Trump The AUTHORITARIAN
This "This is the biggest oil disruption in history" and seven dead American soldiers and 169 dead school children from a PRECISION strike by American bombs is certainly - how did Trump put it, a small price to pay for him satisfying his ego.
Did I mention the Deficit and Debt will skyrocket as a result? ONE BILLION DOLLARS A DAY!!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/09/economy/oil-price-shockThis should scare the piss out of any American who believes in our values - and this isn't the first time he has gone off the deep-end like this
“You know, all my life I’ve been hearing about United States and Cuba, when will the United States having the honor of taking Cuba? That’s a big honor,” Trump said in remarks from the Oval Office. “Taking Cuba in some form, yeah, taking Cuba — I mean, whether I free it, take it, I think I can do anything I want with it.”"
Proof positive this man is insane.He will invade Cuba when he feels it in his bones, just like he did with Iran. I think the bones he is talking about are his fake bones spurs that kept him from the draft.
I was editing my book on Conservatism and ran across this and found it particularly apropos to today's environment.
Authoritarian systems rest on a familiar set of pillars:
• Centralized authority. Power rests in the hands of one leader, party, or elite clique.
• Suppression of dissent. Opposition parties, free press, and independent courts are curtailed or abolished.
• Rule by decree. Leaders govern through emergency powers, executive orders, or military fiat.
• Legitimizing myths. Regimes invoke nationalism, religion, or fear of enemies (foreign or domestic) to justify repression.
• Facade of democracy. Elections may be held, but outcomes are manipulated and institutions neutered.
To the unbiased reader, Trump checks everyone of those boxes.Those same statements also apply to fascism.
Trump has publicly backed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s threats to revoke broadcast licenses from news organizations whose coverage he considers false or “unpatriotic.” In his most recent comments, Trump called Carr “the most powerful man in this room” and praised him for aggressively confronting what they both describe as “fake news.”It just doesn't make sense how rational people can't see what an authoritarian he is.
It is interesting to note that the betters out there give the Ds an 85% chance of taking over the House, as of today. That is comforting to know.
Have you seen some the other winners (white supremacists and racists) Trump has hired?
Jeremy Carl (nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations)
* A Claremont Institute scholar and author of a book on "white identity" and demographic changes post-1965 immigration.
* Accused of espousing "white supremacist, racist, antisemitic, and homophobic views" through posts warning about "white erasure" and inflammatory commentary on race/Democrats.
* He deleted thousands of old social media posts before hearings. Faced Senate grilling in February 2026; the nomination drew backlash and he withdrew.
* Carl defended his views as describing pre-1965 "white culture" as America's historical majority culture, not supremacy.
Paul Ingrassia (nominee for a senior role, e.g., U.S. Office of Special Counsel or related legal/policy position)30-year-old Trump loyalist and former far-right podcast figure.
* Leaked group chat texts included jokes referring to himself as "Paul Adolf Ingrassia," calling the MLK holiday one that "belongs in hell," and ties to white nationalist Nick Fuentes (e.g., attending a Fuentes rally, appearing on related shows).
* Critics labeled him a "Nazi" or white nationalist; he denied it, calling the comments ironic or out of context. Nomination faced scrutiny in late 2025.
Stephen Miller (Deputy Chief of Staff / senior policy advisor) Longtime Trump aide who shaped first-term immigration policies (e.g., family separations, travel bans).
* SPLC and media cite 2015–2016 emails where he shared content from white nationalist sites (VDARE) and recommended the novel The Camp of the Saints (a white nationalist favorite about demographic "invasion").
* Accused of promoting "great replacement" ideas and anti-immigrant extremism; remains a key figure in 2025–2026 enforcement priorities. He and supporters call this standard conservative policy, not racism.
Pete Hegseth (Defense Secretary): Criticized for repeating "great replacement theory" rhetoric and claims that racial diversity initiatives harm the military.
Kash Patel (FBI Director): Appeared multiple times on the podcast of antisemite Stew Peters (who has promoted Holocaust denial and replacement theory).
Joe Kent Role: Nominated by Trump in early 2025 to head the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC); confirmed by the Senate in a party-line 52-44 vote in July 2025; served briefly as director.
* Controversies: Past associations with far-right figures, including a 2021 call with white nationalist/Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes (for campaign advice), an interview with Nazi sympathizer Greyson Arnold, hiring a Proud Boys member as a campaign consultant during his 2022/2024 congressional runs, and ties to Patriot Prayer/Joey Gibson (whose events drew white supremacists).
* He disavowed some endorsements (e.g., saying he disagreed with Fuentes on race/religion) and denied seeking extremist support, but critics (including Sen. Patty Murray, who called him a "conspiracy theorist who espouses white supremacist views") highlighted these during confirmation.
* Additional rhetoric: Described American culture as "anti-white" and "anti-straight-white-male" in some interviews; promoted conspiracy theories (e.g., 2020 election stolen, Jan. 6 involvement by intel community).
Recent status: Resigned abruptly on March 17, 2026, in protest over the U.S./Israel war with Iran, claiming no imminent threat existed and blaming Israeli "misinformation" (letter accused of antisemitic tropes). This triggered backlash, an FBI investigation into alleged classified leaks, and renewed focus on his past ties.
Where does Trump find these terrible people?
Trump praised him initially as a "great American hero" for counterterrorism work, but the resignation highlighted internal rifts.
More on authoritarianism.
First read this, then look at the evidence that follows.
From my book Conservatism in America
"Authoritarianism also breeds corruption and fragility. When leaders are not accountable, when courts and the press cannot investigate freely, and when public contracts and concessions are handed out to cronies, the line between government and looting blurs. On the surface, strongmen may seem to “get things done”—build a highway, crush a strike, jail a rival—but beneath that surface institutions wither. Independent courts, civil services, professional militaries, and robust civic organizations are treated as threats rather than assets."
1. Weakening independent watchdogs.
Within days of taking office, Trump fired 17–18 inspectors general across major agencies, despite a law requiring 30 days’ notice to Congress and a specific rationale. Inspectors general are the people meant to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse inside government, so removing them in a sweep is a textbook example of reducing internal accountability.
2. Weakening the professional civil service.
Trump revived “Schedule F” and otherwise moved to strip job protections from large numbers of federal workers, making them easier to remove and replace. Reuters reported this as part of an effort to “gut the federal bureaucracy,” and unions later sued over efforts to make tens of thousands of workers easier to fire and replace with political loyalists. That maps closely onto your point about institutions withering beneath a strongman-style surface.
3. Treating the professional military as a political obstacle rather than an institution to preserve.
In February 2025, Trump fired Joint Chiefs Chairman C.Q. Brown and pushed out five other admirals and generals in what Reuters described as an “unprecedented” shake-up. Five former defense secretaries later called the firings reckless. That is a strong example about professional militaries being treated as threats rather than assets.
4. Press freedom pressured through access restrictions and licensing threats.
In February 2025, the White House restricted the Associated Press’s access to the Oval Office and Air Force One because AP kept using “Gulf of Mexico” rather than “Gulf of America.” In March 2026, a federal judge struck down a Pentagon press-access policy as unconstitutional after it threatened journalists with being labeled security risks for pursuing unauthorized information.
Also in March 2026, FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned broadcasters to “correct course” or risk losing their licenses over alleged “fake news” about the Iran war. Trump then signed an order pressing regulators to protect an exclusive TV window for the Army-Navy game by preventing other college football games from airing at the same time.
Those are unusually direct attempts to pressure or punish disfavored reporting.
5. Courts under strain from intimidation in politically charged cases.
Federal judges, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, publicly warned in March 2026 about rising threats and intimidation, including death threats and threatening “pizza deliveries” to their homes after politically sensitive rulings. That is not the same as the executive directly abolishing courts, but it does fit the point that when leaders and their ecosystems delegitimize neutral institutions, judicial independence becomes harder to sustain in practice.
6. Independent legal actors pressured through retaliation.
Reuters reported that Trump issued executive orders against major law firms that restricted access to government buildings and officials and threatened clients’ federal contracts, prompting some firms to make concessions and pledge hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal work to avoid further punishment. Reuters also found that many large firms later scaled back pro bono and public-interest work that could put them at odds with the administration. That is a concrete example of civic institutions bending under political pressure.
7. The closest current example to “cronies / blurred line between government and looting” sentence is the Musk conflict-of-interest issue.
I did not find a clean Reuters example of “public contracts handed to cronies” in the crude sense of a highway simply being gifted to a friend. I did find repeated Reuters reporting that lawmakers viewed Elon Musk’s dual role as a top Trump adviser driving federal cuts while his companies, especially SpaceX, held huge federal contracts as an “inherent conflict of interest.”
Reuters also reported that lawmakers were probing whether DOT’s ethics oversight was adequate because Musk was helping determine which contracts and programs would be cut while continuing to profit from federal business. That is the nearest recent U.S. example to your cronyism point, though I’d present it as a conflict-of-interest / patronage risk rather than a proven looting scheme.Can you believe this DISGUSTING human being (and I am being polite!)..
"‘Good, I’m glad he’s dead’: Trump’s insensitive comments about the dead hit a new level"
With that, Trump just gave me permission to say I now sincerely wish Thomas Matthew Crooks' bullet had been just 2 inches to the right. The world would have been a much better place if it had.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/21/politics … e-commentsTrump broke another norm and showed up for oral arguments at the SCOTUS. Apparently he didn't like what he was hearing and got up an left.
Then he says this
Trump again slams birthright citizenship after attending oral arguments
"“We are the ONLY Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he posted on Truth Social."
About 30 other countries also allow birthright citizenship.
He will lie in your face about anything under the sun,I agree with the conclusion at the bottom of this report - Judge Friedman ought to find Hegseth in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT of the court!!!
"Judge blocks Pentagon’s latest bid to limit press access in scathing ruling"
"The court has no choice but to conclude that the Department’s abrupt closure of the Correspondents’ Corridor and its ban on credentialed journalists traveling unescorted through the Pentagon are not security measures or efforts to make good on prior commitments but rather transparent attempts to negate the impact of this court’s order,” the judge wrote in his ruling Thursday."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/09/politics … licy-judgeJust like Bolsonaro from Brazil, another Trumpian conservative autocrat is going down in flame - VICTOR ORBAN!. More Proof their style of gov't does not work. With any luck, we will be halfway rid of it come November.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/12/world/li … ban-magyar"Exclusive: Justice Department removes lead prosecutor from probe of Trump critic John Brennan"
I suspect Brennen isn't worried about this as it solidifies his Vindictive Prosecution defense against the sad excuse of a president (who doesn't even deserve a capital letter).
Makes you sick, doesn't it?
From one of the most trusted news networks -
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/17/politics … on-removedThis is what happens when you put a visibly unstable dictator in charge.
"Global disruption in real time
A White House scramble to contain a crisis
A timeline of how the Trump administration responded as the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz consumed the global economy."
From one of the most trusted news networks period\\ -
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/04 … l-economy/
If that weren't enough, Trump is crushing the global airline industry forcing them to cut routes and RAISE PRICES as they run into a dearth of aviation fuel.I guess Tom Blanche was jealous of Bondi have the title of Laughing Stock. He wanted it for himself so what didn't do? Indict James Comey again for really STUPID stuff.
I guess sock-puppet Blanche had to go to North Carolina to find a grand jury dumb enough to indict Comey for a vacuous charge (which is being kept secret at the moment).
"Exclusive: Justice Department indicts former FBI Director James Comey for a second time"
From one of the most trusted news networks - https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/28/politics … omey-againJust a reminder of how unloved and reviled Donald Trump is.
From CNN's Poll of Polls numbers in parentheses is for Independents):
Jan 21, 2025: 48% (44%) - Trump takes office with his highest rating EVER, equal to his underwhelming win in the election
Feb 2025: 47% (41%) - Trump empties the DC jails of fellow insurrectionists.
Apr 2, 2025: 45% (37%) - Trump introduces the highly unpopular and economy destroying tariffs
Late Apr 2025: 43% (35%) - More turmoil over tariffs and Trump becomes TACO Trump
May 1, 2025: 41% (33%) - More of the same.
Early June 2025: 43% (33%)
Late June 2025: 41% (31%)
July 4, 2025: 42% (30%) - Trump signs the Big Ugly Bill
Aug 11, 2025: 41% (30%) - Trump invades D,C, with Feds and NG
Nov 4, 2025: 40% (29%) - Voters repudiate Trump
Dec 19, 2025: 38% (35%) - Deadline for Epstein files missed as Trump fights their release (yes, still true even though he signed the law)
Jan 7, 2026: 39% (29%) - Trump's ICE murder Renee Good
Feb 28, 2026: 39% (26%) - Trump illegally attacks Iran
Mar 31, 2026: 37% (26%) - Trump pushes gas past $4 a gal
May 4, 2026: 35%! (26%) - Trump's disapproval hits 60% He should be happy, he is still barely ahead of George Bush II and Jimmy Carter.
MAGA (and not all of them) are all that is left of Trump's blind following. The rest of America know the truth about this incompetent, lunatic (Trump's favorited word) man.Only vile Authoritarians would do something like this!!!
"Exclusive: VA conducted internal investigations into employees who attended vigil for Alex Pretti"
Can you spell Putin?
From one of the most trusted news networks - https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/05/politics … lex-prettiIn another sick Authoritarian move
"Department of Education opens investigation into Smith College for admitting trans women"
Assuming Trump doesn't pardon his entire administration, the people responsible for this investigation need to be investigated starting in Jan when the Dems take over!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/04/us/smith … s-studentsThe Despotic and Authoritarian Trump who is a convicted felon and sexual predator has upped the ante in his campaign to stop YOU from voting. (Every adjective is TRUE)
[b]"Trump thrusts the Postal Service back into his election fraud crusade";/b]
In addition, he is attempting to bankrupt our postal service!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/11/politics … ud-crusade"CNN Exclusive: Fired former acting FBI chief says Patel tied job security to purging agents linked to Trump probes" - He is suing.
"A week before Donald Trump’s inauguration last year, Brian Driscoll, a decorated FBI special agent, received a series of calls that alarmed him. He was being offered the No. 2 job at the FBI and was told that if he didn’t take it, a political appointee would likely get the role. Driscoll didn’t think that was an acceptable alternative, so he hesitantly agreed.
But then came the vetting process, Driscoll says, which raised more concerns.
Over the next few days, Driscoll says he was asked a series of questions by incoming Trump officials about his personal politics, including who he voted for, when he started supporting Trump, and whether he’d voted for a Democrat in recent elections.
At one point, according to Driscoll, incoming FBI Director Kash Patel told him the vetting wouldn’t be an issue so long as he wasn’t active on social media, didn’t donate to the Democratic Party, and didn’t vote for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
“It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up,” says Driscoll, who became acting director of the FBI for a month before Patel was confirmed in the job. Patel eventually fired Driscoll in August 2025, and Driscoll is now suing Patel and the Trump administration for wrongful termination."
I sure hope Driscoll has solid proof of what Patel said.
Add Patel to the list of people to be impeached in January.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/12/politics … ump-probesThe DOIJ (Dept of Injustice) is at it again in this age of Trump, the felon, Authoritarianism!!
"Justice Department sues DC’s attorney disciplinary authorities for recommending a Trump ally be disbarred"
"The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Washington, DC’s attorney disciplinary authorities following their recommendation to disbar Jeffrey Clark, a longtime ally of Donald Trump, over his efforts to “cast doubt” on the 2020 election results in support of the president.
The lawsuit against DC’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Board on Professional Responsibility, Court of Appeals, related authorities and the city itself argues that Clark — who in 2020 was an assistant attorney general — should not be disciplined over “internal Executive Branch deliberations.”"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/14/politics … nary-boardIsn't it interesting that the only notable thing to come out of Trump's "summit" with China is his REAFFIRMATION that he loves dictators and dictatorships. Why is Trump such "great friends" with our sworn enemies while pissing all over our long-time allies?
The answer is that Trump wants to be just like his heroes Xi and Putin - AUTHORITARIAN
Anyway - "Trump leaves China, short on deliverables but with signs of a stabilized relationship"
They should have added parenthetically after "stabilized" - "until tomorrow"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/15/politics … i-intl-hnkJust my view---
What stands out about President Trump’s summit with China is not only what was announced, but also what was not announced. Despite headlines focusing on the lack of dramatic breakthroughs, there are signs that lowering tensions itself may have been one of the most important outcomes.
So far, we know both sides discussed trade, Iran, rare earth minerals, fentanyl cooperation, and broader economic stability. Reports indicate China may increase purchases of American agriculture and Boeing aircraft, while both countries signaled a desire for continued talks rather than escalation. Even the IMF publicly welcomed the reduction in tensions between the world’s two largest economies.
What has been less reported is the importance of tone and stability. In recent years, the relationship between the United States and China has often felt like a constant march toward confrontation. This summit showed that communication at the highest level is still possible. Markets, allies, and businesses across the world watch these meetings closely because avoiding escalation between nuclear powers is itself meaningful progress.
Another positive sign is that neither side appeared eager to publicly humiliate the other. Instead of inflammatory rhetoric dominating the headlines, both governments projected a willingness to keep talking. That may sound small, but in modern geopolitics it matters. Stable dialogue can reduce uncertainty for American farmers, manufacturers, supply chains, and even global energy markets.
There is also a broader point about America that should not be ignored. The fact that the United States can fiercely compete with China while still sitting at the table and negotiating reflects a strength of our system. Americans debate these issues openly, criticize leaders freely, and still expect diplomacy to serve the national interest. That balance between toughness and negotiation is part of what has historically made the United States influential on the world stage.
There is still much we do not know. Many details remain vague, and some critics argue the summit produced more symbolism than substance. But if this meeting helped cool tensions, reopened communication, and reminded the world that conflict between great powers is not inevitable, that alone can be viewed as a positive step.
Looking ahead, there are also reports that Xi Jinping may visit the United States in September following the summit invitation, though details have not yet been officially confirmed. If it happens, it would mark another major opportunity for direct engagement between the two leaders at a time when global stability is closely tied to the U.S.–China relationship.
Hopefully, more is shared about this summit in the coming days.It would be nice if all that is true, but almost 100 years of failed policy trying to appease China has fundamentally failed and doesn't make me optimistic.
I understand the skepticism, and I don’t think anyone is arguing that China has suddenly become a trustworthy ally or that decades of policy mistakes should be ignored. But I also don’t think diplomacy automatically equals appeasement.
There is a difference between weak concessions and maintaining direct communication between two global superpowers that are economically intertwined and nuclear-armed. Refusing to engage at all would not necessarily make America stronger or safer. In many cases, it would increase instability and uncertainty for the entire world.
Part of what I was pointing out is that this summit appeared to combine competition with dialogue rather than surrender. The United States can push back on China economically and strategically while still negotiating where mutual interests exist, whether that involves trade, fentanyl cooperation, rare earth supply chains, or reducing the risk of escalation.
I also think people sometimes underestimate how important tone and stability are in geopolitics. Markets, allies, and adversaries all react to signals coming from these meetings. Simply reducing tensions and reopening communication channels between major powers can have real value, even if there is no dramatic “victory” announced overnight.
So I agree caution is warranted. China pursues its own interests aggressively, just like every major power does. But I would rather see controlled competition and diplomacy than a constant march toward hostility with no communication at all.You are right that "diplomacy doesn't automatically equals appeasement."
But this, in my opinion, is appeasement:
"“President Xi is a well respected great leader, and has been my good friend for many years.”"
"“I view them as a friend; I have tremendous respect for President Xi. We have a great relationship.”
"“There’s a very good chemistry between the two of [us], believe me.”'
"I love China… I respect China greatly. I very much respect President Xi. I got to know him very well and I liked him a lot.”
"“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great… I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.”"
"“Such respect for China, the job you’ve done.”"
That spans a decade of quotes from Trump. You would never know that China is one America's top three foes.
To me, it just evidence Trump is jealous of Xi (and Putin) for their iron-fisted control of their nations.I think there’s an important distinction between diplomacy, strategic flattery, and actual appeasement. Trump has always spoken in unusually complimentary terms about foreign leaders, not just Xi, but Kim Jong Un, Putin, and even leaders of allied nations when it suited negotiations. That communication style can absolutely make people uncomfortable, but words alone are not the same thing as surrendering leverage or conceding national interests.
