In any case, I think I get what your arguing, but I have a different outlook. I don't think Trump's heir needs to replicate Trump's "magic". I think that they can piece together their own appeal based on some new characteristics that are unique/special to them vis-a-vis Trump and that can be enough to motivate sufficient enough voters to carry them to victory
Well, I think Trump's success has involved turning out low-propensity voters, people who generally don't vote at all but who are voting for him specifically as a person.

If any new candidate slips back to Romney-level numbers of voters, then a D has the possibility to beat that person (possibility to mess that up also, of course, sure--because they're D).

But in the stage before it comes to a vote vs some D, the Rs will be splintered between the various candidates--and those people will all be trying to retain/gain for themselves the voters Trump turned out. Theoretically, someone could do what you and ask, "ok, how could I devise an altogether new appeal that brings in the traditional Rs plus the voters Trump added?" But practically speaking they're just going to try to go after the Trump voters, i.e. be as Trump-like as they can. And there will be different partial-Trumps, none with the appeal to get his whole base, and all that a particular voter doesn't favor annoying that voter by trying to be a different element of Trump than the element he or she values in Trump.

I think it will be loads of fun to see how it plays out--again, assuming it plays out as a standard electoral process.
 
At least in the US there is a YUGE problem with that approach. Specifically, the states that produce the most money are the blue/Democratic dominated states and those are the states that most of the funding for food stamps comes from. Blue states tend to be much more favorable towards food stamp type programs, so its less of an issue there. However, the red/Republican dominated states tend to be much poorer, with far less funding available to go to federal food stamp funding and those are the states where there is more political hostility towards food stamp programs, at least among their elected representatives and the political ideology that is prevailing there.

So if food stamps were done on a state-by-state basis, how that would work in practice, is that the poor in blue states would have robust, well funded food stamp programs with plenty of political support, while the poor in red states would starve, with scarce funding and constant program cuts being made.

That kind of situation is the kind of thing that would lead very quickly to civil unrest and maybe even insurrection/Civil War. Food stamps have to be federally funded.
I must say this is one of the more interesting explanations behind the SNAP program as I've ever seen.
 

The American adoptees who fear deportation to a country they can't remember​

Shirley Chung was just a year old when she was adopted by a US family in 1966.

Born in South Korea, her birthfather was a member of the American military, who returned home soon after Shirley was born. Unable to cope, her birth mother placed her in an orphanage in the South Korean capital, Seoul.

"He abandoned us, is the nicest way I can put it," says Shirley, now 61.

After around a year, Shirley was adopted by a US couple, who took her back to Texas.

Shirley grew up living a life similar to that of many young Americans. She went to school, got her driving licence and worked as a bartender.

"I moved and breathed and got in trouble like many teenage Americans of the 80s. I'm a child of the 80s," Shirley says.

Shirley had children, got married and became a piano teacher. Life carried on for decades with no reason to doubt her American identity.

But then in 2012, her world came crashing down.

She lost her Social Security card and needed a replacement. But when she went to her local Social Security office, Shirley was told she needed to prove her status in the country. Eventually she found out she did not have US citizenship.

"I had a little mental breakdown after finding out I wasn't a citizen," she says.

Shirley is not alone. Estimates of how many American adoptees lack citizenship range from 18,000 to 75,000. Some intercountry adoptees may not even know they lack US citizenship.

Dozens of adoptees have been deported to their countries of birth in recent years, according to the Adoptee Rights Law Center. A man born in South Korea and adopted as a child by an American family - only to be deported to his country of birth because of a criminal record - took his own life in 2017.

The reasons why so many US adoptees do not have citizenship are varied. Shirley blames her parents for failing to finalise the correct paperwork when she came to the US. She also blames the school system and the government for not highlighting that she did not have citizenship.

"I blame all the adults in my life that literally just dropped the ball and said: 'She's here in America now, she's going to be fine.'"

"Well, am I? Am I going to be fine?"

Another woman, who requested anonymity for fear of attracting the attention of authorities, was adopted by an American couple from Iran in 1973 when she was two years old.

Growing up in the US Midwest, she encountered some racism but generally had a happy upbringing.

"I settled into my life, always understanding that I was an American citizen. That's what I was told. I still believe that today," she says.

