Tyranny of the Majority: Why Gerrymandering and the Electoral College Don't Serve Democracy

Isn't Donald Trump winning the popular vote exactly the reason for the Electoral College to begin with?

Where Did the Term “Gerrymander” Come From?

While the Electoral College was originally designed to balance the interests of smaller and larger states and to prevent more populated areas from having too much influence over the selection of the president, its purpose was to ensure that all states, regardless of population size, would have a meaningful role in the election process. This system means that winning the popular vote nationwide doesn't always guarantee a candidate the presidency; instead, a candidate must secure enough electoral votes by winning individual states.

In recent years, some argue the Electoral College does not fully represent the popular vote, especially when a candidate wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote. Others see it as a way to maintain state representation and avoid a scenario where only high-population areas dominate election outcomes.

So what's the purpose of Gerrymandering in all this? Weren't the Framers concerned about a popularity vote?

The Framers were indeed concerned about a purely popular vote. They feared that direct democracy, where decisions are made directly by majority vote, could lead to what they called "the tyranny of the majority." This concern was partly why they created the Electoral College — to act as a buffer, giving each state a proportionate voice rather than allowing the most populous areas to entirely dictate election outcomes.

Gerrymandering, however, is a separate issue tied specifically to the drawing of congressional and state legislative districts, not to the Electoral College directly. Gerrymandering allows political parties in power to shape districts to favor their party, sometimes creating "safe" seats and minimizing competition. While the Electoral College itself isn't affected by Gerrymandering, gerrymandered districts influence the House of Representatives and, indirectly, political power within states.

Here's where it does relate, though: Gerrymandering can influence which party holds power at the state level, which can, in turn, influence presidential elections. For example, if one party controls a state's legislature due to Gerrymandering, they may enact voting laws that can affect voter turnout and electoral outcomes. Additionally, in extreme cases, Gerrymandering could impact the selection of electors if a state decides to allocate electoral votes by district (as done in Maine and Nebraska), though this is rare.

In short, while the Electoral College reflects the Framers' goal of balancing power among states, Gerrymandering represents a more modern manipulation of electoral influence within states, often intensifying partisan divides and making it more difficult for some votes to carry equal weight.

Gerrymandering is often seen as "democratically insane," as it distorts the principle of one person, one vote. The goal of democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected, but Gerrymandering manipulates district boundaries to favor a particular political party or group, undermining that principle. By shaping districts in ways that dilute opposition votes and concentrate supporters, it creates a skewed representation in Congress and state legislatures. This process can reduce competition, lower voter engagement, and ultimately result in elected officials who do not reflect the will of the majority.

As for the Electoral College, many argue that it has indeed become increasingly problematic, especially in recent years. The system was originally intended to balance the influence of smaller and larger states, but in practice, it can feel broken. For example, it’s possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote but still win the presidency, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This disconnect between the popular will and the electoral outcome has led to significant criticism, as people feel their votes may not have equal weight depending on where they live.

Critics argue that this makes the system less representative and that it disproportionately elevates the influence of swing states while ignoring others. It has also fueled calls for reform, including proposals to either abolish the Electoral College altogether in favor of a direct popular vote or to move toward a proportional allocation of electoral votes.

In both cases — Gerrymandering and the Electoral College — the frustration stems from a sense that the systems no longer serve their original democratic purposes effectively. They seem to disproportionately favor political elites or certain regions, creating a sense of unfairness and eroding trust in the democratic process. This has led to widespread calls for reform in both areas, though achieving such changes is a complicated and often contentious issue.

So what the hell was the purpose of Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is primarily for manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor a particular political party, group, or incumbent. A practice typically employed by the party in control of a state’s legislature to maximize their electoral advantage in future elections. Gerrymandering works by strategically drawing district lines to either "pack" voters from the opposing party into a few districts (thereby minimizing their influence in other districts) or "crack" their voters by spreading them across multiple districts to dilute their voting power.

The primary goals of Gerrymandering are:

Political advantage:

By manipulating district boundaries, political parties can create districts that favor their candidates or policies, ensuring they win a disproportionate number of seats compared to their actual support in the general population.

Incumbent protection:

Gerrymandering can be used to protect current officeholders by designing districts that favor their re-election prospects, reducing competition and increasing the chances of electoral success.

Party entrenchment:

In some cases, Gerrymandering aims to create long-lasting political dominance by designing districts that consistently favor one party over others, even if their overall support in the population is not as strong.

Weaken opposition power:

By splitting or concentrating opposing voters, Gerrymandering can prevent the opposition from winning a fair share of seats, even if they have significant overall support in the state.

Historically, Gerrymandering has been used in the U.S. since the early 19th century, and while its purpose is often to favor a political party, it has also been used in the past to manipulate ethnic or racial representation. For example, in some cases, districts were drawn in ways that diminished the voting power of minority groups. This practice, however, has been limited by legal rulings that aim to prevent racial Gerrymandering and ensure fair representation under the Voting Rights Act.

While Gerrymandering can provide short-term political gains for those in power, it's widely criticized for distorting democracy, leading to uncompetitive elections, reducing voter turnout, and fostering political polarization. Which seems reasonable to me. So why does it still exist?

I see no valid reason to offer ways in elections to support a ruling party as it aids "the tyranny of the majority."

Many critics of Gerrymandering do share concern that it contributes to "the tyranny of the majority." The idea behind a fair, representative democracy is that all voices — including those of minority groups — should be heard and have an equal opportunity to influence the political process. Gerrymandering undermines this by allowing those in power to manipulate district boundaries to entrench their dominance, often at the expense of true representation.

