Trump The AUTHORITARIAN
Is it not the nature of the beast? The template for the 21st century version of despotism is here on display. And people wonder why I cannot stand Trump. As always, I ask, just who does he think that he is?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tional-lawI can see why the 'teasers' in the Guardian article fired your jets. Did you do any follow-up to ensure the context didn't ruin the rant?
Just for info: Here's the NYT's Pres. Trump Interview Highlights Reel. It does a good job of offering the context behind each highlighted point.
I'm not sure which part triggered you first, but I bet you jumped up with an angry "Oh hell no!" when you saw this one:
"Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”*
*You better check the context before you go off on that one ;-)
GAGA, what context? The paragraph in italics, is that not what he said?
Is it always the case that we need an interpreter with a Trumpeze-english dictionary to hold him accountable for what he actually says?
why do conservatives always have to massage his comments to interpret them contrary to what he directly says?
So, I read the Times piece, what was the subtle context that was behind that comment that I missed?I didn't say there was mitigating context; I simply wondered if you looked deeper than the headlines. I'll forewarn you if you need to gird up for an argument. This was just for discussion.
When I read the part that included the quote, my thought was that, excepting our Constitutional limits, he's right. He might break the norms, but what's to stop him if he doesn't break laws?
To preempt an 'international law' argument, I bet it's fair to say that we both know the major nations only listen to the UN and ICC when it benefits them.
If Trump's actions are not deemed unconstitutional — in the realm of foreign affairs — who (other than our Congress) can stop him?
GAWell, GA, I got the gist of the story and there is no reprieve to be offered for Trump nor his statement.
So, this is OK with you, that this man should be able to make and interpret the laws as he sees fit, the very linchpin to tyranny and that does not concern you?
The most immoral man ever to assume the office of president wants us to rely on his faultless moral compass rather than the established laws both domestic and internationally?
Is it OK for Trump to go on a tyrannical rampage just because he is able to without opposition? Is this the conservative’s idea of what leadership is?
Can’t you folks see that this man is looking to accumulate power to himself.?I will have to review Nostradamus’ quatrains regarding future predictions and see where it speak of the orange faced usurper as the ruiner of the great nation. It has got to be there someplace.
The United States played a key role in the creation of the United Nations, real leadership finds a way to work within the framework of the gathering rather than dismiss it in favor of our own interests and agenda. If Russia, China and every other adversary big and small were doing this, you would all have “a cow”.
No, GA, might does not make right, at least not for long. Any bully can and will eventually be deposed whether it is on the playground or within the international community."I will have to review Nostradamus’ quatrains regarding future predictions and see where it speak of the orange faced usurper as the ruiner of the great nation. It has got to be there someplace."
I love it! It's not often these forums produce a belly laugh, but you did it!
Authorities report that earlier on the same day, Good had been following and confronting federal officers. In addition to her activism, Good was involved with “ICE Watch,” a Minneapolis-based group that monitors and opposes federal immigration enforcement, according to Homeland Security sources. The group reportedly operates in multiple sanctuary cities across the country.
There was a new video released today, being run on Fox. It shows Ms. Goods ' partner outside the car verbally berating ICE. The video is easy to find if one has an interest.
"Kristi Noem and Department of Homeland Security officials, federal authorities have publicly claimed that Renee Nicole Good had been following, “stalking,” blocking and interfering with ICE agents throughout the day before she was shot, and that she had impeded their work prior to the fatal encounter."
Source https://chatgpt.com/c/69615f07-b0a8-832 … c461d1e4e7Shar,
I saw a video that showed the ICE officer's perspective. I can honestly say I would have done the exact thing. She was coming at him with her vehicle and he did what he had to do to defend himself.
The democrat leadership is trying to make this a big deal to deter from the billions of dollars in fraud they are guilty for letting happen.
The democrats in Minneapolis have gotten an immigrant community, made them dependent on government money so they keep voting democrat. It makes sense the democrats would have to use immigrants who struggle with the American culture and language. Then they teach them how to commit fraud. The democrats keep the cycle of immigrants entering the country, voting for them and keeping them on government benefits.
democrats know nobody wants their ideas so they have to stoop this low to maintain their political power. Cheating and scamming for political success is catching up with the democrats. It's a shame but interesting to watch them implode.This is from substack. The only thing missing is immediately with out any evidence to support it, Trump always blames the radical left.