But that changed when she tried to get a passport at the age of 38 and discovered immigration authorities had lost critical documents that supported her claim to citizenship.

This has further complicated her feelings surrounding identity.

"I personally don't categorise myself as an immigrant. I didn't come here as an immigrant with a second language, a different culture, family members, ties to a country that I was born in… my culture was erased," she says.

"You are told that you have these rights as an American - to vote and to participate in democracy, to work, to go to school, to raise your family, to have freedoms - all these things that Americans have.

"And then all of a sudden they started pushing us into a category of immigrants, simply because they cut us from legislation. We should have all equally had citizenship rights because that was promised through adoption policies."

For decades, intercountry adoptions approved by courts and government agencies did not automatically guarantee US citizenship. Adoptive parents sometimes failed to secure legal status or naturalised citizenship for their children.

The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 made some headway in rectifying this, granting automatic citizenship to international adoptees. But the law only covered future adoptees or those born after February 1983. Those who arrived before then were not granted citizenship, leaving tens of thousands in limbo.

Advocates have been pushing for Congress to remove the age cut-off but these bills have failed to make it past the House.

Some, like Debbie Principe, whose two adopted children have special needs, have spent decades trying to secure citizenship for their dependents.

She adopted two children from an orphanage in Romania in the 1990s after watching them on Shame of a Nation - a documentary about the neglect of children in orphanages following the 1989 Romanian Revolution, that sent shockwaves around the world when it aired.

The most recent rejection of citizenship came in May, and was followed by a notice stating that if the decision was not appealed in 30 days, she would have to turn in her daughter to Homeland Security, she said.

"We'll just be lucky if they don't get picked up and deported to another country that isn't even their country of origin," Ms Principe said.

Those fears for adoptees and their families have risen even further since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, with a vow to remove "promptly all aliens who enter or remain in violation of federal law".

Last month, the Trump administration said "two million illegal aliens have left the United States in less than 250 days, including an estimated 1.6 million who have voluntarily self-deported and more than 400,000 deportations".

While many Americans support deportations of illegal migrants, there has been uproar over some incidents.

In one case, 238 Venezuelans were deported by the US to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. They were accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang despite most of them having no criminal records.

Last month, US officials detained 475 people - more than 300 of them South Korean nationals - who they said were working illegally at Hyundai's battery facility, one of the largest foreign investment projects in Georgia. The workers were taken away in handcuffs and chains to be detained, sparking outrage in their home country.

Adoptee rights groups say they have been flooded with requests for help since Trump's return and some adoptees have gone into hiding.

"When the election results came in, it started to really cascade with requests for help," said Greg Luce, an attorney and founder of the Adoptee Rights Law Center, adding he's had more than 275 requests for help.

The adoptee who arrived from Iran in the 1970s said she has started avoiding certain areas, like her local Iranian supermarket, and shares an app with her friends so they always have access to her location, in case she is "swept up".

"At the end of the day, they don't care about your back story. They don't care that you're legally here and it's just a paperwork error. I always tell people this one single piece of paper has essentially just ruined my life," she said.

"As far as I'm concerned right now, I feel stateless."

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

Despite adoptees being left in limbo for decades, Emily Howe, a civil and human rights attorney who has worked with adoptees across the US, believes it is just a case of political will that should unite people from across the political spectrum.

"It should be a straightforward fix: adopted children should be equal to their biological siblings of parents who were US citizens at the time of birth," Ms Howe said.

"The applicants have two, three, or four US citizen parents, and are now in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. We're talking about babies and toddlers who were shipped overseas through no fault of their own and lawfully admitted under US policy," she added.

"These are people who literally were promised that they were going to be Americans when they were two years old."

Shirley wishes she could get the US president into a room, so she and others like her could explain their stories.

"I would ask him to please have some compassion. We're not illegal aliens," she said.

"We were put on planes as little itty-bitty babies. Just please hear our story and please follow through with the promise that America gave each one of the babies that got on those planes: American citizenship."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy1n438dk4o
 
Shirley wishes she could get the US president into a room, so she and others like her could explain their stories.

"I would ask him to please have some compassion. We're not illegal aliens," she said.

You see stuff like this pretty frequently and it's just like do these people live on the Moon???
 
