The War on Fair Taxes: How the Wealthy Rig the System at the Expense of Our Citizens

​As of March 2025, with Donald Trump serving as the 47th President of the United States, his administration has implemented policies that significantly impacted taxation and damaged our government and our most necessary social programs like social security, a: U.S. Federal Safety Net for Retirement, Disability, and Survivor Benefits.

Or skip all this for another more sane direction...Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder - "The Imperialism Has no Clothes: JD Vance in Greenland" His latest essay

One more...

‘Never been done’: Why Republicans might approve a budget whose numbers don’t match up

​Tax Policies:

• Extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts: The administration has prioritized extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions from 2017. This extension is projected to decrease federal tax revenue by approximately $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. While proponents argue this could lead to a 1.1% increase in long-run GDP, critics highlight concerns about escalating deficits and the disproportionate benefits accruing to the wealthiest Americans. ​Tax Foundation

• Corporate Tax Rate Reduction: Proposals have been made to further reduce the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to potentially 20% or even 15%, aiming to stimulate economic growth. However, such reductions may exacerbate income inequality and increase the federal deficit. ​Doeren Mayhew

Impact on Social Programs:

• Budget Cuts to Social Safety Nets: The administration's budget proposals have included significant cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These cuts are intended to offset revenue losses from tax reductions but have raised concerns about increased hardship for low-income individuals and families. ​The New Yorker

• Social Security and Medicare: While President Trump has pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare, budgetary pressures from reduced tax revenues have led to discussions about potential reforms or cuts to these programs. Critics argue that the administration's involvement with initiatives like Project 2025, which aims at federal government reform, contradicts promises to safeguard these entitlements. ​The New Yorker

Economic Implications:

• Deficit and Debt Concerns: The combination of tax cuts and increased spending has contributed to a significant rise in the federal deficit, which has increased by 248% since the implementation of the 2017 tax cuts. This trajectory raises concerns about the sustainability of fiscal policies and potential long-term economic consequences. ​Axios

• Income Inequality: Analyses indicate that the benefits of the tax cuts have disproportionately favored the wealthiest individuals and corporations, potentially exacerbating income and wealth disparities in the United States. ​

President Trump's policies as of 2025 reflect a continuation and expansion of earlier tax reforms, emphasizing reductions that primarily benefit higher-income groups and corporations. These policies have significant implications for federal revenue, social programs, and economic inequality, prompting ongoing debate about their long-term impact on American society.

The toxic Christian right?

The Christian nationalist right has played a significant role in supporting Trump and shaping his policies, particularly those related to taxation, social programs, and government priorities. Their influence is rooted in a broader ideological goal of reshaping the U.S. government to align with their vision of a Christian-based nation.

How the Christian Nationalist Right Supports Trump’s Economic Agenda

1. Belief in Limited Government & Free Market Capitalism

   • Many Christian nationalists align with libertarian and conservative economic principles, advocating for lower taxes and deregulation.

   • They support Trump’s tax cuts and reductions in social welfare, believing government assistance should be replaced by church-based charity and private sector solutions.

2. Tying Capitalism to Christian Morality

   • Christian nationalist leaders often argue that wealth is a sign of divine blessing and that government redistribution (e.g., welfare, progressive taxation) is anti-Christian.

   • This belief justifies cutting social programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance, while keeping tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

3. Backing Project 2025 & Government Restructuring

   • The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump term, is heavily influenced by Christian nationalist ideology.

   • It includes gutting federal agencies, reducing the administrative state, and cutting safety nets, all while increasing executive power.

   • Many of its architects, like Russ Vought and Stephen Miller, are Christian nationalists who advocate for a government centered on their interpretation of Christian values.

4. Culture War as a Distraction from Economic Policy

   • While pushing tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts for social programs, Christian nationalist leaders focus public attention on issues like abortion bans, LGBTQ+ rights, and "anti-woke" policies.

   • This strategy diverts working-class and middle-class conservatives from noticing policies that economically harm them.

5. Strong Ties to Megachurches & Prosperity Gospel

   • Many evangelical megachurch pastors, such as Paula White and Franklin Graham, support Trump’s economic policies because they align with prosperity gospel teachings—the idea that wealth and success are signs of God's favor.

   • They push their followers to support Trump, portraying government assistance as a hindrance to self-reliance and faith-based solutions.

The Bigger Picture: Reshaping America

Christian nationalists view Trump as a vehicle to reshape the U.S. government into one that favors Christian dominance, enforces conservative social policies, and limits federal intervention in economic inequality. Their support helps justify tax cuts for the rich, reduced social programs, and deregulation, under the guise of religious and moral principles.

Doesn't it really come down to political priorities, power dynamics, and how narratives are shaped in public discourse?

1. Corporate Influence & Lobbying – Wealthy individuals and corporations spend vast amounts of money lobbying politicians and funding campaigns to ensure tax policies favor them. They have a direct hand in shaping laws that keep their tax rates low while cutting public benefits.

