Impeachment vs. the 25th Amendment: What’s More Likely to Remove Trump?

On convicted felon POTUS47 Donald Trump's impeachment.

No, that's useless. 

25th Amendment actually might eventually gain traction with Republicans as We're now just waiting around until it is finally invoked, unsurprisingly likely (necessarily) from Republicans, AFTER it's too late to save our economy while not much caring about our democracy.

Might the 25th Amendment eventually gain traction among Republicans? Only after Trump has already inflicted significant damage—especially to the economy—while they remain largely indifferent to democratic concerns. That reflects a deep cynicism about their motivations, implying they’ll act only when their own interests are at stake, rather than out of principle.

It’s an interesting perspective, especially given how reluctant Republicans have been to challenge Trump in the past. If they do invoke the 25th, it would signal an internal fracture, but as you suggest, likely too little, too late. Do you see any particular triggers that might push them to that point?

If the 25th Amendment were to gain traction among Republicans, it would likely take something undeniable—either a catastrophic economic collapse, an extreme foreign policy blunder, or a public display of cognitive or emotional instability that even his staunchest defenders can’t spin away.

The challenge is that the GOP has built itself around Trump’s brand, and many fear political exile if they turn on him. But if Wall Street panics, major donors start pulling support, or a crisis puts them in direct jeopardy, self-preservation might override loyalty.

It wouldn’t be unprecedented—Nixon’s party stuck with him until the moment it became politically untenable. If something similar happens, they’d frame it as "regretful but necessary" rather than an admission of prior failure.

We already have undeniable and Republicans are in denial.

If everything that’s already happened hasn’t been enough, then what would be? It seems like the threshold keeps shifting—what was once unthinkable just becomes the new normal.

At this point, it feels like the only thing that could push them would be a direct, immediate threat to their own power or financial interests. Even then, they'd probably try to salvage Trump until it’s absolutely unsustainable.

So yeah, "waiting around until it’s finally invoked" seems depressingly accurate—if it ever happens at all.

The 25th Amendment, specifically Sections 1 and 2, which clarify presidential succession and how to fill a VP vacancy.

The real controversy around invoking the 25th Amendment on Trump would come from Section 4, which allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet (or another body Congress designates) to declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." That would temporarily transfer power to the VP, but if the president disputes it, Congress would have to decide—requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers to permanently remove him.

That’s the part that’s never been used and would likely spark a political firestorm. But as you pointed out earlier, Republicans would probably wait until after the damage is done before even considering it—if they ever do.

The 25th Amendment and impeachment are both ways to remove a president, but they work very differently:

Impeachment (Article I, Section 2 & 3; Article II, Section 4)

• A political process, not a medical or functional one.
• Requires the House of Representatives to bring charges ("articles of impeachment").
• The Senate then holds a trial and needs a two-thirds vote to convict and remove the president.
• A president can still run again if impeached but not convicted.
• Example: Trump was impeached twice but not removed because the Senate acquitted him both times.

25th Amendment (Section 4)

• A medical or functional incapacity process, not about crimes.
• Allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet (or Congress) to declare the president unable to serve due to illness, incapacity, or some other reason.
• The VP becomes acting president immediately.
• If the president disputes it, Congress must decide—with a two-thirds vote in both chambers needed to remove him permanently.
• Has never been used to remove a president but was briefly used for temporary transfers of power (e.g., when presidents underwent surgery).

The 25th Amendment is meant for cases where a president physically or mentally cannot function, while impeachment is about accountability for wrongdoing.

Right now, Republicans are unlikely to pursue either, but if they ever turn on Trump, the 25th might be their excuse if they want to avoid direct political responsibility for impeachment.

Impeachment is more likely than the 25th Amendment—but neither is very likely at this point.

Why Impeachment Is More Likely:

1. Precedent – Trump has already been impeached twice, showing that Congress is willing to go that route.
2. Lower Initial Threshold – The House only needs a simple majority to impeach, whereas the 25th requires the VP and a majority of the Cabinet to act first.
3. Political Maneuvering – If Trump’s actions become too damaging (e.g., economic collapse, extreme instability), Congress could use impeachment to distance themselves from him while still claiming to uphold democracy.
4. Pressure from Investigations – If ongoing investigations reveal serious misconduct (financial crimes, obstruction, etc.), impeachment could gain momentum.

Why the 25th Amendment Is Less Likely:

1. VP Loyalty – J.D. Vance (if VP) or whoever Trump picks would likely be a die-hard loyalist, making it highly unlikely they’d trigger the 25th.
2. Cabinet Control – Trump will likely fill his Cabinet with yes-men, meaning they wouldn’t support removal.
3. Political Suicide for Republicans – Any GOP official who invokes the 25th would instantly become a party outcast.
4. Historical Inertia – The 25th has never been used for removal, and doing so would trigger a constitutional crisis.

If Either Happens, When?

• Impeachment: If economic collapse, scandals, or a catastrophic blunder force Congress’s hand.
• 25th Amendment: Only if Trump mentally or physically deteriorates in a way that is undeniable even to his inner circle.

Right now, though, Republicans seem more likely to let things burn than take action—until it’s too late.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

America in 2025: Democracy to Oligarchy (& Kakistocracy)

With the inauguration of convicted Felon Donald Trump today, we have to consider where we are at. And it does not look good. While some praise it as a New America. Something we have heard criminals claim at various times in the past, always proven to be untrue. Those like Joseph McCarthy with his "red scare" who, as with Trump, is just a calling of others to arms to empower himself, first and foremost. 

Donald Trump as POTUS47. It this the beginning of the end for us? Or the end of the beginning? Is this the beginning of an authoritarian America, or simply growing pains to strengthen America from ever again going down this anti-democratic and authoritarian path of disingenuity, disinformation, disruption, and destruction?

Kakistocracy. by the way, refers to a system of government in which the leaders are the least qualified, most corrupt, or most incompetent individuals available. The term comes from the Greek words kakistos (meaning "worst") and kratos (meaning "rule" or "power"), and it describes a government run by those who are corrupt, inept, or unfit to govern. In a kakistocracy, power is typically held by individuals who act in their own self-interest rather than for the benefit of the public, often leading to mismanagement, widespread corruption, and poor governance.

Why? Because this IS what (and who) Trump is, in nominating to lead our government institutions people lacking proper qualifications for their nominated positions. 

Why?

Putting unqualified individuals in positions of power and institutions can happen for a variety of reasons, often influenced by political, economic, or ideological factors. Here are a few common reasons why this might occur:

1. Political Patronage and Loyalty: In some cases, leaders or political parties may prioritize loyalty and personal connections over qualifications. Appointing friends, allies, or political supporters, regardless of their competence, helps maintain power and solidify political support. This can lead to positions being filled by individuals who lack the skills or knowledge required to perform effectively.

2. Ideological or Partisan Goals: Political leaders might appoint individuals who share their specific ideological or partisan views, even if they are not qualified for the role. The goal may be to advance a particular agenda rather than ensuring competent governance. This is often seen in the appointment of judges, agency heads, or other key figures in the administration.

3. Cronyism and Corruption: In some cases, the appointment of unqualified individuals is a result of cronyism or corruption. Individuals may be chosen because they are willing to engage in corrupt practices or because they offer financial or personal benefits to those in power. This often undermines the effectiveness and integrity of institutions.

4. Political and Business Influence: Large corporations, interest groups, or wealthy individuals may influence the appointment of unqualified people to positions of power to protect their own interests. By placing their allies in positions of influence, they can shape policies that benefit their business or financial goals, sometimes at the expense of public welfare.

5. Lack of Accountability: In some systems, especially those with weak checks and balances, leaders may be able to appoint unqualified individuals without facing significant public scrutiny or consequences. In such environments, there may be little to no pressure to ensure that the most qualified individuals are appointed to positions of power.

6. Short-Term Political Gains: Some leaders may prioritize short-term political or electoral gains over long-term governance and effectiveness. Appointing individuals who can mobilize a certain voter base, or who are seen as symbols of a particular movement, may be seen as more beneficial in the short run, even if they lack qualifications.

7. Ideological Disregard for Expertise: Some populist or anti-establishment movements deliberately place unqualified individuals in power as a rejection of traditional elites, experts, or institutions. This is often framed as a way to "drain the swamp" or challenge the establishment, though it can lead to ineffective governance.