You see stuff like this pretty frequently and it's just like do these people live on the Moon???
Not yet...

Space 2025: Why a U.S. moonbase penal colony would be a natural step for forced deportation after Alcatraz​

Space 2025: Why a U.S. moonbase penal colony would be a natural step for forced deportation after Alcatraz | Milwaukee Independent
Donald Trump has not proposed building a prison on the moon, yet. But the idea of launching his enemies into orbit, exiling criminals to a cold crater, and vanishing dissenters into the silent void fits seamlessly into Trump’s political behavior. Someone needs only to whisper the idea or post the suggestion on his Truth Social page, and it would likely become policy.
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.co...ony-natural-step-forced-deportation-alcatraz/
 
At least in the US there is a YUGE problem with that approach. Specifically, the states that produce the most money are the blue/Democratic dominated states and those are the states that most of the funding for food stamps comes from. Blue states tend to be much more favorable towards food stamp type programs, so its less of an issue there. However, the red/Republican dominated states tend to be much poorer, with far less funding available to go to federal food stamp funding and those are the states where there is more political hostility towards food stamp programs, at least among their elected representatives and the political ideology that is prevailing there.

So if food stamps were done on a state-by-state basis, how that would work in practice, is that the poor in blue states would have robust, well funded food stamp programs with plenty of political support, while the poor in red states would starve, with scarce funding and constant program cuts being made.

That kind of situation is the kind of thing that would lead very quickly to civil unrest and maybe even insurrection/Civil War. Food stamps have to be federally funded.
Just thought of something after rereading this post: the only Republican led states I could see doing their own food stamps are Alaska and Texas. Alaska is already a welfare petrostate (mainly because noone wants to live there) and Texas because they are similar in economic size and diversity to California and New York, despite also being a petrostate. Florida is a big maybe because I think they get enough in tourist money, but they also have to deal with an aging population moving there.

Also, Youtube's algorithm decided to grace me with Palm Springs local news story about locals going NIMBY on flights being diverted over an effectively permanent No Fly Zone over Mag-a-largo.

 
Not yet...

Space 2025: Why a U.S. moonbase penal colony would be a natural step for forced deportation after Alcatraz​


https://www.milwaukeeindependent.co...ony-natural-step-forced-deportation-alcatraz/
Nice! I can see the inmates extracting big chunks of pure Helium-3 with pickes (we are in Trump's mind now) and this guy in spacesuit:
godfrey.png

Profitsss
 
In Trump’s America, Are We Losing Our Democracy? NYT Paywall

Countries that slide from democracy toward autocracy tend to follow similar patterns. To measure what is happening in the United States, the Times editorial board has compiled a list of 12 markers of democratic erosion, with help from scholars who have studied this phenomenon. The sobering reality is that the United States has regressed, to different degrees, on all 12.

An authoritarian stifles dissent and speech. Trump has started to.
An authoritarian persecutes political opponents. Trump has.
An authoritarian bypasses the legislature. Trump has started to.
An authoritarian uses the military for domestic control. Trump has started to.
An authoritarian defies the courts. Trump has started to.
An authoritarian declares national emergencies on false pretenses. Trump has.
An authoritarian vilifies marginalized groups. Trump has.
An authoritarian controls information and the news media. Trump has started to.
An authoritarian tries to take over universities. Trump has started to.
An authoritarian creates a cult of personality. Trump has.
An authoritarian uses power for personal profit. Trump has.
An authoritarian manipulates the law to stay in power. Trump has started to.

Spoiler Full text :

Donald Trump has wielded
power as no previous president
has, often in open defiance of
the law. His actions have raised
a chilling question.

By The Editorial BoardThe editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

Countries that slide from democracy toward autocracy tend to follow similar patterns. To measure what is happening in the United States, the Times editorial board has compiled a list of 12 markers of democratic erosion, with help from scholars who have studied this phenomenon. The sobering reality is that the United States has regressed, to different degrees, on all 12.

Our country is still not close to being a true autocracy, in the mold of Russia or China. But once countries begin taking steps away from democracy, the march often continues. We offer these 12 markers as a warning of how much Americans have already lost and how much more we still could lose.