2. Trickle-Down Economics Myth – Since the Reagan era, there's been a persistent belief that lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy leads to economic growth that benefits everyone. Despite repeated failures, this idea keeps being pushed to justify tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the rest.

3. Deficit Scaremongering – When it comes to social programs like Social Security, Medicare, or infrastructure, politicians (usually on the right) suddenly become fiscal hawks, warning that the government can’t afford them. Yet, they have no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy, which also increase deficits.

4. Media Framing – Corporate-owned media often downplays wealth inequality and shifts blame for economic problems onto the poor, immigrants, or government inefficiency—rather than on tax loopholes and corporate welfare.

5. Historical Context – During the mid-20th century, when tax rates on the wealthy were much higher (up to 90% under Eisenhower), the U.S. experienced economic stability, a thriving middle class, and major infrastructure projects. But since the neoliberal shift in the 1980s, tax cuts for the rich have contributed to skyrocketing inequality.

6. Manufactured Resentment – Some political forces work to pit middle-class and working-class Americans against each other, making them think that their tax dollars are being wasted on “undeserving” people rather than questioning why billionaires and corporations are dodging taxes.

Ultimately, the struggle isn’t just about taxation—it’s about power. The wealthy and corporations have the influence to shape policies that benefit them, while everyday people are told they need to sacrifice. But history shows that when the rich paid their fair share, society was much more stable

Right now, the imbalance in tax policy and spending priorities is a result of both political parties, though in different ways. Here’s a breakdown of who holds power and who enables this system:

1. Republican Party (GOP)

• The GOP has long pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, arguing that it spurs economic growth (the trickle-down economics argument).

• Under Trump (2017), Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%—a massive giveaway to the wealthy while ballooning the deficit.

• Republicans also frequently call for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety nets, claiming that the country can’t afford them—yet they never say the same about tax cuts for the rich or military spending.

• Project 2025 (pushed by the Heritage Foundation) outlines an extreme agenda that includes privatizing Social Security, gutting social programs, and expanding corporate power even further.

2. Democratic Party

• Democrats typically oppose direct cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but not all of them are willing to push for higher taxes on the wealthy.

• Under Biden, there have been proposals to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations, but corporate-friendly Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin (WV) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) helped block major tax hikes.

• Many establishment Democrats take corporate donations and don’t push hard enough for reforms. They sometimes offer compromises rather than fighting aggressively for economic justice.

3. Corporate Lobbying & The Billionaire Class

• Big corporations (Amazon, Google, Exxon, etc.) and billionaires (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Charles Koch, etc.) fund political campaigns and lobby against tax increases.

• The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (2010) allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, meaning politicians are often more accountable to their donors than voters.

• Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Americans for Prosperity (backed by the Koch network) push for corporate-friendly policies and dismantling social programs.

4. Media & Misinformation

• Right-wing media (Fox News, The Daily Wire, etc.) convinces working-class people that tax cuts for the rich are good and that social programs are bad.

• Corporate-owned mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) rarely challenges the status quo because their owners benefit from the system.

So, Who is Allowing This?

• Republicans push for tax cuts and social program cuts directly.

• Corporate Democrats don’t fight hard enough to reverse it.

• Lobbyists and billionaires buy influence to keep tax policies in their favor.

• Media distracts people from the real issue.

What Can Be Done?

• Elect leaders who support taxing the wealthy and corporations fairly.

• Push for campaign finance reform (to reduce billionaire influence).

• Demand protecting and expanding Social Security, Medicare, and safety nets.

• Fight against corporate-controlled think tanks and misinformation.

The good news? When people push back (like with recent strikes, protests, and voter initiatives), change can happen. The real question is: will enough people wake up to it before more damage is done?

Getting back to this mire of Church and State and who are the problematic individuals skewing America towards foolish beliefs and actions. Here are some key Christian nationalist leaders who have influenced Trump’s policies, particularly in taxation, social programs, and government restructuring:

1. Russell Vought – Architect of Government Cuts (Project 2025)

• Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Trump

• Played a major role in cutting social programs like Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), and housing assistance

• Now leads The Center for Renewing America, which pushes Christian nationalist policies, including shrinking the federal government and cutting safety nets

• Influence on Trump: Helped write Project 2025, which includes mass firings of civil servants and replacing them with Christian nationalist loyalists

2. Stephen Miller – Driving Cuts to Social Safety Nets

• Trump’s top policy advisor, known for shaping immigration and economic policies

• Pushed to reduce government spending on “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) while expanding tax cuts for corporations

• Helped craft policies that redirected government resources toward Christian nationalist priorities, like religious freedom exemptions for businesses

3. Paula White – Megachurch Pastor & “Prosperity Gospel” Influence

• Trump’s spiritual advisor, led White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative

• Promotes Prosperity Gospel, which teaches that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, justifying tax cuts for the rich

• Preached that government aid weakens faith, aligning with Trump’s efforts to cut social welfare

• Her influence helped Trump push policies that benefit corporate donors and megachurches, like tax breaks for religious institutions