In all these cases, the decision to place unqualified people in power can harm institutions, diminish the quality of governance, and erode public trust in the system. It may also result in poor decision-making and the mismanagement of critical issues, potentially leading to long-term damage to a country's political and economic health.

While some may believe that Donald Trump is saving them from our government (apparently by destroying it), it is an irrational and disreputable view regarding our most immoral (and effectively nearly our worst) POTUS...a convicted felon who was re-elected under circumstances of delusion and frankly, criminal intent. 

In presidential rankings, Abraham Lincoln rated #1. Barack Obama rated #10. Donald Trump...#41 out of our 46 presidents as of today (with tomorrow being convicted felon Donald Trump's inauguration as POTUS47.

The image above illustrates themes of power dynamics and collective action. It depicts a transformation from oppression to liberation: initially, a figure wields a whip over a submissive group, but the group eventually rises against the oppressor. The image suggests that solidarity and collective action can overpower tyranny.

In the context of the past 20 years in America, and particularly with the framing of Donald Trump as either a savior or a manipulator, interpretations vary depending on political alignment. But it's quite obvious to anyone paying close, or even distant attention (as with our friends worldwide) that Donald Trump is part of a tyrannical orientation with an easily uncovered disreputable career.

Conservative Perspective:

Many conservatives see Trump as the figure fighting against entrenched elites, "saving" the people from oppressive systems like "the swamp," big government, or globalist agendas. To them, Trump represents the individual who breaks the whip held by these powers. "Conservatism" today, is not what it once was. Or as it's still claimed to be.

While both forms of conservatism value national identity, personal liberty, and tradition, Trump’s conservatism has brought a more combative and populist tone to the forefront, often challenging the status quo and the institutions that traditional conservatism sought to preserve.

Opposing Perspective:

Critics argue that Trump himself embodies the authoritarian figure, concentrating power and leveraging divisive rhetoric to maintain control. From this perspective, his actions and policies (e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy, environmental deregulation, and alleged undermining of democratic norms) disproportionately serve elites rather than ordinary citizens, contradicting the notion of him as a liberator.

Overarching Theme:

The image underscores the potential for manipulation of collective belief systems. Trump's supporters might view themselves as the liberated group, but critics could argue that their alignment with Trump perpetuates systemic oppression under the guise of populist rhetoric. The image invites reflection on how leaders use narratives of "us versus them" to wield influence and whether true liberation is achieved or if the cycle of oppression continues under a different guise.

Pointing out how the objective view about Donald Trump is not a good one as he is a convicted felon and has been a lifelong and career criminal.

The claim that Donald Trump is a "convicted felon" is inaccurate as of now. While he has faced numerous legal challenges, including indictments and civil lawsuits, none have yet resulted in a felony conviction. However, he has been found liable in certain civil cases, including one involving sexual abuse and defamation. It is critical to distinguish between criminal convictions and civil liabilities when discussing his record.

That said, Trump has faced significant legal and ethical controversies over the years that invite scrutiny. Here's an objective overview of some of the major issues often cited by critics:

1. History of Fraud and Business Misconduct

• The Trump University case resulted in a $25 million settlement after allegations that the program defrauded students.
• The Trump Foundation was dissolved in 2019 following a lawsuit alleging misuse of charitable funds for personal and political purposes.
• Multiple contractors and employees have accused Trump of failing to pay for services rendered.

2. Tax and Financial Irregularities

• Trump was the first president in decades to refuse to release his tax returns voluntarily, raising questions about transparency.
• The New York Times' investigation into his taxes revealed years of aggressive tax avoidance, claiming substantial losses to offset income and paying little to no federal income tax in some years.

3. Criminal Indictments (2023–2024)

• Trump has been criminally indicted four times in connection with:
  • Classified documents case: Mishandling sensitive national security documents after leaving office.
  • 2020 election interference: Allegations of attempting to overturn election results in Georgia and on a federal level.
  • Stormy Daniels hush money case: Alleged falsification of business records to conceal payments.
  • January 6th Capitol attack: Charged for conspiring to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and inciting insurrection.

4. Evasion of Accountability

• Critics argue that Trump's tactics often involve delaying and deflecting through lawsuits, appeals, and public attacks on institutions like the judiciary, FBI, and DOJ. This behavior erodes trust in the rule of law and democratic norms.

5. Ethical Concerns During His Presidency

• Emoluments clause violations: Accusations of profiting from the presidency by promoting his properties for official government and foreign delegations.
• Nepotism: Appointing his children and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to key advisory roles despite their lack of qualifications.
• Use of presidential power for personal gain: Pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden (which led to his first impeachment).

6. Patterns of Manipulation and Deception

• Trump has a documented history of making false or misleading statements, with fact-checkers counting tens of thousands during his presidency. Critics argue that his frequent use of misinformation undermines public trust.

7. Social and Political Impact

• Trump's divisive rhetoric has exacerbated polarization, emboldened extremist groups, and fueled distrust in democratic institutions.
• His role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection marked a low point in American democracy, with many viewing it as an attack on the peaceful transfer of power.

The Broader Implications

While Trump’s supporters delusionally view him as a fighter against corrupt elites (which he is himself), critics and most rational thinkers argue his actions consistently reflect self-interest, authoritarianism, and a disregard for democratic norms, the US Constitution, and the law.

Controversies surrounding Donald Trump and those from his inner circle, suggest patterns of prioritizing personal and political gains over accountability, ethical governance, or public service. To wit, a career of criminality and abuse.

With convicted felon Donald Trump's inauguration on Monday, January 20, 2025, a new era of America arises under the auspices of an authoritarian and convicted criminal as POTUS47. 

US institutions and the US Constitution, aside from the Department of Justice (recognizing its own failures in holding Trump accountable after he left office in 2021), politically swelter under the weight of the Trump crime organization, now being assimilated within the US Government as it reforms it from an oligarchy or plutocracy, with elements of kleptocracy, into a kakistocracy.

As of January 19, 2025, the most fitting description of the United States, based on current political and economic trends, could be oligarchy or plutocracy, with elements of kleptocracy and meritocracy also being relevant, depending on the specific issue being discussed.

• Oligarchy: Many critics of the U.S. system argue that power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of wealthy individuals, corporations, and interest groups, who influence policy through lobbying, campaign contributions, and media ownership. This has led to concerns that the government serves the interests of the elite rather than the general population, especially on issues like tax policy, healthcare, and corporate regulation.

• Plutocracy: With the growing influence of wealth in politics, such as the rise of super PACs, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals, and the outsized impact of billionaires on elections, the term "plutocracy" is often used to highlight the role that wealth plays in shaping political outcomes. This has raised concerns that economic inequality has reached levels where the rich can effectively control government policy.

• Kleptocracy: While the term "kleptocracy" generally refers to the outright theft of state resources for personal gain, there have been instances where government officials or business elites have been accused of corruption, embezzlement, and self-dealing, particularly in relation to issues like government contracts, tax policy, and regulatory capture. Critics of the current system sometimes use the term to suggest that corruption is pervasive at the highest levels of power.

• Meritocracy: Despite its ideal, the U.S. is increasingly criticized for not functioning as a true meritocracy, especially with regard to social mobility. Structural inequalities related to race, class, education, and geography have made it difficult for many Americans to succeed based purely on merit. However, meritocratic ideals are still often used to justify policies, particularly in education and employment.

As of January 19, 2025, the most fitting description of the United States IS, based on current political and economic trends with Donald Trump's inauguration tomorrow, is that of a plutocracy or oligarchy, where wealth and concentrated power shape the political landscape, limiting true democratic representation. 

However, aspects of kleptocracy (with lingering remains of an ever-decreasing meritocracy), still play roles in the broader discussion of American governance, depending on the specific issue being discussed.

Much of the problem is Donald Trump's divisional tactics to divide and conquer America. WE can do better together. We all need to see that.

We can do better. But not if one cannot see beyond one's partisan, especially when delusional, beliefs.

Do we even want to do better anymore? Because it doesn't seem like it as those on the right denigrate democracy, praise authoritarianism and autocratic enemies of Western democracies, and continue to confuse reality with fantasy and tribalism.

We CAN do better. Easily. 