NO. 1

An authoritarian stifles dissent and speech. Trump has started to.

Authoritarian takeovers in the modern era often do not start with a military coup. They instead involve an elected leader who uses the powers of the office to consolidate authority and make political opposition more difficult, if not impossible. Think of Vladimir Putin in Russia, Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and, to lesser degrees, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, Viktor Orban in Hungary and Narendra Modi in India. These leaders have repressed dissent and speech in heavy-handed ways.

Over the past year, President Trump and his allies have impinged on free speech to a degree that the federal government has not since perhaps the Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s. His administration pressured television stations to stop airing Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show when Mr. Kimmel criticized Trump supporters after the murder of Charlie Kirk; revoked the visas of foreign students for their views on the war in Gaza; and ordered investigations of liberal nonprofit groups. Mr. Trump so harshly criticizes people who disagree with him, including federal judges, that they become targets of harassment from his supporters.

The Bottom Line
Many forms of speech and dissent remain vibrant in the United States. But the president has tried to dull them. His evident goal is to cause Americans to fear they will pay a price for criticizing him, his allies or his agenda.

NO. 2

An authoritarian persecutes political opponents. Trump has.

In addition to restricting speech and dissent, autocrats use the immense power of law enforcement to investigate and imprison people who have fallen out of favor. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department has become an enforcer of his personal interests, targeting people for legally dubious reasons while creating a culture in which his allies can act with impunity.

Following the president’s demands, his appointees have secured indictments of a few critics (including Attorney General Letitia James of New York and the former F.B.I. director James Comey) and ordered investigations of others (including Senator Adam Schiff of California). Some of these appointees were once Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers. Mr. Trump has also used executive orders to go after perceived enemies, including law firms representing his critics. And he has systematically fired government employees who played roles in earlier investigations of him or his allies.

“We are all afraid,” Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a Republican, said this spring. “It’s quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real.”

Mr. Trump has simultaneously shielded his own supporters from legal consequences for their actions, including through his blanket pardon of the Jan. 6 rioters.

The Bottom Line
True authoritarians go much further than Mr. Trump has, but he has already targeted his opponents with legal persecution in shocking ways.

NO. 3

An authoritarian bypasses the legislature. Trump has started to.

When a democracy slides toward autocracy, the leader often finds ways to neuter the legislature, turning it into a body that rubber stamps his decisions. Congress has started down this path. The Constitution makes clear, in Article I, that Congress alone has the power of the purse. Mr. Trump is undermining this system.

His administration has violated federal law at least six times by withholding funding authorized by Congress for libraries, preschools, scientific research and more, the Government Accountability Office found. He has gutted or dismantled congressionally authorized agencies like the Department of Education and U.S.A.I.D. He has also imposed new taxes — his tariffs — without congressional approval. Since the current government shutdown began, he has used donations from billionaires to pay troops and finance the construction of a ballroom at the White House.

Some of the blame lies with the Republican leaders of Congress, who have failed to fight his power grabs. Their complicity does not change the fact that these power grabs have been illegal.

The Bottom Line
Mr. Trump has defied the Constitution by trampling on Congress’s power of the purse. In full autocracies, legislatures often formally transfer some of their authority to the executive, and some congressional Republicans have proposed such changes.

NO. 4

An authoritarian uses the military for domestic control. Trump has started to.

Even democracies occasionally use their militaries on home soil. The military can keep order and protect citizens after a devastating storm. In extreme and rare circumstances, troops can enforce the law when local authorities refuse to do so, as happened in the segregated South in the 1950s and 1960s.

Authoritarians use the military much more frequently and performatively — to suppress dissent, instill fear and convey supreme power. Mr. Trump deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles to crack down on protests, despite local officials’ insistence that they had the situation under control. He attempted the same in Portland, Ore., and Chicago, before being restrained by federal courts. He has also begun to treat the military as an extension of himself, firing several high-ranking officials without good reason and summoning hundreds of leaders to Virginia to listen to overtly political speeches by him and his appointees.

The Bottom Line
Mr. Trump’s use of the military for domestic control has been limited. But his willingness to use it as he has — and his threats to expand that use, through the invocation of the Insurrection Act and with troops beyond the National Guard — is extremely worrisome.