4. Ralph Drollinger – Influencing Republican Lawmakers

• Runs Capitol Ministries, a Christian nationalist Bible study attended by Trump officials like Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, and Betsy DeVos

• Advocates for eliminating social programs, arguing that the Bible opposes welfare

• Encourages Republican lawmakers to replace government safety nets with faith-based charity, helping justify Trump’s economic policies

5. Betsy DeVos – Pushing Religious Control Over Public Funding

• Trump’s Secretary of Education, known for trying to defund public education in favor of private Christian schools

• Part of Christian nationalist efforts to redirect government funds to religious institutions

• Worked to weaken worker protections and unions, aligning with Trump’s pro-corporate tax policies

6. Tony Perkins – Policy Influence Through the Family Research Council

• Leader of Family Research Council, a major Christian nationalist lobbying group

• Pushed for tax benefits for religious groups, aligning with Trump’s tax cuts

• Supports cutting social programs, arguing that government aid promotes “dependency” instead of Christian charity

7. The Heritage Foundation – Policy Arm of Christian Nationalism

• Think tank behind Project 2025, which outlines drastic changes to government under Trump

• Advocates for cutting taxes on the wealthy and eliminating social safety nets

• Supports Christian nationalist policies like mandatory Bible classes in schools and limiting LGBTQ+ rights

---

How This All Connects to Trump’s Policies

• Tax Cuts for the Wealthy → Justified by Prosperity Gospel & free-market Christian ideology

• Cutting Social Programs → Based on belief that churches should provide charity, not government

• Deregulation & Corporate Favoritism → Backed by megachurches and religious groups benefiting from tax breaks

• Expanding Religious Influence in Government → Using tax policy and executive power to redirect public funds toward Christian institutions

Stephen Miller, however, is not a Christian nationalist in the religious sense, but works closely with them and advances their policies because they align with his broader authoritarian, nationalist agenda.

Stephen Miller’s Role in Christian Nationalist Policies

• Miller is a hardline far-right nationalist, known primarily for anti-immigration policies like the Muslim ban and family separations.

• He collaborates with Christian nationalist groups because their vision of a hierarchical, theocratic government aligns with his goal of consolidating power.

• He supports cutting social safety nets because a weaker government benefits authoritarian control—fewer government services mean more economic desperation, which can be manipulated for political gain.

• While not religious himself, he weaponizes religious rhetoric (e.g., “protecting Christian values”) to push policies that benefit the wealthy and corporate elites.

So, while Miller isn't a true Christian nationalist, he's one of their most effective enablers, helping implement their agenda through economic and governmental restructuring.

Stephen Miller has long been associated with far-right, white nationalist, and eugenics-adjacent beliefs, though he avoids openly embracing the term "eugenics." His policies and rhetoric reflect a worldview that prioritizes racial hierarchy, demographic control, and exclusionary nationalism, often aligning with historical eugenics movements.

Miller’s Eugenics-Adjacent Beliefs & Policies

1. Hardline Immigration Policies Rooted in Racial Purity Ideology

• Miller designed Trump’s immigration policies to heavily restrict non-white immigration, reflecting beliefs similar to early 20th-century eugenics laws.

• He was the architect of the Muslim ban, family separation policies, and the push to end birthright citizenship—all of which disproportionately targeted people of color.

• His policies echo the 1924 Immigration Act, which was influenced by eugenicists and sought to preserve the racial makeup of the U.S. by limiting immigration from non-Northern European countries.

2. Connections to White Nationalists & Eugenicists

• Leaked emails (2019) show Miller regularly cited and promoted white nationalist sources like VDARE and American Renaissance, which advocate for white racial superiority and demographic control.

• He pushed “great replacement” conspiracy theories, warning that immigration would “replace” white Americans—a claim often linked to eugenics-based fears of racial decline.

• Promoted The Camp of the Saints, a racist novel that portrays non-white immigrants as an invading force, mirroring eugenics-era fears of racial dilution.

3. Public Health & Eugenics Thinking

• During the COVID-19 pandemic, Miller’s faction opposed protections for marginalized communities, reinforcing a survival-of-the-fittest mentality.

• He supported policies that let the virus disproportionately kill disabled people, the elderly, and minorities, which aligns with past eugenicist views on “weeding out the weak.”

• Trump’s administration sabotaged asylum-seekers' medical screenings and proposed denying visas based on medical conditions, echoing past eugenics-based immigration policies.

4. Support for Christian Nationalist Demographic Goals

• While not religious himself, Miller works with Christian nationalists who advocate for higher birth rates among white Christians and restrictions on abortion and contraception.

• This aligns with historical eugenics movements that sought to increase white birthrates while limiting non-white reproduction.

• Groups like the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 promote these demographic goals, which Miller supports through policy implementation.

Conclusion: Miller’s Eugenics-Driven Policy Influence

Stephen Miller isn’t a scientist pushing for sterilization programs, but his actions, rhetoric, and policy decisions align with historical eugenicist and white nationalist goals. He frames his policies in terms of national security and economic interests, but their impact is clear: restricting non-white populations, promoting racial purity, and reinforcing social hierarchies.