Reality still matters. While we are welcome to our own opinions, we are not welcome to have our own personal (or tribal or partisan)...facts.

Let's end with these two thoughts:

Twenty Lessons On Tyranny, From the Twentieth Century - Timothy Snyder.

And finally...

Why I remain hopeful about America Even as darkness falls - Robert Reich

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Gospel of Power: Trump, Crime, and the Illiberal Republican Vision via Christian Nationalism

Christian Nationalism in a liberal democratic constitutional republic, is a blight, as is American Evangelicalism when fused with things outside (and inside) the realm of religion (see also, mega-churches, and RICO) that is leading to a Kakistocracy.

From Democracy to Theocracy, from Oligarchy to Kleptocracy: 

Trump’s Exploitation of the nightmare of Christian Nationalism (see also, pre-WWII German and the rise of Hitler's Nazism), and the advent of Kakistocracy.

• Democracy: literally, rule by the people. Democracy is vital for a civilized society. When a country or community is democratic, it lets everyone have a say in who runs the country, makes the laws, and governs the people. If only some people are allowed to make these decisions, it is not fair to everyone else who has to live by them.
• Theocracy: Theocracy is a form of government where it is believed that a god, deity, or group of deities, or a deity is in charge. The supreme being is usually thought to rule through human figures, like politicians and clergy, who are believed to be in direct contact with and/or of direct descent from the supreme being.
• Oligarchy: A system of government in which a few individuals are responsible for ruling over or making governing decisions for a country. The word has Greek roots and is derived from oligoi, which means ''a few,'' and arkhein, which means ''to rule.'
• Kleptocracy: Most explanations of kleptocracy – derived from the Greek for ‘thief’ and ‘rule’ – stress the aspect of ‘grand corruption’ whereby high-level political power is abused to enable a network of ruling elites to steal public funds for their own private gain using public institutions. Kleptocracy is therefore a system based on virtually unlimited grand corruption coupled with, in the words of American academic Andrew Wedeman, ‘near-total impunity for those authorized to loot by the thief-in-chief’ – namely the head of state.
• Kakistocracy (see also, Donald Trump, POTUS45, & POTUS47): A government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens: Kakistocracy is one of those words so seldom heard that it might be taken to represent some­thing that never existed. It means “a government by the worst men.” Lowell gave the term an intolerant but more colorful definition, “a government… for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools.” To wit: "Trump’s kakistocracy invites possible catastrophe."

First, here are a couple of references, the first from a recent blog of mine:

• Changes in American Conservatism Over the Past 50 Years
• A History of Christian Nationalism
• Meet The Christians Pushing Back On Christian Nationalism

Now, to detail how Donald Trump has abused Christian Nationalism to bring their illiberal fantasies to fruition, in giving them the power to empower him, to breach our separation of church and state, to bring about their anti-American, nonsensical and dangerous, Christian delusions.

Donald Trump has leveraged Christian nationalism to consolidate support among religious conservatives and bolster his political power. By aligning his rhetoric and policies with the movement's goals, Trump has become a figurehead for an illiberal vision of governance that intertwines religion with state authority, undermining the separation of church and state.

Christian nationalism promotes the idea that the U.S. is divinely chosen as a Christian nation and that its laws and governance should reflect conservative Christian values.

This...is utter bullshit.

Trump exploited this narrative by casting himself as a defender of "traditional" Christian values against perceived secular and liberal threats. For instance, he frequently invoked religious themes, such as protecting "religious freedom," while implementing policies that aligned with Christian nationalist priorities, like restricting abortion rights and favoring policies seen as discriminatory against LGBTQ+ individuals.

Trump's courtship of Christian nationalists often involved overt displays of religiosity, despite his personal history being at odds with evangelical values. His appointment of conservative judges, particularly to the Supreme Court, fulfilled a long-standing goal of Christian nationalists to shift American jurisprudence in a direction more sympathetic to their worldview, particularly on issues like abortion and religious exemptions in public policy.

This strategy has roots in the Republican Party's historical alignment with religious conservatism, dating back to the "Southern Strategy" of the Nixon era. The approach used race, religion, and cultural issues to polarize voters and diminish the salience of class and economic concerns. Trump took this further, employing more explicit appeals to xenophobia and racism while maintaining the focus on culture wars. His framing of liberals, secularists, and immigrants as existential threats to the nation echoed the Christian nationalist narrative of defending America from both internal and external enemies.

These tactics have mobilized a substantial base of religious conservatives while drawing criticism from other Christian groups and secular organizations that view the movement as a distortion of democratic and religious principles. Many have argued that Christian nationalism's focus on power and dominance conflicts with the pluralistic ideals upon which the United States was founded, and they see Trump's exploitation of this ideology as a direct challenge to the constitutional principle of separating church and state​.

What is the fix to this crap perpetrated by an ever-increasing illiberal Republican Party and a criminal element as exemplified by Donald Trump, his crime family, and the criminals Donald Trump has empowered in his cabinet, and his administration?

Addressing the rise of Christian nationalism and its impact on American governance requires a multi-pronged approach that reaffirms democratic principles, protects the separation of church and state, and fosters a more inclusive society. Here are key steps to mitigate this trend:

1. Civic Education and Advocacy

• Promote Constitutional Literacy: Increase public understanding of the First Amendment and the principle of church-state separation. Educational programs and public campaigns can help counter misinformation.
• Empower Advocacy Groups: Support organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which work to uphold secular governance and challenge policies that undermine religious neutrality.

2. Strengthening Legal Protections

• Enforce Church-State Separation: Courts should continue to uphold rulings that prevent religious influence from dictating public policy, such as school prayer mandates or preferential treatment for specific religions.
• Challenge Misuse of Religious Freedom: Monitor and contest laws that misuse the concept of religious liberty to justify discrimination or erode rights.

3. Building Broad-Based Coalitions

• Interfaith and Secular Collaboration: Encourage alliances between religious and secular groups that oppose Christian nationalism, emphasizing shared values like justice, equality, and respect for diversity.
• Community Engagement: Foster dialogue within communities to address the concerns of religious conservatives while advocating for policies that are inclusive of all faiths and beliefs.

4. Political and Electoral Strategies

• Counter Culture War Narratives: Politicians and public figures must articulate alternative visions that focus on unity, economic fairness, and individual freedoms rather than divisive cultural issues.
• Encourage Voter Turnout: Mobilize voters, especially among younger and more diverse demographics, to elect candidates committed to upholding secular democracy.

5. Promote Religious Diversity

• Highlight Pluralism in America: Showcase the rich diversity of religious and non-religious traditions in the U.S. to combat the notion that the country belongs to one faith tradition.
• Support Public Religious Dialogue: Encourage discussions that emphasize the role of religion as a personal, not political, force in society.

6. Media and Counter-Narratives

• Fact-Check and Debunk Propaganda: Actively counter misinformation and conspiracy theories propagated by Christian nationalist movements.
• Support Independent Media: Fund and follow outlets that provide balanced reporting and expose the dangers of merging religion with state power.

7. Grassroots Action

• Empower Local Communities: Encourage grassroots efforts to resist the imposition of Christian nationalist policies, such as organizing against book bans or curriculum changes that promote religious indoctrination.
• Engage Youth: Invest in youth programs that teach critical thinking, civic responsibility, and respect for diversity.

Long-Term Cultural Change

Ultimately, reducing the influence of Christian nationalism requires cultural change that embraces pluralism, reinforces democracy, and rejects authoritarianism. This involves creating spaces where diverse beliefs can coexist peacefully and ensuring that political power is not monopolized by any one ideology or group​.

How do we address the challenges posed by an increasingly illiberal Republican Party and the influence of Donald Trump, his associates, and policies that have empowered a criminal and authoritarian political culture, a multifaceted approach is essential?

Here's what can be done:

1. Restore Accountability in Government

• Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms: Bolster independent bodies like inspectors general, ethics committees, and watchdog organizations to monitor and investigate abuses of power.
• Legal Reforms: Close legal loopholes exploited for personal or political gain, such as strengthening laws around emoluments, conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice.
• Prosecutions and Transparency: Ensure that alleged crimes and misconduct are investigated and prosecuted, no matter how high-ranking the official, to restore faith in the rule of law.