When Gerrymandering is used to favor one party, it creates a political system that isn't truly responsive to the will of the voters. Instead of districts being competitive and reflecting a broad range of political views, they become "safe" seats, where one party has an overwhelming advantage. This can lead to a lack of accountability, as politicians in these districts have little incentive to listen to the concerns of voters outside their base. It also limits voter choice, as some districts are designed to ensure a particular party will win no matter the actual vote.

Concerns about "the tyranny of the majority" is valid in the context of unchecked power. In gerrymandered districts, even if a majority of people in a state or region support a certain candidate or party, the way the lines are drawn can mean that minority views are systematically shut out. This can lead to a situation where a large portion of the population feels politically disenfranchised, knowing that their votes are less likely to make an impact.

In an ideal system, elections should reflect the will of the people in a fair and transparent way, without manipulation. Gerrymandering distorts that, turning elections into contests of political strategy rather than true reflection of public opinion. Some advocates for reform argue for independent commissions to draw district lines instead of leaving the power to political parties, aiming to create fairer, more representative electoral maps.

So why does Gerrymandering still exist? It seems ludicrous and contrary to the American citizen. It persists because it allows political parties to manipulate district boundaries to secure electoral advantages, protect incumbents, and maintain power. It thrives due to the control state legislatures have over redistricting, limited federal oversight, and legal challenges that often fail to address partisan Gerrymandering. 

Increased political polarization, voter apathy, and a long history of the practice also contribute to its continuation. While some states have implemented reforms, resistance from those benefiting from the system, along with legal and structural challenges, makes it difficult to eliminate Gerrymandering altogether.

One wonders if this was a primary concern, to get our elections under control, eliminate Gerrymandering by partisan groups lacking neutrality (districts DO need to be drawn after all), dark and big money in our elections has to go, Citizens United needs to go (a first sign if not others before it to indicate there was an increasing problem with the SCOTUS). The best case would be for all of us to pay for our elections, and have them go through a neutral and monitored governing body with no money going to any campaign. This would have to be a compartmentalized group, outside the reach of political or government. 

Both parties would be supplied advertising, ads, etc. While it would require taxes, sad how that frightens so many, it would finally clean up our elections, stop the abuse, and lead to more reality. This would lead to more bi-partisan work being done, with more good decisions bravely being offered, and in the end more good ideas being utilized.

I would offer we also need to get back to news as a "loss leader". Eliminate for-profit news. Social media, OpEds and entertainment news may well today prevent that. We may well be quite beyond saving this situation. Oddly, comedy news has been a boon in this area, often pointing out much of what no one else is willing to address.

A potential solution could involve a combination of publicly funded advertising and stricter regulations on media ownership and content:

Publicly Funded Advertising: 

Implement a system where all political candidates receive equal funding for advertising, reducing the influence of private money. This could be funded through a small tax, ensuring a level playing field.

Stricter Media Regulations: 

Enforce regulations that limit the concentration of media ownership and ensure diverse viewpoints are represented. This could help reduce the bias and sensationalism often seen in for-profit news.

Non-Profit News Organizations: 

Encourage the establishment of non-profit news organizations that prioritize public interest over profit. These organizations could receive government grants or tax incentives to support their operations.

Educational Campaigns: 

Launch educational campaigns to inform the public about media literacy and the importance of critical thinking. This could help people better understand and evaluate the information they consume.

Transparency in Advertising: 

Require full transparency in political advertising, including clear disclosure of funding sources. This could help voters make more informed decisions and reduce the impact of misleading ads.

Ultimately, the goal should be a system that ensures power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, whether through Gerrymandering, electoral manipulation, campaign coffers (greatly supplied by a few billionaires or soon, trillionaires), or other tactics. The health of OUR democracy relies on its ability to fairly represent all people, not just the majority, not just those in power.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

One Motto, One People: Reclaiming E Pluribus Unum to Heal America

With the concern of Christian Nationalism and the recent orientation of forcing "God" into our government, we have to start looking at what the problem is, where it started, why it started, and how to end it. Another concern is how Donald Trump has weaponized things like religion to regain power and get re-elected.

Worries over him and his desires for autocracy, power, greed, and kleptocracy with people like Elon Musk are a serious concern now more than ever.

From the Center for Religion in Public Life - Why E Pluribus Unum Is a Better Motto for Today than “In God We Trust”

1. Embracing True Diversity and Unity

The motto E Pluribus Unum was chosen by the Founding Fathers as an ideal that would unify a country of people from various places, backgrounds, and beliefs. The phrase encapsulates the American experiment: a diverse group of individuals coming together to form a stronger whole. It tells us that every American, no matter where they come from or what they believe, is part of that “One.”

Today, with even greater diversity in the United States than in the past, the meaning behind E Pluribus Unum is as relevant as ever. It serves as a reminder that our differences don’t divide us but make us stronger when they’re harnessed for a common purpose.

In contrast, In God We Trust doesn’t convey the same inclusivity. It implies a shared faith in a single religious concept, which isn’t true for everyone. America is home to a wide array of faiths, as well as people who don’t adhere to any faith at all. While “God” has different meanings for different people, In God We Trust is often interpreted as favoring a specific monotheistic view, alienating those who don’t share that view. In short, E Pluribus Unum brings people together, while In God We Trust can unintentionally create distance between them.

2. Reflecting the Constitution’s Religious Neutrality

One of the cornerstones of American identity is the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. This amendment ensures that individuals are free to practice any religion or none at all, and that the government doesn’t endorse any particular faith. By choosing In God We Trust as the national motto, the government has unintentionally aligned itself with a specific religious sentiment, creating tension with the very freedoms our Constitution is built to protect.