First came the gunshot. Then came the press release. In Trump’s America, the order is sacred: violence first, narrative immediately after. Before the blood has cooled on the pavement, the administration reaches for its most reliable tool: not evidence, not restraint, not even curiosity, but the smear. A woman is dead, and within minutes she has been promoted—posthumously—to “domestic terrorist,” a title now so broadly applied it seems to mean “anyone unfortunate enough to be killed by federal agents.”
This is not a bug in the system; it is the system. The Trump administration has refined the art of character assassination into a muscle memory. No investigation, no waiting for facts, no acknowledgment that armed agents of the state might possibly have erred. Instead, there is the ritual incantation: “self-defense,” “riot,” “terrorism.” Say it fast enough, loudly enough, and with enough confidence, and perhaps the public won’t notice the inconvenient videos, eyewitnesses, or basic laws of physics contradicting the official story...
Please tell me what you see in this video with your own eyes.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000 … =url-shareI think it is broader than that. If they simply don't like you, you are a domestic terrorist. There is no meaning left to the phrase anymore.
They can't, otherwise they contradict their leader.
With the help of synchronization, it is clear the agent was what, a foot away from the car and she was pulling away from him. This falls somewhere between Grossly Negligent Homicide and Murder - in either case, a crime of huge proportions.
This is a new video that has been released. It shows the ICE officer hit, and he rolled up and then shot her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNbHlmZVmAwYour video does not clearly show that she hit the agent with her car. My video shows the agent stepping around in front of the car and shooting her through the windshield. You can clearly see the smoke from the muzzle of the gun. If she was trying to hit him why would there be a bullet hole in the windshield? There was no bullet hole when she was driving down the street.
Now they are not allowing an independent investigation. They only want the FBI to investigate so that Kash Patel can cover up what actually happened. Why did he have to shoot her in the head at point blank range?Oh, there are a hundred more questions.
Why did he violate his training and walk in front of the vehicle?
Why was he holding a gun and cell phone at the same time, I doubt that is in the training manual either.
Why didn't he follow his training and step away from the vehicle if it was moving?
Why did he shoot several times with innocent by-standers close by?
Why didn't he follow his training an De-escalate and avoid creating the hazard?
Why did he ignore she was clearly trying to turn the car away from him?
If it was SO dangerous, why didn't ANY other agent draw their weapon?
So many questions.
And with so many VIOLATIONS of procedure by the shooter, this should be a grossly negligent homicide case.Here is a much better video. That was just released today,
Clearly shows the officer being hit. I stopped the footage to make sure the car hit him, and his feet were off the ground. He was hit on the driver's side. It is very clear footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrUMVtrCK_YCan't see it for sure myself, close, but no cigar. I did see an agent being where he isn't supposed to be - in front of the car.
However, another video, when synced with this one, clearly shows the agent who was in violation of standard protocol. not being hit. PeoplePower provided that video.I watched in slow motion, and froze it several takes consentrating on his feet. They did come off the ground, and he just as quickly rolled off the driver's side onto his feet. As he walked toward the car that crashed, he was visibly limping. There are also close-ups of Goods' face as the hit occurs, and she is looking at him, smiling as she hits him. Thus far, this video shows what happened more clearly.
Note, I am not making any assumptions about what either was thinking at the time.
So you are admitting that you would have violated numerous training rules that ended up causing this innocent woman her life.
See my list of questions below.In response to the rest of your BS.
This is a lot of allegation, almost no evidence. A few grounding points:
“Immigrants voting Democrat to keep benefits.”
Non-citizens can’t vote. Period. Green-card holders and refugees don’t vote in federal or Minnesota state elections. If you’re claiming illegal voting, instead of making things up - name cases and convictions.
“Democrats teach immigrants to commit fraud.”
That’s defamatory unless you can show who, when, and how. When fraud exists, it gets prosecuted (often by nonpartisan inspectors general and U.S. attorneys). Show the indictments or retract.
“Billions in fraud” as a smokescreen.
