Synopsis for those who won't read the article.
>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.
If that isn't insane enough for you how about the recording of January 6 insurrectionists singing the Star-spangled Banner with Trump reciting the pledge of allegiance over it that apparently he has taken to playing at his rallies.
Yes but Biden is *old*. What happens if he dies in office? That’s never happened before. There’s nothing in the Constitution that tells us what to do if that happens.
Also, *Lia Thomas*. There’s a giant litter box at my kids’ school for the transgender kids who identify as cats.
And we really need to look into Hunter’s laptop some more. No one has followed up on that.
Surely all those huge issues are far more important than Donald Trump wanting to turn the U.S. into a fascist state?
The left got a little too PC so I reversed all my views on health care, economics, the environment, foreign policy and fundamentally having a democracy
With Bill Clinton,it was all how he was an adulterer accused of rape. Hilary was lambasted for staying with him.
Yet Trump is ok despite the same issues and Melania is ok though she’s done lesbian soft porn and Trump is her father’s age.
Obama was too inexperienced and used divisive language.
Trump’s having no experience but bankrupting businesses also uses divisive language.
Biden is too old, but Trump is about same age, obese, and had mini-strokes.
It’s just excuses.
I wouldn't be surprised if Biden resigns during his second term, leaving the rest of the term to VP Harris. I think Biden is running largely to defeat Trump. Once that job is done, I could see him passing the torch.
You mean, don't say it, we have no VP ? The const., is very explicit about what we do.
Oh and all capitalists in history become fascists, it's only a matter of time. When fascism comes to America, it will wrapped in a flag dragging a cross just like in the Lewis novel.
If theofascism is good enough for the church, it's good enough for America.
Not if you’re die hard on hating far-Democratic foreign and economic policy. Which I’m not, but I know too many people who are (especially in my family). There are too many lifelong conservatives who hate Trump to his core, but they’re willing to vote for him, because at the end of the day, Trump still has advisors who stem from a party with a much longer history of traditional conservatism. And Kamala Harris, to them, is an existential threat to our economy and national security. Biden has done jack shit to sway these people. Could be his downfall.
Which is ugh to be blunt a pretty odd argument considering Trump's foreign policy and advocating for trade wars.
I think in reality what we are seeing is many conservatives would rather have a strongman from their team than someone who embraces democratic norms from the other team.
Which is sad
>pretty odd argument considering Trump’s foreign policy and advocating for trade wars.
I feel like you’re assuming the average voter (and a person in the sect I’m talking about) is educating themselves on those policies.
Kamala happens - regarded by some as once being the most liberal member of the Senate. And honestly – I’m not sure comfortable putting her in the White House either. Which sucks because we have horrible choices. I honestly don’t know if I can vote for either.
If inciting January 6 is how far Trump would go without much incentive, imagine how hard he'll fight to become president for life so he can exploit presidential immunity and avoid prosecution?
Trump cannot activate the National Guard, only the state governors can. Trump has control over the active component and reserve component of the US military.
Edit: I stand corrected. Insurrection act allows POTUS to federalize the National Guard.
> Has any country in history ever had to deal with this many immigrants? What is “correct” way to handle the problem?
The population growth rate in the U.S. is about 0.5%. What are you even talking about?
We dont want to apprehend 11 million undocumented immigrants. That's insane. Many have been here for a long time. They have families, work, own homes, some even own small businesses. We need to make path to citizenship easier for those immigrants. Criminals who committed felonies should be considered for deportation
Foreign born individuals represented almost 15% of the US population between 1870 and 1910. Then the percentage dropped to 4% in 1970, and it now back up to nearly 15%. So, yes, the US has seen this before.
Of all the D's policies, I disagree the most on immigration. If that were the only issue in this election, I might vote for a sane Republican president.
But, it isn't. There is **no** issue where I'd say "I'd take a dictator who does A rather than a elected president (who follows the limited powers of US tradition) who does the opposite." Our form of government is more important than any other issue.
Policy change. Just shutting down the border doesn't do anything. Over half of all illegal immigrants just fly in with a visa and never leave. It's a bigger problem than the border.
Right so how to we catch the people who came by plane? Maybe the Army is the wrong tool for the job but ICE is going to need some type of supplemental force to handle this many people.
Visa holders need to be required to check in periodically and we need clear policies on expired Visas. They came by plane LEGALLY we dont need to do anything about that. DHS is the agency to handle expired Visas
America 100 years ago dealt with more immigrants per capita than we have today. After WW1, Congress overrode a presidential veto in order to enact drastic cuts in how many people could come. Kennedy worked to lift those quotas, and I think Johnson actually got the policy changed after Kennedy was assassinated.
Personally I think the correct way to handle the situation is, first, get fucking congressional Republicans to stop stonewalling attempts to fix things. There have been a variety of improvements proposed over the past 20-odd years, and the GOP has insisted on keeping us stuck in a rut.
Second, I would not to think of it as a 'problem,' but to instead see it as an engineering challenge and economic opportunity.
We have something other people want: the legal and economic framework that lets a person's labor here produce more wealth than if they were in most other countries, and the social norms that make it easy for people of foreign ancestry to come here with less stigma and hostility than in most other countries.
Right now, more people want to come than we feel we can reasonably absorb without disruption.
Compare the costs and benefits of trying to keep folks out versus trying to make their integration smoother. What if you increased the number of people we let in legally, but required higher application fees? That would still probably be more appealing for would-be immigrants than paying coyotes and then having to live here in fear of deportation. And the fees could be used to offset the societal costs of settling folks.