E Pluribus Unum, on the other hand, doesn’t favor any one religious belief. It’s a motto that respects both religious and secular viewpoints equally, making it a better fit for a country founded on the principle of religious freedom. Returning to E Pluribus Unum would reaffirm our commitment to a government that serves all its citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs.

3. Avoiding Division and “Othering”

Sadly, In God We Trust has sometimes been used to define what it means to be a “real” American, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. This mentality has led to a pattern of "othering" fellow citizens who don’t identify with that phrase—whether they are atheists, people of minority faiths, or those who interpret “God” differently. This approach risks dividing us along lines of belief when what we need, especially now, is unity.

The language of E Pluribus Unum shifts us away from viewing people as “insiders” and “outsiders.” It reminds us that we’re all part of one nation, and even when we disagree, we still share a commitment to one another. As a motto, it leaves no room for creating enemies out of fellow citizens. Instead, it creates a sense of common purpose that helps bring people together.

4. A Return to American Values

E Pluribus Unum has deep historical roots, representing the original vision of the Founding Fathers. It reminds us of what they hoped America would be—a united country formed by people of all backgrounds. Adopting In God We Trust as the motto in 1956 was a Cold War move to distinguish the U.S. from the atheistic Soviet Union. While it served a purpose at the time, the Cold War is over, and today we face different challenges that call for a more inclusive approach.

By returning to E Pluribus Unum, we can return to a motto that reflects the diversity and openness our country was built upon. It’s a step back toward the founding principles that united people from all walks of life in the first place, and it can help us create a national identity that’s positive, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

5. Promoting a Motto for All Americans

In a nation that prides itself on democracy, a motto should be for everyone. A motto that only reflects the values of certain groups isn’t fully representative. While In God We Trust speaks to a large portion of Americans, it does not speak to everyone. There are millions of Americans who don’t connect with it and may feel left out or excluded from the national identity it represents. This isn’t just a minor concern; feeling excluded can lead to greater disillusionment with government, less civic engagement, and a more fractured society overall.

In contrast, E Pluribus Unum speaks to every American. It focuses on our common humanity and the shared commitment to creating a unified nation from many backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. This kind of unity is essential to strengthening our democracy and ensuring that all citizens feel valued and included.

6. Focusing on Civic Values Over Religious Identity

E Pluribus Unum emphasizes civic unity, not religious unity. It doesn’t ask us to believe the same things or see the world the same way, but it does ask us to work together as one people. In times when polarization is high and public trust is low, a national motto that focuses on our civic values rather than our religious identity could help to bring people back together.

It would encourage Americans to see themselves, first and foremost, as citizens who are in this together—not as people divided by religion, politics, or ideology. At a time when we need less division and more common purpose, E Pluribus Unum offers an ideal that transcends our differences.

---

In sum, returning to E Pluribus Unum would help us refocus on the importance of unity across diversity, respect religious freedom, avoid divisive “othering,” and foster a civic identity that includes all Americans. It reminds us that no matter who we are or what we believe, we’re stronger when we’re working together as “One.”

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Disinformation, or what we now call, Social Media

First, I'd like to share this. Marc Maron's WTF podcast opening commentary on the Right's "Wokeism" oft disingenuous rants, in dissecting & explaining the reality of it all, is one of the best I've heard: Episode 1590 - Jessica Lange

Moving quickly on...(but seriously, if you've ever had trouble countering the Right about "Wokeism", because some "Woke" types are a bit extreme, this is a good listen)...

Yuri Andropov, former Soviet KGB chief and later General Secretary of the Communist Party, is often associated with the concept of disinformation ("дезинформация", pronounced dezinformatsiya).

Yuri Andropov

He reflected on his view on disinformation (and propaganda) when he reportedly said:

"You can take some of it once in a while, but if you get too much of it too often, it becomes addictive."

He was talking about how social media works, without even knowing it, back in the late 1970s/early 80s. But not just about those who are fed disinfo, but also those who utilized it for political, or other purposes.

The concern Andropov had regarding those using disinformation can be broken down into a few key points:

1. Loss of Credibility

Andropov, despite his reliance on disinformation, likely understood that excessive use could erode the credibility of the government or institution employing it. If people became aware of the manipulation or falsehoods being spread, it could backfire, leading to mistrust and skepticism, both within the targeted population and internationally. This could damage the credibility of Soviet leaders and the KGB, making it harder to maintain control over the narrative.

2. Backlash and Unintended Consequences

Another concern Andropov might have had was the potential for disinformation to spiral out of control. Once false information spreads, it can be difficult to manage or retract. As disinformation takes root, it can grow and take on a life of its own, leading to unintended consequences. People might start believing and spreading the misinformation further, and the truth might be obscured to the point where it’s challenging to regain control over the situation. This "addiction" to disinformation could create a cycle that was difficult to break.

3. Overuse Leading to Predictability

The repeated use of disinformation as a tactic could make it predictable and less effective over time. If a government or organization becomes known for spreading false information, its efforts could lose their impact. People might become more adept at recognizing and questioning the information they receive, reducing the effectiveness of the campaigns. The very tool that had been so effective in the past could lose its potency if it were relied on too heavily or overused.

4. Psychological and Societal Impact

On a broader level, Andropov might have been concerned with the long-term psychological effects of disinformation. He likely recognized that constant exposure to falsehoods could distort reality and manipulate societies in ways that might lead to confusion, polarization, and instability. If a population becomes addicted to a false narrative, it might lose its ability to discern fact from fiction, weakening its resilience and ability to make informed decisions.

