Maybe Trump knows that in order to maintain power to has to keep feeding his Maga supporters and targeting anything 'woke' does that job. What his motivation is beyond that isn't clear, maybe he just likes the feeling of power, maybe he's working for Russia, maybe he's making America safe for billionaires. Who knows? However keeping Maga happy is an important objective in itself and not just a distraction.
 
Maybe Trump knows that in order to maintain power to has to keep feeding his Maga supporters and targeting anything 'woke' does that job. What his motivation is beyond that isn't clear, maybe he just likes the feeling of power, maybe he's working for Russia, maybe he's making America safe for billionaires. Who knows? However keeping Maga happy is an important objective in itself and not just a distraction.
He wants to get back at people – back to the 1980's and his implosion as a realtor. And then he wants to make "deals", where he makes lots of money and screws everyone else over.

There is so little depth to Trump some kind of Ersatz gets projected onto him – because no actual human being should be this uni-dimensional.

The more worrying bit is his fawning entourage, who may have deeper agendas, and better long-term planning.

It's the situation in all kinds national states of emergency from history (except Trump and MAGA are manufacturing theies) – a bunch of people with nutty/toxic ideas, who would normally never be allowed near the vicinity of the lever of power, due to special circumstances end up getting a shot at running the country.
 
It's not like they're ever going to stop thinking that unless they or friends or family end up camps
That won't stop/change their thinking either...

ICE Detained His Wife. He Still Doesn’t Regret Voting for Trump.​

A Trump voter whose wife was detained by federal immigration agents apparently still does not regret siding with MAGA in November.

Bradley Bartell, a Wisconsin Trump supporter, witnessed the arrest of his Peruvian wife, Camila Muñoz, last month. Muñoz had overstayed her visa during the pandemic but had no criminal history and had recently applied for her green card—something that the couple believed could be enough to keep her from becoming a target of the Trump administration.
It wasn’t. Instead, ICE agents tore her away from her husband at the airport as the couple returned from their belated honeymoon in Puerto Rico. But that hasn’t hampered Bartell’s opinion of Donald Trump.

“I don’t regret the vote,” Bartell told Newsweek Wednesday.
https://newrepublic.com/post/192989/donald-trump-voter-ice-detain-wife-regret-vote
 

Trump has sat for only 12 ‘daily’ intelligence briefings since taking office​

The scarcity of the President’s Daily Briefings comes as he pursues high-stakes diplomacy with America’s friends and foes.

Since President Donald Trump was sworn into office in January, he has sat for just 12 presentations from intelligence officials of the President’s Daily Brief.

That’s a significant drop compared with Trump’s first term in office, according to a POLITICO analysis of his public schedule. In much of his first term, Trump met with intel officials twice a week for the briefing, which provides the intelligence community’s summary of the most pressing national security challenges facing the nation. The low number of briefings this time around is troubling to many in and around the intelligence community, who were already concerned about Trump’s act-first-evaluate-after approach to governing. “It’s sadly clear that President Trump doesn’t value the expertise of and dangerous work performed by our intelligence professionals each and every day, and unfortunately, it leaves the American people increasingly vulnerable to threats we ought to see coming,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement to POLITICO.

The sporadic pace of briefings comes as Trump has been working to broker an end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine and to jump-start nuclear talks with Iran — all while navigating increasing potential threats from adversaries such as Russia and China.
Each president is different in the manner and pace at which they receive their briefings, and Trump is not entirely out of step with some of his predecessors.

But with Trump, there is added concern as he is known not to read the accompanying briefing document, referred to as “the book,” that is put together by intelligence analysts in a highly labor-intensive process. This document is delivered in hard copy or on a tablet device to the president and his key advisers five days a week.

The briefings from senior intelligence officials are often a chance for the president to hear detailed assessments on global crises and to receive updates on highly classified covert operations overseas — along with blunt facts about the state of the world, regardless of policy implications or the president’s own views.

Trump received just two in-person PDB briefings per month in January, February and March, before settling into a more regular rhythm of once per week in April and May, according to the president’s daily schedule maintained by Faceba.se, a website that collates the president’s statements as well as his public calendar.

PDB presentations are typically tailored toward informing the president as he conducts high-stakes diplomacy, detailing what a foreign government may be thinking and what its intentions are, former intelligence officials said.

“The point of having an $80 billion intelligence service is to inform the president to avert a strategic surprise,” said a former CIA analyst who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.