During his presidency, the U.S. imposed major tariffs on China, launched a broad trade war, restricted Chinese tech companies like Huawei, expanded export controls, increased scrutiny of Chinese investments, strengthened Indo-Pacific military posture, and openly challenged China on trade and intellectual property issues. Those are not the actions of a president trying to appease Beijing, even if his rhetoric sometimes sounded unusually conciliatory.
Looking at the economic impact, U.S. imports from China have also declined significantly in recent years. By 2025, imports of Chinese goods were estimated at roughly $308 billion, down about 30% from 2024, reflecting both tariff pressure and ongoing supply chain diversification away from China. Even with that drop, China remains a major trading partner, but its share of U.S. imports has clearly decreased as companies shift sourcing to countries like Mexico, Vietnam, and others.
I also think there’s value in keeping communication open with adversaries. History is full of presidents speaking respectfully, sometimes even warmly, toward rivals because diplomacy often requires ego management and maintaining channels of communication. Reagan spoke to Gorbachev, Nixon opened relations with Mao, and even during the Cold War, there was direct engagement with hostile powers.
You can argue Trump admires “strongman” leadership styles or enjoys projecting dominance, but I don’t think the evidence shows he wanted America to be subordinate to China. If anything, China’s government frequently criticized Trump because his policies disrupted long-standing economic advantages they had benefited from, and the trade relationship itself shifted meaningfully under his policies. I think many don't follow Trump's actions, but just concentrate on his words. Today, the media drives the narrative.If you say it once, it could be diplomacy. but when you repeatedly laud your enemy for being a cruel dictator over many years sends a message of admiration, it seems to me.
I argue that "Trump admires “strongman” leadership styles or enjoys projecting dominance," is evidence of him wanting to be like these dictators he admires and praises so much.
Trump's Tariffs on China in his first term largely hurt America and Americans, not helped. It forced China to diversify away from America; just like the second term tariffs are making our allies do (who benefits? China of course)
Also decreasing are American Exports to China, just smaller. The net effect is what is important. That effect has been largely Negative.
Smaller China trade deficit - Helped the headline number (Optics)
Higher prices on tariffed goods - Hurt consumers
Higher costs for U.S. businesses using Chinese inputs - Hurt firms and consumers
Retaliation against U.S. agriculture - MAJOR Hurt for farmers/exporters
Supply-chain diversification away from China - Some minor long-term strategic benefit
Overall economic efficiency - Hurt
In my view, there is a canyon of difference between "speaking respectfully, sometimes even warmly, toward rivals " and unabashed fawning like Trump is showing us.
I use other evidence that he is not interested in winning the battle with China. For example,
1. Trump’s own National Security Strategy no longer treats China and Russia as the central threats to American national security.
2. On the same note: Brookings described the 2025 strategy as marking the “disappearance of major power competition as a US foreign policy priority,”
3. Treating Taiwan as a bargaining chip
4. Rescinding Biden’s AI diffusion rule
5. Directly helping China out by reopening AI chip sales to China
6. Cutting U.S. science and technology capacity
7. Creating trade chaos without a durable China strategy
8. Beijing summit: pageantry without concessions
9. Tariffing and bullying allies makes them hedge toward China
10. Alienating allies weakens the anti-China coalition
11. Foreign-aid retreat creates space for Chinese influence
12. Climate retreat lets China claim leadership
That is a starter pack of Trump Actions showing Trump wants America to be subordinate to China (and Russia).I think there’s a mix here of actual policy points and a lot of interpretation being presented as settled fact. Yes, tariffs on China happened, and yes there were real effects like retaliation on agriculture and shifts in supply chains. But most of what follows in your argument isn’t established fact; it’s a chain of assumptions about intent and long-term outcomes.
A lot of the claims about “helping China,” “weakening U.S. capacity,” or “making allies hedge toward China” are interpretations, not demonstrated causation. You’re also moving from policy disagreement into mind-reading territory when you conclude that admiration of strong leaders equals a desire to become one, or that these policies prove an intent for the U.S. to become subordinate to China or Russia.
Even on tariffs, the effects are more mixed than the framing suggests. They can raise costs and create retaliation in some sectors, but they can also reduce dependency on a strategic competitor and shift supply chains; whether that’s good or bad depends on the metric being used.
So I think the stronger critique is to say you disagree with the strategy or believe it’s inconsistent or economically costly in parts. But presenting a long list of contested interpretations and then treating them as proof of intent goes beyond the evidence actually shown. Anyway, that's how I see it...I asked AI the following question: Are these valid points that can be backed with facts? Here are the results I received.
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Lk … AJvMQ4GwpoAll interesting questions, and I feel Copilot has handled each one correctly.
AI summaries are only as good as the prompts, assumptions, and sources fed into them. An AI saying something is “valid” does not suddenly transform interpretations into proven causation or intent. Even your Copilot response appears to blend factual events with speculative conclusions, which was exactly the point I originally made.
For example, tariffs, supply-chain disruptions, retaliation from China, and shifts in trade relationships are factual events. But claims that those policies were intended to “help China,” weaken America deliberately, or move the U.S. toward authoritarian alignment are interpretations layered on top of those facts. Those conclusions require proving motive and intent, not simply pointing to outcomes someone dislikes.
The same applies to arguments about Trump admiring strong leaders. You can criticize rhetoric, diplomacy style, or policy choices all day long, but jumping from “he spoke favorably about certain leaders at times” to “he wants America subordinate to China or Russia” is still speculation about internal motive, not demonstrated evidence.
And on tariffs specifically, economists themselves remain divided. Some studies show increased costs and retaliatory damage in sectors like agriculture, while others argue tariffs accelerated diversification away from China and exposed dangerous supply-chain dependence. That is why serious discussions usually frame tariffs as a tradeoff debate, not as universally proven economic sabotage.
So my point remains the same: there is a difference between verified events, disputed policy outcomes, and assumptions about hidden intent.
Blurring those categories together may make for a compelling political narrative, but it does not automatically make the conclusions objectively proven.CoPilot is wrong, . “Trump’s National Security Strategy no longer treats China and Russia as central threats” is correct. It deemphasizes China and Russia and put the Western Hemisphere, migration, trade, economic nationalism, and transactional stability with major powers. China is treated more as an economic competitor to be managed than as the main strategic threat, while Russia is framed less as an enemy to be defeated and more as a power with which the U.S. should seek strategic stability.
This is YOU MAGA, but the FBI won't be coming to save you, they are now part of the cult.
"Alexis Broderick was flying.
The wind whipped her face and her little legs stretched higher and higher, pulling her into orbit. As she reached the skies, for one intoxicating moment, she could see everything: The cars. The trees. The people. The real world. It was right there; visible, in flashes, beyond the compound’s fence. She didn’t know this feeling, but she allowed herself to feel it anyway. Freedom.
But then the swings fell back to earth. The world was different down here: A cult leader was grooming Alexis to be his wife, she recalls. Her sister had been banished to the House of Scorn, and her brother was out on watch, tasked with keeping intruders at bay. Her friends were spying on her: one slip-up and she’d be beaten, exiled, or worse. Life was good, of course: The world was about to end, and the prophet of God had promised her passage into heaven. But sometimes, secretly, it didn’t feel right.
So 10-year-old Alexis pushed herself back into the skies, gripping the swing set tight as she went. Over the fence, she saw suburbia in all its boring and beautiful hues. And then, on one trip into the clouds, she saw something else: “Men,” she recalls. “With machine guns.”
“They were completely surrounding the property,” she says. Every exit was blocked in an instant. There was nowhere to run, but she ran anyway, the swings tangling behind her as she launched herself towards the house. She called for Tony’s wives, several of whom dashed into a safe room. He had warned them all this would happen. “This is it,” Alexis thought. “They’re coming to kill us.”
“This is it. They’re coming to kill us.”
Alexis Broderick's thoughts as she saw armed guards storming Tony Alamo's compound
The chaos that ruptured that quiet fall morning would split the lives of Alexis, Shaina and Matthew Broderick into two.
The siblings had been brainwashed, abused and groomed while growing up in a cult led by Bernie Hoffman, an apocalyptic preacher and false prophet known to the world as Tony Alamo. Then they were thrown, kicking and screaming, into the real world: a place they had learned to fear and loathe."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/us/tony- … s-siblingsI loath conservative/rightwing politics this is just one of the many reasons why.
What is happening in Iowa? I am all for conservatives making their prattle available as elective courses, but why should taking their course in partisan propaganda be made mandatory? The kids know rightwing bull$h!t when they see it. How else do you explain all the empty seats?
This is all coming from Trump and the atmosphere he is trying to create. So, if the students won’t select the course, you simply make them take it. That is characteristically right-wing.
The university is a place of independent thinking and discovery, not a purveyor of despicable right wing propaganda rammed down one’s throat.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art … 58580.html
Diversity of thought at colleges and universities is already widely present,” Partridge said. “Explicitly mandating it in a certain way to align with partisan goals would only undermine researchers’ freedom and autonomy and lower the quality of education that students receive.”You call it “partisan propaganda,” but many conservatives would argue universities have leaned heavily left ideologically for years while pretending to be politically neutral. The moment anyone pushes for actual ideological balance or challenges progressive dominance in academia, suddenly it becomes an attack on “independent thinking.”
If diversity of thought is truly already thriving on campuses, then why is there so much resistance to exposing students to viewpoints outside the prevailing academic culture? A university should not fear competing ideas.
Also, calling conservative ideas “bull$h!t” while defending “academic freedom” is incredibly revealing. Academic freedom should apply to everyone, not just viewpoints approved by the political left.
And let’s be honest, colleges have required all kinds of ideological and social coursework for years under the banners of DEI, social justice frameworks, gender theory, implicit bias training, and other politically charged concepts. Conservatives have long argued that many of those courses present one worldview as morally superior while dissenting views are discouraged or stigmatized.
So the outrage now feels selective:
Mandatory progressive-oriented coursework = “education”
Exposure to conservative or constitutional viewpoints = “propaganda.”
That double standard is exactly why so many Americans no longer trust higher education institutions to be politically balanced environments."You call it “partisan propaganda,” but many conservatives would argue universities have leaned heavily left ideologically for years while pretending to be politically neutral. "
So freedom of choice is no longer a thing. States must now direct what students learn. Students have choices between liberal colleges and conservative colleges. Why do you support taking that freedom of choice away.?
At the University of Iowa, students can take these coarse that debate political theories including so-called "conservative" and so-called "liberal"
Course Why it matters
PHIL:2432 — Introduction to Political Philosophy Explicitly covers liberty, equality, justice, and the purpose of the state, with core philosophers including Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, and Rawls. That is not one ideological lane; that is a range of competing theories about authority, liberty, equality, and government.
PHIL:2435 — Philosophy of Law Covers jurisprudential theories, law and morality, legal punishment, political obligation, and constitutional interpretation. That is exactly the kind of course where competing theories of law are examined.
PHIL:4481 — Issues in Philosophy of Law Covers legal interpretation, natural law theory, positivism, and critical legal theories. Natural law and positivism are major competing traditions, not a single progressive viewpoint.
POLI:3306 — Problems of Democracy Covers democracy in theory and practice, including power, equality, majority rule, participation, trust, and representation.
POLI:3405 — Authoritarian Politics Compares political dynamics in authoritarian regimes with democracies and examines regime control, interest groups, enforcement, and social progress.
POLI:3411 — Democracy: Global Trends and Struggles Looks at different understandings and practices of democracy, democratization, and forces that promote or retard democracy.
POLI:1950 — Introduction to the Politics of Religion Examines religion’s effects on political culture, parties, political behavior, public policy, and debates over religion in public life.
LAW:8010 — Constitutional Law I and LAW:8280 — Constitutional Law II Cover constitutional structure, judicial review, federalism, due process, equal protection, expression, association, and religion — subjects built around competing constitutional theories and case analysis.
LAW:8578 — First Amendment: Freedom of Expression and Religion Covers free expression and religion, including current controversies such as online misinformation and religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws.
I like the way ChatGPT puts it:
Good universities already do expose students to competing ideas. That is basically what serious education is supposed to do.
Students read liberal, conservative, radical, classical, religious, secular, capitalist, socialist, nationalist, internationalist, originalist, feminist, libertarian, and communitarian arguments all the time, depending on the field. Political theory courses teach Burke and Mill, Locke and Rousseau, Marx and Hayek. Law schools teach originalism and living constitutionalism. Economics departments teach markets, regulation, Keynes, Friedman, Hayek, and public choice. History departments argue constantly over interpretation, causation, empire, capitalism, religion, race, class, and power.
So the issue is not whether universities should allow competing ideas. Of course they should.
The issue is whether “ideological balance” means genuine intellectual diversity or whether it means political officials forcing universities to platform partisan viewpoints regardless of scholarly merit."And let’s be honest, colleges have required all kinds of ideological and social coursework for years under the banners of DEI, social justice frameworks, gender theory, implicit bias training, and other politically charged concepts. "
Now let's dissect that:
DEI - A DEI course studies how race, gender, class, disability, religion, sexuality, and other differences affect access to institutions, workplaces, education, law, and public life.- Are conservatives disagreeing that that should be taught to college students? If so, why?
Social Justice - A social justice framework looks at laws, institutions, and social practices through the lens of fairness, inequality, power, rights, and access to opportunity.I can't imagine why such a course is a bane to conservatives
Gender Theory - Gender theory examines how masculinity, femininity, gender roles, and gender identity are shaped by biology, culture, law, language, institutions, and social expectations. Same question, what is so bad about that?
Implicit Bias Training - Implicit bias training is training meant to help people recognize unconscious assumptions or automatic stereotypes that may affect how they judge, treat, hire, discipline, teach, police, or interact with others. - I guess the solution is not to help people to be aware of their biases.
Funny, I didn't see where any of that is morally superior - just self improvement.
I am not sure I accept the premise that there is “so much resistance” to exposing students to viewpoints outside the prevailing academic culture.
Good universities already expose students to competing viewpoints all the time. Students study Locke, Hobbes, Burke, Mill, Marx, Hayek, Rawls, originalism, natural law, capitalism, socialism, constitutionalism, religion, secularism, democracy, authoritarianism, markets, regulation, civil rights, free speech, and critiques of all of the above.
What universities usually resist is not “competing ideas.” They resist political interference that tries to force partisan balance by government mandate, donor pressure, or ideological tests. That is different.As for the reason most institutions of higher learning lean liberal’
Colleges and universities often lean liberal because their foundational missions—questioning the status quo, embracing intellectual diversity, and critical thinking—naturally align with progressive values. Research and data highlight several key drivers behind this ideological skew:
(Those are my kinds of people)
Openness to Change: The core of academic work is testing theories, discovering new evidence, and challenging established norms. This inherent drive for continuous improvement and innovation naturally attracts progressive thinkers.
(Yes)
Exposure to Diversity: Higher education fosters interaction between students and faculty from a wide array of global, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This cosmopolitan exposure generally increases empathy and openness to differing social perspectives.
(Most certainly, what are conservatives afraid of?)
Faculty Self-Selection: Fields in the humanities and social sciences, which study human behavior, culture, and society, heavily emphasize systemic critique. These disciplines tend to be more heavily populated by left-leaning individuals, while hard sciences and business schools show more political diversity.
(Probably true, but is it really unanticipated?)
Value of Expertise: Academics rely heavily on verifiable data, peer review, and objective expertise. The modern liberal political platform often emphasizes institutional trust, science, and systemic reform, which align closely with the academic ethos.
——————
In the face of that explanation, the very antithesis of these
values is conservative and right wing thinking? Let the students and faculty decide what classes are appropriate, not a bunch of reactionary Republicans legislators. There is always the Liberty University or Bob Jones, if conservatives are so determined to put everyone in their straight jacket.
The other problem I am having is this:
“If you are referring to the civics or "freedom" classes proposed for Iowa's public universities, yes, it would apply to all undergraduate students attending the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, or the University of Northern Iowa”
It doesn’t matter whether your major is history, psychology or theoretical physics, you still have to take the course, Why? “Freedom classes”, what a misnomer……
I don’t trust conservatives not to have an indoctrination purpose behind all of this. We are treading on dangerous ground here, i can only hope the Governor vetoes all of this nonsense.I always find it interesting when people describe universities as places of “intellectual diversity” while openly admitting that one political viewpoint overwhelmingly dominates faculty culture. If conservatives were the overwhelming majority in nearly every humanities and social science department, people would absolutely call it ideological imbalance. Somehow when it leans left, it suddenly becomes proof of enlightenment.
The assumption that conservatism is the “antithesis” of critical thinking or openness is exactly the kind of arrogance that worries people. Conservatives are not afraid of diversity or debate. Many are concerned about environments where disagreement with progressive orthodoxy can cost students grades, social standing, or careers. There are countless stories of students self-censoring in class because they know certain opinions are treated as morally suspect before the discussion even begins.
And let’s be honest, universities do not simply “question the status quo” anymore. In many cases they reinforce a new status quo. There are subjects where challenging progressive narratives on gender, immigration, race, policing, or even biology can get someone labeled hateful instead of intellectually engaged. That is not open inquiry. That is ideological gatekeeping dressed up as virtue.
As for mandatory civics or freedom courses, universities already require students to take all kinds of general education classes outside their majors. A physics major may need literature, sociology, or political science credits. Nobody calls that indoctrination. But suddenly a course centered on constitutional principles, American government, civil liberties, or the history of freedom becomes dangerous because conservatives support it? That sounds less like opposition to indoctrination and more like discomfort with perspectives outside progressive academia.
The irony is that many conservatives are pushing for broader viewpoint diversity, not less. They are reacting to campuses where surveys repeatedly show conservatives are vastly underrepresented among faculty and where invited speakers are shouted down for holding mainstream right-of-center views. Wanting ideological balance is not a “straight jacket.” In many ways, it is the opposite.
And Liberty University or Bob Jones always gets thrown out there as if conservatives should simply leave mainstream academia entirely. Public universities are funded by taxpayers of all political beliefs. Conservatives have every right to question whether those institutions have become politically one-sided and whether students are truly being exposed to competing viewpoints rather than one dominant ideology."The assumption that conservatism is the “antithesis” of critical thinking or openness " -
1 - I bet if you ask Credence if this is an "assumption" or an "observation" over a long period of time, he will say the latter.
2 - I also bet that Credence is talking about how conservatives put their philosophy into practice, which is most often radically different than people like Russell Kirk, George Will, or the non-racist side of William Buckley Jr.. Examples of who I think Credence is referring to is Tucker Carlson, Ron DeSantis, Chip Roy, Greg Abbott.
As to Liberty U or Bob Jones, I don't see any legislature telling them what they have to teach, do you?“If conservatives were the overwhelming majority in nearly every humanities and social science department, people would absolutely call it ideological imbalance.”
Do you think that progressives would force a mandatory course requirement to the curriculum against the wishes of students and the university? Only conservative/rightwinger types do things like this.
———
Many are concerned about environments where disagreement with progressive orthodoxy can cost students grades, social standing, or careers. There are countless stories of students self-censoring in class because they know certain opinions are treated as morally suspect before the discussion even begins.
Let’s use your phrasing, ‘context’. How much of that is substantiated and what percent really believe that their ideas and beliefs are being censored? I believe that information was provided where the vast majority of students say that they were free to speak as they wish. Those that are not afraid have no need to force or mandate. I did not intend to go to higher education merely to be indoctrinated.
“As for mandatory civics or freedom courses, universities already require students to take all kinds of general education classes outside their majors. A physics major may need literature, sociology, or political science credits. Nobody calls that indoctrination. But suddenly a course centered on constitutional principles, American government, civil liberties, or the history of freedom becomes dangerous because conservatives support it? That sounds less like opposition to indoctrination and more like discomfort with perspectives outside progressive academia.”
—-
Let’s cut the “context” and get down to brass tax, shall we?
Republicans and conservatives are devious breed that can never be trusted, the real reasons for all this mandatory stuff is below. This University of Iowa Center for Intellectual Freedom pushing this is not quite as it seems….