5. Internal Control Issues

For Andropov and the Soviet leadership, internal control was paramount. Disinformation campaigns often had to be tightly managed to ensure they didn’t spiral beyond the control of the government. If they became too pervasive or uncontrollable, it could destabilize the very political system they sought to protect. The addictive nature of disinformation could cause divisions and fragmentation within the leadership and government apparatus itself, leading to power struggles or challenges to authority.

Conclusion

In essence, while Andropov and the Soviet Union’s leadership saw disinformation as a powerful tool for manipulating perceptions and achieving strategic goals, they also recognized the dangers of overuse. Excessive reliance on disinformation could undermine trust, create instability, and eventually erode the very control they sought to maintain.

Interesting times...

Finally, let me drop this on you.

Kleptocracy update... Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Scoop:

Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Actually? This is not good.

Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

And gonna do more like that with others.

We have two emotionally immature financial & political leaders who think they know how to run things.

This isn't going to end well.

We've been edging toward kleptocracy.

That wasn't my intention, though.

I hadn't expected we'd just go all-in on it.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Would Pres. George Washington Shake Donald Trump's Hand?

I wondered, what an AI might think of Donald Trunp and how Pres. George Washington might view what we're going through, now that Trump has been re-elected with all the baggage and issues he brings along with him.

George Washington

And no, I'm not going to talk about Pres. Washington shaking Donald Trump's hand. Make up your own mind at the bottom of this article. I find it either interesting or entertaining to see what ChatGPT thinks of things. So...

What would Pres. George Washington think of POTUS47 Donald Trump just re-elected with all the baggage he brings along with him?

"In God We Trust" is Christian Nationalism unacceptable

ChatGPT said:

If George Washington were to look at Donald Trump’s actions, particularly through the lens of his own principles, he would likely find many aspects troubling. Washington was deeply committed to ideals of integrity, humility, and respect for democratic principles, seeing them as critical to the success of the new American republic.

Washington valued truthfulness and saw public service as a selfless duty, not as a means for personal aggrandizement. His farewell address famously warned of potential threats to democracy, such as the dangers of political factions (or parties) and foreign interference in national affairs. He would likely see Trump’s approach, particularly with its intense partisanship and divisive rhetoric, as undermining national unity and stability. His reported praise of adversarial leaders like Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence would especially have jarred Washington, who emphasized loyalty to the nation and independence from foreign influence.

Washington was known for refusing excessive power, famously stepping down after two terms to reinforce a precedent of limited executive authority. Trump’s approach, marked by assertions of strong executive power and a disregard for certain institutional norms, could likely strike Washington as authoritarian. Trump’s public statements, including his prolific use of falsehoods as documented by fact-checkers, would likely trouble Washington, who held honesty in high regard and believed a leader should embody moral virtue to inspire and uphold the nation's values.

In sum, Washington would likely have found Trump’s conduct in office at odds with the ideals he fought to instill in America’s early government—principles intended to foster a fair, humble, and principled democratic system.

"The Paradox of Tolerance"

Right-wing authoritarian leaders celebrated Trump's win. That SHOULD give everyone pause, not celebration here. Ben Franklin would be throwing a FIT:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

America is like the Ferrari of world democracies—powerful and complex, but under someone like Trump, whose lack of focus or understanding, impulsiveness, and emotional decisions could derail long-term success, it risks being ruined when it could thrive with the right leadership.

I then asked:
What action would Washington have taken if Trump were say, the 2nd/3rd President?

ChatGPT said:

If Trump had been the second president, following directly in George Washington's footsteps, it’s likely that Washington would have taken firm and immediate action to protect the young republic from any perceived threats to its stability, integrity, and foundational principles.

1. Public Denouncement and Cautionary Warnings: Washington would almost certainly have publicly condemned any actions that he believed threatened the republic, just as he did in his farewell address, where he warned of factionalism, foreign alliances, and the corruption of democratic principles. He might have delivered a formal address or written an open letter urging the nation to reject any authoritarian tendencies or disregard for truth and the law.

2. Private Advice and Guidance: Washington valued diplomacy and caution, so he might initially have tried to privately advise Trump, as he did with some political contemporaries. Given Washington’s belief in a moral and principled presidency, he would likely have counseled Trump on the importance of humility, unity, and honesty. If Trump ignored this advice, Washington’s approach could quickly become more direct and public.

3. Support for Institutional Checks and Balances: Washington had immense respect for the Constitution and the separation of powers. He might have advocated strongly for Congress and the judiciary to exercise their powers fully to check Trump’s actions if he perceived them as dangerous or autocratic. Washington believed in the rule of law and the importance of each branch of government acting independently to safeguard the nation. This could include encouraging Congress to investigate any misconduct, hold Trump accountable for any abuses of power, or even consider impeachment if serious violations occurred.

4. Active Role in Political Organization: Though he personally disliked political parties, if Washington saw Trump’s actions as fundamentally threatening, he may have even reluctantly endorsed the organization of a political movement or faction aimed at protecting the Constitution and the values he held dear. While distasteful to him, this step could be seen as necessary to ensure the survival of the nation’s democratic institutions.

5. Appeal to the Public’s Sense of Duty: Washington deeply trusted the wisdom and patriotism of the American people, often urging them to prioritize national interests over personal loyalties. He would likely make a powerful public appeal to Americans, urging them to remain vigilant and uphold the principles of honesty, unity, and democracy in the face of any leadership that threatened these values.

In essence, Washington would likely feel morally obligated to do everything in his power to protect the integrity of the office he once held, using his reputation and influence to rally Americans and their leaders against any attempts to undermine the republic.

I asked:
If Trump continued his presidency into an autocracy and refused to ever step down what might Washington have done?