If you have audited numbers, cite them. Otherwise it’s a talking point, not an argument. Fraud is investigated by career auditors—under both parties—and those reports are public.
Dependency narrative.
Most immigrants work, pay taxes, and many naturalize and vote how they choose. Reducing a whole community to a political pawn dehumanizes law-abiding neighbors who are doing exactly what we say we want: working, learning English, starting businesses, and becoming citizens.
Elections and ideas.
If “nobody wants their ideas,” you should be able to win on policy without conspiracy theories. Make your case on budgets, schools, safety, and growth—not on smearing entire communities.
Bottom line: Bring evidence—case numbers, court filings, audited losses—or drop the blanket accusations. We can debate policy on immigration, welfare design, and election rules. But mass claims of teaching immigrants to cheat (without proof) are just scapegoating, and they poison any serious conversation.
Mike is correct; Good died in large part because she was egged on by liberals gaslighting her. Her own stupidity played a part, but so did the continual demonization of ICE and Trump, and the calls from high ranking liberals to interfere with the law as if there would be no negative results as a result.
So, you are joining Mike in passing on misinformation and lies, I see.
I think you may want to reconsider labeling Mike’s posts as misinformation. He is simply sharing his thoughts, and what is being reported by the media, it’s not fair to dismiss them outright.
From my perspective, you actually post more misinformation than anyone else here. Much of what you share is presented as fact when, in reality, it often lacks context or verification. I take it as an opinion, because without clear facts, that is what we end up with.LOL I like your comment, the way it is filled with deep philosophy and reasoning.
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it. Instead of deep thought we get surface, shallow thinking that depends solely on feelings and hate rather than logic and reason.
Still, I do appreciate the effort, for it exemplifies exactly what Mike's meme said.
Now, when someone chooses to stop their vehicle in the middle of a federal enforcement operation, and their partner exits the vehicle and verbally confronts ICE officers, and then the driver refuses to get out, those are choices, and in this context they were unlawful and dangerous ones. Personal decisions were made by these two individuals that day, and yes, those choices played a significant role in what happened.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the broader political atmosphere , the ongoing rhetoric about ICE, immigration enforcement, and how far people are encouraged to go in “resisting” federal agents does matter. When leaders at the local level and national level loudly defend actions and statements that escalate tensions rather than calm them, it shapes how both sides behave in real time. Many local officials have sharply criticized federal enforcement and called for ICE to leave Minneapolis, and protests have continued in the aftermath of Good’s death.
By framing ICE as inherently villainous and encouraging active confrontation with federal law enforcement, even suggesting that interference carries no serious consequences, some voices effectively give implicit permission to break laws set by Congress. Whether that is intentional or not, it contributes to an environment in which people feel emboldened to challenge federal operations directly.
So I think Mike is right that Good’s own actions intersected with a highly charged political climate, and that climate, amplified by liberal voices attacking ICE and portraying clashes with federal agents as heroic resistance, helped create the conditions in which her decisions led to this tragic outcome.I let ChatGPT modify what I was writing and integrate additional facts while it got across the points I wanted to make:
You’re framing this as if two private citizens “made bad choices” and the rest is inevitable. That flips the burden. In a constitutional system, the greater power carries the greater duty—and armed federal agents have strict rules for exactly these tense situations.
First, on “illegality.” I’ve already said her parking may have been improper. If so, that’s a citation—or at most an arrest—not a death sentence. “Refused to exit” (if proven) is still adjudicated in court, not by muzzle flash. DHS’s own rules strictly limit shooting at/into vehicles to imminent lethal-threat scenarios with no safer alternative. That’s the standard—not opinion about who “escalated.” Another DHS policy violated by ICE on the ground is let a moving car keep on moving and DO NOT shoot at the occupants unless there is an immediate threat that cannot be dealt with ANY OTHER WAY!
Second, on the partner “confronting” agents. Filming officers in public is lawful. Calling that “confrontation” is rhetorical inflation. The verified clips show her outside the vehicle, recording. None of that authorizes lethal force.