—
The University of Iowa Center for Intellectual Freedom is highly controversial because critics view it as a politically driven initiative rather than a genuine academic pursuit. Established by the Iowa Legislature to address perceived liberal bias in higher education, the center has faced significant backlash for several reasons:
Partisan Events and Exclusivity: The center’s inaugural event, which cost taxpayers over $70,000, only invited Republican lawmakers, completely excluding Democrats. It also paid a controversial conservative activist tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to criticize higher education.
Low Student Demand: The center’s first classes were postponed and struggled with dismal enrollment, prompting state legislators to propose a mandate requiring undergraduates to take six credits from the center to graduate.
Governance Concerns: Unlike traditional academic departments that report to university leadership (such as the president or provost), the center answers directly to the Iowa Board of Regents, leading critics to argue it bypasses standard faculty oversight and academic standards.
Curriculum Pushback: Critics argue that the center's teachings promote a narrow political worldview rather than offering a well-balanced, broad-based civics education.
————-
Do you think that this could be the real reason why this is being mandated?
I did not go to college to reaffirm the ignorance of either my parents or community but to understand a larger scheme of things. If I were still a student, I would not listen to the reactionary rantings of a Republican dominated legislature either.What's interesting is that your reply actually proves part of my point. You start by asking whether conservatives would force a mandatory course, then later admit universities already require all sorts of mandatory courses outside a student's chosen field. The question isn't whether courses can be required; it's whether a course on constitutional principles, civil liberties, and the history of freedom is inherently illegitimate simply because some conservatives support it.
You also dismiss concerns about self-censorship by asking how much is substantiated, but then immediately declare that Republicans are a "devious breed that can never be trusted." If that's the level of political tolerance being brought to the discussion, it's not hard to understand why some students might hesitate to express dissenting views in certain academic environments.
As for the Iowa center, criticizing its implementation, governance, enrollment numbers, or speaker choices is fair game. But that's a separate argument from the broader claim that universities already have sufficient viewpoint diversity. Even if that center were flawed, it wouldn't explain why conservatives remain dramatically underrepresented across much of academia or why surveys repeatedly find many students feel pressure to self-censor on politically charged topics.
The biggest irony is that you say you went to college to understand a larger scheme of things, yet your conclusion is that an entire political movement is a "devious breed that can never be trusted." That's not intellectual curiosity. That's exactly the kind of sweeping ideological prejudice that universities are supposed to challenge, not reinforce.Imagine, Sharlee, conservatives being against diversity, equality and inclusion, what does that mean?
If you are against diversity you must be for;
homogeneity, uniformity, and sameness.
That is not what most college freshmen fresh out of Hooterville experience going to college, matter of fact, it is the antipathy of it. So, there is one reason conservatism is not always welcome on college campuses. Are conservatives against equality, is it no wonder my”tribe” distrusts them so much? Bias and bigotry does not make for an actual and educational college/university experience. Inclusion is the proper attitude for disparate peoples and groups living in the same environment. Exclusion is a fear based conservative type attitude.
My ire regarding conservatives, and let me specifically say of the current Trump variety, is well deserved and has developed long before college freshmen were born. I did not have that attitude about the GOP when they focused on fiscal conservatism, AKA, Rockefeller, etc. But now? So, the conservative trick is now to get young people to see their dubious value before they can understand the truth for themselves?
When you are young and investigating the world around you in an open inquiry, no one is going to volunteer to wear the conservative whalebone corset.
This is a battle conservatives will never win, as what they want is inconsistent with university education and experiences by young people. It is No wonder that their courses are easily identified by the empty seats.
A good question posed by ESO, “why does neither Liberty University nor Bob Jones need mandatory courses on liberalism?
We have to agree to disagree adamantly on our relative positions on this issue. But, speaking with you does help me understand more about conservative thinking and reasoning…..yepA great example of a Conservative being FOR "homogeneity, uniformity, and sameness" is Trump's penchant to primary any politician who disagrees with him in the slightest way.
What's interesting is that your entire argument rests on redefining conservatives rather than addressing the issue being discussed.
You equate opposition to DEI programs with opposition to diversity itself, but those are not the same thing. Many conservatives support diversity of people, backgrounds, experiences, and ideas while questioning whether bureaucratic DEI systems actually achieve those goals. Disagreeing with a policy is not the same as opposing the principle.
You also argue that conservatism is unwelcome on campuses because conservatives are supposedly associated with bias, bigotry, exclusion, and fear. But that simply proves the concern many people have about ideological intolerance in academia. If one political viewpoint is routinely characterized as morally defective before the discussion even begins, that is not an environment that encourages genuine intellectual diversity.
What I find most revealing is that you celebrate open inquiry while simultaneously declaring that conservatism is incompatible with university education and that conservatives "will never win" because young people eventually learn the truth. That's not an argument. It's a conclusion reached before the evidence is examined. Open inquiry requires the possibility that your own assumptions might be challenged.
History is full of ideas that were once dismissed by academic consensus and later proven worthy of serious consideration. Universities are supposed to expose students to competing viewpoints, not decide in advance which viewpoints are enlightened and which are beneath consideration.
As for empty seats, if a course on intellectual diversity cannot attract students, let it fail on its merits. But if universities truly value diversity, inclusion, and exposure to different perspectives, then viewpoints outside the dominant campus ideology should be welcomed rather than treated as something students need protection from.
The irony here is that you accuse conservatives of wanting conformity while arguing that one political worldview is naturally suited for higher education and the other is not. That sounds a lot more like ideological gatekeeping than intellectual curiosity.“As for empty seats, if a course on intellectual diversity cannot attract students, let it fail on its merits.”
If that is true, why mandate it?That question actually cuts both ways. Universities already mandate courses in many areas outside a student’s major, general education requirements, writing, ethics, diversity-related coursework, and even specific core classes, depending on the institution. So the issue isn’t whether something can be required; it already is.
Maybe the real question is whether a course on constitutional principles, civil liberties, and the history of political ideas is uniquely disqualified from that same framework simply because it’s framed as “intellectual diversity” or because conservatives tend to support it. If the standard is “don’t mandate anything,” then that would apply equally to a lot of existing requirements.
So the argument isn’t about mandating vs. not mandating in general, it’s about whether a specific type of foundational civic education is being treated differently depending on who supports it. If universities can require courses intended to broaden perspectives in other areas, it’s not inconsistent to argue that exposure to constitutional and philosophical foundations of the country also fits that mission.I did a little research and there are many mandated courses as part of university curriculum. So, i will acknowledge your points, but this one is so glaringly political and partisan in nature that it raises eyebrows. If the students go, it can only be wishful thinking that their natural orientation can be substantIally changed. Who knows, it may be just the place for conservatism to be confronted and challenged to justify its place in a contrary environment.
I would also point out this "mandate" thing is one of those obvious false equivalencies the Right is so proud of doing.
I appreciate your acknowledgment that universities already require many courses outside a student's chosen field. That was really my main point.
What I find interesting is the assumption that a course on intellectual diversity is inherently political or partisan. Shouldn't the principles of free speech, civil liberties, constitutional government, and the examination of competing political philosophies be relevant to all students regardless of ideology?
If the course is genuinely academic, exposing students to a range of viewpoints and encouraging critical analysis rather than advocacy, then it should be no more partisan than courses that examine issues through other social, cultural, or political lenses. In fact, the goal would not be to change anyone's "natural orientation" but to challenge assumptions, sharpen reasoning skills, and encourage students to engage seriously with ideas they may disagree with.
You also raise an interesting possibility: if conservatives attend and their views are challenged, that's perfectly appropriate in a university setting. The same should be true for progressives. Intellectual diversity only has value if all viewpoints are open to scrutiny rather than some being treated as beyond challenge.
The question then becomes: are we opposed to mandated courses in principle, or are we uncomfortable with this particular subject because it introduces perspectives that are less common in today's academic environment?It will be fun to watch Trump style conservatism defended in an environment which you, yourself have said is overwhelmingly liberal in tone. It will make for raucous debate and forced exposure of conservative tenets and ideas where they can be brought out into the open. Is the “Right” really prepared to go into the Lions den, because that what this will be? Did the Right believe that the students would just sit there and listen, not confronting them? I don’t believe those that want to mandate this course had that in mind. Conservatives are taking a risk as to what it is that they attempt to counter could in fact blow up in their faces.
If only I could be a fly on the wall in such a course. This may very well work in my favor
"What's interesting is that your reply actually proves part of my point. You start by asking whether conservatives would force a mandatory course, then later admit universities already require all sorts of mandatory courses outside a student's chosen field. "
That is clearly an apple and an orange. On the one hand you have a college who proscribes courses needed to a get a degree - sort of what they are supposed to do, isn't it. That is the Apple.
The Orange is the Iowa legislature who has no business tell students what they must study.I don't think the apple-and-orange distinction works as well as you think it does.
Public universities are state institutions. State legislatures already influence them in countless ways. Legislatures create them, fund them, establish governing boards, set graduation requirements for various programs, regulate accreditation standards, and determine broad educational priorities. The idea that elected representatives have "no business" influencing what public universities teach is a much larger claim than you're acknowledging.
The real question isn't whether legislatures can have any role. They already do. The question is whether requiring exposure to constitutional principles, civil liberties, and the history of freedom is an appropriate educational objective for a public institution.
You may disagree with that particular requirement, and that's a fair debate. But simply saying "the legislature shouldn't tell students what to study" ignores the fact that legislatures routinely make decisions that affect curricula at public institutions.
What I also find interesting is that you focused entirely on the Iowa legislature point while bypassing the rest of my argument. You didn't address your statement that Republicans are a "devious breed that can never be trusted." If someone can casually dismiss tens of millions of Americans with that kind of sweeping stereotype, why should we assume students holding those views feel completely comfortable expressing them in every academic setting?
That concern doesn't disappear simply because a university offers courses with competing viewpoints. Campus culture matters too.
Looks like they took lessons from DeSantis, or vice versus. Not sure why they need to pass a law to force feed propaganda to students, they already own the school.
Of course Conservatives have every right to question those things.
But, the thing is, they have been asked and answered. I asked ChatGPT a series of questions to determine if these "Conservatives" have reason to be concerned or are not just crying wolf.
The issue you defined is public universities and colleges.
Q 1: Do surveys and research show that, as a general rule, do public universities and colleges offer a curriculum that exposes students to competing viewpoints?
A 1: As a general rule, public colleges and universities do offer curricula that expose students to competing viewpoints, especially through general education, humanities, social sciences, philosophy, history, political science, economics, law, religion, and literature courses.
Q 2: Do surveys or research show that, as a general rule, at public universities and colleges a significant number of professors purposely bias their classes in one direction or another?
A 2: No, I do not see solid survey or research evidence showing that, as a general rule, a significant number of public college professors intentionally bias their classes in one political direction.
Seems to me, that should settle the question. In my opinion. Conservatives are crying wolf.I don't think your conclusion is supported by the questions you asked.
The fact that universities offer courses that include competing viewpoints does not automatically mean there are no legitimate concerns about ideological imbalance on campus. Those are two different questions.
Likewise, the answer that there is no strong evidence that a significant number of professors intentionally try to bias students politically does not settle the issue either. Many conservatives are not claiming that professors wake up every morning plotting to indoctrinate students. The concern is often about unconscious bias, viewpoint homogeneity within departments, speaker selection, hiring practices, campus culture, and whether students feel comfortable expressing dissenting views.
A university can teach competing viewpoints in the curriculum and still have a campus environment where certain perspectives are underrepresented or socially discouraged. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Even many people who strongly support higher education acknowledge that faculty in numerous disciplines lean overwhelmingly left politically. The debate is not simply "Are professors intentionally biased?" The debate is whether ideological diversity among faculty and administrators is healthy and whether students are exposed to serious, good-faith arguments from across the political spectrum.
So no, your questions don't "settle" the issue. They answer two narrow questions while leaving the broader concern completely open for discussion.You brought up, as best as I can tell, only one area that needs further looking into - "The debate is whether ideological diversity among faculty and administrators is healthy and whether students are exposed to serious, good-faith arguments from across the political spectrum."
The answers are YES, and THEY ARE.
Diversity - DEI applies to college professors as well as the workplace an in society in general. On public college campuses it is about as diverse as the numbers allow. To increase the percentages you would have to set quotas to increasethe number of conservative professors thereby stopping equally or more qualified liberal professors from getting a job.
It works this way:
1. I would expect you to agree that the the ratio of liberal to moderate to conservative justices to reflect the population they are drawn from Ph Ds and equivalent.
2. There aren't surveys of exactly that demographic but it can be intuited from two other data points: 1) Graduate degree holders and 2) Professors.
3. Many, many surveys, studies, and election results found that the more formal education one has, the less likely that person thinks of themselves as "conservative".
3a. For those with graduate degrees, those numbers Pew found for conservatives is about 15% - 25%
3b. For professors, a different survey reported that about 9% - 12% thought of themselves as conservative.
3c. Interpolating, a standard and legitimate mathematical technique, between the two you end up with about 10% - 20% of self-reporting conservatives in the Ph.D.-level / research-academic pipeline where professors come from.
4. By logic, the number of conservative public college professors would be smaller than the pool they come from.
5. Consequently, one can safely say the conservative professors are fairly represented across public college campuses.
6. To increase their numbers conservatives would have to discriminate against liberals.
Exposed: I have already answered that question in a general way, they are exposed to competing ideas. As to "unconscious bias", you will have to provide those studies as ChatGPT could find none.
So what we are left with is:
1. Public universities and colleges DO HAVE curricula that exposes students to all major points of view.
2. There is NO evidence that that professors "intentionally" present a biased point of view to their students.
3. There is NO evidence that professors indoctrinate their students unconsciously.
4. Public college and university campuses seem to be not purposefully stacked toward one view or another beyond statistical representation. It is not the colleges fault there are more Conservatives to choose from.
So, I repeat myself - Seems to me, that should settle the question. In my opinion, Conservatives are crying wolf."So, I repeat myself - Seems to me, that should settle the question. In my opinion, Conservatives are crying wolf." ESO
Yes, as those with TDS so often do repeat themselves... Over, and over, and over... IslandBite is offering cookies --- might take her up on one. SOOOO-------- comforting to those who deal with TDS.TDS is something conservative created when they have lost.
One of the symptoms of TDS is rumination, which leads to repeating oneself, as you do frequently.
In my view, TDS is very much a real illness, a form of mental illness.
I am not surprised that is your view.
In my view, you have a "shared delusional disorder" which IS a medical term.
That is not a slam on you personally because you, like all cult members, aren't aware you suffer from it. You only become aware of it when you escape its clutches. Sort of like when the daughter of the son of my second wife slipped out of the grasp of Scientologists.
As I explain, with citations, in my book, when conservatives put conservatism into practice, you get loss of freedom.
I am waiting for the MAGA here to justify a president in charge of the executive branch being sued by himself. Trump sues for $10 billion. Griffin, on the other hand, sued for statutory damages for the exact same violation. He accepted an apology from the IRS as a settlement. He is a man to be respected.
Trump, however, self-deals which is probably yet another illegal act by this felon, a 10 billion settlement with the agencies he is the leader of.
"Federal judge halts work on Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization fund’"
Assuming this grift is allowed to go on, there is a HIGH LIKELIHOOD that Trump will owe taxes on that $10 B. Further, if they actually pay fellow felons and other people, they will owe taxes as well. Yet even further, Trump gifts them over a certain amount of money from his fund, then he will be in violation of excess gifting laws.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/29/politics … ation-fund
"35 Former Federal Judges File Motion to Reopen Trump’s Lawsuit Against IRS to Block $1.8B Slush Fund"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art … psSLu5S8WW
"Why Trump’s $1.8 Billion IRS Settlement Could Actually Cost Him Money"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … hatgpt.com
ROFLMAO!!!The problem with your argument is that you start from the assumption that everything Trump does is automatically corrupt and then work backward from there.
Trump did not sue himself. The lawsuit was against the IRS and federal officials over the alleged disclosure of confidential tax information before he returned to office. The fact that he later became president does not magically erase the underlying claim or mean the lawsuit never existed. By that logic, anyone who later becomes president would have to abandon any legal claim they had against the federal government.
You keep calling it a "grift" and an "illegal act," but the judge's order was a temporary halt while legal questions are sorted out. A court reviewing something is not proof that a crime occurred. If it were, every lawsuit ever challenged in court would automatically be criminal.
You're celebrating tax consequences as though they somehow prove wrongdoing. If a settlement is taxable, then taxes are paid. That's how the system works. Potential tax liability is not evidence of fraud, corruption, or illegality.
The constant use of "felon" as a substitute for an argument doesn't actually address the merits of the case. Whether someone likes Trump or hates him, the legal questions here are: Was confidential tax information improperly disclosed? Was a settlement legally negotiated? Is the proposed fund lawful? Those questions are decided by facts and law, not by insults.
What I find most interesting is that people who spent years arguing that nobody is above the law suddenly seem uncomfortable with the possibility that government agencies themselves can be held accountable when they violate the law. If the IRS improperly disclosed private taxpayer information, why shouldn't there be consequences simply because the victim later became president?Trump's acting AG will do anything Trump wants him to do. He and Trump are forming a five-person board who does not answer to anybody, except Trump. They are free to give this money to anybody they want to without any accountability, even to the Jan. 6 criminals who he pardoned.
They can be rewarded lots of money for trying to overthrow an election. Trump is really good at playing the victim, especially when he is in his retribution frame of mind.
Lawsuits are based on damages. How did Trump arrive at 10b of damages? Then he settles with the IRS for 1.776 billion. How do you feel about him being paid off with your taxpayer money? Notice the amount. It's the same as when we became an independence nation. Do you think that was by chance?A lot of what you’re saying here, in my view, is conjecture layered on top of assumptions, not verified fact. There is no established evidence that an “acting AG will do anything Trump wants” or that a five-person board exists to distribute funds without accountability. Those claims are presented as certainty, but they’re not supported in the actual legal record being discussed.
On the legal side, the damages figure in a civil suit is not pulled out of thin air in the way people often assume. In U.S. civil litigation, plaintiffs routinely plead high damages at the outset, and courts then evaluate whether any claimed harm is legally cognizable and how it should be valued. The initial figure is not a final determination of injury or wrongdoing; it’s part of the pleading process, not a verdict.
The same goes for settlement amounts. A settlement is not an admission of guilt or a judicial finding; it’s a negotiated resolution where both sides weigh legal risk, cost, and uncertainty. The presence of a settlement does not, by itself, validate the narrative that one side was “paid off with taxpayer money” in the way you’re implying.
Also, bringing January 6 into this conversation shifts away from the specific legal question at hand and turns it into a broad political indictment, which isn’t actually addressing the underlying issue: whether there was improper disclosure and whether the remedy sought in the lawsuit is lawful.
If the concern is accountability, that’s a fair discussion, but it has to be grounded in verifiable facts about the actual legal structure, not assumptions about motives, future actions, or imagined distribution schemes.
"What's interesting is that your reply actually proves part of my point. You start by asking whether conservatives would force a mandatory course, then later admit universities already require all sorts of mandatory courses outside a student's chosen field. "
Yes, i do. I have a good basis for that - decades of observing, reading about, and listening to him - it is as obvious as the nose on your face. I am not alone in knowing that. A recent YouGov poll asked the question - [/b]Is Trump Corrupt?[/b] --- 69% said yes.
Then I looked at the crosstabs to see what Independents thought - 77% said Yes
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-e … esults.pdf
Now, if you would like, I can put together a very long list of corrupt activity beyond his felon convictions, his sexual predator and defamation jury findings, and his bank fraud finding from other trials.
I believe I am spot on in starting out with the conclusion Trump is corrupt.
Thank God we still have an independent judiciary to stop Trump's corruption.
"Judge says Trump can’t add his name to Kennedy Center and blocks planned closure"
YEY!!!!!!!
"A federal judge on Friday blocked the Kennedy Center from temporarily closing its doors for a yearslong renovation and said its board violated the law when it added President Donald Trump’s name to the historic performing arts venue.
US District Judge Casey Cooper concluded that the law establishing the center “makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so.”
“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper wrote in his 94-page opinion."
Now that the court has stopped Trump from breaking yet another law, Trump is going to pout. If he can't do anything he wants regardless of the law he says he is washing his hands of it. He says he is "turning it [the Kennedy Center] back over to Congress".