ChatGPT said:

If Trump had continued his presidency in defiance of democratic norms, even refusing to step down or attempting to establish an autocratic rule, George Washington would almost certainly have viewed this as a severe betrayal of everything he and the founders worked to create. Given Washington’s commitment to safeguarding the republic against any semblance of tyranny, he would likely have taken decisive action.

1. Mobilizing the Armed Forces: As a former general, Washington understood the importance of military loyalty to the Constitution rather than any one leader. If Trump attempted to use military power to retain control, Washington might have rallied patriotic military leaders to uphold the Constitution and refuse unlawful orders. Washington’s personal influence and legacy would likely inspire high-ranking officers and soldiers to resist any autocratic power grab.

2. Supporting Congressional Action and Impeachment: Washington respected the balance of powers established by the Constitution, which included Congress's authority to impeach and remove a president. He would likely encourage Congress to act swiftly and decisively, including impeachment and, if necessary, removal by force. Washington’s support of such actions would add moral weight and legitimacy, galvanizing lawmakers to act against Trump’s autocratic intentions.

3. Encouraging State Action and Unity: Washington believed in a union of states, and if Trump were attempting to maintain power unlawfully, Washington might appeal to governors and state leaders to uphold the Constitution. He could urge states to resist any unlawful federal directives, leveraging their local authority to ensure that the rule of law, rather than one man’s will, governed the land. In this scenario, Washington would likely champion states as protectors of democracy against autocratic overreach.

4. Calling Upon the American People: Washington trusted the American people’s sense of civic duty and moral judgment. He would likely call upon citizens to peacefully but firmly resist any attempts at autocracy, uniting them under the values of liberty, justice, and self-governance. He could encourage widespread, nonviolent protests and civil disobedience as a demonstration of the public’s rejection of tyranny.

5. Forming a Coalition of Former Leaders and Founding Figures: Washington might also rally fellow founding figures, like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, to speak out collectively. This united front of respected leaders, all advocating for the preservation of democracy, would be a powerful message that Trump’s actions were an attack on the entire legacy of the American Revolution and the rights it guaranteed.

6. Open Rejection and Civil Disobedience if Necessary: Should all else fail, Washington could lead a national movement of civil disobedience, mobilizing Americans and institutions to reject Trump’s legitimacy as president. This might include legal petitions, organized resistance to Trump’s directives, or supporting initiatives to paralyze his administration until a lawful transfer of power was achieved.

In short, Washington would likely do everything in his power to rally Americans against autocracy. He would consider Trump’s refusal to step down as an existential threat to the republic and a complete abandonment of American ideals. Washington's actions would be motivated by a steadfast commitment to preserve the democratic system he helped create, even if it required unprecedented measures to remove an autocratic leader.

I asked:
What if Congress and SCOTUS then, were as they are now, supporting Trump?

ChatGPT said:

If Congress and the Supreme Court were to fully support Trump’s continued presidency, even as he attempted to establish an autocratic rule, George Washington would likely consider this an even greater crisis, as it would mean the essential safeguards of checks and balances had broken down.

Here’s how Washington might have responded in such a scenario:

1. Appealing Directly to the People and State Leaders: With federal institutions compromised, Washington would likely emphasize the importance of state governments and the American people in upholding democratic values. He might appeal directly to governors and state leaders to maintain the principles of democracy, urging them to resist any unlawful federal overreach.

2. Leveraging the Military’s Constitutional Loyalty: Washington was clear that the military should serve the nation, not any single individual. If a president were attempting to hold onto power unlawfully, Washington would likely remind military leaders of their oath to the Constitution rather than to the president. He might encourage military leaders to act independently and refuse any orders that contradicted the law.

3. Rallying Former Leaders and Influential Figures: Given his respect for unity and the nation’s founding principles, Washington would likely convene other prominent leaders, even retired figures, to condemn the erosion of democracy. This coalition could exert significant influence over public opinion and reinforce a collective commitment to the rule of law.

4. Promoting National Civil Resistance: Washington might endorse widespread civil resistance, encouraging citizens to demonstrate peacefully but resolutely for the preservation of democracy. He would likely view civil action as a critical means to defend democratic values without resorting to violence, uniting the populace against autocracy.

5. Documenting and Defending Democratic Ideals: Washington would likely take steps to ensure that, if an autocratic regime took hold, the ideals of democracy would survive to inspire future generations. He might work to preserve democratic principles through written appeals and public statements, hoping to rekindle the ideals of liberty and self-governance in future resistance efforts.

Washington’s commitment to the integrity of the young republic was paramount, and he would view an unchecked autocracy as a dire threat. In such a scenario, he would likely use his reputation, influence, and moral authority to rally every 


available resource, from state leaders to citizens, in defense of the democracy he helped create.

I asked:
Would this lead to a coup?

ChatGPT said:

In this hypothetical scenario, George Washington’s actions, combined with widespread public resistance and the support of state governments or the military, could indeed lead to what might resemble a counter-coup or an uprising aimed at restoring constitutional order. However, Washington would likely avoid advocating any outright "coup" in the sense of a violent overthrow, as he was fundamentally committed to lawful governance and wary of armed rebellion after leading the country through the Revolutionary War.

Still, certain actions could escalate in a way that could resemble a power struggle to restore democracy:

1. Military Refusal to Follow Autocratic Orders: If the military leaders were to side with Washington, this refusal to follow autocratic orders might effectively isolate the autocratic leader, creating conditions where a peaceful or forceful resignation could occur. Washington would likely emphasize constitutional duty rather than encouraging military aggression, hoping that simply withholding military support would pressure the leader to step down.

2. Widespread Civil Disobedience: Washington might encourage a form of peaceful "coup" through massive, coordinated civil disobedience, effectively shutting down the government’s ability to function under autocratic rule. If enough of the population and state governments refused to recognize the authority of a self-appointed autocrat, the resulting paralysis could eventually force a resignation or restoration of democratic processes without armed conflict.