NO. 5

An authoritarian defies the courts. Trump has started to.

Would-be authoritarians recognize that courts can keep them from consolidating power, and they often take steps to weaken or confront judges.

Mr. Trump has baldly defied federal judges on several occasions. In March, for instance, his administration ignored a federal judge’s order to turn around airplanes that were deporting migrants to El Salvador. More often, the Trump administration has engaged in gamesmanship, going around orders rather than directly disobeying them. One example: After a federal judge blocked his deployment of the Oregon National Guard, the administration moved to deploy National Guards from other states instead.

So far, Mr. Trump has defied no Supreme Court orders and has pledged not to. But the justices have too often played into his strategy by failing to stand up for lower courts.

The Bottom Line
It is a hopeful sign that he has not ignored the Supreme Court, and the court may yet block his most blatant power grabs. Still, the court’s reluctance to restrain him appears to have emboldened him to sidestep lower court orders he does not like.

NO. 6

An authoritarian declares national emergencies on false pretenses. Trump has.

Authoritarians often curtail democracy by declaring an emergency and arguing that the threat requires them to exercise unusual degrees of power.

Mr. Trump’s recent predecessors were not perfect on this issue. They sometimes declared questionable emergencies. He has gone to another level. He has used manufactured emergencies to sidestep Congress and impose tariffs, deregulate the energy industry, intensify immigration enforcement and send the National Guard into Washington. Chillingly, he has claimed that a Venezuelan gang invaded the United States to justify the killing of foreign civilians in international waters, in defiance of U.S. and international law.

The Bottom Line
Mr. Trump’s willingness to kill people without due process, through the blowing up of boats that American officials could instead stop and search, represents one of his most extreme abuses of power. It raises the prospect that he may expand the use of emergency power to other areas, including domestic law enforcement.

NO. 7

An authoritarian vilifies marginalized groups. Trump has.

Authoritarians tend to demean minority groups, trying to turn them into a perceived threat that provides a justification for a leader to amass power. Mr. Trump has repeatedly suggested that marginalized groups are responsible for the nation’s problems.

Immigrants have topped his list. Mr. Trump has blamed them for destroying communities and his administration has tried to dehumanize them by posting mocking videos of shackled immigrants. In response, many Latinos have stopped speaking Spanish in public and started carrying their passports to prove citizenship.

He has vilified transgender Americans and barred them from military service. He has fired women and people of color from leadership posts and ended programs that promote workplace diversity. His administration has attempted to erase aspects of Black history, including by removing books on slavery and segregation from military libraries and pressuring Smithsonian museums to minimize those subjects. At the same time, he has suggested that white people and Christians are victims, which echoes the autocratic habit of claiming that majority groups are in fact oppressed.

The Bottom Line
Mr. Trump is borrowing from the autocrats' playbook by suggesting that some citizens are legitimate and others are second-class.

NO. 8

An authoritarian controls information and the news media. Trump has started to.

Democratic governments prize accurate information as a guide to decision-making. Authoritarians seek to suppress inconvenient truths.

Mr. Trump has sought to manipulate government information in several ways. He fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after the agency reported disappointing job growth this summer. He shut down federal data collection efforts related to climate change, presumably because the information might encourage people to take action.

He has also taken steps to control the media, both traditional forms and new ones. He arranged for the sale of TikTok from a Chinese company to investors with ties to his political allies. He pushed Congress to end funding for public radio and television. He extracted multimillion-dollar payments from ABC, Paramount (which owns CBS), YouTube and Meta to settle baseless claims that he has been treated unfairly, and he is pursuing lawsuits against The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. All of these moves are meant to reduce coverage that does not parrot his views.

The Bottom Line
In place of an independent and free press, Mr. Trump evidently hopes to create a shadow ecosystem willing to promote his interests and talking points.

NO. 9

An authoritarian tries to take over universities. Trump has started to.

Authoritarians, recognizing that universities are hotbeds of independent thought and political dissent, often single them out for repression. Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan have closed universities. Mr. Modi’s government has arrested dissident scholars, while Mr. Orban has appointed loyalist foundations to run universities.