2. Reaffirm Democratic Norms

• Election Integrity: Counter voter suppression efforts, enhance election security, and make voting more accessible to combat undemocratic tactics.
• Strengthen Civic Institutions: Support nonpartisan initiatives that promote democratic norms, media literacy, and informed participation in governance.

3. Combat Authoritarian Narratives

• Fact-Checking and Media Accountability: Actively counter misinformation and lies, especially those propagated by high-ranking officials and partisan media outlets.
• Public Education Campaigns: Promote an understanding of democratic principles, emphasizing the dangers of authoritarianism and corruption.

4. Rebuild Ethical Leadership

• Cultivate Moral Leadership: Elect leaders who prioritize public service and ethical governance over personal enrichment or party loyalty.
• Promote Whistleblowing Protections: Safeguard those who expose wrongdoing within administrations.

5. Engage Grassroots Movements

• Mobilize Local Action: Empower communities to resist undemocratic policies and advocate for reforms through local government, protests, and voter education.
• Support Nonprofit Advocacy: Strengthen organizations that fight for justice, transparency, and democratic governance.

6. Strengthen Judicial Independence

• Depoliticize Judicial Appointments: Advocate for reforms that reduce partisanship in selecting judges to maintain impartiality in the judiciary.
• Review Supreme Court Policies: Consider measures like term limits or ethical standards for justices to ensure accountability.

7. Reduce Corruption's Influence

• Campaign Finance Reform: Limit the role of money in politics to reduce the power of wealthy donors and lobbyists over public policy.
• Transparency in Governance: Require robust financial disclosures from public officials and enforce anti-corruption laws.

8. Foster a Unified Resistance

• Cross-Partisan Coalitions: Work with conservatives, moderates, and progressives who share concerns about authoritarianism to build a broader defense of democracy.
• Promote Unity Around Democratic Values: Focus on shared goals like fairness, accountability, and the rule of law to bridge divides and counter authoritarianism.

By taking these steps, it is possible to restore democratic principles, resist authoritarian tendencies, and ensure that the government serves the people rather than entrenched power structures or criminal elements.

I wish us all the best...

Image by & Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Changes in American Conservatism Over the Past 50 years

I've been pointing out how conservatism today is not the conservatism people think of it as. This has led to some very bad things until finally someone as morally corrupt as Donald Trump was able to convince just enough people to elect him as POTUS45 in 2016, with some help from a confluence of situations like Russian disinformation in social media, and various social and governmental issues. Like FBI Dir. James Comey speaking out about an investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, to protect the institution of the FBI, rather than the nation as a whole. 

The Republican Party has been positioning itself to win elections regardless of thought about the wellbeing of the country or its citizens, but to the benefit of the Party and at any or all costs to any or all others, regardless of the damages, as long as it does not hurt the party or its leadership.

 That is not a political party. That tends, to lead sooner or later, to devolve into a political cult of personality. As it finally has done in Trump's MaGA club of abuse.

The evolution of American conservatism over has raised several concerns among critics and even some within the conservative movement itself. In 2012 when the GOP lost the presidency to Barack Obama, again, they called for an "autopsy" of the party which offered some very good observations and changes that need to be made if they wanted to win an election again. They doubled down on the bad and ignored the good.

This is a party that is in "win at all costs" mode. Ethics didn't matter, morals didn't matter, lies, dishonesty, criminal activity don't matter. That is still being adjudicated over the Donald Trump presidency today in the courts and when Trump loses this 2024 election, he will see justice served.

Should he somehow bizarrely win the election, he will disable the DOJ, end the trials against him, and get back to his original intent of wrecking the US government and building his autocracy. The GOP set themselves up, all of us up, for this to eventually happen, one way or another.

But what has changed about conservatism in the past 50 years?

Here are some potential negative aspects of these changes:

1. Polarization and Division

• Increased Partisanship: The shift towards populism and identity politics has contributed to a more polarized political landscape. This division can lead to gridlock in government and a lack of bipartisan cooperation on critical issues.

2. Erosion of Traditional Conservative Values

• Departure from Principles: Critics argue that the embrace of populism has led some conservatives to abandon foundational principles like fiscal responsibility and limited government in favor of more reactionary and populist policies.

3. Distrust in Institutions

• Anti-Establishment Sentiment: The rise of anti-establishment rhetoric has fostered distrust in key institutions, including the media, judiciary, and electoral processes. This can undermine democratic norms and civic engagement.

4. Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation

• Acceptance of False Narratives: The increased reliance on alternative media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This can lead to a misinformed electorate and harm public discourse.

5. Reduction in Civil Discourse

• Hostility and Aggression: The combative style of leadership and rhetoric prevalent in modern conservatism can contribute to a more hostile political environment, making constructive dialogue more challenging.

6. Focus on Cultural Wars

• Diverting Attention from Economic Issues: A strong emphasis on cultural and identity politics can detract from addressing pressing economic concerns such as income inequality, job creation, and healthcare access, which affect many Americans across the political spectrum.

7. Impact on Governance

• Populism Over Policy: The focus on populism may prioritize short-term political gains over long-term policy solutions, potentially leading to ineffective governance and neglect of critical issues like climate change and healthcare reform.

8. Marginalization of Moderate Voices

• Decline of Centrism: The rise of extreme viewpoints may marginalize moderate conservatives, making it difficult for those who advocate for compromise and pragmatic solutions to find a place in the party.

9. Undermining Rule of Law

• Challenging Judicial Independence: The distrust in the judiciary and calls to undermine its authority can threaten the rule of law and the independence of the judicial system, essential for a functioning democracy.

10. Cultural Backlash

• Resistance to Progress: A strong focus on preserving traditional values can lead to backlash against progress on social issues, potentially hindering advancements in civil rights and equality.

Overall, while the evolution of American conservatism reflects changing societal dynamics and concerns, critics argue that these changes can lead to increased polarization, a decline in democratic norms, and a shift away from traditional conservative values, potentially harming both the party and the broader political landscape.

I have to say, I've always been a progressive. From birth. My life has been all about  moving forward, making positive changes, and taking risks. I've done some very dangerous things in my life. Search and Rescue. Street racing. SCUBA and sky diving. It goes on and on. I've had people ask me at times if I was trying to kill myself or had a "death wish". For part of the first part of my life, I really wasn't sure.

But I came to realize that wasn't the case at all. I started testing my limits very young. Some guys haven't done that util they were adults and some never have. I've always challenged myself, pushing beyond what I found difficult or frightening. There were a lot of things as a young child that I found scary. 

At some point, I decided I had enough of that. I would face my fears. Those guys I've met who haven't challenged themselves when they were young? A lot of those types were the guys I ran into as adults who were bullies, or challenging others to match up to them. Maybe being aggressive, or starting a fight. I felt sorry for them. I had no need to challenge myself against others. 

I'd done that decades ago. While they were riding their bikes a kids, I was hanging off a damn mountain. When they were in high school racing their cars, I was too actually...but I was also jumping out of a plane, SCUBA diving by myself in Puget Sound, backpacking in the Cascades, alone.

Eventually my comment to those thinking I was nuts has been that, yes, I do some very dangerous things, but as professionally as possible. I was taught from childhood to always find the best teachers in their field and learn all you can.

My point in all that is I always felt being conservative was not something you admit to others because it involves being overly careful, safe..."conservative". If we had been conservative during the founding of this nation, or the Revolutionary War, we'd still be a British colony today. 

How is being conservative something got be proud of? OK. But I also recognize we need both sides, both sides being functional, to balance out our nation. Being all on or the other is going to get someone killed. And it has. On Jan. 6th in Trump's instruction. 

Let's not do that again.

Now about our Founding Fathers, the Framers of our Constitution...

The Founding Fathers of the United States are often seen as both conservative and liberal figures, and their classification can depend on the specific context and criteria used. Here are some points to consider regarding their ideological leanings:

Conservative Aspects

1. Tradition and Order: The Founders valued certain Enlightenment principles and sought to create a government that balanced individual freedoms with social order, drawing heavily on established political thought and practices of their time.

2. Limited Government: Many of the Founders, particularly figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a government that was limited in scope, reflecting a conservative desire to prevent tyranny and preserve personal liberties.

3. Property Rights: The emphasis on protecting property rights and the interests of landowners and merchants indicates a conservative approach to economic and social order.