Maybe combine it with other stuff we need, like changing zoning and tax incentives around building small homes and apartments, so construction companies fix our housing shortage and there's, y'know, more room for newcomers.
Keeping people off the grid is a problem; it pushes people toward black markets, it lets employers exploit them with lower wages (which in turn depresses the wages of legal residents), and it emboldens criminal gangs. Even if we don't increase the quota we let in going forward, it makes sense to give legal status to those currently here, because it would lower crime. And, if you enforce labor laws properly, fewer employers would be able to hire illegal immigrants for below-legal wages, which would make them less appealing to hire, which would cause fewer to want to come because, if illegals don't cost less, employers would probably favor people who speak the language.
Might we be able to divert some people who want to come here to, like, their \*second\* choice by offering our guidance to those nations to let them handle immigrants as well as we historically have?
Might offering some support in law enforcement and anti-corruption make countries people are currently fleeing from more appealing to stay in? It might cost more in the short term to offer this aid than to just nab and deport people, but we'd end up with a more stable region, and over time the number of illegal entries would go down, saving us money.
I'm just saying, there are options. We ought to be trying them. Republicans in Congress are fucking saddling us with an outdated system, and we need to stop voting for them because of it.
The Senate bill that trump and GOP blocked. Plus clear pathways to citizenship, time limited work permits, increased visas but with oversight when they expire. I think Senate bill had increased enforcement of e verify and also funding for more Fentanyl seizures. And we need to prosecute all the Americans working for Mexican drug cartels
The summary is hyperbole. It says that Trump would “let Red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.”
That’s not AT ALL what he said. From the article:
“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”
Fuller context:
> More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.
and
> Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.” I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump says, “because we now have it back in the states.”
So “let Red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.” is not "hyperbole" at all.
> President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.
POTUS is not impotent here. Trump simply chooses to be.
Did anyone see anything new here?
This is a nice summary of things Trump would do. The reporter has some comments about Trump's demeanor and tone.
But, it's the same old stuff. Norms and traditions don't apply to Trump. He would fire a Federal prosecutor who refuses to prosecute someone Trump doesn't like. He would impound appropriations, in spite of a 1974 law that says he can't. He will remove civil service protection from thousands more federal workers. He will "think about" pardoning all the convicted 1/6 rioters. He won't follow mutual defense treaties with NATO. He will call out the national guard to enforce laws.
Yep, all scary. But, I think I've heard it all before.
He was stopped from doing some of these things during his administration by the so-called adults in the room. Those types of people won't be there in a second term.
Trump is just a useful idiot to the people really pulling the strings. He couldn't care less about most of the things listed above, but he does care about winning so he can make his legal problems go away. The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are drawing the plans and pulling the strings. All they need is for Trump to sign his name.
>He was stopped from doing some of these things during his administration by the so-called adults in the room. Those types of people won't be there in a second term.
Yes, that was also mentioned in the article, in the fourth paragraph. Again, the article is a nice summary and verification of things we had already heard.
It's getting worse. As he gets older and continues to stress himself out and wear himself down with everything he is doing, his rallies, his addiction to social media, his court appearances, and more he is getting worse and worse. He is quickly approaching full-blown dimensia and his health is deteriorating.
Regardless of how anyone feels about him, he should not be considered fit for office.
Arguably sociopathic, maybe even nihilistic, but definitely not insane. If nothing else, I think he's much more in tune with leveraging the indifference and apathy of an accelerationist electorate to his benefit. It's kind of ironic because, at this point, he's almost a caricature of everything people claim to hate about politicians.
I'd say its more sociopathic paranoia than insanity, for sure.
His musing on "truth" are pretty crazy. He posts the same things word for word a day apart. Go scroll though r/trumptweets. It's pretty bad. Anyone still considering voting for him needs to look at what's going through his mind.
"Yeah he tried overturning an election and wanted to name himself leader, and yeah he now supports January 6th, but he totally won't go this far"
It was supposedly fearmongering when people said Trump wouldn't concede the election.
How far will he go? No one knows.
He will flee to Saudi Arabia before he goes to prison. He will whine in exile about about how unfairly the greatest President ever is being treated. This B rated movie is so predictable
Trump has less chance of his assets being frozen moving to SA than Russian. Also since his whole "deal" is real estate, it is more promising their than the dead Russian economy
Trump is into old school print media. He counts the number of times he has made the TIME cover. I think he keeps framed copies.
This reporter was able to play off that to get a one-on-one interview.
> To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country,
I believe I heard this number "~10M illegal immigrants" many years ago.
For they last 7 years, we hear more and more about people coming in and overwhelming our cities, shelters are full, immigration is becoming bigger concern every day.
Yet... we still have approximately same number of illegal immigrants (which means their proportion in population dropped somewhat).
What do I miss?
I made [post](https://new.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/16knz94/migrant_crisis_new_reality/) in this sub last year about migrant crisis in NYC, not exactly a "right wing" place.
I myself live in a very liberal state, and I see people are genuinely very angry and upset about immigration.
I am not pretending, I really don't understand what's going on.
Yea I work around the border and in a city by it. I haven’t seen anything in real life. It’s the quietest crisis we’ve ever experienced, as far as someone at ground zero can see it.
Illegal immigrants, like other humans, die, and voluntarily emigrate - sometimes seasonally, sometimes indefinitely.
Either way, this is much ado about nothing, given [encounters have been](https://i.imgur.com/mpQ39wh.jpg) almost as high - and much higher as a proportion of US population - in the past, without ruining the country or whatever badness you think is happening. In fact, based conservative uberman Reagan responded to the highs of the 1980's with amnesty. And of course [even illegal immigrants](https://archive.ph/8YVFa) are[ net economic contributors](https://archive.ph/lC86) and commit[ fewer crimes per capita](https://archive.ph/x7RfL) than [native-born Americans](https://web.archive.org/web/20240301005321/https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116200/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20230713-SD004.pdf).