A signature policy of Mr. Trump’s second term has been his attack on higher education. He has cut millions of dollars of research funding, tried to dictate hiring and admissions policies and forced the resignation of the University of Virginia’s president. It is a sustained campaign to weaken an influential sector home to many political progressives who do not support him — and to many young people, who typically form the crux of anti-authoritarian protest movements.

The Bottom Line
Because the federal government finances so much academic research, it has considerable power over universities. Initially, some universities seemed as if they might simply submit to Mr. Trump’s demands. More recently, several showed more willingness to resist, rejecting a proposal that would have rewarded them financially for adopting Trump-friendly policies.

NO. 10

An authoritarian creates a cult of personality. Trump has.

Emperors and kings often glorified themselves by displaying their portraits everywhere. The American tradition has rejected that kind of hagiography for living presidents. Our leaders haven’t needed to puff themselves up this way, until now.

Huge banners with Mr. Trump’s face hang from government buildings. He posts memes in which he wears a crown, including an A.I.-generated video that depicted him defecating on protesters. He held a lavish military parade on his birthday. At televised meetings, members of his cabinet gush sycophantic praise. He announced the creation of a meme coin with his likeness. To celebrate the country’s 250th birthday next year, the Treasury Department plans to put his face on a physical coin.

The Bottom Line
The Trump cult of personality plays into his claims — common among autocrats — that he possesses a unique ability to solve the country’s problems. As he put it, “I alone can fix it.” He seeks to equate himself with the federal government, as if it does not exist without him.

NO. 11

An authoritarian uses power for personal profit. Trump has.

Authoritarians often turn the government into a machine for enriching themselves, their families and their allies. Mr. Trump glories in his administration’s culture of corruption.

He openly uses the presidency as an opportunity to pad his bottom line, in ways that range from the comically petty (like charging the Secret Service up to $1,200 per night for rooms at his hotels) to the shamelessly greedy (like the $40 million that Amazon paid for the rights to a Melania Trump documentary or his recent demand that the government pay him $230 million because he was investigated for breaking the law). He solicits favors from foreign governments, including an airplane from Qatar. His children also profit from their father’s position, through real-estate deals, crypto, a private club in Washington and more. And he rewards those who enrich them, recently pardoning the head of a cryptocurrency firm who worked with the Trump family.

In the first six months of this year, the Trump Organization’s income soared to $864 million, up from just $51 million a year earlier, according to a recent Reuters analysis. It’s worth noting that recent Supreme Court decisions have made corruption harder to police.

The Bottom Line
Mr. Trump’s culture of corruption may resemble the behavior of foreign autocrats more closely than any other category on this list. He is using what rightly belongs to American citizens — the power and resources of our democratic government — to enrich himself, and he is not trying to hide it.

NO. 12

An authoritarian manipulates the law to stay in power. Trump has started to.

Authoritarians change election rules to help their party, and they rewrite laws — or violate their spirit — to ignore term limits.

Mr. Trump’s biggest attempt to follow this playbook failed, when he was unable to undo his election defeat to Joe Biden in 2020. But that effort showed Mr. Trump’s willingness to break the law to remain in power.

In his second term, he has shown worrisome signs of using his power to entrench the Republican Party’s hold on the government. He has pressed Republicans to take gerrymandering to a new extreme. He issued an executive order in March that seeks to interfere with how states run their elections. These moves increase the chances that Republicans will keep control of Congress even if most voters want to oust them.

Mr. Trump has not taken concrete steps to remain in power for a third term, which the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution was written to forbid. He has alternated between floating the idea and suggesting he understands that he must leave the presidency for good on Jan. 20, 2029.

The Bottom Line
Even if he backs away from any scheme to serve more than two presidential terms, Mr. Trump’s attempts to tilt the electoral field in favor of Republicans is anti-democratic and could pervert American elections for years.

The clearest sign that a democracy has died is that a leader and his party make it impossible for their opponents to win an election and hold power. Once that stage is reached, however, the change is extremely difficult to reverse. And aspiring authoritarians use other excesses, like a cowed legislature and judiciary, to lock in their power.

The United States is not an autocracy today. It still has a mostly free press and independent judiciary, and millions of Americans recently attended the “No Kings” protests. But it has started down an anti-democratic path, and many Americans — including people in positions of power — remain far too complacent about the threat.