Let's be clear.

Isn't this all Donald Trump's doing.

The statement "This is all Donald Trump's doing" isn't entirely a lie, but it oversimplifies a much more complex situation. While Trump certainly played a central role in shaping and implementing policies during his presidency, especially in areas like immigration, tax cuts, and deregulation, many of the actions and ideologies associated with his administration were influenced by a range of people, organizations, and historical trends.

Here’s why it’s not entirely accurate to say it’s "all Trump’s doing":

1. The Role of Advisers & Political Networks

• Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, and other figures shaped Trump’s policies, often working behind the scenes or directly advising him on key issues.

• Miller, for instance, is a primary architect of Trump’s hardline immigration policies, but he also aligns with far-right and eugenics-adjacent ideologies, which Trump endorsed but did not fully craft himself.

• Think tanks and groups like the Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council helped craft policies that Trump endorsed, but the foundations of those ideas existed before he took office.

2. The Influence of GOP Ideology & Historical Context

• Trump did not create the political ideologies of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, or anti-immigration stances. These ideas were long-standing Republican positions that Trump capitalized on.

• Christian nationalist groups existed and pushed these agendas before Trump, even in earlier Republican administrations. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s tax proposals had been in play for years.

3. Institutional Support

• Trump’s policies were supported and often pushed forward by Republican-controlled Congresses, especially early in his presidency. The tax cuts for corporations and cuts to social programs were pushed by Congress members aligned with Trump’s economic vision, but it wasn’t solely his agenda.

• Executive orders, which Trump issued frequently, were crafted with input from a wide range of advisers, but many stemmed from ideologies and agendas within the Republican establishment.

4. The Role of Political Activism

• Christian nationalist activists, evangelical groups, and far-right networks were pushing their vision of America as a Christian nation and restrictionist immigration policies long before Trump took office. Trump amplified their voices, but the foundational goals of these groups didn’t start with him.

Conclusion: Trump as the Figurehead, Not the Sole Author

While Trump was incredibly influential in pushing these agendas and gave a platform to these ideas, it would be misleading to say that everything—especially in terms of policy ideology—was entirely his doing. He was a vehicle for these forces rather than the sole originator.

Trump's current administration has faced rational and reasonable criticism for its rapid and amateurish policy implementations, leading to unintended consequences. For instance, the swift deportation of migrants resulted in logistical challenges, such as the return of Venezuelan women to Texas due to inadequate facilities in El Salvador. ​WSJ

Additionally, incidents like the "Chatgate" scandal, where confidential military plans were accidentally exposed, have raised concerns about the administration's competence in handling sensitive information. ​news

Furthermore, may observers, both domestic and international, have expressed alarm over actions perceived as steps toward authoritarianism, including undermining judicial independence and suppressing dissenting voices. ​The Guardian

In summary, while President Trump has secured a significant portion of public approval, his administration's policies and actions have sparked debate regarding their effectiveness and alignment with democratic principles.​

Finally, Donald Trump's childish beliefs in how the economy works have and continue to be damaging to the American economy and international relations. 

Tariffs were one of the most notable aspects of Donald Trump's economic policy during his presidency, and they remain a key topic in evaluating his impact on the U.S. economy and global trade. Here’s a breakdown of how tariffs were used and their effects:

1. The Trade War with China

• Trump’s Imposition of Tariffs on China: In 2018, Trump launched a trade war with China by imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. His goal was to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China and address intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices.

• Retaliation: China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. goods, particularly agricultural products, which hurt American farmers. This caused significant disruption in global supply chains, especially in industries like technology, electronics, and steel.

• Phase One Deal: In January 2020, Trump signed a "Phase One" trade deal with China, where China agreed to buy more American goods. However, the tariffs largely remained in place.

2. Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum

• National Security Argument: Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, arguing that foreign-made metals threatened U.S. national security. The tariffs were set at 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum.

• Impact on Industry: While this benefited some domestic steel manufacturers, it led to higher prices for manufacturers that relied on foreign metal, including carmakers and electronics companies.

• Global Response: Several countries, including the EU, Canada, and Mexico, retaliated with tariffs on U.S. products. These tariffs led to trade tensions but also created uncertainty for industries in the U.S. reliant on foreign materials.

3. The Impact on American Consumers

• Increased Prices: The tariffs generally led to higher prices for goods like electronics, clothing, and machinery. This had a direct impact on American consumers, especially lower- and middle-class households, which bore the brunt of rising prices on everyday items.

• Economic Disruption: Although Trump's administration claimed the tariffs were needed to protect U.S. jobs, economists suggested that the costs outweighed the benefits. In particular, industries dependent on global supply chains were adversely affected by the uncertainty created by the tariffs.

4. Trump's Justification for Tariffs

• America First: Trump argued that the tariffs were a way to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and shift away from the globalist trade agreements that he believed harmed American workers.

• Trade Balance: The tariffs were also meant to reduce the trade deficit, particularly with China, and force foreign governments to open their markets more to American products.