Once again he shows the world how CLUELESS he is. The LAW (the Constitution) says the executive's main job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. Now it appears he is going to give our Constitution the finger again and not carry out statutory requirements it requires him to do. What a petulant little child who never got over his father sending him to military school.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/29/politics … r-or-close"The true meaning of Trump’s choice for America’s new top spy"
In a purely Authoritarian move Donald "the felon" Trump has put a loyal minion at the head of America's intelligence network, real estate heir and social media personality Bill Pulte. For Trump, Pulte's singular qualification is being a relentless attack dog using privileged and private information about Trump's perceived enemies to build fake cases to refer to the DOIJ for investigation.
It is obvious to anybody with a functioning brain and eyes that is what Trump wants Pulte to do using America's spy agencies and information to make equally fake cases against anybody Trump doesn't like (why stop doing something that works, eh?)
Here are some things to think about:
* I would think allied spy agencies will be VERY hesitant to give any intelligence to the United States now.
* The law bars him from becoming DNI and hopefully acting DNI.
* Pulte would not (most likely) not qualify for the security clearance needed for the job save for the fact that Trump will simply say this totally unqualified man can have one and gain access to information that will help Trump in his revenge tour.
* This will put America's national security at GREAT RISK.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/politics … y-analysisDonald "the Authoritarian" Trump via RFK Jr. wants all of your medical information. This after appointing a guy as acting DNI to spy on your daily activities. Why don't you conservatives who are so eager to give up your medical history save the gov't the trouble and just send Jr. he wants to prove the unprovable.
"RFK Jr. seeks to peek at Americans’ medical records for clues on autism and vaccines"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/04/health/m … nes-autismHow will SCOTUS rule on these remaining cases.
1. That Congress does not have the power to create offices where the president does not have that power to fire officials. - I think they will approve.
2. That the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it says about birthright citizenship - I think they will reject this one.
3. To bar medical care for Trans youth - I think they will bar it and further make America bad again
4. That drug users can't own guns - I think they will allow it (overturning the conviction of Biden's son.
5. That private businesses can't ban guns on their property - I think they will say guns can go anywhere the drug users wants to take them.
6. Allow political parties to coordinate with political campaigns - I think they will approve
7. Stop mail-in ballots from being counted even if postmarked on or before election day - I think they will approve
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/politics … voting-tpsWhy is MAGA okey with Trump endangering American lives??
"Exclusive: Political pressure threatens to undercut EPA science evaluating chemical safety for consumers, sources say"
"Inside the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, scientists say they’re under pressure to alter safety reviews of chemicals commonly found in consumer products like household cleaners and cosmetics to make risks to human health and the environment disappear on paper.
Multiple current and former career employees at the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention recounted being pushed by supervisors to downplay the potential risk of chemicals that are already used in products on shelves.
With President Donald Trump’s crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, scientists are also being told to stop considering the impact a chemical may have on specific racial groups, according to the employees, who spoke on the condition that they remain anonymous for fear of retribution."
Why is Trump targeting non-Whites with death? Only someone with a sick mind would do that, don't you agree.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/08/politics … l-pressureThis is not the Pentagon I worked in - and thank God I don't, I would have puked.
"Inside Hegseth’s Pentagon, where distrust and suspicions of loyalty are rampant"
"It was the beginning of April and the Army chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, had decided it was time for an in-person meeting with his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
George was keen to speak with Hegseth after several issues in which the Pentagon chief directly influenced Army general officers’ careers, including an incident when Hegseth reached down and blocked four colonels from being promoted to one-star general officers.
For months, Hegseth seemed increasingly dissatisfied with the Army and its leadership, including George. It mystified those around the Army chief, sources told CNN, given the limited interaction George had with Hegseth during his tenure, and there was little to no communication before Hegseth intervened in the promotions.
That fit a pattern in which information was held tightly in Hegseth’s office and few outside its confines were read in on his plans for the Pentagon, according to the sources. Hegseth was deeply distrustful of many around him — some troops had to sign nondisclosure agreements to learn about operations, and polygraph tests had become commonplace.
George wanted to ease some of the tension with Hegseth. So on April 1, he requested the in-person meeting to discuss a slew of the defense secretary’s priorities — technology and improving equipment — and how the Army was working to meet them, a Pentagon, US and defense official told CNN.
He never had the meeting. The next day, he was fired." - Seems like Hegseth is a coward, how ironic.
Is that what you remember Credence?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/politics … -suspicionAbsolutely, ESO, Hegseth is a deplorable man, dismissing the values of men with more experience and accomplishment in their pinky toes, than Hegseth has any right to challenge.
In many of the matters that are front and center, he is worse than Trump. I want him out as well as his “master” at the earliest opportunity.
"Grand juror called DOJ’s controversial Chicago protest indictment ‘a crock’ before it was approved, transcript shows"
Talk about how badly Trump has corrupted the DOIJ. Get this. DOIJ wanted to indict six Chicago Democratic politicians and activists who were protesting. They couldn't get an indictment the first two tries with the same grand jury.
On the third try, the DOIJ prosecutors rigged it by sending one juror who they thought would vote no home. They got their indictment.
Defense got wind of it and wanted the grand jury transcript; the judge agreed.
"Grand juror called DOJ’s controversial Chicago protest indictment ‘a crock’ before it was approved, transcript shows"
Get this:
"“Do you have unlimited tries?” one grand juror asked prosecutors a week after the grand jury had already voted against the indictment. The Justice Department was trying again."
A federal judge in Chicago on Tuesday authorized the release of several pages of transcripts from October grand jury proceedings where the protesters, now known as the “Broadview Six,” were charged. It is exceedingly rare for full grand jury transcripts, showing prosecutors’ interactions with the grand jury members analyzing a possible criminal case, to be made public.
After one grand juror asked if there were new facts to add to the case, one of the prosecutors responded, “I’m feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.”
“I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is,” the unnamed grand juror responded, according to the newly released transcripts.
The prosecutor then excused the grand juror — an approach so problematic, the US attorney’s office cut short the session without asking the grand jury to vote again.
A week later, the grand jury approved an indictment of the Broadview Six — its third session about the case.
The US attorney’s office dropped the charges against them last month shortly after the judge, April Perry, read the previously secret grand jury transcripts.
“These transcripts prove that the grand jury in the Broadview 6 case repeatedly attempted to say ‘no’ to this sham political indictment,” Christopher Parente, an attorney for one of the Broadview Six defendants, said in a statement on Tuesday. “This DOJ has violated the good faith foundation of the grand jury process to weaponize indictments and subvert the law.”
That is so Trump!!!. That is so Scary!!!1
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/politics … indictmentWho does this remind you of?
"It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it can no longer subsist. In a large republic there are men of fortunes, and consequently o less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in one subject; he has interests of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great, and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country."
As soon as I read that, Trump immediately came to mind as who Montesquieu was presciently writing about in his Spirit of Laws
While the article quoted Brutus, who invoked Montesquieu while arguing against adoption of the Constitution, it could have been John Jay, James Madison, or Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers. Both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists feared that a republic could be undone if a credulous or inflamed electorate were swayed by a demagogue’s populist message.So, what’s new? See how Trump threatens the DC municipality if they elect a “socialist” as mayor. Can there ever be an end to this man’s tyrannical rampage? Again, just who does he think that he is?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art … 16277.htmlCalling it a ‘tyrannical rampage’ goes way too far. Even if Trump said he would return Washington, DC, to more federal control, that’s a policy position about DC’s unique status under the Constitution, not some kind of illegal takeover. DC isn’t a state, and Congress already has ultimate authority over it under the Home Rule framework. You can agree or disagree with the idea, but it’s still a political debate about governance, not tyranny. Both sides use strong language in politics, but it helps to stick to what’s actually being proposed rather than escalating it into something it isn’t.
And on the broader point, Trump also has a right to his views on socialism. He’s consistently expressed concern that socialist-leaning policies conflict with traditional American values like limited government, individual economic freedom, and private enterprise. You don’t have to agree with that perspective, but it’s a long-standing political position, not something unusual in American political debate.
Do you support socialist leaning policies?The people of DC aren’t serfs, Sharlee, that have the right to elect their own representatives. To deny American cities the right to self government is tyrannical on its face. DC has its own representatives in the Electoral College, so it is not just a colony. Trump is out of line here. Where is this “ultimate” authority codified”?
Trump has his right to his views but not to unilaterally dismiss the opinions of the DC residents and its electorate.
I support whatever the voters in Washington, DC support, it is their decision, not mine or Trumps. Socialism does not scare me like it does so many conservatives.Depends on what you mean by socialist, doesn't it.
The new Senate Majority Leader - Donald Trump - cancels a Senate hearing.
"Trump says he is canceling DNI hearings as he vents frustration at legislative maneuvering over surveillance law"
Trump realized that Pulte won't have time to do all of Trump's dirty work and fire all the Biden and Obama holdovers as well as start investigations on Trump's political rivals, so he took control of the Senate.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics … rings-fisaTrump is clearly off-his-rocker. Not only is he taking over the Senate, he has found yet another way to seriously put America in jeopardy from a foreign terrorist attack!!
How? Two Ways: 1) By stripping the DNI, which was created to prevent another 9/11, of most of its staff, it cannot do its job and makes another 9/11-type attack more likely and 2) by killing FISA, which keeps track of foreign terrorists makes a terrorist attach much more likely. Conclusion - Trump doesn't care if foreign terrorist attack America.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/politics … rings-fisa
Hey Credence, do you understand why the right-wing on here keep denying that Trump wants to be and IS an AUTHORITARIAN? Hell, he says he is himself.
"New book reveals how Trump compared himself to Mao, Stalin, Attila the Hun"
"When President Donald Trump sat down for an interview in March with New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan for their new book, he showed them a document arguing he was more powerful than some of the most feared and treacherous leaders in history — including Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.
Trump had been asked by Haberman and Swan about the power he wielded as president in his second term and his place in history, which prompted him to tell the story of a two-page document he had received from “a historian” during an event honoring the hall of fame golfer, Gary Player. Trump proudly asked an aide to fetch a copy of the document, which argued that each of the other leaders, “however fearsome in his day, had no global reach. Their power was local. But (Trump’s) was not.” DIDN'T Attila the Hun conquer the known world in his day? Trump can't even beat Iran!, lol
Trump proudly showed them the letter, Haberman and Swan write, “reciting the names of some of history’s most powerful figures, explaining how each fell short of his own power as US president.”
These leaders “maintained power through fear,” Trump said, according to the book. “Who would ever do a thing like that? Right?”
But when Swan and Haberman tried to find the author, it turned out, he was not a historian, but actually Player’s longtime caddy and personal confidant. The caddy told Haberman and Swan that he “had first shared his assessment of Trump’s power with Player and later explained it directly to Trump over golf in Florida.”
If Trump is saying he is a dictator, who are they to disagree with him? They never do in any other circumstance!!
One would think they would prefer patriotism and a democracy over a third-world dictator, but based on their rhetoric, that clearly is not the case.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/18/politics … la-the-hunAnd Trump (the Felon's) retribution campaign continue to weaken America even more!!
"Trump’s new acting intel chief Bill Pulte arrives early, eyes firing hundreds"
The hatchet man takes the reins at the DNI with orders to make the DNI ineffective.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/19/politics … kes-officeHow UnAmerican can an American president get? Trump sets a record.
"Democratic states scramble to prevent potential Trump administration interference in their elections"
An Oct PRRI poll asked which statement reflects their view.
“President Trump is a dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy”
versus
“President Trump is a strong leader who should be given the power he needs to restore America’s greatness.”
An Amazing 56% think Trump is a dangerous dictator - [b]that is UP from 52% in March 2025. I can't imagine what it is today
A whopping 65% of independents felt the same as did a significant 18% of Republicans.
An AP-NORC poll found that about a third think voting rights are fully secure, and about half see free speech facing major threats. How sad is that??
Finally, another 2026 PRRI poll found that only 18% of Americans are extremely or very proud of how democracy works in the U.S. today, which points to deep anxiety about democratic functioning under Trump.
Trump is a disaster and sadly has 2.5 years to do even more damage.Some of what Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden appointed judges think of Trump through their opinions - it is not nice and Trump defenders should learn from thtem.
‘Retaliatory,’ ‘Misleading,’ ‘Unconstitutional’:
Judges’ criticism mounts against Trump administration
“Fundamental to this case—and indeed to our constitutional system—is the principle that the will of the President does not supersede that of Congress. Presidential whims do not and cannot supplant agencies’ statutory obligations.”
“It has not historically been the case that federal courts have publicly accused the Justice Department of bad faith,” said Vladeck. A core legal principle is the presumption of regularity, which assumes government officials have followed the rules and told the truth. Vladeck noted an unprecedented uptick in instances of the Trump administration’s defiance, where the government has refused to comply with court orders at all.
“A federal court is not a testing lab where the Executive branch can pilot a concession to get a case closed, stand by silently while its own administrative process flouts the resulting mandate, and then stroll back in demanding a clean slate. Give me a break.”
“The Constitution does not permit immigration detention to be used as a punitive or suppressive tool against protected speech.”
“A review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI.”
A selection of 77 harsh, critical opinions. They know things Trump defenders constantly close their eyes and ears and mouths at. You will feel much less conflicted if you just open your mind.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/06 … icism-vis/Once again, Trump's famously fragile ego is driving the gov't to lie about what is happening at the reflecting pool.
Jean Pirrio, Trump's obedient attorney in DC said this;
"“There are several citations that have been handed out to individuals, and these are cases that will be prosecuted to the full extent,” she said. “If there are more serious products that are put into the Reflecting Pool to create more algae or a bigger problem, then we’ll consider more serious charges.”"
The "CRIMES" so far are "Touching" a floating strip of peeling paint that was still attached to the bottom AND "removing" what was thought to be litter from the Reflection Pool. That is it. No "product" dumping.
The lie is she is claiming products ARE being dumped into the pool by saying "More Serious Products". So far, there is no evidence there has been ANY product put in the water other than what Trump told his workers to put in the pool.
Trump's also famous paranoia led him to this lie -
"Trump on Monday described a “350-foot slit” in the Reflecting Pool — an increase in length from his previous characterizations — and claimed it was “cut very violently” with a knife, later saying photos would be released “at the right time.”
The president, who suggested the images would be seen “in court,” referred reporters to the Interior Department. CNN has reached out to the department for the photos that Trump referenced."
Remember all that evidence about the 2020 Trump said (still says) existed proving his lie about the election being rigged? Well, creating fictional evidence is his style, isn't it.
Finally, we know Trump doesn't really care about federal property being vandalized, don't we. Remember the 2,000 right-wing MAGA vandals he pardoned that tore apart the US Capitol and threatened the lives of our congresspeople and the Vice President. You know he doesn't give a damn unless his ego is hurt.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/22/politics … -vandalismLook like Trump has got his a$$ kicked by a recent federal court ruling. Hurrah!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art … 624-901--ATrump has gotten his ass kicked MANY times. Here is a list of recent 15 decisions:
# Date Trump action blocked or struck down Federal court result Supreme Court status found
1 Jun. 24, 2026 Executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the requirement, ruling Trump lacked authority to regulate elections that way. No Supreme Court reversal found.
2 Jun. 24, 2026 ICE arrests at immigration courthouses Judge P. Casey Pitts barred immigration arrests at immigration courts nationwide, finding the policy arbitrary and capricious under the APA. No Supreme Court reversal found.
3 Jun. 24, 2026 DOJ subpoenas for transgender-care patient records A federal judge temporarily blocked DOJ from obtaining sensitive hospital records in a criminal investigation, criticizing the subpoenas as unconstitutional overreach. No Supreme Court reversal found.
4 Jun. 23, 2026 USDA-approved SNAP bans on candy, soda, and sugary drinks Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled the government could not use SNAP waivers to prohibit those purchases because Congress defines what counts as food. No Supreme Court reversal found.
5 Jun. 22, 2026 Use of DHS’s SAVE database to check voter citizenship Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocked the program, citing privacy-law violations and risk of wrongful voter purges. No Supreme Court reversal found.
6 Jun. 22, 2026 DOJ subpoenas to Minnesota officials over immigration-enforcement opposition A federal judge blocked subpoenas against Minnesota officials, with reporting describing the court’s view as harassment/retaliation. No Supreme Court reversal found.
7 Jun. 22, 2026 Restricting public access to immigration-court proceedings in New York Judge McMahon granted preliminary relief in part, holding the public has a qualified First Amendment right of access to ordinary non-closed immigration hearings. No Supreme Court reversal found.
8 Jun. 12, 2026 / May 29, 2026 The $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked creation/operation of the fund, later extending the block. No Supreme Court reversal found.
9 Jun. 5, 2026 Freezing legal immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries Judge John McConnell blocked policies freezing asylum, green card, work permit, naturalization, and other benefits for affected immigrants. No Supreme Court reversal found.
10 Jun. 5, 2026 USDA funding conditions tied to SNAP, school meals, WIC, and related grants Judge Myong Joun blocked enforcement of conditions on billions in USDA funding, including immigration, gender-policy, and DEI-related conditions. No Supreme Court reversal found.
11 Jun. 1, 2026 Removing a Boulder nonprofit from control of a weather/supercomputing lab A federal judge blocked the move, finding the administration’s action likely unlawful and possibly retaliatory. No Supreme Court reversal found.
12 2026, still active Earlier Trump anti-voting executive-order provisions, including proof-of-citizenship requirements on federal voter-registration forms Brennan Center reports that three federal courts have blocked many provisions of Trump’s anti-voting executive order; CBS reported one ruling blocked five sections, including the documentary proof-of-citizenship mandate. No Supreme Court reversal found.
13 2026 Executive order targeting Perkins Coie Federal judges held the law-firm orders unconstitutional/retaliatory; DOJ later dropped appeals involving targeted law firms. No Supreme Court reversal found.
14 2026 Executive order targeting Jenner & Block Same law-firm campaign; the firm challenged and won, and DOJ dropped its effort to defend the orders. No Supreme Court reversal found.
15 2026 Executive order targeting WilmerHale / Susman Godfrey-style law-firm retaliation Courts rejected the targeted law-firm orders as unconstitutional and retaliatory; DOJ abandoned the appeals.
There are dozens more where those came from.
These examples fall into these broad categories of malfeasance by Trump:
1. Trump acting without Congress
2. Trump retaliating against enemies
3. Trump attacking voting/elections
4. Trump abusing immigration power
5. Trump weaponizing the federal gov't.Here is a new one:
"Appeals court deals biggest setback yet to Trump DOJ’s demands for confidential voter roll data"
"A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected demands by the Justice Department that Michigan turn over non-public information in their voter registration files, in the biggest setback yet to the Trump administration’s attempt to obtain and audit unredacted voter rolls from states across the country.
The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals said Michigan was not obligated to produce the confidential voter data – which could include social security numbers and driver’s license ID numbers – to the department.
Nine judges at the district court level have ruled against the administration’s efforts. This is the first time an appeals court has weighed in, potentially setting up the stage for a Supreme Court showdown on the issue."
Then we have this
"Writing for the appellate panel majority, Circuit Judge Andre Mathis said the 1960 civil rights law Justice Department was relying on in its lawsuit seeking to force the production of the data did not cover Michigan’s aggregated voter file.
“Back then, the government used this power to ensure that everyone who had the right to vote could freely exercise that right,” Mathis wrote. “But today, the government invokes Title III for an inverse purpose—to ensure that some people have not voted.”
Remember, even the very conservative Heritage Foundation’s own voter-fraud database identifies only about 100 suspected or proven noncitizen voting cases going back decades — hardly evidence of a widespread problem.
The only RATIONAL reason for Trump trying to suppress voting is to keep Democratic voters - Blacks, married women of all races - from voting.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/24/politics … -roll-data
So, what is it now? Trump refuses to sign a bipartisan approved bill to make housing more attainable in the face rising inflationary pressures?
All of this because Trump wants his disenfranchisement “Save America” bill passed. He has been told countless times by Majority Leader THUNE that the votes for this are simply not there. His attempt at an executive order to control mail-in voting nationwide was shot down by the courts as having no force of authority.