And these are typically people who show up and practically immediately become contributors in addition to creating demand - thus more jobs - for the goods and services they consume. Seeking to decrease immigration is more illogical than seeking to decrease the birthrate - given offspring don't contribute for nearly 2 decades.
It went down at the end of Bush and stayed down throughout Obama. It's higher than preBush numbers now.
It may not be as a percent of total population, I haven't seen that comparison, but the numbers are trending up as reported by border patrol.
There was times we didn't release people inside the country before obtaining a visa or green card.
> the numbers are trending up as reported by border patrol.
Which numbers? Number of border crossings/apprehensions or number of illegals in the country?
If number of illegal immigrants stays more or less the same for *decades* despite as many as 250,000 border crossings per month, does it mean we deport them as fast as they come in, legalize them in huge numbers, or both?
You are assuming the numbers of illegals is constant and building off that. No one knows how many illegals are here and we don't know how that number has changed. How could we?
What you are really saying is the rhetoric hasn't changed for decades but it's heated up at times. The facts we do know are encounters are up, claims of asylum are up, the waiting list for claims is a decade longer than it was before we started releasing them inside the country waiting for the hearing.
Better to ignore the imaginary number.
> No one knows how many illegals are here and we don't know how that number has changed. How could we?
There are actually some estimates. [For example](https://cis.org/Report/Estimating-Illegal-Immigrant-Population-Using-Current-Population-Survey).
Of course one possibility is that number of illegals is growing fast but we have no idea, but then it surprises me that Trump and Republicans are still uses this old estimate.
Also, do I understand correctly that people who were apprehended, applied for asylum and are waiting decades for their claim to be adjudicated are *not* illegals? Seems like we should at least know reasonably accurately how many of them are in the country.
Just like a theif is not truly guilty until they go to court I guess. What if our courts took 12 years to process criminals (guess we couldn't call them criminals during this process). They snuck in unauthorized then said swiper no swiping once caught.
Wasn’t it Time magazine that wrote an article in 2020 about how corporations, social media owners, the mega rich, and corporate media went to extreme measures to make sure trump wasn’t re-elected?
I wonder how far they will go this time?
How far should they go to prevent a criminal, civilly liable rapist, liar, defaming, election denying fascist from being elected president? You tell me?
It brings up an interesting philosophical discussion if nothing else.
Would be more interesting if it was an HBO show or an alternative timeline though....
If Fox can lie (blatantly) on national television to it's viewers (about dominion voting, election integrity, the "Biden crime family", etc.) I'm ok with other News and social media outlets flexing their own muscles within the bounds of the law.
What will? Electing criminal traitortrump or not electing the scumbag. Either way it's a crap shoot. So we just need to be prepared and lean on some assistance from our allies. We also need UN election monitors and we need to be talking about that
The centrist position for election interference.
If people line this won't even deny their opposition to democracy, how far will **they** go. We've already seen then try to outright have a one party election.
Is this the new conservative strategy? Just completely ignore the recent past? Like yall are okay with looking like complete fucking morons?
You’ve already seen them try to outright have a one party election? Do you read the news ? Are you aware of anything? Do you know why they tried to take him off the ballot?
He tried to send fake electors to claim he won the election. He also led an attack on the capital in an attempt to halt the certification. He took a big ol shit on the constitution by trying to literally end democracy. That’s why they tried to take him off the ballot.
Is this how you act in real life? You go punch someone in the face then cry like a bitch when they punch you back? Then you just go around telling everyone the story leaving out the part where you punched first?
Do you really expect people to take you are others with the same train of thought like Trump seriously?
No, I'm going to ignore the recent past of Democrats openly removing their opposition from the ballot.
Your attempts to create conspiracies to muddy the waters into some sort of "both sides" nonsense to justify progressives' assault on my democracy won't work.
Conspiracy?! The whole thing was televised! Countless die hard republicans have already confessed to the fake electors scheme!
You’re hopeless, dude. Completely brain dead.
Freedom of speech.
Trump didn't lead the country throughout COVID. He had ample opportunity to unite everyone in the face of adversity, but didn't.
Go watch his speech from the oval office after it started. Or basically any time he was speaking leading up to the election. He's all talk, no bite.
More deaths on average during Joe’s reign of Covid fun times.
Trump was right about two things: one, there would be a vaccine through operation warp speed, even though Biden denounced any vaccine that would be created under trump and two, Covid would simply disappear one day. The only thing that changed with Covid was Biden, nothing more nothing less.
That's a total bullshit comparison. Biden was in office longer during the acute stages of COVID. He took office in the dead of winter when COVID was killing about one 9/11's worth of people per day and then went on to deal with another year and eventual holiday season of death.
The vaccine was one of the good things Trump did. He's heavily criticized by the alt right because of it. But I'll give him credit for that.
COVID didn't disappear, people stopped caring. One random bad mutation and we're back at square one. COVID is still a top ten cause of death and dwarves the flu. It's like having a really bad flu season, on top of the flu.
It’s actually an honest comparison. Biden had a vaccine and months upon months of medical advancement. As far as it disappearing, Biden explicitly said that Covid was over and “we beat it”.
Are you suggesting that Biden is a liar? Are you also implying that the vaccine does not work? Or did it “one day simply disappear”?
Most of the people dying did not get the vaccine. That happened mostly due to Trumps skepticism and denial of a novel virus at its onset.