5. Long-Term Effects

• Global Relations: The tariffs contributed to a decline in U.S. relationships with several major trading partners. Countries like the EU and China felt that the tariffs were economically harmful and politically motivated, leading to retaliatory measures.

• Industry Shifts: While some U.S. industries benefited from reduced competition (such as steel producers), other industries struggled with the added cost of imports.

• Consumer Costs: Many economists argue that the tariffs did little to reduce trade deficits or protect jobs, and instead raised prices for American consumers.

6. Legacy and Ongoing Debate

• Trump's tariffs remain a point of debate. Some argue that they were a necessary tool for reshaping trade relationships and protecting U.S. industry, while others contend they damaged the U.S. economy and exacerbated the economic strain on working-class Americans.

Overall, Donald Trump's presidency, particularly his second term as POTUS47 starting in 2025, is marked by a continuation of his “America First” agenda, focusing on nationalism, economic protectionism, and law and order. While his policies and leadership have drawn strong support from his base, they have also sparked significant controversy, both domestically and internationally.

Key Aspects of Trump's Presidency:

1. Economic Policies: Trump's economic approach was centered around reducing the trade deficit, protecting American jobs, and boosting domestic manufacturing. This included implementing tariffs on imports, especially from China, and prioritizing policies that favored U.S. businesses. However, these actions led to trade wars and higher consumer prices, and while some sectors benefitted, others, like agriculture, suffered.

2. Immigration and Border Security: Trump's administration focused heavily on immigration reform, including building a border wall, implementing strict immigration laws, and taking a tough stance on undocumented migrants. These policies were divisive, with his supporters arguing they were necessary for national security, while critics viewed them as inhumane and discriminatory.

3. Foreign Policy and International Relations: Trump’s approach to foreign policy emphasized national sovereignty and America’s interests over multilateral agreements. His decisions to pull out of global pacts like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, as well as his isolationist stance on international diplomacy, alienated many traditional U.S. allies. However, his policies did strengthen ties with right-wing and populist leaders.

4. Authoritarian Tendencies: Critics of Trump argue that his leadership style and certain actions, like undermining judicial independence and press freedoms, reflected a shift toward authoritarianism. His handling of protests, attacks on the media, and attempts to suppress dissent caused concern about the future of democratic norms in the U.S.

5. Public Support and Controversy: Trump's approval ratings, while higher among his base, have been polarized. His statements and actions on issues like race, gender, and immigration fueled division in the country. His supporters view him as a champion of American values and working-class interests, while detractors accuse him of exacerbating cultural divisions and undermining democratic institutions.

6. Social and Cultural Issues: Trump’s rhetoric on issues like LGBTQ rights, abortion, and reproductive freedoms often aligned with conservative Christian values, garnering support from the Christian nationalist right. His administration took steps to limit rights on these fronts, creating significant social tension.

7. The Role of the Christian Nationalist Right: Trump’s popularity among the Christian nationalist right can be attributed to his support for conservative social policies and his alignment with evangelical values. This group supported his stance on issues like abortion and religious freedom, making him a key figure in their political efforts.

8. Election and Second Term: Trump’s victory in the 2024 election (POTUS47) was highly contested, with his rhetoric and policies continuing to appeal to a significant portion of the electorate. However, his second term has been marked by continuing polarization, with some Americans questioning his fitness for office and the direction of his policies.

Summary:

Trump's presidency has been one of extreme contrasts and an ongoing nightmare for MOST American citizens and many others: minorities, immigrants, and even undocumented or illegal citizens. 

"A country is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable and disenfranchised citizens," often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi.

While Trump's policies were allegedly designed to revive American industry, secure borders, and prioritize U.S. interests, on the other hand, they have often and purposely led to economic disruptions, political instability, and divisions within the country. His leadership was shaped by populism and nationalism, with a strong base of support from his followers but harsh opposition from many others, especially in terms of his handling of social issues, global diplomacy, and domestic governance.

In conclusion, there is little confusion in that Donald Trump was quite obviously and objectively not only not the "best choice" for POTUS47, but the worst as a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser and career criminal. His presidency represents a divisive and polarizing period in American history, with lasting impacts on both domestic policy and international relations that may well take decades to heal from, both domestically and with our international security concerns and relationships.

Finally...

Russia benefited from a more isolationist U.S. foreign policy, a weakened NATO, and a less aggressive stance under Trump, allowing the Kremlin to expand its influence on the global stage. On the other hand, Trump's actions created both domestic challenges for the U.S. and increased global uncertainty, ultimately making Russia the bigger benefactor in the long run.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Point of Government Over Business and Why They're Different

The point of government over business and why they're different.

A government and a business serve fundamentally different purposes and operate under different principles:

Purpose
Government: Exists to serve the public by providing essential services, maintaining order, enforcing laws, protecting rights, and promoting the welfare of its citizens. It is driven by public service rather than profit.
Business: Exists to generate profit for its owners or shareholders. Its primary goal is financial growth and maximizing returns.\

Funding
Government: Funded primarily through taxation, fees, and sometimes borrowing. Citizens pay taxes to support public services.
Business: Funded through revenue generated by selling goods or services to customers.