Trump couldn't care less about “affordability” and is more interested in steel plating his power and electability. Midterms are coming up, smart republicans needed this housing bill to at least give the public the impression that they are addressing inflationary pressures in the economy and providing solutions beyond idle banter and platitudes.
Republicans in the Senate are wise to leave the filibuster provision untouched as i would approve the Democrats who may well return to apply its loss to the Republicans in retribution.
I say to Trump, MAGA and Republicans, in general, to go to hell. In the face of all of this, they are to be given ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art … 25678.htmlFrom what I've read, the SAVE America Act is a stand-alone election bill. It deals with voter registration, proof of citizenship, voter ID, election administration, and related voting procedures. It isn't an omnibus bill with unrelated provisions.
You're certainly free to disagree with those election policies, but saying the bill is about "steel plating power" is an opinion, not a description of what's actually in the legislation.
As for the housing bill, it's true that President Trump delayed signing it to pressure Congress on the SAVE America Act. Whether that's good politics or bad politics is a fair debate. But it's also worth noting the housing bill passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan, veto-proof majorities, so the disagreement isn't over the contents of the housing bill itself; it's over Trump's decision to use it as leverage for a separate election bill. Those are two different issues.
It's interesting that you support keeping the filibuster now. Not long ago, many Democrats were calling for ending or weakening it to pass their own priorities. The same is true of some Republicans when it suited them. That's why I think the rule shouldn't depend on who's in power. Either it's a valuable protection for the minority party, or it isn't.Sharlee,
From my side, it is designed to create confusion among the electorate which
Trump hopes will benefit Republicans in the long run. Trump is more than desperate to maintain a Republican dominated majority, because otherwise his agenda is finished. Just how low he is willing to stoop to maintain that is anyone’s guess. And yes, i disagree with those election policies and the Republicans that promote them.
Yes, the housing bill passed with overwhelming majorities from both sides of the isle. His idea of leverage is detestable under circumstances where he expects Congress to break every rule and protocol to accommodate him and his obsession.
After what i have seen here, i will support the filibuster regardless of which party decides to use it. Democrats cannot break it and I certainly wont have Republicans contemplating that they can or will either.I appreciate that you clarified your position.
I don't think we actually disagree that much on whether Trump's strategy was appropriate. My point wasn't to defend the tactic; it was to separate the issues.
If someone believes delaying the housing bill to gain leverage was wrong, that's a fair criticism. But that's different from saying the SAVE America Act itself contains provisions that "steel plate power." The bill has specific election-related provisions, and whether those are good or bad should be debated based on what's actually in the legislation, not on assumptions about motives.
As for Trump's motives, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about why he supports the bill. I simply try to distinguish between opinions about intent and the actual text of legislation. We can disagree on the policy, but I think it's helpful to debate what a bill actually does rather than what we believe someone hopes it will accomplish.
On the filibuster, I'm glad we agree that it shouldn't depend on which party is in power. If it's an important protection for the minority today, it should remain one regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans hold the majority.So, why do Trump and Republicans support the Save America Act? The theme is supposed to be preventing non-citizens from voting?
—-
The Heritage Foundation Voter Fraud Database: The conservative Heritage Foundation maintains a prominent, nationwide database dedicated to tracking election fraud.
Total Cases: As of 2026, their tracking identifies 99 total cases of suspected noncitizen voting going back to the year 2000.
Context: This covers a 26-year period during which more than one billion total votes were legally cast in U.S. elections, placing the documented rate below 0.0001% of all ballots.
———
This is from the Heritage Foundation not exactly a bastion of support for left leaning politics. Just how many zeros in front of the decimal point is needed to show the ridiculous pursuit of this issue? One hundred instances in one billion, that is even smaller, .0000001 percent. So what is the Right trying to prove here?
I don’t care what Trump or the Republicans say to make their case when there is no proof to support it.
It is more than likely that the confusion associated with the requirements in the bill will adversely affect the ability of legal residents to cast their ballots. They hope to hurt Democrats, but it just might backfire on their own supporters.
The foundation of this entire matter is ridiculous and I see this as a sinister power play by MAGA and the right and it will not stand.The irony is Trump tried to create fraud on Jan.6. The fact is he had a fake electoral slate signed by many MAGA governors that showed he had won the election. The plan was to submit that as the proof he won the election, but thanks to Pence, he didn't accept it.
Trump is still promoting his propaganda that he won that election. The propaganda is the more he repeats it in different forms, the more the people will believe it. His brain is not wired to accepting losing, even when he loses, he will make himself believe he won.All evidence points to his brain being wired like that of a psychopath.
You’re right that documented cases of non-citizen voting are extremely rare in the available data, including what’s tracked by the Heritage Foundation. That part of the conversation is often cited for exactly that reason.
Where the disagreement comes in is less about proving a widespread problem and more about what standard of protection election law should aim for. Supporters of measures like the SAVE Act argue that even rare instances can undermine public trust, and they want a uniform federal requirement (like documentary proof of citizenship) to ensure eligibility is verified the same way everywhere.
Opponents argue the cost of that approach is too high relative to the problem it’s trying to solve, specifically that it could create barriers for eligible voters who may not easily have the required documents, and that it shifts focus away from issues like access and election administration.
So the real divide isn’t usually about whether the number is large or small, it’s about whether additional safeguards are justified given the tradeoff in access and administrative burden.
You can disagree with the policy (and many do on both sides), but that’s the core of what each side is actually arguing about.So, Sharlee, what’s the hurry? Sen Tillis of North Carolina said implementing such a law even if it passes would be a disaster to attempt within the 4 months before the midterms.
If conservatives are so “hard up” to getting this legislation on the books, substantial time is needed for all of those that don’t happen to have their birth certificates or passports in their back pockets to enlist the state and authorities to assist in obtaining them. That is not going to happen in 4 months….And she isn't even satisfied with wiping out more black representation than even occurred in the violent conservative reaction to liberals trying to integrate Blacks into American society during Reconstruction.
What is "standard" about it? It didn't exist until your side decided to make it a thing and it worked effectively flawlessly.
All it proves is what I have been saying all along - conservatives want to limit personal freedom and liberties while liberals want to expand them.
Face it, the so-called "Save" act is a bold-faced attempt by conservatives to rig the election.All of this sounds more like a political framing than a balanced view.
We already live in a society where ID is required for almost everything, boarding a plane, buying alcohol, opening a bank account, getting a job, and countless other everyday activities. So the idea that requiring ID is somehow unusual or automatically “restrictive” doesn’t really match reality.
And while I hear the argument about barriers, the issue isn’t that people “can’t obtain ID” in general; it’s that there can be logistical challenges for certain groups (like transportation, paperwork issues, or access to DMV offices). Those challenges are real, but they’re also solvable and not the same as being denied a basic ability outright.
What’s often missing in these discussions is that voting laws have always had rules and verification requirements. The current debate is more about how strict those rules should be, not whether rules should exist at all.
So calling measures like the SAVE Act an attempt to “rig elections” ignores the actual argument supporters are making, which is about verification and election integrity, not restricting participation for its own sake.
At the end of the day, the disagreement is about where to draw the line between access and security, not about one side wanting “freedom” and the other not.
In my view, your argument insults our advanced society, actually suggesting some are not capable of obtaining ID to vote.Married women are an example of those who face challenges of obtaining an ID. That is a fact.
The core problem is not an ordinary photo ID by itself. It is proof-of-citizenship/document-match Many people don't have the resources, education, and money that you do and that has proved to be an UNNESSARY burden.
1. Brennan Center, Citizens Without Proof (2006)
This is the foundational study. It surveyed voting-age citizens about whether they had readily available proof of citizenship and government photo ID. The relevant finding: many citizens lacked ready documentary proof of citizenship, and many more — primarily women — lacked proof of citizenship in their current legal name. The report found that only 48% of voting-age women with ready access to a U.S. birth certificate had one with their current legal name, and only 66% of voting-age women with any proof of citizenship had a document with their current legal name. That implies roughly 34% of women lacked readily available citizenship proof matching their current name.
2. Brennan Center / VoteRiders / Public Wise / University of Maryland CDCE survey work, reported in 2024
This newer research found that about 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens, about 9% of eligible voters, lack easy access to documents proving citizenship. It is not only about married women, but it supports the broader point that documentary-proof rules create real administrative barriers. The Guardian’s summary also notes related ID-access problems, including millions without a current driver’s license and many with licenses lacking current name or address.
3. PolitiFact / FactCheck analyses of the SAVE Act and married women
These are not original studies, but they are useful fact-checking syntheses. PolitiFact cites the Brennan Center’s 2006 finding that 34% of women lack access to proof of citizenship with their current legal name, and explains why married women who changed their names could face extra documentation steps under proof-of-citizenship registration rules. FactCheck.org similarly concludes that married women and others who changed names may face difficulty because of ambiguity about acceptable documents
4. Center for American Progress / SAVE Act analyses
CAP and related reporting use the broader estimate that as many as 69 million married women in the U.S. have changed their legal name since marriage, meaning their birth certificates may not match their current legal names. That number does not mean all 69 million would be unable to vote, but it does identify the population that could face extra proof/name-change burdens if a birth certificate or similar citizenship document must match current registration identity.
Since there is no problem to begin with, why do you support disenfranchising all those people?
Besides, the society you describe is more akin to how autocratic nations do business. Last I check, the founders didn't intend for America to be an autocracy.
I also note that in one of its rare acts if sanity, SCOTUS decided that the votes of people who voted before election day can have their votes counted.Why would an American woman or a man have a problem proving citizenship? The bill offers this language.
Accepted documents (as described in the bill language and summaries)
U.S. Passport (valid or expired, depending on implementation rules)
Certified U.S. birth certificate (showing birth in the United States or its territories)
Certificate of Naturalization (for naturalized citizens)
Certificate of Citizenship (for people who derived citizenship through parents)
Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) (for U.S. citizens born overseas to U.S. parents)
Certain REAL ID–compliant driver’s licenses or IDs ONLY if they clearly indicate U.S. citizenship (this is a key limitation—most REAL IDs do not prove citizenship by themselves)
Military ID + supporting documents may be accepted in some interpretations, but military ID alone is not enough unless it explicitly verifies citizenship status.
In my view, it is important to realize that voting is a privilege; if it takes obtaining a document that will provide proof of citizenship, it is well worth it to have the privilege to vote.
Regarding the Brennan Center--- Where bias concerns come in
The Brennan Center is a policy advocacy organization, not a neutral polling institution. That means: They may select or emphasize survey results that support their policy positions (especially on voting rights and election access). Their interpretation of data can reflect a center-left policy perspective. Some critics argue that this can shape framing, even if the raw data is accurate.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) is widely described as a liberal or center-left policy organization. I have always found them very biaed.
PolitiFact and FactCheck are repeating concerns that come largely from advocacy-driven interpretations rather than evidence of how modern ID systems actually function in practice.
The Brennan Center statistic being cited is from 2006—nearly 20 years ago—and it assumes a static world where people lack access to basic identity documents indefinitely. That ignores the fact that today, most life events that require legal documentation (travel, employment, banking, healthcare, REAL ID compliance, passports, Social Security updates) already require people—married or not—to update or reconcile name changes. The idea that a large share of married women cannot document their identity under their current legal name is not supported by current administrative reality.
The concern about married women “struggling” with proof-of-citizenship requirements conflates having to provide documentation with being unable to do so. A name change does not erase citizenship or prevent document linkage. Marriage certificates, court orders, and updated state IDs already exist specifically to bridge that gap. The system already handles name transitions in far more demanding contexts than voter registration.
What these analyses tend to overlook is that election integrity standards already require identity verification in many other routine government functions. The question isn’t whether documentation is “possible,” but whether it is appropriate to require proof of citizenship at registration to ensure accuracy of voter rolls.
Framing this as uniquely burdensome to women is misleading. Any name change, male or female, marriage, or legal change follows the same documentation chain. Singling out married women creates a perception problem that doesn’t reflect how identity systems actually work.
In short, these fact-checks rely heavily on an older estimate and a worst-case interpretation, rather than demonstrating that married women as a group would be broadly unable to register or vote under a proof-of-citizenship standard.
Most European countries ensure that only citizens vote
by citizenship verified by the state. The list is long.I don't consider 2026 old, why do you?
The Brennen Center is a well respected organization who is known to do honest research. Organizations can lean a certain way and not be dishonest. Having a bias is not the same as saying its data or legal analysis is worthless. Courts, journalists, scholars, and policy analysts regularly use advocacy-group, such as Brennen Center, research when it is transparent, sourced, and consistent with other evidence. I use Cato's and Heritages research so long as I can see how they did. So, unless you can prove they are, I will assume you were just giving me a strawman.
Another strawman is saying 2006 data is no good without proving it is outdated. In this case, the key factual claim is supported by more than the 2006 Brennan report. Brennan reported in 2024 that a newer survey, conducted with VoteRiders, Public Wise, and the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, found that more than 9% of voting-age American citizens — about 21.3 million people — do not have proof of citizenship readily available, and at least 3.8 million do not have those documents at all because they may have been lost, stolen, or destroyed.
So the “this is just a 2006 statistic” attack is too broad. The married-name figure often traces to older work, but the broader “documentary proof is not readily available to millions” claim has a current evidentiary basis.
In this case, the key factual claim is supported by more than the 2006 Brennan report. Brennan reported in 2024 that a newer survey, conducted with VoteRiders, Public Wise, and the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, found that more than 9% of voting-age American citizens — about 21.3 million people — do not have proof of citizenship readily available, and at least 3.8 million do not have those documents at all because they may have been lost, stolen, or destroyed.
So the “this is just a 2006 statistic” attack is too broad. The married-name figure often traces to older work, but the broader “documentary proof is not readily available to millions” claim has a current evidentiary basis.
FactCheck’s treatment actually reflects that nuance. It did not say married women categorically could not register. It said the SAVE Act would require documentary proof of citizenship when registering or re-registering, identified accepted documents, and then said the bill may make registration harder — but not impossible for people with name changes.
Your Real ID argument is flawed badly. A REAL ID driver’s license is proof of identity and lawful status, but most REAL IDs do not affirmatively prove U.S. citizenship. Under the SAVE Act description summarized by FactCheck, a REAL ID-compliant ID would count only if it indicates U.S. citizenship, such as an enhanced driver’s license available in only a few states.
That is crucial.
Many people got REAL ID-compliant licenses by showing lawful presence documents, proof of address, Social Security number, and identity documents. But the card itself usually does not say: “U.S. citizen.” So the fact that many people have REAL ID does not mean they possess a voter-registration-ready proof-of-citizenship document under a documentary proof statute.
Likewise, employment, banking, healthcare, and Social Security updates may verify identity, work authorization, tax identity, address, or legal name. They do not necessarily produce a document that an election official can accept as documentary proof of citizenship.
he Senate version of the SAVE Act says an applicant using the mail voter-registration form or other covered registration forms shall not be registered unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in person to the appropriate election official by the registration deadline.
That is not a minor paperwork preference. It would change the registration process by making mail, online, registration drives, and many agency-based registrations dependent on a later in-person document presentation.
The bill also directs states to record the type of citizenship document presented, including issuance date, expiration date, issuing office, and unique identifying number. That reinforces that this is not simply “check a box and sign under penalty of perjury.” It is a documentary gatekeeping system.
So the burden argument is not imaginary. The statute’s own mechanics create it.
The best real-world test is not “can people theoretically get documents?” It is: what happened when a proof-of-citizenship registration requirement was actually tried?
Kansas tried a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement. The Tenth Circuit affirmed an injunction against it, holding that the law was preempted by the National Voter Registration Act and violated Equal Protection.
That litigation matters because it was not just advocacy speculation. It involved actual evidence about whether the requirement burdened eligible voters and whether the state’s asserted anti-fraud interest justified that burden.
So Brennan’s concern has a practical foundation: documentary proof rules can block or delay eligible voters, while the evidence of noncitizen voting remains very small.
I haven't mentioned other groups Republicans want to disenfranchise
1. Citizens without ready access to a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization certificate (like married women)
[b]2. People born at home, born in rural areas, or born under informal recordkeeping
3. Naturalized citizens
4. Young voters and first-time registrants.
5. Low-income voters
6. Disabled voters and elderly voters
7. Military families, students, and frequent movers
8. Disaster victims and people with unstable housing
There is some segment of each of those groups who won't be able to vote because you advocate solving a problem that you agree doesn't exist.
Congratulations on your recognition that Trump's claims of voter fraud are actual fraudulent in themselves.
I asked AI if the Save America Act is good or bad. Here is both sides of the story.
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/qT … kNBpfAehFuThe last line of the AI report says it all for me. "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “voter suppression bill.”"
When the AI is concerned enough about what a top liberal says about a conservative program to list it in arguments from critics, well, it just isn't pertinent. It is obvious who programmed the AI and just where in the political spectrum that program lies.That comment tells me clearly you have no understanding of how AI works.
You are omitting important points, Sharlee, this is about more than just an ID.
Under the proposed legislation, standard driver's licenses would no longer suffice for new voter registrations in most cases. Instead, applicants must present specific documents, including
:A U.S. passport.
A certified birth certificate.
Naturalization papers.
A Consular Report of Birth Abroad
Let’s be honest, shall we? This is a bit more involved than just an “ID”. Where do we cross the line between reasonable assurance verses voter harassment and erroneous disenfranchisement? Imagine that, all over an occurrence of illegal voting that occurs at 100 instances for a billion votes. This is a terrible attempt to add confusion and uncertainty to the process and i blame Republicans for this outcome. The Democrats that I favor will never allow this at all, let alone in a hurried fashion for partisan gain for the republicans.
This is rightwing politics and advocacy at its lowest and dirtiest.I think you're leaving out the other side of the discussion.
The bill isn't simply asking for "more ID"—it's requiring documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, which supporters argue is different from proving identity. Current law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, so the debate is really about how citizenship should be verified, not whether only citizens should vote.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the requirements are too burdensome or whether the problem they're trying to solve is significant enough to justify the change. But calling it "the dirtiest right-wing politics" dismisses the legitimate concern many Americans have about maintaining confidence in election integrity.
It's possible to support secure elections while also wanting safeguards so eligible voters aren't accidentally disenfranchised. Those two goals don't have to be mutually exclusive.Why are you so willing to spend the billions of dollars and inconvenience millions of Americans and disenfranchise millions more to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Sharlee, This supports Eso's reply to you.
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/KK … gmDvoVWNSvIt is the "legitimate" in "dismisses the legitimate concern many Americans have about maintaining confidence in election integrity." that logically fails
Yes, some Americans have concern about election integrity vis-a-vis non-citizens voting. But is that concern "legitimate"? How can it be given the factual data.
Many more Americans have a great deal of concern about election integrity vis-a-vis Trump's attempts to rig the election.I'm happy to discuss the issue, but simply posting a Copilot link isn't an argument.
Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with?
Do you disagree that only U.S. citizens should vote in federal elections? Do you disagree that current law already prohibits non-citizens from voting? Or do you disagree that the real debate is over how citizenship should be verified while minimizing the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters?
Those are the actual questions I raised. If you think I'm wrong, explain why, and let's discuss the facts rather than outsourcing the conversation to an AI-generated link.It's not about the questions you raised. It's about supporting Eso's comment about there is no issue with voter fraud. If you read the post instead of ignoring it, the statistics show from multiple states that Trump's Save America Act is not required to prevent voter fraud. The Act is Trump and Company's way of controlling the vote with unnecessary validations and burdens being placed on voters.
Comprehensive academic studies
Brennan Center for Justice (multiple studies, 2007–2022)
Large-scale analyses of elections across the U.S. found voter fraud rates between:
0.0003% and 0.0025%
That is 3 to 25 cases per million votes, or 3,000 to 25,000 per billion — but these include all fraud types, not just non‑citizen voting.
Non‑citizen voting specifically was found to be “vanishingly rare.”I think TDS (Trump Devotion Syndrome) is the real issue. The fact that it is not needed and that it will cause real harm to some voters is beside the point. If they are being honest, what is the point is that Trump wants it regardless of cost.
Logic total is against that Act. So all that is left is devotion.Thanks to you and my post, I'm beginning to realize that Trump tries to make his problems our problems. When in fact when you look at all the problems he has created, we the people are the ones who suffer from his decisions to protect himself.