4. Federalism: The establishment of a federal system was designed to maintain a balance of power, which can be seen as a conservative effort to prevent any one group or faction from gaining too much control.

Liberal Aspects

1. Rebellion Against Authority: The very act of declaring independence from Great Britain was a progressive move, challenging the authority of a distant monarchy and asserting the right to self-governance and individual liberty.

2. Natural Rights Philosophy: The Founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, believed in natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as inherent to all individuals. This reflects a more liberal view on human rights and the role of government in protecting them.

3. Democratic Principles: The creation of a government based on popular sovereignty and representative democracy was a radical departure from the aristocratic and monarchical systems that preceded it, aligning more closely with liberal ideals.

4. Social Contract Theory: The idea that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed is a progressive notion, emphasizing individual agency and rights over traditional authority.

Conclusion

In summary, the Founding Fathers embodied a complex blend of conservative and liberal ideas. They were revolutionary in their quest for independence and individual rights, reflecting liberal values, while also seeking to establish a stable and orderly government that adhered to certain traditional principles. Their legacy can be seen as a foundation for both modern conservatism and liberalism in America, depending on the aspects of their philosophy and actions that are emphasized.

This duality is part of what makes their contributions to American political thought so significant and enduring, as they laid the groundwork for a dynamic and evolving democratic system that continues to grapple with the balance between liberty and order.

To end, we need balance. The Republican Party anymore just wants to win. Only they know best. Nonsense. We need to work together and work to gether to end this polarization that Donald Trump is so addicted to in order to put or keep himself in power.

It's not democratic, it's not American, and it's' not functional. But it does make for some very terrifying autocracies. I don't want America to turn into North Korea, or Russia, or China. I don't want a cult of personality running things here. I don't want a dictator or a tyrant, which Trump would be more than happy to be.

What we have here is a pretty sweet thing. Which is what Ben Franklin was sayig when he said, "A republic...if you can keep it."

"The source of this quotation is a journal kept by James McHenry (1753-1816) while he was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Then McHenry added: “The Lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel of Philada.” The journal is at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress." LOC Blogs

Mr. Franklin, by the way...was an independent. So am I.

Finally...

What do you call someone who is a blank slate for followers, using confusing and manipulative language that lets supporters project whatever they want onto them? 

Does this describe Donald Trump?

ChatGPT:

Yes, this description can apply to Donald Trump. His rhetoric often blends ambiguity with bold or polarizing statements, allowing followers and critics alike to project their own interpretations onto his words & actions. His statements are sometimes contradictory or open-ended, giving supporters room to see what aligns with their own views or to explain away inconsistencies. This approach can create a strong sense of loyalty among his followers, as they feel he represents their ideals, even if those ideals vary widely.

This kind of person could be considered a Rorschach figure or projection surface, terms that highlight how followers can "read into" or project their own values, ideas, or hopes onto them, much like interpreting a Rorschach inkblot test. The person's ambiguous or confusing communication style allows people to fill in the blanks with what they want to see, making them relatable to a wide range of supporters while still avoiding clear accountability or transparency.

Additionally, some terms that might capture aspects of this behavior are:

Gaslighter: Someone who uses manipulation & confusing language to cause doubt or to control perception.

Cult of Personality Leader: This applies when the person cultivates an image that others idealize, often through manipulation or charisma.

Enigmatic Figure: An intentionally confusing or mysterious figure who leaves followers guessing.

These figures often blend ambiguity with abusive language or manipulation to create a kind of “mirror” effect, allowing followers to see what they want while maintaining control over their narratives.

For more, see my 2016 blog on "Food vs Nationalism" with a critique by ChatGPT on its accuracy compared to today.

Also...

As of recent reports, over 40 former Trump officials and associates have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. This includes individuals from a range of positions, from high-profile cabinet members to advisors, communications staff, and former campaign aides. 

Here's a breakdown of the types of officials:

-Cabinet Members: At least 5 former cabinet members (e.g., John Bolton, Bill Barr, Rex Tillerson).

-Senior White House Staff: Around 10 former chiefs of staff, advisors, and communications directors (e.g., Gen. John Kelly, Alyssa Farah Griffin).

-Former Campaign Aides: A few campaign staffers from both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns have also spoken out.

-Other GOP Politicians and Allies: Various Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump, like Chris Christie, have switched their stance.

This number could increase as more former officials choose to speak out in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

Several former officials and close associates of Donald Trump have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. Here are a few prominent names:

John Bolton – Trump's former National Security Advisor has been a vocal critic since leaving the administration and is outspoken about not supporting Trump's 2024 run.

Bill Barr – The former Attorney General, once a staunch defender, has criticized Trump’s actions post-presidency, especially regarding January 6 and election interference, and said he would not vote for him.

Gen. John Kelly – Trump's former Chief of Staff has expressed disapproval of Trump’s behavior and leadership style and has publicly criticized him.

Rex Tillerson – The former Secretary of State has criticized Trump’s handling of international relations and stated that he cannot support him.

Chris Christie – Former New Jersey Governor and once a close Trump ally, Christie is now one of Trump's most vocal Republican critics and is running against him in the 2024 primary.

Mick Mulvaney – Former Acting White House Chief of Staff has been critical of Trump, especially following the January 6 Capitol riot, and said he would not support him.

Alyssa Farah Griffin – Former White House Director of Strategic Communications has openly criticized Trump since January 6 and is against his 2024 campaign.

These individuals, among others, have voiced concerns over Trump’s leadership style and his actions related to the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol attack, which have influenced their public opposition to his 2024 candidacy.

All the best to us all...

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Outed: Russia Today (RT), Long Russian State Propaganda, an Arm of the FSB & Simply Putin's Mouthpiece

I had discussed this on this blog in 2017 (I wasn't the only one who noticed), but I had complained about it years before that. That RT (Russia Today) was a tool of the Russian government, If not a branch of Putin's FSB, it was certainly his mouthpiece. I was stunned to find ANY American personalities or professionals would sign up for what was obviously just Russian State TV, regardless of their incessant denials.

Among the channel's shows were + One with Dennis Miller, CrossTalk with Peter Lavelle and The Keiser Report with Max Keiser. Other shows included News with Ed Schultz (2016–2018) and Larry King Now (2012–2020). Bizarre. Aiding and abetting the enemy.

It was also bizarre to find RT, which they changed to after "Russia Today" became too problematic, was touting a line curiously similar to American right-wing (nut) propaganda as on Fox News (a huge flashing light in both directions), touted by the Republican Party extremists and eventually and clearly by Donald Trump and his MaGA adjunct to Russian disinformation. Something Newt Gingrich began to make popular since the early 1990s.

None of this was difficult to see. Certainly not for any of us who had for decades, followed Soviet and then Russian disinformation campaigns worldwide. All of which became clearer as now war criminal Putin turned more and more into a despot and faux democratic leader of Russia.

Finally, the American government is being overt about it too:

Alerting the World to RT’s Global Covert Activities:

"Today, the United States is designating three entities and two individuals for their connection to Russia’s destabilizing actions abroad. According to new information, much of which originates from employees of Russian state-funded RT (formerly “Russia Today”), we now know that RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities. It is also engaged in information operations, covert influence, and military procurement. These operations are targeting countries around the world, including in Europe, Africa, and North and South America.

"RT and its employees, including Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, have directly coordinated with the Kremlin to support Russian government efforts to influence the October 2024 Moldovan election. Specifically, in coordination with the Kremlin, Simonyan leverages the state-funded platforms for which she serves in leadership positions – namely RT, Sputnik, and their parent company FEDERAL STATE UNITARY ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION AGENCY ROSSIYA SEGODNYA (ROSSIYA SEGODNYA) – to attempt to foment unrest in Moldova, likely with the specific aim of causing protests to turn violent. RT is aware of and prepared to assist Russia’s plans to incite protests should the election not result in a Russia-preferred candidate winning the presidency." For more see the article...

The U.S. government's release on RT’s global covert activities reveals that RT is part of a state-backed disinformation effort, promoting pro-Russian narratives and undermining Western democracies. This covert strategy aims to spread divisive content globally under the guise of independent media. 

Regarding Fox News, while they operate in a commercial, non-state-backed capacity, both networks share similarities in fueling skepticism toward U.S. government institutions and amplifying anti-establishment views. RT strategically exploits Fox's narratives when they align with Russian interests, particularly regarding foreign policy, media distrust, and cultural conflicts.

