My husband reiterated the news story to me, and then told me that he didn’t think shooting a dog because he wasn’t a good hunter was a big deal. We spent a couple grand a few years back to save a stray kitten - on the behest of my husband. Ya, but….. He told me his thoughts about shooting a dog were theoretical, and he might change his mind if the dog were real. I told the story to my husband last night and he felt that shooting an animal was a valid example of the difficult decisions that ranchers have to make sometime. I told him that the dog could have been adopted out, but he wasn't drawn into the specifics, instead of thinking about a horse that his sister put down when none of the vet treatments were helping with its cancer. I told him that regardless of what life is like on a ranch, there are a lot more Americans that love their dogs than there are Americans that grew up on a ranch, and that it was stupid for her to publicize it thinking it would win her votes.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Apr 30, 2024 12:34:51 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 30, 2024 17:57:05 GMT -5
Time Magazine interview with trump. It gets worse as the article continues. And it may be behind a paywall. How Far Trump Would GoAPRIL 30, 2024 7:00 AM EDT We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not? As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.” Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words. What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.” The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.” Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order. Rest of article here: How Far Trump Would Go
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 30, 2024 18:54:42 GMT -5
And for ripvanwinkle : a paragraph in trump's own words from the linked Time Magazine interview with trump in reply #1734:
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by scgal on May 1, 2024 8:22:03 GMT -5
Time Magazine interview with trump. It gets worse as the article continues. And it may be behind a paywall. How Far Trump Would GoAPRIL 30, 2024 7:00 AM EDT We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not? As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.” Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words. What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.” The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.” Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order. Rest of article here: How Far Trump Would GoIf he could get it all done it would be wonderful. This country will be where it should have been all along.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 1, 2024 8:27:56 GMT -5
Time Magazine interview with trump. It gets worse as the article continues. And it may be behind a paywall. How Far Trump Would GoAPRIL 30, 2024 7:00 AM EDT We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not? As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.” Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words. What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.” The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.” Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order. Rest of article here: How Far Trump Would GoIf he could get it all done it would be wonderful. This country will be where it should have been all along. If democrats take both the U.S. House and Senate, and God forbid trump gets elected, very little of what trump proposes will get done.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on May 1, 2024 8:32:01 GMT -5
Time Magazine interview with trump. It gets worse as the article continues. And it may be behind a paywall. How Far Trump Would GoAPRIL 30, 2024 7:00 AM EDT We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not? As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.” Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words. What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.” The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.” Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order. Rest of article here: How Far Trump Would GoIf he could get it all done it would be wonderful. This country will be where it should have been all along. Thanks for this comment. It is the important elephant in the room that too many don't see. While I don't agree, that is irrelevant. The question is, "Do enough American voters want that America?" That is what this election will decide. We shouldn't let the character flaws nor Biden's age cloud that important issue.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,169
|
Post by tallguy on May 1, 2024 13:24:27 GMT -5
If he could get it all done it would be wonderful. This country will be where it should have been all along. Thanks for this comment. It is the important elephant in the room that too many don't see. While I don't agree, that is irrelevant. The question is, "Do enough American voters want that America?" That is what this election will decide. We shouldn't let the character flaws nor Biden's age cloud that important issue. Yes, it is nice to see so clearly exactly how un-American the American TalibaNazis can be.
|
|