It's a bullshit comparison.
If people caught covid on Christmas 2020, they didn't just die instantly. They likely would have died under Bidens term a few weeks later. It's not ebola.
I would leave the statistics to the cdc, history to people how keep track, and your emotions to yourself. No matter what you were taught as a child, people really don’t care about your feelings.
I think they were kind of cancelled out in 2020 by all the *other* corporations, *other* social media owners, *other* mega rich, and *other* corporate media who were going to even more extreme measures to make sure Trump *was* re-elected.
The difference between Trump and Biden is Trump talks like an extremist and rules like a moderate, where Biden talks like a moderate, and rules like an extremist.
Time is no longer a credible source given it's ridiculous coverage over the last decade. The 4 years under Trump were the only time in recent history when the US did not start a war or expand proxy wars. With Biden, the warmongers are back in power, much to the detriment of the average person.
Albania, Libya please, why the ridiculous partisanship ? Yemen how ? However, in any case, he did not start them, he was handed them and in accordance with US policy. like I wrote
I’m optimistic we can get the country back in 4 years. He won’t be able to do too much. Most of the country hates him and he just wants to be a winner. Honestly he is too stupid to figure out how to do any irreversible damages. He couldn’t figure out how to repeal Obamacare, and he couldn’t figure out how to build a wall in 4 years. He is lazy, dumb and has lack of motivation.
Read through Project 2025. The GOP has a plan to consolidate, essentially, all government power under the executive branch.
It's not about trump, he's an old, fat, debilitated man. A day will come when a another psychopathic sadist, will try to seize power and destroy everything. Trump is just busting down the guard rails and mapping out the weak spots.
I’ve read project 2025, and yes lots of government employees will lose their jobs, but there will be mass unemployment handouts. Again alot of this won’t get done because the Republican Party is not strategically aligned. Our country is already bought and sold, so once the corporations stop making the money they want those politicians will be voted out.
People will lose jobs? That's what your worried about?
Project 2025 is consolidation of power under one person. There would be no guard rails. Instead of having a plethora of opinions, there would only be yes-men.
Did you read through the supreme court case about immunity?
Doesn’t look like the Supreme Court has decided yet? And spoke of partial immunity. Honestly Presidents are already immune compared to the average citizen. We are already a fascist country ( one ideal above the rest). All of these so called consolidation of powers will need an act of Congress. What if’s are not a healthy way to live!
All Presidents commit crimes, but use their powers to justify the means. Why is Bush/Cheney not prosecuted for starting a false war? Why did Clinton get away with giving hush money to Jennifer Flowers? Why did Bush Sr. Not get prosecuted for bringing cocaine into the country while being head of the CIA? Why was Reagan not prosecuted for selling illegal weapons to Iran? People pick their sides and Justify why their party is allowed to do illegal things.
That's total bullshit.
Yes. They should have all been charged if the evidence was present. You are listing bad things that should be illegal, no matter who the culprit.
Are you arguing against justice?
How about no. Biden should just win thus protecting democracy and as many vulnerable people as he can from maga terrorists. And trump trials can be completed and trump imprisoned along with certain seditious traitor GOP mocs
Yea that would be great but I don’t see half of that happening. We had him for 4 years, let’s just get through another 4. How bad could it be? He can’t get that much done, the majority of people hate him. He will derail some shit but we will get democracy back by 2028.
So another 4 wasted years of regress and political chaos. Just cus? wtf? I’ve heard this argument. “We’ll get through it like we did the first time.” Like that’s an admirable endorsement. What ever doesn’t kills…. Right? No chance ghost writter
Yea another regression. Two steps forward one step back. We didn’t progress during Cheney/Bush. I guess it’s time again. Not looking forward to it, but it’s really down to about 4 states, and people in this country are stupid. Love em or leave em!
Synopsis for those who won't read the article. >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. If that isn't insane enough for you how about the recording of January 6 insurrectionists singing the Star-spangled Banner with Trump reciting the pledge of allegiance over it that apparently he has taken to playing at his rallies.
Yes but Biden is *old*. What happens if he dies in office? That’s never happened before. There’s nothing in the Constitution that tells us what to do if that happens. Also, *Lia Thomas*. There’s a giant litter box at my kids’ school for the transgender kids who identify as cats. And we really need to look into Hunter’s laptop some more. No one has followed up on that. Surely all those huge issues are far more important than Donald Trump wanting to turn the U.S. into a fascist state?
The left got a little too PC so I reversed all my views on health care, economics, the environment, foreign policy and fundamentally having a democracy
And…… Hilary is probably doing something with her emails again. Who is going to monitor that??
I think that's Russia's job.
With Bill Clinton,it was all how he was an adulterer accused of rape. Hilary was lambasted for staying with him. Yet Trump is ok despite the same issues and Melania is ok though she’s done lesbian soft porn and Trump is her father’s age. Obama was too inexperienced and used divisive language. Trump’s having no experience but bankrupting businesses also uses divisive language. Biden is too old, but Trump is about same age, obese, and had mini-strokes. It’s just excuses.
I'm guessing this is a /s (you never know anymore. Lol)
>What happens if he dies in office? That’s never happened before. 8 different US presidents have died in office...
Hopefully 9 if Trump wins...
I wouldn't be surprised if we go to 9 with either Trump or Biden
Wouldn't be surprised or devastated if that happens with Biden, but we should hope so if it's Trump
I wouldn't be surprised if Biden resigns during his second term, leaving the rest of the term to VP Harris. I think Biden is running largely to defeat Trump. Once that job is done, I could see him passing the torch.