3. State-Level Resistance and Nullification: Washington would likely urge state governments to act independently to protect their citizens' rights, essentially forming a coalition of states that function as a counter-government until constitutional order could be restored. This type of state-led resistance, backed by Washington’s influence, could prompt a crisis that ends in the removal of the autocratic leader, either through resignation or a return to elections.

4. Ultimate Use of Force if Necessary: Though Washington would prioritize peaceful means, he might eventually endorse the use of limited force if no other option remained to restore constitutional governance. This would likely be a last resort, pursued only if all other methods had failed and the only way to protect democracy was through direct intervention.

In essence, Washington’s leadership could catalyze a broad-based, peaceful resistance that might resemble a coup in terms of its outcome—a change in leadership—but his guiding principle would be to restore constitutional governance, not to impose power by force. The emphasis on civic duty and lawful governance would make this an effort to preserve the republic, aiming to avoid the chaos and long-term instability that violent coups typically bring.

Well. There it is. It's not a time of giving up. But of bringing together. Of fighting for what we are and should be, against all that is brought to bear against us in attempting to make us into what we aren't and shouldn't be.

I wish us all well.

By the way...

What Trump did the other day in mimicking fellatio with his mic on stage at a rally was not original for a questionable national leader.

 

Another autocrat in the Philippines, Pres. Rodrigo Duterte made headlines for such an incident in 2018.

During August of that year in an incident in Tuguegarao, fmr Pres Duterte had placed the microphone between his legs mimicking the act of oral sex. This behavior was widely criticized for its vulgarity & inappropriate nature, especially coming from a sitting head of state.

The act was widely criticized for its inappropriate & disrespectful nature, esp. given Duterte's position as a head of state. It was seen as part of his often controversial & outspoken/vulgar style, which frequently included offensive jokes & remarks, particularly about women.

Duterte, known for his irreverent, blunt, & at times misogynistic behavior, often faced backlash for his comments and actions, though he remained a popular figure among certain segments of the Philippine population. His actions during this event drew condemnation both domestically & internationally for their crudeness & lack of decorum.

In 2021, Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute, which is the founding treaty of the ICC, in an effort to shield himself from an investigation into his administration's human rights abuses.

Lot's more to come from Trump, however. No matter how disgusting we think it is. Because it's all about him now.

The Once "Grand Old Party", the Once "Republican Party" of Lincoln, is No More

Because so many "Republicans" or "conservatives" no longer know who they are or what they stand for, while still believing and reveling in past glory when they are no longer what they once were and had become known and praised for.

Now Democrats have their own concerns and issues, but nothing as vast or problematic as the MaGA GOP today with its confused messaging, autocratic orientations, lies and disinformation platform.  

They are now mostly ideology over citizens, party over country, leader over party, autocracy over democracy.

Most Trump supporters feel free to ignore this, as it's info they probably aren't interested in having to know, or deal with.

There are still "Republicans" but the party at large refers to them as "RINOs", Republicans in name only, while those calling others that are, for the most part, actual RINOs.

The once-Republican Party of Lincoln, originally founded in the mid-1800s, was shaped by principles of abolitionism, civil rights, and federal power to unify the country.

Over time, especially in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the party shifted from its roots as an advocate for civil rights and anti-slavery, embracing more conservative economic policies focused on business and limited government.

By the 20th century, Republicans moved away from the progressive policies associated with Lincoln's era, with further shifts in the 1960s as the party increasingly courted Southern conservative voters.

This transformation saw the GOP evolve into a party defined more by conservative values, limited federal intervention, and an emphasis on states’ rights, markedly different from Lincoln’s original vision.

The Democratic Party, historically rooted in states' rights and agrarian interests, gradually took up the mantle of civil rights and social reform that once defined Lincoln's Republican Party. This shift began in the early 20th century, as Democrats adopted more progressive policies under leaders like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who expanded federal government intervention to address economic inequality, labor rights, and social welfare during the New Deal era.

The transformation accelerated in the 1960s when Democratic leaders like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson championed civil rights legislation. Johnson’s support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 solidified the party's role as an advocate for racial equality and social justice, a position that further distanced them from the segregationist elements of their past.

This shift also led to a realignment of voter bases: as the Democratic Party became associated with civil rights and progressive social issues, many conservative Southern voters shifted to the Republican Party. The modern Democratic Party thus came to champion many of the inclusive, equality-focused ideals that had characterized Lincoln’s Republicans, while the GOP shifted toward a platform emphasizing traditional values, limited government, and conservative policies.

Today’s Republican conservative values differ significantly from original conservative principles. Classic conservatism, as articulated by thinkers like Edmund Burke, emphasized caution in societal change, a respect for tradition, and a commitment to stability, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, rule of law, and small government. Traditional conservatives believed in upholding institutions and norms, often avoiding radical shifts in policy that could disrupt social order.

In contrast, modern American conservatism has evolved, particularly within the Republican Party. Today, it often emphasizes a populist approach that challenges established institutions and norms, including the judiciary and the media. Recent conservative movements within the GOP have supported significant government intervention on issues like immigration, reproductive rights, and voting laws, focusing less on institutional stability and more on advancing specific social agendas. The GOP has also embraced fiscal policies that diverge from early conservative economic prudence, such as deficit spending and tax cuts for corporations, which early conservatives might have viewed skeptically.

This shift represents a move away from traditional conservatism’s focus on incremental change and institutional respect toward a more populist, activist form of conservatism that prioritizes ideological goals over the original conservative caution.