Decision-Making
Government: Decision-making is influenced by laws, policies, public interest, and democratic or authoritarian structures. Public officials are (ideally) accountable to the people.
Business: Decisions are made based on market demands, competition, and profitability, with accountability primarily to owners, shareholders, and customers.

Profit Motive
Government: Not driven by profit; instead, it focuses on public welfare, stability, and equity. Some services (e.g., police, fire departments, public healthcare) are not meant to be profitable but are necessary for society.
Business: Operates to make money and sustain growth. If a product or service is unprofitable, it may be cut, even if it's essential to some customers.

Services vs. Products
Government: Provides infrastructure, education, national defense, law enforcement, emergency services, and regulatory oversight—services that benefit society as a whole.
Business: Provides goods or services that customers pay for voluntarily.

Accountability
Government: Accountable through elections, public oversight, laws, and checks and balances.
Business: Accountable to owners, investors, and the marketplace.

If a country were run purely like a business, as the image suggests, unprofitable but essential services (such as emergency services, healthcare, or public schools) might be cut or privatized, potentially leading to inequities and service gaps.

Looking at our latest incarnation of "Government as Business"... an autocratic attempt at altering American democracy constitutional republic into an autocracy via an oligarchy and kakistocracy, is Donald Trump and his MaGA political cult of personality.

By the way...  terms like "TDS" thrown at anyone questioning Donald Trump, something only his MaGA cult can acquire, is just a "thought-terminating cliché." Yes, there IS a name for that kind of attempted debate-neutralizing tactic.

A thought-terminating cliché is a phrase or term used to shut down debate or critical thinking by dismissing opposing arguments without engaging with them. It’s often used to delegitimize criticism without addressing its substance.

In the case of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS), it's used by Trump supporters to dismiss any criticism of him as irrational or obsessive, rather than engaging with the actual points being made. 

Other examples of thought-terminating clichés include:

• "If you don't like it, leave."
• "That's just fake news."
• "It's just common sense."
• "Haters gonna hate."
• "You're just a never Trumper."
• "You just have Trump Derangement Syndrome, TDS."

These phrases act as rhetorical shields, preventing further discussion and making it easier to ignore or discredit opposing viewpoints.

Now, on "TDS"...

The term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) is often used to describe individuals whose intense dislike for Donald Trump leads them to react irrationally or with impaired judgment toward his actions and policies. Originally coined by political columnist Charles Krauthammer, TDS suggests that opposition to Trump can become so extreme that it clouds objective analysis.

en.wikipedia.org

However, it's important to note that the use of "TDS" is controversial. Supporters of Trump may use it to dismiss legitimate criticisms by labeling them as irrational, while critics argue that it's a thought-terminating cliché designed to shut down meaningful discourse. Therefore, while "TDS" is a commonly used term, its application and validity are subjects of debate.

What would be a more fun and correct term for Trump's excessive supporters to use, avoiding partisanship?

A more neutral and fun term that avoids partisanship, you could consider something like "Trump Fatigue Syndrome" (TFS).

This phrase playfully acknowledges the weariness some might feel in dealing with constant political drama without suggesting irrationality or obsession. It reflects a reasonable dissatisfaction or exhaustion with a leader, while keeping it lighthearted and less accusatory.

At least that involves reality, although it would still be used mostly for those simply making accurate observations of Donald Trump.

On a more positive note?

Dismantling government won’t make it more efficient–investing in it will
COMMENTARY | The work federal employees do is often invisible, but it’s always essential.

So, thought, planning, and action are better than disassembly and dysfunction?
Who knew?

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

America's Slide Into MaGA/Oligarchy: Bully Trump's Tariff Wars & His Growing Billionaire Influence

Let's be clear. Donald Trump, albeit now CFPOTUS47 (America's 1st convicted felon POTUS), is a punk and a bully: A "punk" and a "bully" are often considered similar because they both represent aggressive, disruptive behavior, but a key difference is that a "punk" is typically seen as someone who picks on weaker individuals while trying to appear tough, while a "bully" can target anyone, regardless of perceived strength, often using power dynamics to intimidate and control others; essentially, a punk might be considered a smaller-scale bully, focusing on more localized acts of harassment. 

What proof is there that there is now more embarrassment and humiliation of Convicted Felon CFPOTUS47 Donald Trump being president than there are positive feelings by his MaGA supporters?

"The Logic of Destruction - And how to resist it" (audio) - Timothy Snyder

Trump and the Perils of Ungoverning

Institutions Under Assault Will Not Deliver for Americans

Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum

Proud flag of those against their own best interests & others

By the way...I spent time years ago blogging about how the (seemingly earned) humiliation and punishment of Germany after WWI helped fuel WWII—and how we should avoid repeating that ...mistake.We now have Palestinians who have faced decades of displacement and oppression and...here we are.