Trump’s top national security aides and Cabinet officials receive similar intelligence briefings and can ensure that critical information reaches the president’s ears. Senior administration officials said Trump gets the information he needs through frequent communication with his intelligence chiefs. “The president is constantly apprised of classified briefings and is regularly in touch with his national security team,” said Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson. “The entire intelligence community actively informs President Trump in real time about critical national security developments.”

Ingle declined to comment on why Trump has received fewer daily PDB presentations compared to his first term.. Former intelligence officials argued that the PDB sessions are an opportunity for the president to hear from career intelligence officials who are skilled in imparting information regardless of whether it complements or contradicts the president’s foreign policy strategies. They questioned whether other top advisers or Cabinet officials would be able — or willing — to relay these stark realities to the president.

And the circle of officials receiving the PDB may also be smaller than in Trump’s first term. CNN reported last month that the Trump administration has tightly restricted the number of people who have access to the intelligence report.

Trump’s first term in office was marked by a high turnover in his national security team, a trend that looks set to continue. Last week, Trump ousted his national security adviser Mike Waltz, who had long been on thin ice with other administration officials. “The advantage of an IC briefer is its somebody who is trained to tell the hard truths to the president,” said Larry Pfeiffer, who served as chief of staff to CIA Director Michael Hayden. “They are going to be more inclined to provide him with more nuanced information — information that’s not been parsed through a policy perspective,” Pfeiffer said.

Presidents vary in how often they have received in-person briefings. George W. Bush saw briefers from the intelligence community almost every day and preferred hearing directly from analysts, while Obama was a studious reader of the PDB book itself. Obama received in-person briefings 44 percent of the days he was in office during his first term, according to a 2012 analysis by the conservative research group the Government Accountability Institute, which would equate to multiple briefings a week. He was attacked by the conservative media and former Vice President Dick Cheney for not attending more.

Biden received one to two briefings a week, according to a former U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter and a former Biden White House official. But Biden was known to regularly read the PDB briefing book, the former intelligence official said. A former official who served in Biden’s National Security Council said that the president would use the delivery of the book as an opportunity to gather his top national security aides and Cabinet officials to discuss its contents and foreign policy implications.

During his first term, Trump read little of his daily intelligence briefings, according to accounts from his former briefers and reports in the New York Times. At the time, intelligence officials found Trump to be more responsive to graphics, maps and a more storified approach to recounting the intelligence, according to interviews with his briefers published in “Getting To Know The President,” a history of intelligence briefings of candidates and presidents-elect, authored by John Helgerson, a former senior CIA official.

Trump had a fraught relationship with the intelligence community during his first term. But the cadence of briefings almost three months into his second term represents a stark drop when compared to his first four years in office, and offers insight into how Trump might prioritize these briefings throughout the next four years.

In the first five weeks following his inauguration in 2017, Trump received an average of 2.5 briefings a week before settling into an average of two briefings a week in the latter half of his presidency, according to a detailed historical account published by the CIA’s own in-house academic research center. Trump’s briefings during his first term were substantive, the former U.S. intelligence official said, noting that the president listened and was interactive during the presentations. And during Trump’s first term, Vice President Mike Pence was an “assiduous, six-day-a-week reader,” of the PDB, Helgerson noted in his book.

A second former senior U.S intelligence official stressed that there are other avenues for Trump’s spy chiefs to get information to him, beyond his daily briefing, including standalone memos and articles based on the latest intelligence findings. “It’s not the be all and end all,” they said, speaking of the PDB. The person also noted, as the White House did, that the president’s top advisers can also serve as a conduit for relaying information to the president.

A person familiar with how Trump takes his PDB briefings said that the president has received standalone briefings on global flashpoints on an ongoing basis separate from the PDB and that it would be incorrect to imply he wasn’t fully briefed. They were granted anonymity to discuss how Trump receives his intelligence.

“He’s calling people all day. If he wants an update on some of these things, he’ll call Ratcliffe, Rubio, Witkoff, Waltz, kind of in an ad-hoc fashion throughout the day, receiving this stuff,” said the person, who spoke before Waltz was removed from his position as national security adviser last week.

Asked for comment about the president’s briefing schedule, National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said “President Trump has multiple high-level, national security briefings every day. While the scope can range from a comprehensive presentation of global intelligence, to meeting with senior national security officials on an issue of immediate importance, the daily engagement of President Trump is prolific.”

Former intelligence officials argue that the in-person presentations from experienced briefers offer a further opportunity for the president to receive important context on the intelligence delivered, ask questions and relay any requests for additional information back to the intelligence agencies.