A more precise term for today’s Republican Party might be "populist right" or "nationalist right." These terms capture the party’s shift from traditional conservatism to a platform that emphasizes strong national identity, populist appeals, and a willingness to disrupt established norms to achieve specific political and cultural goals.

Populist Right: This term reflects the focus on appealing directly to "the people" or "the common man" and often emphasizes anti-elite, anti-establishment rhetoric. This populist approach involves a strong appeal to certain groups' grievances and perceived loss of status, frequently targeting institutions like the media, academia, and government as "elites" who are out of touch with everyday Americans.

Nationalist Right: This term reflects the increased emphasis on national sovereignty, a strong stance on immigration, and a focus on traditional American identity and values. Nationalist right politics prioritize policies that favor domestic interests, sometimes at the expense of international alliances or global institutions.

Right-Wing Populism: Combining elements of populism with conservative ideas, this term encapsulates a political style that challenges established structures while using conservative rhetoric on social issues.

Each of these terms captures aspects of the modern GOP’s orientation that differ from traditional conservatism, particularly its embrace of more radical change and direct appeals to popular, often nationalist sentiment.

These people who support Donald Trump and his MaGA are focused on concepts, and ideals over people. That is merely a tool in life, but when used blindly, it leads to what we see today from the Right wing. To wit...

People who view the world primarily through ideological frameworks rather than through the lens of individual experiences and actual impacts on people are often referred to as ideologues. Ideologues hold rigid beliefs, interpreting events and issues through the lens of their preferred ideology without necessarily considering the practical or human consequences.

This kind of outlook, sometimes called ideological absolutism or dogmatism, can lead to a detachment from real-world consequences and empathy, as they prioritize the purity or consistency of their ideas over the nuanced, complex needs of people. Political theorists also refer to this as political moralism, where abstract principles are valued over pragmatic, compassionate approaches to governance and interpersonal issues.

In extreme cases, such a perspective can foster authoritarian tendencies, where the enforcement of ideology takes precedence over individual freedoms and wellbeing. This mindset can be seen in people who prioritize ideological "wins" even when they come at a personal or societal cost, causing harm in both governmental policies and personal relationships.

I wish us ALL the best, for those of us with the best intentions at heart, where the "best intentions" actually are, our best for us all.

Cheers! Sláinte!

"20 lessons from the 20th century" by Timothy Snyder

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Presidential Election 2024 and the Nightmare It Could Be

Tuesday, November 5, 2024, is the final election day...hopefully not forever.

The Convict vs The Prosecutor

Where do Harris and Trump stand on the key election issues? - Guardian

Kamala’s Wins @harris_wins - "BREAKING: Nikki Haley is bashing the Trump campaign for running one of the weakest candidates and races she’s seen. It’s clear the dam is breaking within the Republican Party and the base is fracturing. Retweet so all Americans see this."

Sunday, November 3, 2024...

Trump, more comments about bullets passing through the media at his rally.

Trump Says He Wouldn’t Mind Someone Shooting Through ‘Fake News’ At Rally

This is not presidential in any way, shape or form. Forbes

Now. Let's start with THIS:

National Security Leaders for America @NSLforAmerica
Nov 2
UPDATED ENDORSEMENT: 1,043 National Security Leaders—including 10 Cabinet & 11 Service Secretaries, 253 retired Admirals & Generals, 49 Senior Enlisted, and 164 Ambassadors—proudly endorse Kamala Harris for President.

Trump "America"

About women's issues this election...

At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Donald Trump asserted his intention by saying:
“I’m going to protect the women of our country… whether the women like it or not.”
Which has raised concerns if not alarms for some about his approach to women's autonomy and reproductive rights. Critics have interpreted this statement as indicative of narcissistic and misogynistic tendencies, suggesting that he prioritizes his views over women's expressed desires.
This behavior aligns with a broader pattern observed among some political figures who claim to act in women's interests while disregarding their preferences. Which women have now died from.
Trump's history of controversial remarks and allegations of sexual misconduct contributes to the perception of him as embodying misogyny. His assertion that he will act in women's best interests, regardless of their input, resonates with narcissistic behavior, where one's own beliefs overshadow the rights of others.
Such dynamics prompt worries about the normalization of these attitudes and their implications for societal views on women's rights and sexual violence​.
Trump's comments can provide a sense of validation for individuals with narcissistic and abusive tendencies, as they reinforce a sense of power and control over women. Such remarks can resonate with those who hold misogynistic views, allowing them to feel justified in their beliefs and actions.
This dynamic is concerning, particularly in light of his adjudicated status as a sexual abuser, and his being a convicted felon indicating a criminal behavior orientation which is arguably a lifetime orientation, all of which raises questions about the authenticity of his intentions to protect women.
The juxtaposition of his rhetoric with his past actions highlights the complexities of his influence and the dangers it poses.
But sure, vote for Trump as POTUS. We don't have enough chaotic, ignorant and unfocused leaders, yet.

Does China want Trump to win?

China prefers stability and predictability in international relations, which does not align with Trump's often erratic and confrontational style. During his presidency, Trump's unpredictable trade wars and sudden policy shifts strained U.S.-China relations and made it difficult for Chinese officials to navigate these changes—often not in positive ways.

Moreover, Trump’s alignment with Putin could create challenges for China, as Russia serves as a counterbalance to Western influence in various areas. Strengthening ties between the U.S. and Russia could increase geopolitical pressure on China, especially in regions where their interests overlap or where they cooperate against Western powers. Given these factors, it's reasonable to conclude that Trump's return to the presidency may not align with China's strategic interests.