America does not elect actual and convicted criminals as POTUS. Except now, we actually do as autocracy, Oligarchy, and  Kakistocracy are all what? BETTER than Democracy? That my friends, is the mindset of the mentally, socially, emotionally ILL. Follow and elected a malignant narcissist, a mentally and emotionally unbalanced individual like Donald Trump, and you get what you asked for. Damage. Harmed citizens. Death. 

I'd said in 2016 that if Trump were elected, you'd better HOPE we don't have a national disaster under him...and then we had two.

After the criminal POTUS45 administration, which I'd labeled America's first "Little Bitch POTUS admin", I'd said Trump was responsible for the death of at least 100,000 citizens due to his handling of COVID-19. Trump's own, Secretary of Homeland Security Gen. John Kelly, has said Trump was responsible for 200,000 citizens deaths due to mishandling of COVID-19. 

(Timothy Snyder on electing Convicted Felon Donald Trump & on the "Strongman Fantasy": Quite a few [ignorant/foolish] Americans like the idea of strongman rule. And now we have a president... who vows to persecute the enemy within, and who has [nominated] a cabinet that seems designed to overturn a republic. What’s wrong with that, ask many? Why not a dictator who will get things done?)

And what about Elon Musk's Guru who said in 2014 that America needs to..."get over and get used to having a dictator"? Elon who is invasive into our government now, who was NOT elected to do most of what he's doing in his ridiculous DOGE Trump department? As Trump tries to dismantle the FBI and other departments.

There isn’t a single definitive "proof" of this claim, but several indicators suggest that Trump's potential presidency (CFPOTUS 47) could bring more embarrassment and humiliation than positive feelings, even among some conservatives. 

Here’s how one might assess it:

1. Election Performance & Popularity Metrics

• 2020 Loss: Trump lost the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020. If there were overwhelming positive support, he wouldn’t have lost in a record turnout election.
• 2024 Polling Struggles: While Trump leads in some swing state polls, he remains deeply unpopular nationwide. His net approval rating has consistently been negative since he left office.
• Biden vs. Trump Favorability: Despite Biden’s weaknesses, national polls still show Trump is more disliked than liked by the general electorate.

2. Criminal Charges & Scandals

• Trump is the first former U.S. president to be criminally indicted 91 times across four separate cases. No modern world leader has ever faced such legal trouble while running for office.
• Court cases in New York, Georgia, Florida, and D.C. have led to humiliating revelations about his finances, hush money payments, election interference, and mishandling of classified documents.
• Even Fox News and right-wing media have expressed concerns that these scandals make him unelectable.

3. GOP & Conservative Figures Distancing Themselves

• Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Mike Pence—all former allies—have openly criticized Trump’s leadership, electability, and moral fitness for office.
• The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is preparing for a Trump-like presidency, but they don’t necessarily trust Trump himself. They want a more disciplined version of his policies.
• Republican donors like the Koch network have tried to back alternative candidates, indicating hesitation about his return.

4. Public & Media Mockery

• Saturday Night Live, late-night shows, and comedians consistently use Trump as a source of ridicule. His bizarre rants about whales, sharks, Hannibal Lecter, and batteries have fueled viral memes.
• The phrase “Trump's Cognitive Decline” has been trending more frequently, even among conservatives, due to his increasing verbal mistakes and confusion in speeches.
• His own MAGA supporters sometimes laugh at him. Example: At a rally, he confused Obama and Biden multiple times, causing chuckles even from the crowd.

5. MAGA Base Shrinking & Growing Fatigue

• Trump rallies are not as packed as they used to be—a sign of dwindling enthusiasm.
• "Trump Fatigue" is a real thing, even among some MAGA supporters who feel exhausted by the never-ending drama and legal issues.
• Polling among independent voters shows a clear rejection of Trump, which is crucial for winning in 2024.

Conclusion

While hardcore MAGA supporters still adore Trump, the broader public—including independents and even some conservatives—views his return as chaotic, embarrassing, and legally fraught. The GOP itself is torn, with many preferring Trump’s policies but not his scandals. The weight of indictments, gaffes, and political baggage suggests that a second Trump term would bring more national and international humiliation than genuine triumph.

What about polls, concerns over Trump attacking Canada and Mexico, and others with threats of tariff wars?

Recent developments indicate significant concern over President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs on Canada and Mexico, with public opinion reflecting apprehension about potential economic repercussions.

Public Opinion on Tariffs

A recent poll indicates that 51% of respondents oppose President Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. This opposition underscores widespread unease about the potential economic impact of such trade policies.

thehill.com

Economic Concerns

The tariffs have sparked panic and anger in Canada and Mexico, with economists predicting disruptions in supply chains, inflation, and job losses in all three countries. There is a potential for Canada and Mexico to enter recessions due to these measures.

ft.com

Market Reactions

Global stock markets have reacted negatively to the tariffs, with significant declines observed in the US, Europe, and Asia. Major indices such as Germany's DAX, France's CAC, and the UK's FTSE 100 experienced drops of over 1%. In the US, the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and Nasdaq futures indicated declines between 1% and 2%.

theguardian.com

These developments highlight the contentious nature of the tariffs and the concerns they raise among the public and economic experts.