That feedback gives the country’s spy agencies an opportunity to learn more about the president’s needs and interests. “We learn too,” said a third former senior U.S. intelligence official.



 

GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook​

Mike Lee wants to deliver a death knell to PornHub.

Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

According to the bill text, “a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction” of any media that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” would be considered criminal. In other words, if you have an old VHS tape of some Cinemax-style smut stashed away in your garage, you could, under this law, be considered to be harboring deeply illicit materials. Some critics have suggested that Lee’s definition of obscenity is so ridiculously broad that it could effectively criminalize Game of Thrones. That said, the punishments for merely possessing porn under the proposed law seem unclear at this point, as the legislation seems more focused on punishing the creators and distributors of racy material.

The law would “pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn,” The Daily Caller writes.

“Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,” said Lee, in a press release about the bill. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

It should be noted that porn has always been a hot-button issue and that critics have long tried to criminalize it. The history of the anti-pornography movement in the U.S. is a long and complicated one, littered with differing ideological justifications and strange bedfellows. In recent years, however, the anti-porn crusade has largely been led by the MAGA right.

Much of the modern anti-porn movement has sought to focus on the harmful psychological impact that pornography may have on young web users and children. It has targeted online access to porn by instituting age-verification requirements for porn websites that bar underage users. Over the past decade, over a dozen states have passed legislation designed to curb youth access to porn, much of which is still being challenged in court.
https://gizmodo.com/gop-senator-int...me-following-project-2025-playbook-2000600994
 

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

This is the key bit. It's not really about porn as a normal person would think of the term. It's about criminalising being transgendered (and later the rest of LGBTQ+).
 
This is the key bit. It's not really about porn as a normal person would think of the term. It's about criminalising being transgendered (and later the rest of LGBTQ+).

I dunno, the anti-porn crusaders have been around a lot longer than 'the transgender thing' has been, and longer than the gay-rights thing has been too. It's akin to Prohibition, really: moralists thinking that if only they can make the thing unavailable and criminalize the people that would support it, society will be fine and upstanding and etc etc etc.
 
These people have been accusing "The Left" of censorship for years. It was projection all along.
i don't want to get into a rant about this and i know you also personally are aware, but for posterity, i studied the legal treatment of assorted ... naughty or transgressive materials, including the obscene and sewery (it goes beyond porn) and for the vast majority of history, censorship of these things have been a right wing effort, it remained so during the recent culture war garbage; that the left dipped its toes into restricting transgressive speech is a very recent and short phenomenon. and even during video game fights it just doesn't match up. exception is like the f sovjets and such, but the notion that this is a left wing push is ridiculous and farcical if you read just one book on the subject matter.
 
This is the key bit. It's not really about porn as a normal person would think of the term. It's about criminalising being transgendered (and later the rest of LGBTQ+).
Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians & conservatives have been anti-porn for years, if not decades. The anti-LGBT component has only been recently latched onto the, I presume a millennia long fight, against porn.
 
On behalf of all my fellow Canadians: please do not foist your weird fetishes on us.
 
I dunno, the anti-porn crusaders have been around a lot longer than 'the transgender thing' has been, and longer than the gay-rights thing has been too. It's akin to Prohibition, really: moralists thinking that if only they can make the thing unavailable and criminalize the people that would support it, society will be fine and upstanding and etc etc etc.

The irony of the marriage between anti-porn and anti-LGBTQ is that, far from turning the kids/frogs gay, mainstream porn is actually a key pillar in the formation of actually-existing (male) heterosexuality and 'traditional' masculinity!
 
I am considering the irony.

.....if we vote for Hilary... she will ban our porn..

... so we will vote for Trumpie

...if we vote for Kamala... she will ban our porn

so we will vote for Trumpie again

but his new admin want to ban our porn..

..what a dastardly double crosser.....

..so what should we do ?..

...maybe we crowd fund sending in Stormy Daniels and tell her it is death or glory...
 
I am considering the irony.

.....if we vote for Hilary... she will ban our porn..

...if we vote for Kamala... she will ban our porn
This is the first I’ve heard of these accusations on these candidates. I recall people miffed at Hillary (Along with Joe Lieberman) for scapegoating Video Games and hopping on the Jack Thompson train. The idea that Hillary and Kamala would ban porn seems far fetched to me.
 
Many of you may not find my desperate theories as to why the US electorate voted for Donald Trump credible.

The thing is I don't find the theories put forward by others here any more credible.
 
Back
Top Bottom