The question of whether the U.S. should align more closely with China's interests is complex. While promoting stability and predictability could reduce tensions and potential conflict, it's crucial for the U.S. to prioritize its own national interests, values, and relationships with allies. Engaging with China on economic and environmental issues can be beneficial, but such engagement must be cautious—especially under a leadership style like Trump's—to protect U.S. industries and human rights.

Ultimately, a pragmatic approach that encourages stability while maintaining a firm stance on core values is essential for U.S. foreign policy.

On the topic of Putin, Ukraine, and NATO, Boris Johnson recently stated that Ukraine must join NATO, emphasizing that Putin cannot be allowed to expand into Europe, which he sees as his intention. He argues that the only viable path is to bring Ukraine into NATO to prevent a Russian victory. Johnson also expresses skepticism about Trump’s willingness to stand up to Putin, highlighting the need to closely observe the dynamics between Putin and Trump.

Zelenskyy warns North Korea, Russia alliance could spell trouble for Asia: China's 'silence is striking'

"Ukrainian Pres Zelenskyy is sounding the alarm that the recent deployment of NK troops in Russia not only spells trouble for Ukraine, but also draws into question the stability & security of nations in Asia that are allied with the West.
"North Korea’s actions aren’t random," Zelenskyy said in a frank interview with South Korea’s public broadcasting network KBS on Thursday. "They have strategic goals."
"Their actions aren’t coincidental - they want Russia’s support in return," he added in comments also posted to his social media account on X." via Fox News

Summary of Trump's Comments & the Reality of Mail-in Voting - Trump's Statements:
2016: Trump claimed that mail-in voting could lead to widespread fraud, particularly targeting minority communities, asserting that the electoral system was "rigged"​

2018: He maintained mail-in ballots were vulnerable to fraud & warned of the potential for extensive cheating​

2022: Trump's rhetoric escalated, alleging that election officials distributed "80 million unsolicited ballots," emphasizing the risk of rampant fraud​

2024: He continues to frame early & mail-in voting as significant threats to democracy, reflecting persistent distrust in these systems​

Reality of Mail-in Voting:

Low Rates of Fraud: Research indicates that voter fraud, particularly involving mail-in ballots, is exceedingly rare. Studies have shown that states using mail-in voting have low instances of fraud, often lower than traditional voting methods​

No Systematic Bias: Evidence suggests that mail-in ballots do not favor any political party, countering claims that they disproportionately benefit Democrats or facilitate cheating​

Benefits of Accessibility: The expansion of mail-in voting has been recognized as beneficial, especially during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, as it enhances voter accessibility without significantly increasing fraud risk​

In conclusion, while Trump's comments have fueled fears regarding the security of mail-in voting, the statistical evidence & research consistently show that these voting methods are secure & effective. 

Donald Trump's stance on early & mail-in voting has evolved recently, though it remains complex & sometimes contradictory. Historically, he has been critical of these voting methods, often associating them with potential fraud & claiming they undermine the integrity of elections. This rhetoric has created a significant partisan divide, with many Republicans working to encourage their voters to use these methods to increase turnout​.

However, leading up to the 2024 elections, Trump has started to shift his position. He announced that he plans to vote early this cycle, indicating a more accepting attitude toward early voting than in previous years. He expressed that he is "OK with early voting," acknowledging its popularity among voters​.

Donald Trump's recent support for early and mail-in voting stems from several strategic factors. As the Republican Party faces challenges in recent elections, Trump has recognized that embracing these voting methods is essential for improving turnout among GOP voters. This shift aligns with party initiatives aimed at maximizing voter participation, as many Republicans now view early voting as crucial for electoral success​

Trump's change in stance also reflects an acknowledgment of voter preferences, with many supporters favoring the convenience of early voting. His adaptation seems to be a pragmatic response to the changing political landscape, moving away from earlier claims of fraud associated with these voting methods​.

FYI...

Recent reports indicate that Chinese hackers have targeted the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, with implications for national security and political campaigns. The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have confirmed unauthorized access to commercial telecom systems, which may have included attempts to gather information related to the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris​

VOICE OF AMERICA

The hacking group involved, known as Salt Typhoon, has reportedly compromised systems of major U.S. telecom providers, including Verizon and AT&T. These breaches are concerning as they may allow hackers access to sensitive information, including wiretap capabilities that could undermine criminal investigations and national security operations​
​
While the Chinese government has denied these allegations, calling them disinformation, the attacks highlight ongoing cyber threats from state-sponsored actors in China​

U.S. intelligence has warned that such foreign actors are actively trying to interfere in the upcoming elections, using both cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns​
​
SECURITYWEEK

Russia

In the context of the upcoming U.S. elections, two significant Russian-related issues have emerged:

1. Disinformation Campaigns: Russian-backed influence operations are increasingly targeting the electoral process in the United States. These campaigns focus on spreading misleading narratives that can affect public perception and voter behavior. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Microsoft have warned that these disinformation efforts are part of a broader strategy to sow discord and amplify divisions among the American populace​

   The ongoing operations highlight the vulnerabilities in the information landscape, particularly as the election nears.

2. Cyber Threats: While the recent focus has been on Chinese cyberattacks, Russia also poses a substantial cyber threat. Security agencies are alert to potential hacking incidents that could target election infrastructure or related systems. The concern is that Russian cyber actors may not only engage in disinformation but could also attempt to infiltrate critical systems to disrupt the electoral process​

   WIRED

Overall, both issues underscore the challenges facing U.S. election security as foreign actors like Russia continue to employ various tactics to interfere in the democratic process. For more information, you can explore detailed analyses from sources like WIRED and Microsoft’s threat assessment​

Thank you for being an American citizen. Now VOTE as sanely as you can with what you have to work with. 

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with help from ChatGPT