He fires qualified people who can do their jobs with unqualified people who will protect him, thus creating more problems for we the people. That's what the Save America Act is all about. That's where we are with Iran. He fired all the qualified generals and replaced them with his lackey's who gave him bad advice that he wanted to hear. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.Have you read the book by Republican strategist Rick Wilson Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever
It was very informative.
I actually have not shared that I feel there is a problem with any form of widespread voter fraud. I don't feel there is or has been any fraud that would have affected an election outcome. In an earlier post on this thread, I shared with Cred. My thoughts on the Bill.
" Where the disagreement comes in is less about proving a widespread problem and more about what standard of protection election law should aim for. Supporters of measures like the SAVE Act argue that even rare instances can undermine public trust, and they want a uniform federal requirement (like documentary proof of citizenship) to ensure eligibility is verified the same way everywhere."
That is just my view on the Save Act. I feel it would certainly offer a way to public trust. I don't feel it is unreasonable to ask a person to provide their identity with a document, such as a birth certificate.
I think it is safe to say, and logical to think most Americans have a birth certificate. One needs a birth record to get a Social Security card to work and to become eligible for Social Security benefits."I actually have not shared that I feel there is a problem with any form of widespread voter fraud. I don't feel there is or has been any fraud that would have affected an election outcome." - The thing is, Sharlee, that your unflinching support of the so-called Save Act tells the rest of us a different story.
It would be one thing if the Act was neutral in its cost and impact, but it is not. It is, in fact, designed to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters and will cost billions.
What we see is that to support the Act, one must agree 1) there is a problem to solve and 2) with the practical outcome.
Also, I asked ChatGPT this question:
If a birth certificate is required to receive a social security card or passport, why don't all American citizens have one in their possession?
Its answer is:
"Because needing a birth certificate for certain transactions is not the same thing as every citizen continuously possessing one, knowing where it is, having a certified copy, or having one that matches their current name.
A few key points:
1. Many people got their Social Security cards before modern proof rules.
For older Americans especially, the SSN may have been issued decades ago under looser documentation practices. Today, an original Social Security card requires evidence of age, citizenship/immigration status, and identity, but that does not mean everyone who already has a card once produced a modern certified birth certificate.
2. A passport is optional.
Only a minority of Americans need one at any given time. To get a first-time passport, a U.S.-born applicant generally submits citizenship evidence such as a qualifying birth certificate or prior passport, plus photo ID. But millions of citizens have never applied for a passport because they have never needed one.
3. “Had one once” is different from “has one now.”
Birth certificates get lost in moves, divorces, fires, floods, family disputes, storage units, nursing-home transitions, or simply decades of paperwork drift. A person can be a citizen and still not have a certified copy in a drawer.
4. The government keeps the record; the person may not have the document.
A birth certificate is usually a state or county vital-records document. The official record may exist, but the citizen often has to request and pay for a certified copy. That can require ID, proof of relationship, correct name information, a mailed application, travel to a records office, or navigating an online system.
5. Name changes create mismatch problems.
A birth certificate may show a maiden name, birth name, adoption-related name, or pre-marriage name. That means the person may also need marriage certificates, divorce decrees, adoption records, court orders, or other “bridge” documents to prove that the person on the birth certificate is the same person trying to register, get ID, or get a passport.
6. Some people were never properly registered at birth or have delayed/irregular records.
This is less common today, but it matters for older, rural, poor, Native, home-born, or institution-born citizens. Some records were delayed, amended, misspelled, sealed, or inconsistently kept.
7. Cost and bureaucracy matter.
A certified copy may cost money, require transportation, time off work, internet access, a credit card, notarization, mailing delays, or dealing with a distant county. That is not impossible for most people, but it is a real barrier for some.
That is why the Brennan Center/VoteRiders/UMD/Public Wise survey found that 9.1% of voting-age U.S. citizens, about 21.3 million people, lack ready access to proof-of-citizenship documents such as a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or citizenship certificate. It also found that a smaller group lacks any such document at all."I support the bill; I feel it will offer trust in our voting system. I don't feel it should bae a hardship for anyone to vote; the greater majority of Americans have some proof of birth. If not, it would be a good idea for States to offer help in getting a proper ID to enable anyone who feels deprived. As I said, and as I shared frequently, I do not feel our nation has any widespread fraud. However, the bill would offer me trust in the system. Our nation has changed, and we doubled-digit undocumented migrants who could commit voter fraud. I feel good about passing laws that would protect our system. Just common sense in my book. I am hopeful the bill will be passed.
It's not about you. It's about we the people. Why do we need standards when the evidence shows that fraudulent voting is insignificant compared to legitimate votes?
I speak only for myself. I don't presume to speak for others. This is a discussion forum where we share our individual views.
As I've said, I believe the law could provide people who have concerns about election fraud with greater confidence in our voting system. It's not about me or you personally. I believe both of our views should matter.
If one accepts polling as a measure of public opinion, many polls show that a majority of Americans support requiring a photo ID to vote. One can only speculate why many support voter ID. Is it due to a lack of trust in our current voting laws? The polls do offer a shocking number of those who support voter ID for some reason. I am not going to speculate.
I would think that if this issue were put on the ballot, a majority would vote in favor of that safeguard. To me, that suggests many Americans have either lost some trust in the current system or, like me, believe that a photo ID requirement would increase confidence in elections and help address concerns about potential fraud, no matter how small.
Americans’ support for voting rules & safeguards
1. Voter ID requirements (one of the strongest results)
83% of Americans favor requiring photo ID to vote
Republicans: 95% favor
Democrats: 71% favor
This is one of the most consistently high-supported election policies in U.S. polling.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … hatgpt.com
Recent national polls have found that about 80–84% of Americans support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote, including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents
Pew's 2025 survey also found support across party lines:
95% of Republicans
71% of Democrats
84% of Independents supported requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot."As I shared, I feel the law could offer those who have a different view of fraud in our elections a form of trust in the voting system. " - AND I will argue that only counts if there view is based on facts and not what Trump says.
And you are absolutely misusing statistics to mislead everybody. You get your results ONLY when the question is about "Voter ID" and nothing else
What % of Americans favor disenfranchising voters?
What % of Americans favor ending mail-in-balloting, which that Act does?
Fortunately, enough Senate Republicans understand the terrible impact of the so-called "SAVE" act that it will probably not get passed the filibuster.":" - AND I will argue that only counts if there view is based on facts and not what Trump says." ESO
You can argue till the cows come home. Neither you nor me have any right to assume we know how any individual comes to their personal views.
I asked your question of ChatGPT
"What % of Americans favor disenfranchising voters?"
"If you're asking:
"What percentage of Americans favor disenfranchising voters by requiring photo ID to vote?"
the answer is:
No major poll asks that question, because it assumes the policy's effect rather than asking about the policy itself.
What polls do ask is whether Americans support requiring photo ID to vote. The results are consistently high:
84% support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote (Gallup 2024).
79% supported photo ID in Gallup's 2022 poll.
80% supported photo ID in Gallup's 2016 poll.
Whether voter ID laws disenfranchise voters is not something a poll can establish. It is a matter of research and legal debate.
Supporters argue that requiring ID verifies identity, protects election integrity, and does not disenfranchise voters if IDs are readily available.
Opponents argue that some eligible voters—particularly those who lack identification or face barriers to obtaining it—may be prevented from voting.
So it would not be accurate to say:
"84% of Americans favor disenfranchising voters."
The accurate statement is:
"About 84% of Americans favor requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID before voting."
Whether that policy would disenfranchise some voters is a separate question that people, courts, and researchers continue to debate. Supporting voter ID is not the same thing as supporting disenfranchising eligible voters." ChatGPT
The act does not stop mail-in ballots --- there is a segment of the population that can use mail-in ballots, for various reasons.
I have no prediction if the bill will pass.You should care how people come to their personal views. if there views and votes are based on lies, that has real world harmful consequences as we see with the election of Donald the felon and sexual predator[.b] Trump.
Sorry for the typo. I meant "registration" and not "voting". The Save Act requires for people to register on-line or by mail to [b]go in person with their proof of citizenship. That effectively prevents roughly 23 million people from registering to vote the way they are used to or is easiest for them.
If you support the Save Act that is exactly the same as supporting disenfranchising voters because that is one of the outcomes.. The Brennan and other studies verify that as does the experience Kansas had (see PeoplePowers CoPilot result).
I have noticed that Trump's decision making always has unintended consequences, partly because he has advisors who tell him information that he wants to hear. He has done that with immigration, Iran, tariffs, et al. That's because he has hired people whose only qualification is loyalty, admiration, and validation to Trump.
I know you want my opinion, but my opinion is not worth anything. I would much rather do research and analysis with AI. So, based on that I asked AI what would be the unintended consequences if The Save America Act became law? Here are the results I got:
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/s6 … DYhY6bWWm6I copied what it said in case Sharlee or others had as much trouble as I did viewing it.
If the Save America Act (SAVE Act) became law, the unintended consequences would fall into five major buckets — administrative breakdown, mass voter disenfranchisement, litigation chaos, election delays, and a measurable partisan skew in who loses access to the ballot. These consequences arise even if one assumes zero malicious intent and evaluates the bill strictly on mechanics, logistics, and historical precedent.
Below is a structured, evidence‑driven breakdown tailored to what you’re reading in the HubPages thread .
Well, I go with the data and can say I know it is a hardship and I don't see any reason why they need to be burdened by a piece of useless legislation whose ONLY purpose is to disenfranchise certain voters.
I shared data in my comment to PeoplePower. It seems the context of your words suggests it would be a hardship for you. Could you share why?
What data? You had no data to show that there is a problem or that Americans want to disenfranchise voters or do other harm. All you shard was the obvious, people (including me) want some sort of ID at the voting booth or registration, that is a no-brainer.
How do my words suggest that? I am a well to-do White guy and face few of the obstacles so many others face.I've found analyses predicting possible disenfranchisement, but I haven't found a national poll. One could certainly have an opinion on what problems could occur under the bill. However, again, this is an unknown. I feel the polls give the opinion that voter ID should be required. I would hope those who participated in the poll would have considered the consequences and weighed the pros against the cons.
Here is what ChatGPT offered
My question ---There must be a poll on whether the Save Act bill disenfranchised some voters
"I looked specifically for polling that asks whether the SAVE Act would disenfranchise eligible voters.
I could not find a credible scientific poll that asks that question directly. Instead, the polling falls into two categories:
Support or opposition to the SAVE Act.
Support for individual provisions like proof of citizenship and voter ID.
For example:
A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found 71% of registered voters supported the SAVE America Act as described in the survey.
A Rasmussen Reports poll found 63% of likely voters supported the SAVE Act.
However, FactCheck.org makes an important observation about polling:
Support depends heavily on how the question is asked. People often support voter ID or proof of citizenship in the abstract, but responses can change if they're asked whether eligible voters should lose the right to vote because they lack certain documents.
What I didn't find was a reputable poll asking something like:
"Do you believe the SAVE Act will disenfranchise eligible voters?"
"Do you think you or someone you know would be unable to vote because of the SAVE Act?"
Those claims are generally made by advocacy groups and policy analysts, not measured through public opinion surveys.
If someone claims, "Millions of people believe they'll be disenfranchised," a fair response is:" ChatGPT
Have you found any polls on the subject?
Chasing after 1 voter in 10 million?
How is all of this going to happen in 4 months even it it is passed?
ESO and PeoplePower explained to you how regular people will not be able to gather the necessary documents in time to have all this implemented by November. It is unwieldy and impractical. I don’t see any effort in this bill to prevent eligible voters from being accidentally disenfranchised. I hope that it fails in a spectacular way
The verification process for millions of people involved is far beyond presenting a photo state issued ID and can never be fairly addressed in the short time frame between now and November. I say that under the pressure and the rush, the goals are mutually exclusive, but they need not be over a reasonable amount of time for people to prepare.
I still say that the thrust of all this is underhanded. That is my opinion.I understand your concerns about implementation and timing. If Congress were to require a new verification process before an election with only a few months' notice, I would agree that it could create unnecessary problems. The timeline is a legitimate issue to debate.
Where I disagree is with the conclusion that the intent is "underhanded." Wanting to verify that only eligible U.S. citizens are registered to vote is not, by itself, evidence of bad faith. Election laws should balance two important goals: protecting the integrity of elections while ensuring every eligible citizen can vote.
You also said there is no effort in the bill to prevent eligible voters from being accidentally disenfranchised. Respectfully, that isn't what the bill says. It specifically requires states to establish an alternative process for applicants who cannot produce one of the standard citizenship documents, a process for resolving documentation discrepancies such as name changes due to marriage, adoption, or court order, allows applicants to submit additional evidence to establish citizenship, requires reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, and directs the Election Assistance Commission to issue guidance to help states implement the law.
Whether those safeguards are sufficient, whether states will implement them well, and whether the timeline is realistic are all fair questions. But saying the bill makes no effort to protect eligible voters isn't supported by the text of the legislation. The real debate is whether these safeguards are adequate, not whether they exist.
Here are the principal safeguards in the SAVE Act and where to find them in the bill. These are the provisions you can cite if someone claims the bill contains no protections for eligible voters.
Alternative process for people who don't have the standard documents
Section 2(f) – New Section 8(j)(2)(A) of the National Voter Registration Act.
Requires every state to establish a process allowing an applicant who cannot provide the required documentary proof of citizenship to submit other evidence of citizenship, along with an attestation under penalty of perjury. Election officials must evaluate that evidence and determine whether citizenship has been established.
Process for documentation discrepancies
Section 2(f) – New Section 8(j)(2)(B).
Requires states to establish a process for applicants whose documents don't match—for example, because of marriage, adoption, or a legal name change—so they can provide additional documentation to prove citizenship.
Reasonable accommodations for voters with disabilities
Section 2(d) (amending voter registration requirements).
Requires states, in consultation with the Election Assistance Commission, to make reasonable accommodations so individuals with disabilities can present proof of citizenship.
Election Assistance Commission guidance
Section 3.
Requires the Election Assistance Commission to issue implementation guidance to the states within 10 days after enactment to help administer the new requirements.
Multiple forms of acceptable proof of citizenship
Section 2(a).
The bill recognizes several types of documentation, including:
Certain REAL ID-compliant IDs that indicate U.S. citizenship;
U.S. passports;
Military ID plus qualifying military records;
Government-issued photo ID used with documents such as a certified birth certificate, hospital birth record, adoption decree, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Naturalization Certificate, Certificate of Citizenship, and certain tribal documentation.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-con … hatgpt.com
I have read this bill, which I recommend others here to do. The media is taking selective parts of the bill and leaving out important information.
Have you read the bill other than what you are reading here? The bill does cover the concerns that ESO and PeoplePower have shared.
I did offer polls that would indicate the Majority of Americans would like to see voter ID as a law. Now, does this handle the concern of some feeling disinfracized? Perhaps not, but it does say they agree that photo ID should be required to vote. I've found analyses predicting possible disenfranchisement, but I haven't found a national poll. I think the polls on voter ID should stand to share what Americans feel about that part of the bill."Wanting to verify that only eligible U.S. citizens are registered to vote is not, by itself, evidence of bad faith." - to the rest of us, it is proof positive when there is no need to and it is well known that doing so will hurt millions of current voters.
"to the rest of us" you sure about that? Do you feel you can speak for others who post here?
You are trying to be cute again. You know exactly what I mean. But, if you must - The rest of us sane people who aren't brainwashed. Is that better/
Since it isn't an issue, I like the current way of doing it - certifying you are a citizen under penalty of perjury. It has worked for 250 years, it will work for a few more.
Fun Fact: Over the last several decades there are less than 100 federal cases of voter registration perjury according to ChatGPT.
The obvious point is to keep people like you from voting, Credence.
If they were serious, they would be doing nothing since no problem exists to solve. Logic dictates that their motivation lies elsewhere - specifically making it harder for Democratic-leaning voters from voting.
Sharlee, do you at least agree there is no problem to solve as the conservative Heritage Foundation makes clear?
The silver lining of this SCOTUS ruling removing over 100 years of precedence and overruling the will of Congress is that the next Democratic president (in 2028) can fire every single Republican at all agencies under the Executive including, I suppose, DoD. A complete wipe out of Trump's deep state.
"Supreme Court expands Trump’s power to fire officials but allows Lisa Cook to remain at Fed"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics … s-opinions"Trump heads to Mount Rushmore, where efforts to impose his likeness have stalled"
As America's dictator, I am surprised he doesn't just order it to be done.
"He’s brought it up jokingly at campaign rallies, posted hints on social media and called it a “good idea.” He even raised the possibility with South Dakota’s governor during his first term, saying to then-Gov. Kristi Noem during an Oval Office meeting: “Do you know it’s my dream to have my face on Mount Rushmore?”
“I started laughing,” Noem recalled in a 2018 interview with the Argus Leader. “He wasn’t laughing, so he was totally serious. … I said, ‘Come pick out a mountain.’”"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/03/politics … t-rushmoreTrump’s ugly mug on Rushmore? Don’t make me laugh….
You noticed that Noem offered to find him "another mountain"", lol.
I hope Lincoln's nose falls off and hits him on the head. Maybe that will knock some common sense into him. His narcisssism is at its peak and so is his master-con artist. It can't get much worse or maybe it can.
Sadly, he has got two and half more years to deepen the grave he as put American in.
A very poignant and all encompassing opinion piece by Juan Williams, which confirms my attitude that Trump, Republicans and Trumpers, are not to be given so much as any quarter from my side, as being without honor. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING needs to be our new mantra. There can be no compromise with a man or party that operates this way.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/art … 00576.htmlJust my view --
I read the article, and while I understand why some people are concerned, I think it asks readers to accept speculation as if it were established fact. There is an important difference between discussing what *could* happen and claiming it is likely to happen without evidence.
What struck me most is that the article overlooks the very constitutional safeguards that worked in 2020. Mike Pence refused to exceed his constitutional authority. Brad Raffensperger stood by Georgia's certified results. Bill Barr publicly stated the DOJ had not found widespread fraud that would have changed the election. Numerous judges, including many appointed by Trump, rejected election challenges that lacked sufficient evidence. Those examples demonstrate that our system of checks and balances functioned, even under intense political pressure.
The article also assumes a chain of future events, Republicans lose, Trump refuses to accept it, congressional leaders go along with him, and the courts allow it, without presenting evidence that this is an actual plan rather than a hypothetical scenario. That may be an interesting opinion, but it isn't proof.
I also noticed that the article only examines one side's potential abuses of power. If we're going to have an honest conversation about protecting our republic, we should also be willing to discuss concerns about executive overreach, government agencies exceeding their authority, censorship, selective enforcement of the law, and the growing concentration of power in Washington. Those concerns are just as real to millions of Americans.
I don't take my political cues from any party or politician. I've criticized President Trump when I believed he was wrong, just as I'm willing to criticize Democrats when I believe they're wrong. At this point, my loyalty is to the Constitution, equal application of the law, and individual liberty, not to any politician or party.
Healthy skepticism is important. But skepticism should apply to opinion articles, too. I prefer to judge issues on evidence rather than assumptions, regardless of which side is making the argument.
Are we becoming too dependent on opinion pieces and forgetting to think critically for ourselves?Here is the clear text version of my question to AI about the unintended consequences of the Save America Act if it becomes law.
The **short answer**:
If the Save America Act (SAVE Act) became law, the *unintended consequences* would fall into **five major buckets** — administrative breakdown, mass voter disenfranchisement, litigation chaos, election delays, and a measurable partisan skew in who loses access to the ballot. These consequences arise **even if one assumes zero malicious intent** and evaluates the bill strictly on mechanics, logistics, and historical precedent.
Below is a structured, evidence‑driven breakdown tailored to what you’re reading in the HubPages thread [hubpages.com](https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … n?page=100).
---
1. Large‑scale disenfranchisement of eligible voters
The SAVE Act requires **documentary proof of citizenship** (birth certificate, passport, naturalization papers, CRBA). That sounds simple until you look at the numbers:
- **21.3 million voting‑age citizens lack ready access to proof‑of‑citizenship documents** (Brennan Center / VoteRiders / UMD / Public Wise).