Third, climate and responsibility. You want to talk climate? Fine. It wasn’t city hall that flooded Minneapolis with federal operators and labeled a neighborhood mom “domestic terrorist” within hours. Leadership from the top set the tone: maximalist raids, incendiary language, and an investigative posture that shut out the state’s own BCA. If we’re assigning atmospheric blame, federal power shapes the weather.
Fourth, on ICE/DHS themselves. You keep portraying the agencies as the default “good guys.” They’re institutions; they’re only as good as their training, supervision, and command climate. Long-time pros who follow policy exist—absolutely. But there’s also a pipeline of rushed recruits and a political message that rewards “crack heads” heroics. And let’s be honest: DHS/ICE earned their reputation for heavy-handed, militarized, fear-based tactics—the kind of authoritarian, secret-police-style behavior (door-kicking raids, public intimidation, courthouse grabs) that communities remember. They didn’t get that image by accident; they built it.
Bottom line: Yes, civilians’ choices matter. But the law is crystal clear on this: traffic and compliance issues go to court; deadly force requires an imminent lethal threat and no safer option. Until you can show that threshold was met, blaming the dead while absolving the feds isn’t “law and order”—it’s excusing summary punishment.
If we actually want accountability, here’s the grown-up list:
• Release the full, unedited videos and a synchronized timeline.
• Publish the forensics (trajectories, round recovery, impact evidence).
• Explain policy compliance: why a shot into/at a moving vehicle was the only option, with bystanders present.
Short of that, the “she made choices” line is just moral cover for an outcome the rules are designed to prevent.
On intent: You don’t have to guess what Trump “had in mind” to see the predictable effect of the operation: fear, chaos, and a chilling message to an immigrant neighborhood. The administration chose a maximal show of force—about 2,000 federal agents deployed to Minneapolis in what ICE called its largest operation ever—branded opponents as “domestic terrorists” within hours, and then walled off state investigators. Those are policy choices with foreseeable consequences—no clairvoyance required.
And let’s be blunt about basic judgment: A rational leader doesn’t surge 2,000 armed agents into a city where crime has been falling to “crack down” on alleged fraud; you task auditors, HSI case teams, and prosecutors—not a paramilitary-style sweep that predictably terrifies neighborhoods. Minneapolis’ own 2025 data show serious crime down; yet the White House paired the surge with high-decibel fraud rhetoric and benefit freezes. That’s not calm, targeted enforcement—that’s performative intimidation.
“It’s naïve to call this ‘normal enforcement.’ Only the inept and irrational deploy ~2,000 agents to a city with declining crime to stop ‘fraud.’ You send auditors and prosecutors. Flooding streets with secret police tactical teams is a choice to maximize fear - i.e. to terrorize, not public safety.”
This is from a Subscription Only CNN article and is worth pondering about what Trump is turning America into.
"Farewell, forever wars, hello empire? The week that changed the world"
In January 1899, the American gunboat USS Wilmington set out on an expedition to Venezuela, steaming up the Orinoco River toward the country’s interior. On board was an American diplomat, Francis Loomis, the US envoy to Venezuela. The mission was to show the flag, explore commercial opportunities – including routes to supply gold-mining operations – and display a little firepower.
An article in Naval History described how Loomis liked to demonstrate the ship’s Colt machine guns to local officials.
“This gun, firing some 500 shots a minute, produced a vivid impression here,” Loomis wrote in a report. “I made a point of having this gun fired anytime there were any army officials on board.”
“Gunboat diplomacy” has become a convenient shorthand for US President Donald Trump’s coercive foreign policy backed up by the threat of military force. Buoyed by the successful raid to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump is now pushing aggressively for ownership of Greenland – and signaling that the US will not be constrained as a global power. - just what isolationist MAGA wants to hear - [/i]Trump’s words and actions now have observers reaching for the history books. The events of the past week stirred memories of long-forgotten chapters of US imperialism – from gunboat diplomacy and banana wars to full-scale colonial rule – that have left Washington’s traditional allies wondering if the world is returning to an era of great powers and vassal states.
Gunboat diplomacy was not limited to the Western Hemisphere. After World War I, the US Navy operated the Yangtze Patrol, a flotilla of gunboats that protected American interests – including missionaries and oil companies – inside China during a lengthy period of warlordism and instability. Those patrol boats also had a place in the American popular imagination, in part due to a film released in 1966: The Sand Pebbles, a Hollywood epic starring Steve McQueen as an enlisted sailor aboard the fictional USS San Pablo.