Wishing you all, all the best!

Walkabout Thoughts #48

My thoughts, Stream of consciousness, rough and ready, while walking off long Covid and listening to podcasts… Jul 3, 2023, Monday

Weather for the day…56 degrees at beginning of walk, 67 at end

Since today is Independence Day eve, I thought this was an appropriate podcast leading into the Fourth of July… Podcast for the day, The Rachel Maddow Show's, Monday weekly podcast episode of "Deja News" and as it’s a holiday weekend, so Rachel put up a bonus episode to her excellent and (both...any?) should be required listening podcast, Bag Man.

As Rachel‘s podcast exemplifies, what’s been going on today with Donald Trump, MAGA, and conservatives in the Republican Party at large, we’ve all seen this before. As an example, outside of what Rachel’s been working on in our own US history, this past week or two I’ve been watching the "Narcos" series/franchise on Netflix. That began (my watching the show) as my trying to look into Pedro Pascal‘s comment from an interview recently, when he said he owed a lot to having been on "Narcos" when it started. So I watched it. I realized that season three really did boost him up to kinda superstar status. I continued on to "Narcos Mexico" where I’m currently on season three, a show he's not on. The massive unbelievable corruption over the decades in the Mexican government, oddly and more slightly mirrors what’s been going on in our conservative politics via one criminal and autocratic cretin, Donald Trump. It’s eerie to watch how clearly the Mexican government was corrupt and how can we not see how corrupt our own government is in certain areas? Mostly, almost completely, on the side of the Republican Party where the infection has taken them over these past few years (decades).

About my long Covid and... alcohol. Yesterday, in part to celebrate the Fourth of July weekend, I was binging "Narcos Mexico", and had lunch with some leftover steak I grilled the other day and a healthier kind of frozen Mexican TV dinner along with two glasses of wine. The wine, alcohol, has been problematic for me with long covid. But I felt great and had a good time. I took a couple hits off my vape pen, laying dormant during long Covid these past few years, but as it doesn’t affect my blood sugar as alcohol does, maybe it should be my main relaxant and entertainment option. But I've not much used it during long covid. I had a good day after lunch (the alcohol making that unsure). I know it can cause me issues at bedtime. But I wasn’t feeling anything from it which typically shows up in relation to my blood pressure. But my sleep wasn't coming and it was getting late, but had some interesting dreams. Eventually I took half of a melatonin and then I slept through the night. So no alcohol today. It’s definitely showing a form of progress however.

Rachel’s podcast got interesting very quickly at about 12 or 13 minutes in, about when those young prosecutors who had wanted to indict Richard Nixon’s vice president for his obvious crimes, which they could prove, had to argue that with the Attorney General and, lost their argument. They were finally convinced by AG Elliot Richardson who said that at that time, that even inditing the vice president could be dangerous for them, even more so than for him. And for America and our government.

With all the slamming conservatives and their version of the Republican Party that I’ve done, who certainly deserve it, MAGA really is the party of crime and a criminal populist autocratic leader. What's so sad there is that so many of those people cannot, and will not... refuse, to see Any of that. But when you support a criminal in public office, that does kind of make you culpable. Being delusional does not absolve you from the fact that you’re supporting a horrible fucking person, a criminal with indictments on record, and with  more to come. Not to mention being an obvious and admitted sexual predator.

All this talk about a president or vice president being indicted, tried, sentenced and imprisoned is ridiculous. I’ve always been against capital punishment. I’ve always been against any citizen losing their right to vote be they a criminal or not, unless... they’ve been convicted of treason. Maybe sedition. Maybe. But once a VP or POTUS is convicted of a crime while in office or after that, Secret Service protection or anything else other than them being a stripped down, ordinary citizen, should simply be tossed out the window. It should be a non-issue. And if that legally isn't possible, then we need an amendment or something to make it so. There is a wide area before you get there as POTUS/VPOTUS, these are people given great preference. So for them to get to that point, really means they have achieved a criminal status, they have earned it, they have earned being branded as such, stripped of all their special benefits. The fear in that is what if they are assassinated, or murdered, or harmed? Then America should have elected a person or persons of better quality. That is not an excuse. Not in today's world.

Because, while America's Founders set up protections against our having a king or a monarchy, where they may have missed things, are in things that people are now finding they can skew to their criminal benefit. I’m sure these Founding Fathers, Framers of our Constitution and country, would agree that this all has got to be rectified. It was a failure not just on their part, but on the part of the lack of quality of citizens who would apply such ploys, at this point in our history, and against US, and our "Great Experiment". It makes sense that someone like Trump and his Republican Party, not even his Republican Party, as this has been going on since the early 90s under the guidance and sad influence of people like low life conservative Newt Gingrich… He realized they could be plying old Soviet KGB tactics against their own citizens here in America to win when they've been losing far too much in their minds. Losing because of bad ideas. Rather than update their attitude and orientation, better to lie, cheat and steal, apparently. Down to the conservative's evolutionary point of no return when we all heard and saw Donald Trump publicly request help from an international enemy of America, and we now know, perpetrators of crimes against humanity and illegal wars, in order to supply Trump with anything to distract voters in his obfuscation of his crimes.

We keep hearing, regarding Donald Trump in his trial(s), how juries always tend to do the "right thing". What does that mean? I was on a jury once a few years ago. It was a cut and dried case, not unlike like Trump's, only at a local level about an obvious and observed assault and battery crime. What was so oddly problematic about it was how clear it was regarding what had happened and how guilty the defendant was. We knew we would have to judge him guilty before the trial ended. We heard the judge's orders to us before we began and after, as we were about to decide the defendant's guilt or innocence. But it wasn’t just about doing what was right. It was also about a juror's fear of the law and for ourselves. It’s true that if you see an injustice you may want to speak up and rectify it. But it’s a hard thing to realize your sadness in setting someone else up to be locked away, to take their freedom away from them, for any length of time. I never found out what the sentence was in that case, as that wasn’t part of our duties and I wasn't sure I wanted to know. We judged him guilty, quickly. I was the one who suggested that we take more than 3 minutes to decide. I said, "I Know, he's so obviously guilty. But considering what our judgement means, I think we should at least take a little time to discuss it, to be sure." Sometimes when something seems to obvious about what to do, one can make a mistake that will later be regretted. They seemed uncomfortable, we all were. The crime was that despicable, we wanted to distance ourselves from it ASAP. But they agreed and we started talking. I expected we'd spend 15 minutes on this. It took an hour and we ended up with the same judgement we had when we'd walked into the jury room. We returned to the courtroom and gave our decision, it was read aloud and the defendants girlfriend, the ONLY witness in the seats that day, began crying. The judge thanked us and excused us. He said we did our job and it was on him to sentence at a later date. That wasn't our concern. I kind of didn’t want to know. But I mention this to point out that when a jury does "what is right", it's not just out of selfless duty, but out of at least some of their own and not merely respect for the law, and also somewhat put of a fear of the law, and of the judge.

One of Nixon's prosecutors in the podcast addressed if Trump would get Secret Service protection in prison. He said, paraphrasing, "Yeah, maybe. But I doubt they’d be allowed in the cell with him. Or in other words, in the cell block with him. But they could hang out at the prison and maybe he can get some gum from them once in a while, or something." Which is pretty humorous. But we’re paying for that bullshit. Trump's a criminal, certainly at that point. And he should not have presidential rights anymore. They should be stripped. One can argue maybe not if it’s a state crime conviction, but definitely if it’s a federal crime conviction. While a former POTUS should be treated no better or worse than any citizen, they also should have lost the privilege of the benefits of having formerly been a POTUS. Just as citizens now can be stripped of their right to vote. Something even Trump shouldn't lose. Unless he's convicted of Treason, or Sedition, or Insurrection.