- Millions more have mismatched names, lost documents, or delayed birth records — especially:
- elderly Americans
- rural residents
- Native Americans
- low‑income voters
- people born at home or in hospitals that no longer exist
- people whose documents were lost in moves, fires, floods, divorces, etc.
These voters are **not less American** — they simply don’t have the paperwork in hand.
The SAVE Act would block them from registering or force them into a bureaucratic gauntlet that many will not complete.
**Unintended consequence:**
A massive, uneven purge of legitimate voters — not because they’re ineligible, but because they lack paperwork that the federal government itself never required them to keep.
---
2. Administrative overload and multi‑billion‑dollar costs
States would suddenly need to:
- verify millions of documents
- process millions of new requests for certified birth certificates
- handle name‑change documentation
- resolve mismatches between state vital records and federal databases
- retrain election staff
- redesign registration systems
- build new verification infrastructure
This is **not free**. It is not even cheap.
Election administrators across red, blue, and purple states have warned that documentary‑proof‑of‑citizenship requirements create **massive administrative burdens** and **slowdowns**.
**Unintended consequence:**
Election offices collapse under the weight of new requirements, causing delays, errors, and inconsistent enforcement.
---
3. Litigation explosion
The SAVE Act would trigger:
- constitutional challenges (14th Amendment, 24th Amendment, NVRA conflicts)
- federal vs. state authority disputes
- emergency injunctions
- lawsuits over mismatched documents
- lawsuits over rejected registrations
- lawsuits over discriminatory impact
- lawsuits over implementation timelines
Kansas tried a similar law (Kobach’s proof‑of‑citizenship requirement).
Federal courts struck it down after finding **tens of thousands of legitimate voters were blocked** and the state could not demonstrate a real problem.
**Unintended consequence:**
Years of court battles, inconsistent enforcement across states, and uncertainty about who is allowed to vote.
---
4. Election delays and chaotic rollouts
Even if states *wanted* to comply, they cannot instantly:
- issue millions of certified documents
- update registration systems
- verify citizenship in real time
- resolve mismatches
- train staff
- educate voters
- build new databases
The SAVE Act does not provide realistic timelines or funding.
**Unintended consequence:**
Election bottlenecks, long lines, rejected ballots, and widespread confusion — especially in the first 2–3 election cycles.
---
5. A predictable partisan skew — even if unintended
The SAVE Act disproportionately affects:
- elderly voters
- low‑income voters
- urban voters
- Native American voters
- students
- people who move frequently
- people without cars
- people who never needed a passport
- people whose birth records are in distant counties
These groups do not distribute evenly across parties.
Even if the bill’s authors claim neutrality, the *effect* is not neutral.
**Unintended consequence:**
A measurable shift in the electorate caused not by persuasion or turnout, but by paperwork barriers.
---
6. Undermining trust — the opposite of its stated goal
The SAVE Act is marketed as a trust‑building measure.
But when millions of eligible voters suddenly lose access to the ballot, trust **drops**, not rises.
You can already see this dynamic in the HubPages thread:
Supporters say it “builds confidence,” while opponents point out that it solves a problem that data shows does not exist. [hubpages.com](https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … n?page=100)
When a law creates visible harm to real voters, the public interprets it as manipulation — not protection.
**Unintended consequence:**
The Act deepens distrust in elections, especially among those who lose access.
---
7. A federal takeover of state election authority
The SAVE Act overrides state registration rules and imposes a federal standard.
States with:
- same‑day registration
- automatic registration
- mail‑in registration
- tribal ID systems
- non‑documentary citizenship verification
- DMV‑based registration
- student‑ID‑based registration
…would all be forced to change their systems.
**Unintended consequence:**
A major shift in federal–state balance, likely triggering resistance from states that normally oppose federal election mandates.
---
8. Increased vulnerability to election sabotage
When you create a system that requires:
- fragile paperwork
- slow bureaucratic processes
- name‑matching
- document verification
- multi‑agency coordination
…you create **new attack surfaces**.
Bad actors could:
- flood states with fake document requests
- overwhelm verification systems
- exploit mismatches
- target vulnerable populations
- create confusion about eligibility
**Unintended consequence:**
The SAVE Act unintentionally creates *more* ways to disrupt elections.
---
9. Harm to military, overseas, and disabled voters
The SAVE Act interacts poorly with:
- UOCAVA voters
- overseas citizens
- military personnel
- disabled voters
- homebound voters
- voters who rely on mail‑in ballots
Many of these groups already face documentation challenges.
**Unintended consequence:**
Reduced participation among groups that historically vote at high rates and rely on flexible registration systems.
---
10. No measurable benefit
All available data shows:
- non‑citizen voting is **vanishingly rare**
- voter fraud is **statistically insignificant**
- documentary proof requirements do **not** meaningfully reduce fraud
- states with strict ID laws do **not** have lower fraud rates
- states with flexible registration do **not** have higher fraud rates
So the SAVE Act imposes enormous costs and harms **without solving a real problem**.
**Unintended consequence:**
A law that creates massive disruption but produces no measurable improvement.
---
Final takeaway
The SAVE Act’s unintended consequences are not hypothetical — they are predictable based on:
- historical precedent (Kansas, Arizona)
- administrative realities
- demographic data
- court rulings
- state election director warnings
- academic research
- the logistical complexity of documentary‑proof systems
Even if one assumes good intentions, the SAVE Act would:
> **Disenfranchise millions, overwhelm election systems, trigger years of litigation, delay elections, and reduce trust — all to address a problem that data shows does not exist.**
If you want, I can also break down:
- how the SAVE Act differs from ordinary voter‑ID laws
- which specific populations would be most affected
- how states would have to change their systems
- what alternative policies *do* improve election integrity without disenfranchisement
Just tell me where you want to go next.
The **short answer**:
If the Save America Act (SAVE Act) became law, the *unintended consequences* would fall into **five major buckets** — administrative breakdown, mass voter disenfranchisement, litigation chaos, election delays, and a measurable partisan skew in who loses access to the ballot. These consequences arise **even if one assumes zero malicious intent** and evaluates the bill strictly on mechanics, logistics, and historical precedent.
Below is a structured, evidence‑driven breakdown tailored to what you’re reading in the HubPages thread [hubpages.com](https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … n?page=100).
---
1. Large‑scale disenfranchisement of eligible voters
The SAVE Act requires **documentary proof of citizenship** (birth certificate, passport, naturalization papers, CRBA). That sounds simple until you look at the numbers:
- **21.3 million voting‑age citizens lack ready access to proof‑of‑citizenship documents** (Brennan Center / VoteRiders / UMD / Public Wise).
- Millions more have mismatched names, lost documents, or delayed birth records — especially:
- elderly Americans
- rural residents
- Native Americans
- low‑income voters
- people born at home or in hospitals that no longer exist
- people whose documents were lost in moves, fires, floods, divorces, etc.
These voters are **not less American** — they simply don’t have the paperwork in hand.
The SAVE Act would block them from registering or force them into a bureaucratic gauntlet that many will not complete.
**Unintended consequence:**
A massive, uneven purge of legitimate voters — not because they’re ineligible, but because they lack paperwork that the federal government itself never required them to keep.
---
2. Administrative overload and multi‑billion‑dollar costs
States would suddenly need to:
- verify millions of documents
- process millions of new requests for certified birth certificates
- handle name‑change documentation
- resolve mismatches between state vital records and federal databases
- retrain election staff
- redesign registration systems
- build new verification infrastructure
This is **not free**. It is not even cheap.
Election administrators across red, blue, and purple states have warned that documentary‑proof‑of‑citizenship requirements create **massive administrative burdens** and **slowdowns**.
**Unintended consequence:**
Election offices collapse under the weight of new requirements, causing delays, errors, and inconsistent enforcement.
---
3. Litigation explosion
The SAVE Act would trigger:
- constitutional challenges (14th Amendment, 24th Amendment, NVRA conflicts)
- federal vs. state authority disputes
- emergency injunctions
- lawsuits over mismatched documents
- lawsuits over rejected registrations
- lawsuits over discriminatory impact
- lawsuits over implementation timelines
Kansas tried a similar law (Kobach’s proof‑of‑citizenship requirement).
Federal courts struck it down after finding **tens of thousands of legitimate voters were blocked** and the state could not demonstrate a real problem.
**Unintended consequence:**
Years of court battles, inconsistent enforcement across states, and uncertainty about who is allowed to vote.
---
4. Election delays and chaotic rollouts
Even if states *wanted* to comply, they cannot instantly:
- issue millions of certified documents
- update registration systems
- verify citizenship in real time
- resolve mismatches
- train staff
- educate voters
- build new databases
The SAVE Act does not provide realistic timelines or funding.
**Unintended consequence:**
Election bottlenecks, long lines, rejected ballots, and widespread confusion — especially in the first 2–3 election cycles.
---
5. A predictable partisan skew — even if unintended
The SAVE Act disproportionately affects:
- elderly voters
- low‑income voters
- urban voters
- Native American voters
- students
- people who move frequently
- people without cars
- people who never needed a passport
- people whose birth records are in distant counties
These groups do not distribute evenly across parties.
Even if the bill’s authors claim neutrality, the *effect* is not neutral.
**Unintended consequence:**
A measurable shift in the electorate caused not by persuasion or turnout, but by paperwork barriers.
---
6. Undermining trust — the opposite of its stated goal
The SAVE Act is marketed as a trust‑building measure.
But when millions of eligible voters suddenly lose access to the ballot, trust **drops**, not rises.
You can already see this dynamic in the HubPages thread:
Supporters say it “builds confidence,” while opponents point out that it solves a problem that data shows does not exist. [hubpages.com](https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … n?page=100)
When a law creates visible harm to real voters, the public interprets it as manipulation — not protection.
**Unintended consequence:**
The Act deepens distrust in elections, especially among those who lose access.
---
7. A federal takeover of state election authority
The SAVE Act overrides state registration rules and imposes a federal standard.
States with:
- same‑day registration
- automatic registration
- mail‑in registration
- tribal ID systems
- non‑documentary citizenship verification
- DMV‑based registration
- student‑ID‑based registration
…would all be forced to change their systems.
**Unintended consequence:**
A major shift in federal–state balance, likely triggering resistance from states that normally oppose federal election mandates.
---
8. Increased vulnerability to election sabotage
When you create a system that requires:
- fragile paperwork
- slow bureaucratic processes
- name‑matching
- document verification
- multi‑agency coordination
…you create **new attack surfaces**.
Bad actors could:
- flood states with fake document requests
- overwhelm verification systems
- exploit mismatches
- target vulnerable populations
- create confusion about eligibility
**Unintended consequence:**
The SAVE Act unintentionally creates *more* ways to disrupt elections.
---
9. Harm to military, overseas, and disabled voters
The SAVE Act interacts poorly with:
- UOCAVA voters
- overseas citizens
- military personnel
- disabled voters
- homebound voters
- voters who rely on mail‑in ballots
Many of these groups already face documentation challenges.
**Unintended consequence:**
Reduced participation among groups that historically vote at high rates and rely on flexible registration systems.
---
10. No measurable benefit
All available data shows:
- non‑citizen voting is **vanishingly rare**
- voter fraud is **statistically insignificant**
- documentary proof requirements do **not** meaningfully reduce fraud
- states with strict ID laws do **not** have lower fraud rates
- states with flexible registration do **not** have higher fraud rates
So the SAVE Act imposes enormous costs and harms **without solving a real problem**.
**Unintended consequence:**
A law that creates massive disruption but produces no measurable improvement.
---
Final takeaway
The SAVE Act’s unintended consequences are not hypothetical — they are predictable based on:
- historical precedent (Kansas, Arizona)
- administrative realities
- demographic data
- court rulings
- state election director warnings
- academic research
- the logistical complexity of documentary‑proof systems
Even if one assumes good intentions, the SAVE Act would:
> **Disenfranchise millions, overwhelm election systems, trigger years of litigation, delay elections, and reduce trust — all to address a problem that data shows does not exist.**
If you want, I can also break down:
- how the SAVE Act differs from ordinary voter‑ID laws
- which specific populations would be most affected
- how states would have to change their systems
- what alternative policies *do* improve election integrity without disenfranchisement
Just tell me where you want to go next.
formattingYou obviously put a lot of thought into this, and I appreciate the time it took to write. But I think your conclusion relies more on prediction than on what the bill actually says.
Nearly every point is framed as what *would*, *could*, or *might* happen. Those are forecasts, not established facts. By that standard, almost any piece of legislation could be criticized based on hypothetical unintended consequences. The more important question is whether those concerns are likely enough to outweigh the bill's intended purpose.
I also think your analysis is incomplete because it doesn't appear to consider provisions in the bill that were included to address some of the very concerns you raise. For example, the bill requires states to establish an alternative process for applicants who don't have the standard proof-of-citizenship documents. It also provides a process for resolving documentation discrepancies, such as name changes, requires reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, and requires election officials to notify applicants of missing documentation and explain how they can complete their registration. Whether those safeguards are sufficient is certainly open to debate, but they deserve to be part of the discussion.
You also assume there is no meaningful problem to solve because non-citizen voting is described as "rare." But election laws aren't only about catching large numbers of fraudulent votes. They're also about creating standards that strengthen confidence in the integrity of the election process. We use safeguards in many areas of life, not because violations happen every day, but because people expect reasonable protections to be in place.
As for the paperwork argument, proving citizenship isn't an unusual requirement. Americans routinely provide documentation for passports, employment, Social Security, Medicare, driver's licenses, and many other government services. If implementation creates unnecessary barriers, then those barriers should be addressed. That's an argument for improving the process, not necessarily rejecting the requirement itself.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether this bill is the best approach. But I think it's important to distinguish between what the bill actually requires and predictions about what critics believe might happen. A balanced analysis should examine both the potential risks and the safeguards built into the legislation rather than focusing almost exclusively on worst-case scenarios.
I've shared my personal views on the bill and why I support many of its provisions. One area where I feel particularly strongly is voter ID, a measure that polls consistently show is supported by a large majority of Americans.
You've presented your concerns about the unintended consequences of the SAVE Act, and I understand that you strongly oppose the bill. I respect your right to hold that opinion, just as I hope you respect mine.
My purpose in replying wasn't to change your mind, but to explain how I arrived at my own conclusion. I considered what I see as both the benefits and the potential drawbacks. After weighing both sides, I believe the bill can help strengthen confidence in our election system for many Americans who have lost trust in it. Whether others agree or disagree, I think that's a legitimate goal worthy of discussion.I understand your arguments, Sharlee, and I even agree with some of them. But I cannot get past this point, and I suspect Credence cannot either: if this bill becomes law, it WILL, with mathematical certainty in the practical sense, disenfranchise some number of eligible voters greater than zero. The exact number would be a range, not a fixed figure. But zero is not a serious estimate. For a general election, the number could plausibly be around a million or more. And if the bill were passed tomorrow, with registration deadlines already approaching, a few hundred thousand to perhaps more than two million otherwise eligible citizens could be unable to register and vote in time
Given that there is not a problem in the first place, that, for me, is way too high a price to pay for something that is not needed.
If you want a more formal proof, I can provide it.I shared my view regarding voter fraud, and that I personally felt it was minuscule. However, after viewing polls regarding what Americans felt about Voter ID --- I have concluded that many(as the polls show) want voter ID. Perhaps for this reason, to restore faith in the system. Again, individual views would come into play.
Will some be disenfranchised ? I assume this could happen. I also feel the majority has spoken on the issue, and it is wise to saticfy majority. The perfect solution would be to put it to a nationwide vote.The constitution assigns the manner of how elections are conducted to the states, you can support these rules in your native Michigan, while California does its thing there to include mail in ballots, use of its own system to verify eligibility to cast a ballot, etc. The gargantuan manner of changing rules in all 50 states which vary, is not a good idea particularly in a rush.
Yes you did, and you said there was no fraud. That is backed up by several studies from the Right and the Left. Consequently, NO reasonable person should think there was fraud, don't you agree?
If Voter ID was the ONLY thing in the Save Act, you might have room to argue. But it is not. It is written to guarantee millions of voters will be disenfranchised AND to cost the states Billions trying to implement it.
It is a dangerous and costly bill.
As to the "majority has spoken". What if the "majority spoke" and said to nuke Russia. I assume you would go along with that to. And if you wouldn't why not? After all, the "majority as spoken".
As to restoring faith, after millions are disenfranchised, would not destroy faith?I have always believed that some level of voter fraud existed, but I also believed it was extremely limited—long before Trump was in politics. My view has been that our elections generally produced the correct winners, and that the small amount of fraud that may have occurred was not significant enough to change the outcome of an election.
I feel the comparison to something like "nuking Russia" is overly extreme. The consequences are not comparable. Nuclear action would involve mass death and destruction, while establishing stricter voting rules, whether one agrees with them or not, involves a debate over election procedures and access. The two issues are on completely different levels when it comes to potential harm.
You wrote:
"Nearly every point is framed as what *would*, *could*, or *might* happen. Those are forecasts, not established facts. By that standard, almost any piece of legislation could be criticized based on hypothetical unintended consequences. The more important question is whether those concerns are likely enough to outweigh the bill's intended purpose."
Here is the reason I asked AI about the unintended consequences of the Save America Act.
I have noticed that Trump's decision making always has unintended consequences, primarily because he has advisors who give him information that he wants to hear. He has done that with immigration, Iran, tariffs, et al. That's because he has hired people whose only qualification is loyalty, admiration, and validation to Trump while firing those who he sees as a threat and disagree with his agenda.
None of them including Trump use critical thinking to forecast the unintended consequences of their plans. They are basically knee-jerk reactions, especially in dealing with Iran. Good leadership and planning always takes into account the unintended consequences of critical decision makingI understand your point about why you asked AI to look at unintended consequences. I agree that good leadership requires looking beyond the immediate goal and considering second- and third-order effects. In fact, that type of analysis is essential in government, military strategy, and business decision-making.
Where I think we differ is in the conclusion you draw about Trump and his advisors. You argue that Trump's decisions have unintended consequences because he surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear, values loyalty over expertise, and does not engage in critical thinking. That may be your interpretation of his leadership style, but it is a separate argument from whether the specific concerns raised about the Save America Act are supported by evidence.
My original point was about the AI analysis itself. The response relied heavily on words like *would*, *could*, and *might*. Those are forecasts, not established facts. Forecasting possible problems is valuable, but those possibilities still need to be evaluated based on evidence, probability, and impact.
I agree that leaders should be challenged by advisors who are willing to point out risks and unintended consequences. A leader who only hears agreement can make poor decisions. But the standard has to be applied consistently: we should examine the actual evidence behind a policy's risks rather than assume those risks will occur based solely on our opinion of the person proposing it.
The strongest criticism of any administration, Trump's or anyone else's, is not simply that unintended consequences are possible. It is demonstrating that the decision-making process ignored credible warnings, failed to consider alternatives, or produced outcomes that could reasonably have been anticipated.The strongest criticism of any administration, Trump's or anyone else's, is not simply that unintended consequences are possible. It is demonstrating that the decision-making process ignored credible warnings, failed to consider alternatives, or produced outcomes that could reasonably have been anticipated.
———
Precisely, that is why Trump’s conduct in his private little war on Iran is a dismal failure.That's a standard that should be applied consistently, not only when the president is Donald Trump.
If you're going to call something a "dismal failure," you first have to identify the actual failure. What was the strategic objective, and was it achieved?
If the objective was to degrade Iran's nuclear program, damage key military infrastructure, and deter further aggression, then simply pointing out that risks existed or that there were possible unintended consequences isn't evidence of failure. Every military operation carries risks that analysts warn about beforehand.
By your own standard, you would need to show that the administration ignored credible warnings, rejected better alternatives, and that the negative outcomes you cite were both foreseeable and outweighed the operation's objectives. Simply declaring it a "private little war" doesn't establish any of that.
I have already shared my views on this war. From the beginning, I believed it should have been handled from a position of strength. Iran has a long history of lying, violating agreements, and proving itself unworthy of trust. Because of that history, I believed negotiating with them was the wrong approach.
I fully supported the objective of ensuring Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, even if military action ultimately became necessary to achieve that goal. My disagreement was never with the objective—it was with how it was pursued.