Trump’s intention to take control of Venezuela’s oil is also reminiscent of another era of American foreign policy: the so-called Banana Wars, a series of military expeditions and constabulary missions in Central America and the Caribbean that enforced US business interests. US Marines, for instance, would sustain deployments in Honduras, Nicaragua and Haiti. US forces landed in and occupied the Mexican port city of Veracruz in 1914.
Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, a legendary Marine and twice Medal of Honor winner, fought in those campaigns, as well as in the brutal Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. Following his retirement, Butler became an outspoken critic of American military adventurism, famously describing himself as “a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism” during his long military career.
“The record of racketeering is long,” Butler wrote. “I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”
That critique of American foreign policy – that US high-mindedness and democratic idealism conceal naked corporate interests – persisted through the Cold War and into the 21st Century. So the perhaps most interesting development of the past week is the US administration’s shedding of lofty rhetoric around the Venezuela raid, as Trump did in an interview with The New York Times, asserting, “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”
The protesters who held “no blood for oil” signs in 2003 to protest the US-led invasion of Iraq would no doubt have been surprised to see a sitting president saying that it was in fact about the oil.[/i]
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/10/world/an … latam-intlThe courts come to the rescue again - this time to stop Trump from starving children who live in Democratic states. Sooner or later Trump apologists will see Trump for what he is - a Demon.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/politics … lt-lawsuitHow more AUTHORITARIAN and Putinesque can Trump "the FELON" get?
"US will take Greenland the ‘hard way’ if it can’t do it the ‘easy way,’ Trump says"
Trump is threatening war on Europe!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/10/politics … trump-says" Trump is threatening war on Europe!!" ECO
Really, how is that? I will admit this is one of your better ones. LOL
I assume at this point you are speaking for NATO. What does not surprise me is that you think you can speak for NATO.
OMGOMG yourself. Use your head. Who does Greenland belong to? DENMARK. Is Denmark part of Europe? YES. Is Trump threating to take over Greenland by force? YES!! If that is not threatening war, I don't what is.
BTW, were did NATO get into this? Did I say NATO or is that one of your assumptions?
Again, what I always suspected was the case is proving to be true, it is not about Democracy but about the oil…..
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/09/trump- … d-the-oil/Honestly, this article oversimplifies a very complex situation and paints Trump’s strategy as reckless, when in reality it’s quite smart. First, Venezuela’s problems aren’t just “third-world chaos”, the country’s infrastructure and institutions have been destroyed over decades of corruption and mismanagement. Elections held in that environment without stability would be chaotic and likely illegitimate. Trump’s point about rebuilding the country, particularly the oil industry, before holding free and fair elections makes strategic sense. It’s not about delaying democracy; it’s about creating the conditions for one that actually works.
Critics are right to say that $100 billion is a huge number, but it’s supposed to come from private oil investment, not taxpayers. Companies like Exxon or Chevron won’t commit without clear legal protections and a functional infrastructure, so this is a practical, step-by-step approach. And yes, Venezuela’s oil reserves are some of the largest in the world, restoring production there strengthens U.S. influence in the hemisphere, reduces dependence on adversarial countries like Russia and China, and can help stabilize global energy markets.
Frankly, the media makes it sound like Trump’s plan is just about control or greed, but when you think about it, this is smart geopolitics and energy strategy. Rebuilding Venezuela first isn’t reckless; it’s a calculated move to protect U.S. energy security, attract private investment, and set up the country for elections that actually matter. The article misses all of that nuance and instead focuses on a misleading narrative.
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 10 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 5 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 7 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...
- 23
Presidential abuse of legal system
by Kathleen Cochran 5 months ago
"The Washington Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that...
- 40
Trump: One way or another Mexico will pay for the wall? Yeah right..
by Credence2 8 years ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threat … 40039.htmlMexico tells the Trump administration to 'take a hike'. Now the GOP is going to pay for it? How?Do we declare war on Mexico?https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-leaders- … 42941.htmlI say that this whole thing was a 'crock' from the very...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 6 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...