On the topic of “making an example“ in any court case... I’ve always been against it. Because you’re taking a citizen and leaning hard on them merely as an example, not about them, but for a group, not just about what they did. However, I do see there can be times when it’s reasonable or necessary in today’s world. It can be needed to send a message to citizens, government leaders and maybe even internationally. However, I would also say if that's the case, when someone prejudicially gets a harsher sentence, they should at some point see that rectified in the future. If say, they should get 10 years but get life, when they’re eventually allowed to petition for parole, that situation should be taken into consideration for sentencing to be brought in line with what's standard for the situation. The reason for that, often such cases may well have a need at the time of sentencing, but after time passes that need may have either been worked out or becomes moot, no longer necessary. The moment of its import may have passed. At that point why should that citizen, criminal or not, suffer the full weight of the US government to such a degree merely as an ideal served, rather than an actual citizen's reasonable repercussions?

I have a similar consideration regarding capital punishment. While overall, I agree it's cruel and unusual punishment, much as our prisons tend to be today overall, in the case of judging someone like Donald Trump as guilty and sentencing him to the death penalty, that seems eminently reasonable. Let him sit on death row and then, at the last moments, considering that could take years, perhaps then commute the death penalty to life in prison. Preferably as in Trump's case, which had acquired multiple life sentences in prison for his crimes, to be served consecutively. It’s only gonna take 10 or 20 years for him to die in prison anyway. I offer the same excuse and reasons and no more, as I do above, regarding any citizen being judged beyond the norm and simply to make a point.

My reason for capital punishment for someone like Donald Trump with his crimes as POTUS, consider how we let Nixon off with a pardon. We can’t do that with Trump. He cannot avoid prison. Yet he needs, has earned, capital punishment. But we could, as we progress in time, do as I said above. Sentence him with capital punishment, then before executed, commute it. That being said, the next time this ever happens, if the country doesn’t fall due to such as him in the future, obviously… then that next person definitely Should receive capital punishment. The problem is since we let Nixon off, we eventually got Donald Trump. And if we let Trump off, are we going to see this happen again? Commute his case and yes, we’ll definitely see this again. If we don’t make a statement NOW to put a stop to that kind of thinking, IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, more successfully.

As far as indicting or judging Trump guilty, or serving him up to capital punishment, which really needs to be done (I don't know how that isn't clear to all by now), even though we won’t do that, and regarding potentially invoking a Civil War… I would argue if ever is the time it is now. Sooner than later if we're stuck with this crap. If this is going to cause an insurrection, as it did in the one we’re still cleaning up from, or a war, cleanup being part of the solution...if doing what is right will lead into this kind of nonsense to require a Civil War eventually anyway as it had during our actual Civil War. then so be it. But we’re either an America going forward, or we're some kind of bullshit banana republic autocracy with a despotic monarchy ruling us into the ground to become a land of grifters and crime run by Trump, imitating one of his despotic heroes like Putin, only to empty the coffers of America into his and his greedy friend's pockets.

As discussed on the podcast, as to what keeps one up at night… what keeps me up at night is definitely not that Donald Trump exists. Or any of his buddies around the world like Kim Jong-un, or war criminal's like Vladimir Putin, or China’s autocratic president Xi. What keeps me up at night is that anyone ever supported Donald Trump, or certainly, anyone who supported him before and is STILL supporting him now (WTF?), so that there’s any considered potential for him to not just achieve POTUS again, but any public office whatsoever, or even be head of any company in the world. He should also be banned from leading any private company, even one of his own. And serious look needs to be given to his family regarding that. That is, regarding how Trump does business. Regarding Putin, his having had supported Trump. The rule of their day is plain and simple… Chaos. Chaos makes Trump rich. Chaos destabilizes American  and western democracies. Chaos keeps Russia under Putin's thumb, along with his disinformation and propaganda.

One of the comments of the Nixon prosecutors on Rachel’s podcast: "When I asked about the danger or necessity of charging Donald Trump, he said, I don’t think American has any choice." That single point of failure is dangerous. It’s been manipulated into this situation. I don’t mean a conspiracy. I mean that’s the functional output of what's been done. So many, especially right wing conservative bullshit conspiracies, are just that. A misinterpretation in hindsight of what actually took place. Of believing one is smarter than history, and that one knows more than those who do know. That all that is read on the Internet that agrees with one, is not suspect. For America’s only choice to be that we have to chance illiberal outrage by an ignorant minority who support an autocrat such as Trump, is ridiculous. We allowed ourselves, through sleeping at the wheel, and not being proactive...for this to happen. In that way, it can happen again.

We have become an autocrat's playground. And that has to stop. Now!

If the political left were MAGA, we would spread disinformation as such, saying if you vote for Donald Trump, even in the primary, his people will get your name and information and you will be charged to support him every month, while some of you will be charged every week and for the entire duration of his next presidency. Then if he loses, he can run again and you will be charged until 2028 and THEN if he wins (if he's still alive or finds a way to pass it on to one of his kids to be elected), then you will be charged monthly. or some of you weekly, filling his coffers for his personal and family’s benefit. THAT is the kind of things to be done if were liberals of a MAGA orientation of operation. To release that information in such a way in that it was from say, a whistleblower in the Trump campaign, or something like that. Or from some senator who is pro-Trump and planned to get a law passed about that or some such nonsensical bullshit that MAGA would suck up like a sweet nitrous oxide delicious milkshake of disinformation and propaganda. And then turn on Donald Trump, MAGA and the once GOP.

I think I already mentioned in a previous blog that we should regulate combustion engines, leaf blowers, and grass trimmers out of existence. But more so when they’re in audible reach of a certain number of other citizens. Another words, you can’t use it in a dense urban neighborhood, but you can use it on a farm. Some of the problems we have in today’s world are from audio pollution. Many articles have been written about this and yes, it is a thing and is important. One of the problems of populated areas and overpopulation is a feeling of isolation within the masses. and of a kind of social claustrophobia. Sound levels, sound pollution, add to that. If you’ve ever lived someplace like New York City/Manhattan, which I have, you can be 10, 20 or 30 floors up or more and still hear so much from street levels, making one wonder at times if you’re much closer to street level. Sirens all the time, horns honking, even in the distance. Not to mention things like gunshots. But if we can decrease that sound level, the quality of life for everyone would increase, exponentially. in such environments.

It’s sad that Donald Trump hast to be indicted under a Democratic administration when it could’ve been and should’ve been done under a Republican one. With the lack of decency and ethics on that side of the aisle, Mitch McConnell really fucked up. When he could have saved America from Trump ever running again by allowing him to be impeached.

We are long past the point that we need to look at a quarter of our country, as I believe it hos now decreased to, with MAGA, with Trump supporters, as they have got to be re-indoctrinated back into America. Free speech, for-profit new,s 24 hour news cycles, and so much of Republican underhanded old KGB tactics have led us here. I’m not sure going by the book is how we get out of this situation. It has to be though, or we become yikes..."them". Or we become the full-blown example of George Orwell's warnings in his book, "1984". Which we're seeing more clearly today in things like, "The Handmaid’s Tale, or from the Republican Party, anymore. We really should have better tuned our attention to those like Orwell, Atwood, and Shirley Jackson. Read, “The Lottery" again sometimes and therein, one can clearly see, MAGA and today's GOP.
You know what, about all this book banning nonsense from conservatives? I had to read Shirley Jackson's “The Lottery", in grade school. It was shocking. It shocked me as a child. I never forgot it. Yes, that was an important lesson to learn. And in protecting our children, such as these Christians, conservatives, Republicans, MAGA are in over-protecting, and "helicopter parenting", and not allowing their kids to get hurt, or fail, or to fall off their bike to learn how life really is, they are many of the ones damaging us. We got ourselves a MAGA in this country leaning into autocrats, threatening to dissolve our democracy and so, destroy our country. Again, WTF?

Sacrifice. I get our more enlightened attitudes today in wanting "to protect". But we seem to have forgotten the second half of that, which is "to serve". Protect and serve. Protect THOSE YOU SERVE, not just protect yourselves. At times you have to sacrifice your safety to protect others. It's part of the job. Part of what we pay our police for. Our soldiers get that. They get the concept and they get the flak and the bullets. Some come home after military service, become police, remember the militant orientation, but forget this s civil, NOT military. Odd you can be safer in war than on our city streets but hey, "2nd Amendment", right? We’ve not seen that so much from our police in recent years, who are so triggered out of fear and self protection (some, not all certainly) that they’ve killed innocent people. Some have not gone in up against active shooters...when they should have. We seem to find that too much anymore. That has to do with our political lives, too. The Republican Party exemplifies this to a staggeringly disgusting degree. Fear of Trump being voted out of office has crippled these people and enabled Trump into the presidency and into crime, and now, potentially into far worse. America needs a stand up, look around, see what the fuck they’re actually doing and, fight for this country. As we all should have less concern in our professional careers for our own ideology or our own personal beliefs, or grievances, and more about what we are actually being paid for and to do in our jobs. sometimes as Liz Cheny and Adam Kinzinger realized, you have to stand and do what is right, and lose your job or career. Heroes, not autocratic minions (morons). Such all as Trump and the Republican Party (MAGA) have weaponized so well against... everyone.