When you're dealing with an adversary, you don't ignore its history or its behavior. Sound strategy requires understanding the character of your opponent and planning accordingly. In my opinion, that is where this administration got it wrong from the very beginning.
I don't see any "speculation", do you Credence or PeoplePower?
If all those "safeguards" worked, why is Trump saying he didn't lose the 2020 election and, what is it, 66% of your side STILL agrees?
Did the article talk about "potential" abuses of power or abuses Trump has already committed.Alright, Sharlee, you are going to get my opinion.
What Constitutional safeguards? Trump should not have been in the area nor threatened Pence if he did not agree to break the law in the first place.
trump is guilty, period.
Yes, Raffensperger held his ground against Trump who illegally asked him to manufacture votes. For one aspiring to the Presidency, that is not the kind of behavior that we would normally accept. We know that happened, there is not tit for tat here, Sharlee, Trump is guilty.
Well those chain of events are pretty accurate, Trump loses, he whines about an unfair election that he has never been able to prove through any credible source that made judgement over it. Trump as chief executive should not have been taunting the system in the first place when it was proved without a doubt that he lost. Trump is guilty, no point in covering up for him here… how many of Trump sycophants in Congress went along with an unproven lie? They did it out of sheer cowardice and fear for their political fortunes. Nothing speculative about that, grown men and women supporting a well established lie?
Yes, the checks and balances just happened to work this time, but they were needlessly threatened in an unprecedented way and I blame Trump, MAGA and the Republicans.
So, what have the Democrats done that rises to what Trump and the Republicans have been and are doing? Obviously, the rest of us speculate, while YOU operate from factual data from “unbiased”sources? But i hear that a lot from conservative, they are the paragons of facts and truth, while the facts and truth of the other side are mere speculation and opinion and I don’t buy it. Believe it or not, i do think for myself and the preponderance of evidence, opinion and facts over the last 5 years strongly suggest a repeated pattern, Trump is to blame.
You criticize Trump when you believe he is wrong, I just believe that he is a lot more wrong about much more than you do. Am i accused of mere speculative thinking, while your logic and conclusions are irrefutable?
The opinion piece is just another confirmation of everything that i have seen and suspected from this administration #45 and #47.
I have been thinking critically, and critical thinkers do come to reasonable conclusions based on myriads of evidence rather than just cherry pick.
Your evidence is often subject to bias, what makes you believe that your “facts” are not assumptions.
Trump has beenthe very antithesis of loyalty to the Constitution, equal application of the law and individual liberty. He looks for every opportunity to break the guardrails as none of his predecessor never dared, and that is not a positive observation. For an “impartial” observer, you sure do run along with Trump a lot, excusing the inexcusable."Your evidence is often subject to bias, what makes you believe that your “facts” are not assumptions." Cred
Note that I headed my comment with --- Just my view. I rarely add facts that I don't source, and always strive to use context to make sure anyone who reads my comment would realize I am sharing a view.
I can agree that Trump breaks guardrails as none of his predecessor never dared, and yes, some of the time I run along with Trump, but because I evaluate each issue on its own merits, not because of blind loyalty.
Now --- I think you're arguing against a position I didn't take.
I never said President Trump did nothing wrong. In fact, I specifically cited Mike Pence, Brad Raffensperger, Bill Barr, and the courts because they demonstrated that the constitutional system functioned under extraordinary pressure. That was my point, not that the pressure didn't exist, but that the safeguards held.
Repeating "Trump is guilty" doesn't actually address what I wrote. Whether someone believes Trump committed crimes or acted improperly is a separate question from whether our constitutional system ultimately worked as designed.
You also say the article's hypothetical chain of events is "pretty accurate," but accuracy requires evidence, not assumptions. The article asks readers to believe that multiple independent institutions, state officials, Congress, and the courts will all fail in the future. That is certainly possible, but possibility is not proof. My point was simply that opinion pieces should distinguish between a hypothetical scenario and evidence that such a scenario is actually unfolding.
You also asked what Democrats have done that compares. I wasn't claiming the two parties are identical. I said that if we're discussing threats to constitutional government, we should be willing to examine executive overreach, government censorship concerns, selective enforcement, and the expansion of federal power, regardless of which party is in office. If we only scrutinize one side, we're practicing partisanship, not principled constitutionalism.
Finally, you suggested I "run along with Trump." I don't. I've criticized him when I believed he was wrong, and I said exactly that in my original comment. Assuming that anyone who questions an opinion article is "covering" for Trump doesn't encourage discussion; it discourages it.
Critical thinking means evaluating evidence consistently, even when it leads to conclusions we don't like. That's all I was advocating.
I was also kind enough to read the article you posted and respond to the points it raised rather than dismiss it outright. I focused my comments on the opinion piece itself and explained why I believe our constitutional system ultimately worked, even under tremendous strain. You may have overlooked that impeachment proceedings were brought after Trump's call to Raffensperger, which is another example of constitutional mechanisms being used to hold a president accountable. Whether one agrees with the outcome or not, those processes functioned. That's why I continue to believe our constitutional system held up remarkably well during one of the most difficult periods in modern American history.
I truly believe our system works, and in my view, Trump has not been set above it, but received the full brunt of it.
And here he is embarrassing us all over again by:
1. Laying claim to Greenland
2. Insulting NATO and our allies
3. Wanting to weaken the defenses against his friend and fellow autocrat Putin
Like ALL good AUTHORITARIANS, Trump wants his name plastered EVERYWHERE including insulting the name of a really great president, John F. Kennedy.
"Court again knocks down Trump’s demand for his name to go back on the Kennedy Center"
He is so embarrassed that his name was removed that he won't let people see the wall without his name on it. I wish there was a way to get them to rip down that obscene banner of him hanging in front ot the Department of Injustice.
Anybody who supports this desecration should be ashamed of themselves.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/politics … edy-center“He is so embarrassed that his name was removed that he won't let people see the wall without his name on it. I wish there was a way to get them to rip down that obscene banner of him hanging in front ot the Department of Injustice.”
Gee, ESO, now isn’t that dumb?
How’s this? Bernie Sanders withdrew his support for Platner’s campaign for Senator. Platner withdraws, meanwhile what about Paxton in Texas? Trump endorses him and while he stinks to high heaven. But Republicans, generally having not so much as an ounce of integrity, makes this highly corrupt and tainted man as their standard bearer. The difference in the parties is made evident in this case, Republicans welcome toxic candidates, Democrats do not.
Regardless, Republicans are breathing a sigh of relief, let them not be so confident. The Democrats need a viable replacement candidate quickly.
Susan Collins is a dangerous GOP type, passing herself off as being a moderate. That is As if “moderation” is part of the Republican lexicon. She has got to go and there can be no mistake about it.I saw this on Huffington Post yesterday. It is quite lengthy, but well worth the read. It shows how Trump is driven by his extreme narcissism to want his name plastered on everything and building monuments for himself.
After President Donald Trump arrived in Turkey on Tuesday, his attention quickly turned to some of his favorite topics: architecture and self-promotion.
“Just landing at the airport, to see such a beautiful airport, and to have a building named after me. I was very happy about that,” the president said during a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara.
(Note: It is unclear what building Trump was referring to as there do not appear to be any structures named after him in Ankara. There is a Trump Towers complex in Istanbul that was built in a license partnership with Trump.)
Only one day earlier, Trump had spoken about the choice to use his name for the Trump Accounts program. Although he claimed the branding was not his decision, the president admitted to demanding his cronies slap his name on things “in certain other cases” ― a comment that elicited knowing laughter from those in the room.
Indeed, Trump has a well-documented history of putting his name and signature aesthetic on seemingly as many things as possible. In his second presidential term, we’ve seen his name added to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the U.S. Institute of Peace renamed the Donald J. Trump U.S. Institute of Peace, massive banners with his face on government buildings, commemorative “Trump passports,” “Trump Gold Cards,” a “TrumpRx” website for discounted drugs, National Park Service annual passes with a picture of Trump and more.
This fixation on naming and branding is striking to many observers, not just because it defies longstanding norms for sitting presidents. Experts say it’s evocative of tendencies commonly seen in narcissistic individuals.
Although Trump has not, to public knowledge, ever received a formal diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, experts say he has displayed behavioral patterns consistent with narcissistic characteristics. And these highly public displays can help us explore, more broadly, what psychology tells us about this kind of behavior.
“As someone who has spent over 15 years helping survivors identify and document narcissistic behavior, the observable patterns here are hard to miss,” said Tina Swithin, author of “Divorcing a Narcissist: One Mom’s Battle.”
“The fixation on naming, on visible and permanent markers of significance, is consistent with what I describe to my clients as legacy-driven narcissistic supply. It is not enough to accomplish something. The accomplishment must be branded, displayed and permanently attributed.”
She pointed to the breadth of examples of this tendency for Trump.
“We are talking about someone who has spent decades putting his name on buildings, golf courses, steaks and airlines,” Swithin said. “That is not a coincidence. That is a pattern.”
Narcissistic supply refers to the attention, admiration and validation that narcissists rely on to maintain their sense of self. That’s why public image ― and the idea of permanently entrenching that image ― is so central.
Trump stands next to a bell before ringing it to open the New York Stock Exchange ahead of the launch of Trump investment accounts on July 6, 2026.
Trump stands next to a bell before ringing it to open the New York Stock Exchange ahead of the launch of Trump investment accounts on July 6, 2026.
“The visible recognition reinforces their self-image and signals to others that they deserve admiration. In their eyes, it legitimizes their worth,” said Marie-Line Germain, author of “Narcissism at Work: Personality Disorders of Corporate Leaders” and a professor of human resources and leadership at Western Carolina University.
For people with narcissistic tendencies, reputation is everything.
“It is not about what they have actually built or contributed,” Swithin said. “It is about how they are seen, talked about and remembered. The idea that their name could outlast them, attached to something visible and enduring, speaks directly to that insatiable need for significance. A quiet contribution to the world is not going to cut it.”
She emphasized that private acknowledgment “does very little” for a person with narcissistic tendencies because there’s no one else to witness it.
“The supply has to be public or it doesn’t count,” Swithin said. “A building, a monument, a named institution ― these are not just honors. They are permanent, physical declarations of importance that continue generating admiration long after the moment has passed. A simple thank you card is not going to satisfy someone who is two steps ahead, already mentally designing the plaque.”
There’s a difference between a healthy desire for recognition and narcissistic need.
Of course, it’s not unhealthy or abnormal to sometimes want to be appreciated or recognized for your efforts.
“A healthy desire for recognition is rooted in self-worth,” Swithin said. “It feels good to be seen and appreciated for meaningful contributions. That is a completely normal human experience.”
Psychiatrist Dr. Sue Varma noted that a healthy wish for recognition is generally based on someone’s hard work.
“It also doesn’t put down anyone else, but rather accurately identifies the giants whose shoulders they had to stand on,” she said. “Humility is often a part of it.”
Narcissists take this natural desire to a level of entitlement and need.
“The difference is that for most people, recognition is a bonus,” Swithin explained. “It is affirming, but it is not essential. A person with a secure sense of self can do meaningful work without needing the world to know about it.”
For people with narcissistic tendencies, by contrast, recognition is not simply a bonus.
“It is a requirement and functions more like oxygen than applause,” Swithin said. “Without it, the carefully maintained sense of self begins to crack.”
Therapist and “Disarming The Narcissist” author Wendy Behary emphasized that a narcissist often wants the public to admire them and even feel envious of all that they have accomplished.
“It’s about living in this grandiose fantasy where everyone is impressed with your magic, your majesty, your talent, your good looks, whatever it might be,” she said. “Because narcissists carry so much insecurity at the core of their existence, having that very large recognition, winning someone over, winning a competition is really crucial for their sense of well-being and their sense of acceptance.”
She added that narcissists also live in a very binary system of performance and achievement: You’re either better than everyone else, the best of the best ― or you’re nothing.
“There is no room at the top, and no one else in their eyes deserve recognition or gratitude for their accomplishments,” Varma said. “If they ever do recognize someone, it might be a deceased historical figure or said with humor and jest.”
When they recognize or thank a colleague or otherwise highlight their efforts publicly, that’s typically because the narcissist has something to gain from it.
“Those with extreme narcissistic traits may insist that a team win would not have happened without them,” Germain said. “If someone else gets credit in lieu of them, they become angry or just take credit for work they didn’t do. The spotlight isn’t something they just enjoy ― it’s something they can’t function without.”
As a result, they’re always looking for the next competition to win or opportunity to excel in order to keep that flow of attention and approval going.
“Because narcissists don’t have a solid identity or healthy self-esteem, they are constantly looking for the next, biggest, shiniest status symbol to signal to the world that they are special ― sprawling mansions, gold-plated plaques bearing their names on public edifices, a yacht or private jet that’s bigger than anyone else’s,” said Virginia Gilbert, a licensed marriage and family therapist specializing in high-conflict divorce and attachment trauma.
“When they receive recognition of their uniqueness through awe, praise or envy, this then reinforces their belief that they are superior. Their mood stays elevated ― temporarily ― and there is no threat to their identity.”
She emphasized that recognition is fleeting, however, so they continue to pursue bigger, better and flashier avenues for achievement.
“No amount of recognition ever fully fills the void because the need is insatiable,” Swithin said. “At its core, that insatiability is rooted in shame and an identity that depends entirely on external sources of validation to survive.”
She added that narcissism exists on a spectrum, and some genuinely prefer to work in the background. But the need for some kind of external validation or recognition still persists.
“Even at the lower end of the spectrum, you may see occasional self-centered behavior or subtle discomfort when they feel overlooked, even if they would never seek the spotlight,” Swithin said. “At the higher end of the spectrum, recognition stops being a preference and becomes a survival mechanism.”
Narcissists take external recognition to the next level.
Perhaps the most recognizable form of narcissism is known as “grandiose narcissism.” And for people with grandiose narcissistic tendencies in particular, ordinary-sized recognition doesn’t always cut it.
“For someone driven by an insatiable need for external validation, the bigger and more visible, the better,” Swithin said. “Subtlety is simply not in their vocabulary.”
She explained that their surroundings even become an extension of the narcissist’s self-image.
“The need to make things bigger, more ornate and more visible is an externalization of the internal world,” Swithin noted. “For a narcissist, the physical environment becomes a reflection and reinforcement of self-image. Bigger, grander and more impressive signals to the world, and more importantly to themselves, that they are exceptional.”
In May, a federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump could not slap his own name on the Kennedy Center.
In May, a federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump could not slap his own name on the Kennedy Center.
There’s a notable difference in priorities with narcissists as well.
“In general, non-narcissistic individuals care more about what those in their private life think of them than people they don’t know,” Gilbert said. “Toward the end of their life, they’re more concerned with having loved their family and friends well than they are about what future generations will think of them. Narcissists are usually not concerned with the question ‘Did I love well in the life that I had?’”
Having worked with survivors of narcissistic abuse, Swithin has seen how harmful patterns can show up in homes, courtrooms and beyond ― “the narcissistic partner who had to have the biggest house on the block, the most expensive car in the driveway, the most elaborately staged family photos for social media.”
“The image had to match the internal narrative of superiority, even when the reality behind closed doors told a very different story,” she said. “This also connects to control. Shaping the physical environment is a way of controlling the narrative. If everything around you reflects your greatness, it becomes harder for anyone, including yourself, to argue otherwise.”
On a political stage, this tendency may explain certain leaders’ fixation with ensuring their names and images are ubiquitous and associated with power and importance.
“Narcissists spent their whole time wanting to be seen, and there’s nothing more intoxicating than leaving a permanent mark in this world ― and that may include erecting buildings in their name,” Varma said.
“When the public sees something like a monument, a building, something glossy, something bright, something twinkling, you know it’s all about you,” Behary said. “You are that shiny object, you are that thing that they wish they could be. That is what lives in the fantasy of the grandiose narcissist. Everything is about being extraordinary. It’s about being recognized in a grandiose, over-the-top way ― in a way that even makes the recognition bigger than the actual contribution itself.”
That desire is at odds with the longstanding American tradition of not naming things after sitting presidents. This convention in many ways reflects a broader democratic value that individuals in power should subordinate their ego to public good and institutions.
Swithin noted that Trump’s disregard for these norms could be telling.
“Individuals with strong narcissistic tendencies often view rules and social customs as applying to everyone else,” she said. “Exceptionalism, in their worldview, exempts them from the boundaries that govern ordinary people.”
When that need for grandiose recognition is not met, the consequences can be severe.
How narcissists typically respond when they feel they aren’t getting sufficient credit for their achievements can also be significant.
“This is where the mask often begins to slip,” Swithin said. “When a narcissist feels their contributions are being overlooked or minimized, the response is rarely quiet disappointment. It escalates quickly into grievance, resentment, and retaliation.”
The flip side of the hunger for recognition is an intense reaction when that recognition feels insufficient or when someone else appears to be getting the credit instead.
“I see this play out constantly in the families I work with,” Swithin said. “The narcissistic co-parent who wasn’t acknowledged at a school event can turn that perceived slight into weeks of conflict. The one who feels the other parent is getting more credit for the children’s accomplishments will find a way to reclaim that spotlight, even if it means undermining everyone around them and impacting their own children.”
The reaction is typically disproportionate to the actual slight or situation.
“The wound being triggered is not really about the specific credit that was missed,” Swithin said. “It is about that deeper, core fear that they are not as significant as they need the world to believe they are. Poke that fear, even accidentally, and brace yourself.”
You might even see what experts refer to as “narcissistic collapse,” a psychological breakdown that occurs when a narcissist’s carefully constructed self-image is threatened or shattered.
“People with healthy self-esteem might still feel hurt or disappointed if their contributions go unnoticed, but this wounding is temporary and doesn’t challenge their entire identity,” Gilbert said.
She added that such individuals don’t typically lash out or seek revenge against those who don’t demonstrate recognition ― but narcissists do.
“When they feel they aren’t getting sufficient credit, they get angry, they get upset, they get defensive, they go on the counterattack, they become critical, they try to shift the agenda, they reshape things, they blame, they externalize,” Swithin said. “They don’t do competition well unless they are the winners, so when they feel they’re being snubbed, there’s retaliation usually in some form. Some of them will just shut down and detach. Most of them will typically try to retaliate, or they’ll become harshly critical.”
Remember that you are not responsible for a narcissist’s behavior, so be sure to protect yourself and avoid engaging or escalating whenever possible. Try to detach emotionally and understand the psychological mechanisms at play. When dealing with narcissists, knowledge is power.Yet another mental health expert warning us how dangerous Donald "the Felon and Sexual Predator" Trump is.
Since Trump can't direct the Republicans to do his bidding this time, he is going to POUT and take his ball and go home.
"Trump says he won’t sign housing bill that’s set to become law at midnight"
"President Donald Trump said Friday that he will not sign a bipartisan housing bill in protest of Republicans’ inability to advance separate elections overhaul legislation, dealing a major political blow to vulnerable lawmakers in his own party.
The housing bill is set to become law at midnight even without Trump’s signature. But GOP leaders had originally hoped to tout the moment as a historic economic achievement ahead of midterm elections that are likely to be defined by Americans’ concerns over the cost of living.
Instead, the sweeping legislation will now advance with minimal fanfare from a president who has dismissed it as “a yawn” and “so unimportant” compared to the elections legislation, which includes voter ID and proof-of-citizenship measures."
It really does seem Trump is doing EVERYTHING in his power to hand the midterms over to the Democrats.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/10/politics … using-bill
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 17 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 12 months ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 107
My Criticism of the Trump administration
by Jack Lee 8 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
- 1805
Who Cares About Trump's Affair with a Porn Star?
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
Seriously, is this something anyone cares about?This was something President Trump engaged in before he was President, so it shouldn't factor into anything other than another indictment of his character.Remember, he cheated on his first wife with his second wife, so having sex with a porn star...
- 29
This is how the left sees America after the Tuesday election.
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
This is from Bill Maher's transcript and it is what I suspect will happen after the Tuesday ElectionTuesday is election day and I know I should probably tell you to vote and what honest to God is really the most important election ever. So okay yes you should vote, and it should be for the one...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 12 months ago
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.Nationwide injunctionsIn the most...