Global Markets React to Trump's Tariff Imposition

theguardian.com

US, EU and UK stock markets hit by global trade war fears as JPMorgan says Trump administration may be 'business unfriendly' - as it happened

Today

ft.com

Trump tariffs spark panic and anger in Canada and Mexico

2 days ago

thetimes.co.uk

Trump tariffs live: China retaliates against 'malicious' measures

Today

It sounds more like Trump is acting the bully to other countries, getting responses from Canada and Mexico for 1,000s of troops to the borders, and threatening Canada he wants them as our 51st state when we clearly have protectorates who are decades in line for statehood first. 

Trump ridiculous imperial expansionism is also denigrating America's reputation worldwide. It's bad enough simply having him as our chief representative around the world has humiliated US.

In an effort to address issues such as illegal immigration and drug trafficking, President Trump announced plans to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico. In response, both countries have agreed to deploy 10,000 troops each to their respective U.S. borders to enhance security measures.

foxnews.com

Annexation Remarks and Canadian Response

Further escalating tensions, President Trump suggested that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States. This proposal was met with strong opposition from Canadian officials and citizens. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau labeled the suggestion as a distraction from the tariff dispute, emphasizing Canada's sovereignty and rejecting the notion of annexation.

cnn.com

Public Sentiment in Canada

The combination of tariff threats and annexation remarks has led to a surge of anti-American sentiment in Canada. Many Canadians are boycotting American products, canceling trips to the U.S., and promoting local goods as acts of patriotism. Social media campaigns advocating for the boycott of U.S. products have gained momentum, reflecting the public's discontent with the current U.S. administration's policies.

politico.com

Conclusion

CFPOTUS 47 Trump's recent actions and statements have strained relationships with Canada and Mexico, leading to significant diplomatic challenges and public backlash. The situation underscores the importance of careful diplomatic engagement with neighboring countries.

Trump's Tariff Threats Strain U.S. Relations with Canada and Mexico

apnews.com

Neighbors in dispute: After Trump declares a trade war, Canadians grapple with a sense of betrayal

Today

politico.com

Trump riles up America's nicest neighbors

Today

the-sun.com

Victory for Trump as Canada & Mexico cave in to Don's punishing tariff demands & promise 10k troops to protect border

Today

Trump is a bully, that's not up for dispute. 

Then there is his oligarch issue, one that AOC has said we are fully in the midst of, not the beginning of.

Her observation aligns with concerns expressed by various political figures and analysts regarding the concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has been vocal about the nation's shift towards oligarchy. In a recent statement, she emphasized that the U.S. is not merely approaching oligarchy but is already experiencing it, highlighting the significant influence of billionaires on politics and policy.

facebook.com

This perspective is supported by studies indicating that economic elites and organized business interests have substantial impacts on U.S. government policy, often outweighing the preferences of average citizens. A notable 2014 study by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page found that the U.S. political system favors the interests of the wealthy and powerful, leading to policy outcomes that do not necessarily reflect the desires of the broader population.

en.wikipedia.org

Former President Jimmy Carter also described the United States as an "oligarchy with unlimited political bribery," pointing to the pervasive influence of money in politics.

en.wikipedia.org

These assessments suggest that the U.S. has moved beyond the initial stages of oligarchy, with wealth and power increasingly concentrated among a small segment of the population, thereby diminishing the influence of the average citizen in political processes.

For a more in-depth perspective, this discussion may (or may not) be informative:

Let's not forget this, how CFPOTUS47 is dismantling our DOJ because they tried and mostly failed to hold him accountable for his Jan. 6 insurrection and so much more...

Recent actions by President Donald Trump have raised significant concerns about attempts to undermine the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The administration has initiated the dismissal of prosecutors involved in the January 6 investigations and is moving toward ousting FBI agents associated with these cases.

apnews.com

Our crippled Department of Justice (DOJ) has terminated several senior FBI officials and demanded a list of personnel involved in the January 6 Capitol attack investigation, indicating potential further dismissals. Experts describe these actions as unprecedented, noting that mass firings for participation in an investigation are unheard of. Such measures could compromise the FBI's effectiveness in critical areas like counterterrorism and threaten the agency's independence.

vox.com

In response, the FBI Agents Association, representing over 14,000 current and former agents, has appealed to Congress to protect employees facing punishment or termination due to their involvement in the January 6 investigations. The association's letter to lawmakers expressed concerns that these actions might jeopardize agents' careers and disrupt essential Bureau operations.

apnews.com

Critics argue that these moves undermine the rule of law and resemble tactics seen in authoritarian regimes, where governmental agencies are purged of individuals deemed disloyal. This situation has sparked a broader debate about the future of democratic norms and the independence of federal institutions in the United States.

For a more in-depth analysis, you might find this discussion informative:

Best of luck to us all...

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT