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 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.
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.
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
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 15 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 10 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...
- 40
Trump: One way or another Mexico will pay for the wall? Yeah right..
by Credence2 9 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...
- 4302
Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
My post is a summary of an article I came across on Fox News. He is coming out running! Day one, President-elect Trump is set to sign over 200 executive actions, marking a major shift in U.S. policy across a range of areas, from border security to energy to cutting costs for...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 10 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...