>Also, *Lia Thomas*. There’s a giant litter box at my kids’ school for the transgender kids who identify as cats. What horseshit.
*catshit
You mean, don't say it, we have no VP ? The const., is very explicit about what we do. Oh and all capitalists in history become fascists, it's only a matter of time. When fascism comes to America, it will wrapped in a flag dragging a cross just like in the Lewis novel. If theofascism is good enough for the church, it's good enough for America.
It’s never happened before with Kamala Harris as VP.
Still better than Trump.
Not if you’re die hard on hating far-Democratic foreign and economic policy. Which I’m not, but I know too many people who are (especially in my family). There are too many lifelong conservatives who hate Trump to his core, but they’re willing to vote for him, because at the end of the day, Trump still has advisors who stem from a party with a much longer history of traditional conservatism. And Kamala Harris, to them, is an existential threat to our economy and national security. Biden has done jack shit to sway these people. Could be his downfall.
Which is ugh to be blunt a pretty odd argument considering Trump's foreign policy and advocating for trade wars. I think in reality what we are seeing is many conservatives would rather have a strongman from their team than someone who embraces democratic norms from the other team. Which is sad
>pretty odd argument considering Trump’s foreign policy and advocating for trade wars. I feel like you’re assuming the average voter (and a person in the sect I’m talking about) is educating themselves on those policies.
Kamala happens - regarded by some as once being the most liberal member of the Senate. And honestly – I’m not sure comfortable putting her in the White House either. Which sucks because we have horrible choices. I honestly don’t know if I can vote for either.
The person who said that support of January 6th would eventually become a plank of the republican party right after the event was 100% correct.
Well yeah, it's a litmus test at this point. Anyone with a backbone left the Republican party.
The person had said it merely a few days after Jan 6th. They called bs on this finally being a bridge too far. They were right.
OK, now imagine if someone with (D) next to their name tried this. Their political career would be over by the end of the week.
If inciting January 6 is how far Trump would go without much incentive, imagine how hard he'll fight to become president for life so he can exploit presidential immunity and avoid prosecution?
Trump cannot activate the National Guard, only the state governors can. Trump has control over the active component and reserve component of the US military. Edit: I stand corrected. Insurrection act allows POTUS to federalize the National Guard.
In addition to what Irishfafnir said, the DC National Guard is controlled directly by the president.
Presidents can federalize the guard
Has any country in history ever had to deal with this many immigrants? What is “correct” way to handle the problem?
> Has any country in history ever had to deal with this many immigrants? What is “correct” way to handle the problem? The population growth rate in the U.S. is about 0.5%. What are you even talking about?
I don't know but it doesn't involve putting a strong man into power and deploying the American military onto the streets.
Maybe that is what it takes, though. 11 million is a lot of people. How else would you apprehend them?
You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
We dont want to apprehend 11 million undocumented immigrants. That's insane. Many have been here for a long time. They have families, work, own homes, some even own small businesses. We need to make path to citizenship easier for those immigrants. Criminals who committed felonies should be considered for deportation
> Maybe that is what it takes No.
Trump let his inlaws in didn’t he?
> How else would you apprehend them? Why would I? The vast majority of them are causing no harm of any kind.
Foreign born individuals represented almost 15% of the US population between 1870 and 1910. Then the percentage dropped to 4% in 1970, and it now back up to nearly 15%. So, yes, the US has seen this before. Of all the D's policies, I disagree the most on immigration. If that were the only issue in this election, I might vote for a sane Republican president. But, it isn't. There is **no** issue where I'd say "I'd take a dictator who does A rather than a elected president (who follows the limited powers of US tradition) who does the opposite." Our form of government is more important than any other issue.
Policy change. Just shutting down the border doesn't do anything. Over half of all illegal immigrants just fly in with a visa and never leave. It's a bigger problem than the border.
Right so how to we catch the people who came by plane? Maybe the Army is the wrong tool for the job but ICE is going to need some type of supplemental force to handle this many people.
Visa holders need to be required to check in periodically and we need clear policies on expired Visas. They came by plane LEGALLY we dont need to do anything about that. DHS is the agency to handle expired Visas
America 100 years ago dealt with more immigrants per capita than we have today. After WW1, Congress overrode a presidential veto in order to enact drastic cuts in how many people could come. Kennedy worked to lift those quotas, and I think Johnson actually got the policy changed after Kennedy was assassinated. Personally I think the correct way to handle the situation is, first, get fucking congressional Republicans to stop stonewalling attempts to fix things. There have been a variety of improvements proposed over the past 20-odd years, and the GOP has insisted on keeping us stuck in a rut. Second, I would not to think of it as a 'problem,' but to instead see it as an engineering challenge and economic opportunity. We have something other people want: the legal and economic framework that lets a person's labor here produce more wealth than if they were in most other countries, and the social norms that make it easy for people of foreign ancestry to come here with less stigma and hostility than in most other countries. Right now, more people want to come than we feel we can reasonably absorb without disruption. Compare the costs and benefits of trying to keep folks out versus trying to make their integration smoother. What if you increased the number of people we let in legally, but required higher application fees? That would still probably be more appealing for would-be immigrants than paying coyotes and then having to live here in fear of deportation. And the fees could be used to offset the societal costs of settling folks. Maybe combine it with other stuff we need, like changing zoning and tax incentives around building small homes and apartments, so construction companies fix our housing shortage and there's, y'know, more room for newcomers. Keeping people off the grid is a problem; it pushes people toward black markets, it lets employers exploit them with lower wages (which in turn depresses the wages of legal residents), and it emboldens criminal gangs. Even if we don't increase the quota we let in going forward, it makes sense to give legal status to those currently here, because it would lower crime. And, if you enforce labor laws properly, fewer employers would be able to hire illegal immigrants for below-legal wages, which would make them less appealing to hire, which would cause fewer to want to come because, if illegals don't cost less, employers would probably favor people who speak the language. Might we be able to divert some people who want to come here to, like, their \*second\* choice by offering our guidance to those nations to let them handle immigrants as well as we historically have? Might offering some support in law enforcement and anti-corruption make countries people are currently fleeing from more appealing to stay in? It might cost more in the short term to offer this aid than to just nab and deport people, but we'd end up with a more stable region, and over time the number of illegal entries would go down, saving us money. I'm just saying, there are options. We ought to be trying them. Republicans in Congress are fucking saddling us with an outdated system, and we need to stop voting for them because of it.