The Republican Party at large, the RNC needs to turn on Donald Trump, ASAP. And they can do it in such a way that they protect themselves, believe it or not. It’s all in plausible deniability and surprise. Simply pointing to things and demanding that they're true and being shocked about those things people like Trump have and are doing. Stand for your country, stop standing only for yourself, your party, your ideology because that is being American. Stand for others, not just yourself. Work to make the country work well, rather than work only for your typically anachronistic beliefs.

During the 2016 election, what IF Director of the FBI James Comey had truly been apolitical (or a Democrat) with the FBI and had not put them in the position he put them in by purposely, or inadvertently, helping Donald Trump to win against Hillary Clinton? If many of these Republicans, who have enabled and supported Donald Trump and his illiberal presidency, and inevitably, his crimes, if they had just put their heads down, stopped listening to the noise and merely done their job… that’s all it would’ve taken for us not to be in this position today. If Mitch McConnell had done his job, not as a partisan but as a member of Congress, and as an American, Donald Trump would’ve been impeached and he would not now be running for POTUS again, and maybe not be the nightmare leader of the Republican Party. Which is so much at  issue with the quality of candidates now of the GOP which there is no longer anything “grand “ about, in that once great and “grand old party “. Seek your roots. Seek the best you can be and see that what you're currently judging as "best" is the worst you can come up with. See THAT. See reality.

Consider this: Special Prosecutor Jack Smith who indicted Donald Trump now has real and serious armed security surrounding him because of Trump and his supporters. America needs to really think about that and react appropriately to it and so...against it. And Trump. Because that's our only choice now.

Americans, MAGA and otherwise, need to appreciate the fact that all these Trump crimes are not now being just swept under the carpet as they would be in a Republican or Trump administration. And were in the Trump administration. And will be again in another Trump administration. You can see quite clearly the evidence on these crimes is real. And if you cannot “see” that, then you are either stupid or selectively ignorant, which is essentially just being stupid. Don’t be stupid. Be Better: Don’t be a Trump supporter.

We need to start writing PSA‘s now for after the Trump nightmare is over. Show an ad with a MAGA person who looks sad, maybe. Who regrets having been duped by a conman like Trump. Who regrets what happened to their Republican Party. Who regrets and resents being conservative now as their values had been weaponized against America and absconded with, twisted into illiberality. We need to saturate America with reality. We need to do something to neutralize the disinformation. We need to do something to neutralize this no longer dormant thread going through America of bringing on a Christian apocalypse, or whatever nonsense is out there, such as "let's destroy the government and rebuild from scratch and things will be better!" What kind of a fucking moron thinks that’s true? Yes, there's people out there thinking that, actually working toward that. When all it would do is bring on horrors.

Donald Trump and MAGA have praised the idea of bringing politics into the Justice Department and places where it doesn’t belong, where it doesn't belong because of all our citizens, not just the Trump/MAGA/GOP core. We have a secular, blind justice system and government in order to protect ALL citizens. This autocratic notion of rallying people around the concept of not our Constitution, but a minority's ideas, ideals, and ideologies which are anathema to a democracy and will indeed lead to an autocracy. Christians who have brought religion into our government, who want to push the concept of America is only a Christian nation, when in reality we have so many other religions (and atheists and others), all of whom deserve their pursuit of happiness, and do not deserve being pursued by those who are happy to make your life miserable because you see the world differently than them, while you are still clearly patriotic American citizens.

At 3/4 of a mile now left to make up my 5 miles for the day. 

I finished Rachel’s podcast and switched over to Marc Maron's WTF podcast.

You know, Marc has a good point about radicalization. For years during our stupid war on drugs (which of course, led to an eventual war on terror around the world after 9/11, we do love "warring" on things and people), we heard about Muslims self radicalizing on the Internet. Some of that was true and led to some horrific scenes. Some of that was bullshit and good people got caught up in bad things and prosecuted incorrectly. That led to some federal stings, which were proven entrapment. We need to face the fact that a lot of those terrorist elements that were once international, are now in our nation. We’ve seen Islamic terrorist individuals who domestically self-radicalized on the Internet, but radicalized through international and even domestic websites and social media. We have to recognize that this has been absconded with by white Christian nationalists and white supremacists, and just some moronic MAGA types out there who wanna enjoy their negative feelings, push them out to others and even get away with killing people. We need to educate our citizens to self-actualize and not self-radicalize. We don’t need extremists. Extremism like conservatism is only for dire times, or for times of war. And Conservatism weaponizing itself, stepped into convincing people to get worked up into being in a constant state of war or “war”, basically being anti-democracy/democratic elements or liberal democratic citizens. Remember that we are a liberal democratic republic. As I’ve said before, when you hear a citizen say "we’re not a democracy, but a republic"... there’s your dog whistle call to white nationalism and a criminal mentality and ideologies.These are absolutest statements. It's all certainly more nuanced than just that. But therein lay the core of exactly what is happening.

As Marc is saying, this radicalization typically seems to be based in Christianity. What are Islamic terrorists? Muslim? Where does Christianity and Islam come from? Exactly. These are two religions that came from Judaism. The older of the three major desert religions that have caused trouble around the world, or been focus of trouble for many decades. In some cases for thousands of year, in some cases, as victim (see, Holocaust, See Uyghurs in China, etc.). These religions came out of a harsh environment and in harsh times. One can take any good idea and subvert it. Religion after all requires cherry picking the best of us and when you do the opposite, there's your problem. It’s about ideas, if you’re just cherry picking and being selectively ignorant, yes, you can produce a stupid religion and little cults. Yes, you can weaponize that religion, or sections of a religion and radicalize some to go out and harm others who disagree with the majority. Who even within that same/your own religion, will think you’re/they're nuts. I would say it’s interesting that some still seem to be going around slaughtering people, while a vast minority of Muslims and Christians don't. But then there’s the state of Israel. And all that has entailed.

When your radicalization is based on basic intolerance and bigotry, well… There’s your fucking sign that you've gone the wrong direction, "jumped the shark", "moved to the edge of the cliff"…

Marc had another good point about Christian, Muslims, and Jews. Jews have been through so much for so long that they don’t have the thin skin of the younger religions. And again it’s not just the younger religions but a very small minority within damaged individuals who want to turn that internal pain out against others, or turned against others. Why? Because it’s fun and it feels good? It’s a weird fucking definition of fun and “feel good “, but then... there it is.

Marc is saying righteous intolerance cannot exist in this country because it’s just not good for it. It’s not good for democracy to be sure. He also asked, "What bubble are you in?" I would ask, "How big is your bubble?" I’ve been in multiple bubbles throughout my life, as a trained researcher, that happens. In my job in IT as a technical writer, that happens, it's required, I had to research to find reality, then submit that to people who would judge my work, apply it, and it had better been accurate. Years before that, since high school, before college, before the Air Force, I was applying that in personal research I did with things that later turned out to be pretty accurate. My professional training only helped that up to far better levels of accuracy. And so when this whole Trump nonsense started up and MAGA types would childishly accuse others of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (when they were obviously exhibiting it themselves in blindly believe in a fucking moron, criminal and a traitor)… that never carried much weight with me as my whole life has been based on facts and reality and accuracy.
I have a friend I’ve had for decades, a very smart guy. Big Trump supporter, though. Which saddened and shocked me. At one point after we were having drinks together with another friend and we were about to leave. He stopped me and asked me, "Come on, you don’t think Trump's a really good guy?" I looked at him disappointed, and I said: "Trump's a criminal, and that will be born out. You'll see." That was years ago. And here we are today. Who was more correct? Without being self-serving I have to say, I was correct. And you know what? Those loud mouthed Trump supporters for years... are awfully quiet anymore…

Cheers! Sláinte!