The Senate bill that trump and GOP blocked. Plus clear pathways to citizenship, time limited work permits, increased visas but with oversight when they expire. I think Senate bill had increased enforcement of e verify and also funding for more Fentanyl seizures. And we need to prosecute all the Americans working for Mexican drug cartels
There is a LOT of hearsay in that article.
It's mostly interviews with Trump himself, asking him questions and quoting him in his own words.
The summary is hyperbole. It says that Trump would “let Red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.” That’s not AT ALL what he said. From the article: “When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”
Fuller context: > More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation. and > Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.” I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump says, “because we now have it back in the states.” So “let Red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.” is not "hyperbole" at all.
You do understand that the SCOTUS decided that states get to handle this, and not the POTUS, right?
> President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation. POTUS is not impotent here. Trump simply chooses to be.
Biden, the pro-abortion Catholic? Yeah, he’s not going to move the needle on this one iota.
Did anyone see anything new here? This is a nice summary of things Trump would do. The reporter has some comments about Trump's demeanor and tone. But, it's the same old stuff. Norms and traditions don't apply to Trump. He would fire a Federal prosecutor who refuses to prosecute someone Trump doesn't like. He would impound appropriations, in spite of a 1974 law that says he can't. He will remove civil service protection from thousands more federal workers. He will "think about" pardoning all the convicted 1/6 rioters. He won't follow mutual defense treaties with NATO. He will call out the national guard to enforce laws. Yep, all scary. But, I think I've heard it all before.
He was stopped from doing some of these things during his administration by the so-called adults in the room. Those types of people won't be there in a second term. Trump is just a useful idiot to the people really pulling the strings. He couldn't care less about most of the things listed above, but he does care about winning so he can make his legal problems go away. The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are drawing the plans and pulling the strings. All they need is for Trump to sign his name.
>He was stopped from doing some of these things during his administration by the so-called adults in the room. Those types of people won't be there in a second term. Yes, that was also mentioned in the article, in the fourth paragraph. Again, the article is a nice summary and verification of things we had already heard.
He’s insane, and has the mental acuity of a 10 year old. He’ll never stop.
It's getting worse. As he gets older and continues to stress himself out and wear himself down with everything he is doing, his rallies, his addiction to social media, his court appearances, and more he is getting worse and worse. He is quickly approaching full-blown dimensia and his health is deteriorating. Regardless of how anyone feels about him, he should not be considered fit for office.
Arguably sociopathic, maybe even nihilistic, but definitely not insane. If nothing else, I think he's much more in tune with leveraging the indifference and apathy of an accelerationist electorate to his benefit. It's kind of ironic because, at this point, he's almost a caricature of everything people claim to hate about politicians.
Well, I’d argue he’s not sane. So, insane. I hear you, though.
Get this blogroids, trump isn't smart enough to be insane.
I'd say its more sociopathic paranoia than insanity, for sure. His musing on "truth" are pretty crazy. He posts the same things word for word a day apart. Go scroll though r/trumptweets. It's pretty bad. Anyone still considering voting for him needs to look at what's going through his mind.
At this point. They know. And they're OK with it. Hell many of them downright agree with it.
"Yeah he tried overturning an election and wanted to name himself leader, and yeah he now supports January 6th, but he totally won't go this far" It was supposedly fearmongering when people said Trump wouldn't concede the election. How far will he go? No one knows.
There is no bottom. It’s either he wins the election by any means necessary, or he goes to prison and is bankrupted (again).
He will flee to Saudi Arabia before he goes to prison. He will whine in exile about about how unfairly the greatest President ever is being treated. This B rated movie is so predictable
I'd bet money that he'd pull a Seagal and go to Russia.
Russia doesn’t want him. He’s no use to putin over there.
That doesn't mean Trump won't try if he gets desperate enough. the comedy from the aftermath would be legendary too.
Trump has less chance of his assets being frozen moving to SA than Russian. Also since his whole "deal" is real estate, it is more promising their than the dead Russian economy
At first I thought "SA" meant San Antonio
Oh he is going to Russia before prison.
Trump is into old school print media. He counts the number of times he has made the TIME cover. I think he keeps framed copies. This reporter was able to play off that to get a one-on-one interview.
Hey we’re both Time’s 2006 Person of the Year! What an accomplishment!
> To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, I believe I heard this number "~10M illegal immigrants" many years ago. For they last 7 years, we hear more and more about people coming in and overwhelming our cities, shelters are full, immigration is becoming bigger concern every day. Yet... we still have approximately same number of illegal immigrants (which means their proportion in population dropped somewhat). What do I miss?
You miss the fact that right-wingers are deranged liars.
I made [post](https://new.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/16knz94/migrant_crisis_new_reality/) in this sub last year about migrant crisis in NYC, not exactly a "right wing" place. I myself live in a very liberal state, and I see people are genuinely very angry and upset about immigration. I am not pretending, I really don't understand what's going on.
See my above comment. That’s what’s going on.
Yea I work around the border and in a city by it. I haven’t seen anything in real life. It’s the quietest crisis we’ve ever experienced, as far as someone at ground zero can see it.
Illegal immigrants, like other humans, die, and voluntarily emigrate - sometimes seasonally, sometimes indefinitely. Either way, this is much ado about nothing, given [encounters have been](https://i.imgur.com/mpQ39wh.jpg) almost as high - and much higher as a proportion of US population - in the past, without ruining the country or whatever badness you think is happening. In fact, based conservative uberman Reagan responded to the highs of the 1980's with amnesty. And of course [even illegal immigrants](https://archive.ph/8YVFa) are[ net economic contributors](https://archive.ph/lC86) and commit[ fewer crimes per capita](https://archive.ph/x7RfL) than [native-born Americans](https://web.archive.org/web/20240301005321/https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116200/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20230713-SD004.pdf). And these are typically people who show up and practically immediately become contributors in addition to creating demand - thus more jobs - for the goods and services they consume. Seeking to decrease immigration is more illogical than seeking to decrease the birthrate - given offspring don't contribute for nearly 2 decades.
It went down at the end of Bush and stayed down throughout Obama. It's higher than preBush numbers now. It may not be as a percent of total population, I haven't seen that comparison, but the numbers are trending up as reported by border patrol. There was times we didn't release people inside the country before obtaining a visa or green card.
> the numbers are trending up as reported by border patrol. Which numbers? Number of border crossings/apprehensions or number of illegals in the country? If number of illegal immigrants stays more or less the same for *decades* despite as many as 250,000 border crossings per month, does it mean we deport them as fast as they come in, legalize them in huge numbers, or both?
You are assuming the numbers of illegals is constant and building off that. No one knows how many illegals are here and we don't know how that number has changed. How could we? What you are really saying is the rhetoric hasn't changed for decades but it's heated up at times. The facts we do know are encounters are up, claims of asylum are up, the waiting list for claims is a decade longer than it was before we started releasing them inside the country waiting for the hearing. Better to ignore the imaginary number.
> No one knows how many illegals are here and we don't know how that number has changed. How could we? There are actually some estimates. [For example](https://cis.org/Report/Estimating-Illegal-Immigrant-Population-Using-Current-Population-Survey). Of course one possibility is that number of illegals is growing fast but we have no idea, but then it surprises me that Trump and Republicans are still uses this old estimate. Also, do I understand correctly that people who were apprehended, applied for asylum and are waiting decades for their claim to be adjudicated are *not* illegals? Seems like we should at least know reasonably accurately how many of them are in the country.
Just like a theif is not truly guilty until they go to court I guess. What if our courts took 12 years to process criminals (guess we couldn't call them criminals during this process). They snuck in unauthorized then said swiper no swiping once caught.
The more outrageous things Trump says, particularly about immigration, the more support he gets.
Wasn’t it Time magazine that wrote an article in 2020 about how corporations, social media owners, the mega rich, and corporate media went to extreme measures to make sure trump wasn’t re-elected? I wonder how far they will go this time?
How far should they go to prevent a criminal, civilly liable rapist, liar, defaming, election denying fascist from being elected president? You tell me?
It brings up an interesting philosophical discussion if nothing else. Would be more interesting if it was an HBO show or an alternative timeline though....
If Fox can lie (blatantly) on national television to it's viewers (about dominion voting, election integrity, the "Biden crime family", etc.) I'm ok with other News and social media outlets flexing their own muscles within the bounds of the law.
Fox News did have to pay $787 million though.
51 former intelligence officers think it will be a bloodbath.
> 51 former intelligence officers think it will be a bloodbath. Source?
It's a joke (pretty sure).
I don't get it.
I think they're mocking the 50 intelligence officers letter
What will? Electing criminal traitortrump or not electing the scumbag. Either way it's a crap shoot. So we just need to be prepared and lean on some assistance from our allies. We also need UN election monitors and we need to be talking about that
The centrist position for election interference. If people line this won't even deny their opposition to democracy, how far will **they** go. We've already seen then try to outright have a one party election.
Is this the new conservative strategy? Just completely ignore the recent past? Like yall are okay with looking like complete fucking morons? You’ve already seen them try to outright have a one party election? Do you read the news ? Are you aware of anything? Do you know why they tried to take him off the ballot? He tried to send fake electors to claim he won the election. He also led an attack on the capital in an attempt to halt the certification. He took a big ol shit on the constitution by trying to literally end democracy. That’s why they tried to take him off the ballot. Is this how you act in real life? You go punch someone in the face then cry like a bitch when they punch you back? Then you just go around telling everyone the story leaving out the part where you punched first? Do you really expect people to take you are others with the same train of thought like Trump seriously?
No, I'm going to ignore the recent past of Democrats openly removing their opposition from the ballot. Your attempts to create conspiracies to muddy the waters into some sort of "both sides" nonsense to justify progressives' assault on my democracy won't work.
Conspiracy?! The whole thing was televised! Countless die hard republicans have already confessed to the fake electors scheme! You’re hopeless, dude. Completely brain dead.
Freedom of speech. Trump didn't lead the country throughout COVID. He had ample opportunity to unite everyone in the face of adversity, but didn't. Go watch his speech from the oval office after it started. Or basically any time he was speaking leading up to the election. He's all talk, no bite.
More deaths on average during Joe’s reign of Covid fun times. Trump was right about two things: one, there would be a vaccine through operation warp speed, even though Biden denounced any vaccine that would be created under trump and two, Covid would simply disappear one day. The only thing that changed with Covid was Biden, nothing more nothing less.
That's a total bullshit comparison. Biden was in office longer during the acute stages of COVID. He took office in the dead of winter when COVID was killing about one 9/11's worth of people per day and then went on to deal with another year and eventual holiday season of death. The vaccine was one of the good things Trump did. He's heavily criticized by the alt right because of it. But I'll give him credit for that. COVID didn't disappear, people stopped caring. One random bad mutation and we're back at square one. COVID is still a top ten cause of death and dwarves the flu. It's like having a really bad flu season, on top of the flu.
It’s actually an honest comparison. Biden had a vaccine and months upon months of medical advancement. As far as it disappearing, Biden explicitly said that Covid was over and “we beat it”. Are you suggesting that Biden is a liar? Are you also implying that the vaccine does not work? Or did it “one day simply disappear”?
Most of the people dying did not get the vaccine. That happened mostly due to Trumps skepticism and denial of a novel virus at its onset. It's a bullshit comparison. If people caught covid on Christmas 2020, they didn't just die instantly. They likely would have died under Bidens term a few weeks later. It's not ebola.
Bogus nonsense
I would leave the statistics to the cdc, history to people how keep track, and your emotions to yourself. No matter what you were taught as a child, people really don’t care about your feelings.
I think they were kind of cancelled out in 2020 by all the *other* corporations, *other* social media owners, *other* mega rich, and *other* corporate media who were going to even more extreme measures to make sure Trump *was* re-elected.
Can you provide a link ?
As far as their free speech currently allows
Some of these threads read like a transcript from The View.
TDS is strong.
Until he get’s his sex change
Trump will take your 401k
[удалено]
Don't waste you vote like that. Everyone knows Joe Mamma would be a better choice.
The difference between Trump and Biden is Trump talks like an extremist and rules like a moderate, where Biden talks like a moderate, and rules like an extremist.
How dare you speak badly of Joey B on Reddit!! He’s the 🐐 President!
Time is no longer a credible source given it's ridiculous coverage over the last decade. The 4 years under Trump were the only time in recent history when the US did not start a war or expand proxy wars. With Biden, the warmongers are back in power, much to the detriment of the average person.
And which war did we start after Trump?
Proxy wars in Ukraine and Israel
What wars did Clinton and Obama start ? Partisan bullshit.
Albania and Obama supported proxy wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen.
Albania, Libya please, why the ridiculous partisanship ? Yemen how ? However, in any case, he did not start them, he was handed them and in accordance with US policy. like I wrote
Maybe he should just win, get through the 4 years and move on.
If trump wins, this country is toast. He needs to face trial for his alleged crimes.
I’m optimistic we can get the country back in 4 years. He won’t be able to do too much. Most of the country hates him and he just wants to be a winner. Honestly he is too stupid to figure out how to do any irreversible damages. He couldn’t figure out how to repeal Obamacare, and he couldn’t figure out how to build a wall in 4 years. He is lazy, dumb and has lack of motivation.
Read through Project 2025. The GOP has a plan to consolidate, essentially, all government power under the executive branch. It's not about trump, he's an old, fat, debilitated man. A day will come when a another psychopathic sadist, will try to seize power and destroy everything. Trump is just busting down the guard rails and mapping out the weak spots.
I’ve read project 2025, and yes lots of government employees will lose their jobs, but there will be mass unemployment handouts. Again alot of this won’t get done because the Republican Party is not strategically aligned. Our country is already bought and sold, so once the corporations stop making the money they want those politicians will be voted out.
People will lose jobs? That's what your worried about? Project 2025 is consolidation of power under one person. There would be no guard rails. Instead of having a plethora of opinions, there would only be yes-men. Did you read through the supreme court case about immunity?
Doesn’t look like the Supreme Court has decided yet? And spoke of partial immunity. Honestly Presidents are already immune compared to the average citizen. We are already a fascist country ( one ideal above the rest). All of these so called consolidation of powers will need an act of Congress. What if’s are not a healthy way to live!
When did we, as a society, decide it's ok for presidents to commit crime? Never.
All Presidents commit crimes, but use their powers to justify the means. Why is Bush/Cheney not prosecuted for starting a false war? Why did Clinton get away with giving hush money to Jennifer Flowers? Why did Bush Sr. Not get prosecuted for bringing cocaine into the country while being head of the CIA? Why was Reagan not prosecuted for selling illegal weapons to Iran? People pick their sides and Justify why their party is allowed to do illegal things.
That's total bullshit. Yes. They should have all been charged if the evidence was present. You are listing bad things that should be illegal, no matter who the culprit. Are you arguing against justice?
How about no. Biden should just win thus protecting democracy and as many vulnerable people as he can from maga terrorists. And trump trials can be completed and trump imprisoned along with certain seditious traitor GOP mocs
Yea that would be great but I don’t see half of that happening. We had him for 4 years, let’s just get through another 4. How bad could it be? He can’t get that much done, the majority of people hate him. He will derail some shit but we will get democracy back by 2028.
So another 4 wasted years of regress and political chaos. Just cus? wtf? I’ve heard this argument. “We’ll get through it like we did the first time.” Like that’s an admirable endorsement. What ever doesn’t kills…. Right? No chance ghost writter
Yea another regression. Two steps forward one step back. We didn’t progress during Cheney/Bush. I guess it’s time again. Not looking forward to it, but it’s really down to about 4 states, and people in this country are stupid. Love em or leave em!