The 12 benchmarks in this editorial offer a way to understand and measure how much further Mr. Trump goes in the months and years ahead. We plan to update this index in 2026.
Methodology: In the scales above, the points on the left indicate roughly where the United States, flawed though it was, had been before Mr. Trump took office. Moving even one notch toward autocracy on these scales is a worrisome sign.
 
A point made by this video is that when the comprehensive test ban treaty was agreed the US managed to be in the unique position of having the national ignition facility that allows it to simulate the conditions in a nuclear bomb with lasers, so they and they alone can develop nuclear weapons without actually blowing them up.

Trump insisting on nuclear tests has the effect of allowing other signatories that have stopped testing to restart, reducing the US edge in nukes.
 
This seems like taking sides and is grossly inappropriate.

https://www.usda.gov/
I don't think USA has ever had food riots before? :hmm:
King Trump will finally get to use the Insurrection Act he seems so eager to deploy.
Good news.

2 federal judges have ordered the emergency fund to be tapped because SNAP ending payments is an emergency in their opinion.


Military paychecks will run out around the 15th of November.
If this works out, then SNAP food benefits will last about 3 more weeks I think, so the 21st-ish?

I really don't know what happens next.
The government can withhold payment and appeal on the grounds of bah-humbug?
 
Last edited:
Well, I think Trump's success has involved turning out low-propensity voters, people who generally don't vote at all but who are voting for him specifically as a person.

If any new candidate slips back to Romney-level numbers of voters, then a D has the possibility to beat that person (possibility to mess that up also, of course, sure--because they're D).

But in the stage before it comes to a vote vs some D, the Rs will be splintered between the various candidates--and those people will all be trying to retain/gain for themselves the voters Trump turned out. Theoretically, someone could do what you and ask, "ok, how could I devise an altogether new appeal that brings in the traditional Rs plus the voters Trump added?" But practically speaking they're just going to try to go after the Trump voters, i.e. be as Trump-like as they can. And there will be different partial-Trumps, none with the appeal to get his whole base, and all that a particular voter doesn't favor annoying that voter by trying to be a different element of Trump than the element he or she values in Trump.

I think it will be loads of fun to see how it plays out--again, assuming it plays out as a standard electoral process.
Trump's celebrity status has been his hole card all along with his base. No other Republican has that going for them.
 
Trump's celebrity status has been his hole card all along with his base. No other Republican has that going for them.
Specifically through The Apprentice. He wasn't truly well known until then.

I also distinctly remember the consensus of the 2016 Republican primary being full of boring until Trump came in, and I can't think of any Republican that has the charisma, energy, and star power that even rivals Trump.
 
Specifically through The Apprentice. He wasn't truly well known until then.
I disagree, he was pretty notable even before then. He’d had a best-selling book, appearances on Oprah and Letterman, lots of publicity in tabloids and such.

However, it was definitely his years as a host that helped him hone his TV persona. 2000 Trump couldn’t be Rally Trump.
 
More likely it's their way of trying to provoke bread riots so they have plausible cover to declare a state of emergency and start rounding up everyone they don't like.
this is my guess. went into the thread to post about it, but here we are.

a judge attempted to order relief from a disaster fund (didn't see if it was mentioned in the thread, only skimmed the last few pages), and as it's a wholly win for the republican voter base to take it, if trump blocks it (and he probably will, esp since it's in p25 as a goal) the only rational reason to do so was to push for unrest so they could martial law and do more crazy things.
I’m headed off to bed in a moment here but as a general principle, I agree, and my concern is avoiding a situation where you have a population that is wholly dependent on government subsidy, irrespective of their ability to pay. Government support needs to have a reasonable limitation, and I think my definition of that is in practice not too far off from most people.
they were already dependent before the policy was implemented. that's why the policy was implemented. it was needed.

so i read some of your former posts on this, and i know your general disposition. i'm gonna use your posts here as a half tangent about the right. you decide how much it applies to you.

let's go on a journey for a bit.

foundation. in the us, the minimum wage is trash, the cost of transport is insane, the majority of the land area are socioeconomic mobility black holes, cost of living is on the rise-

snap. snap is the result of corporate interests rounding up traps of guaranteed consumption, and the government either enabling it or doing nothing (both result in the same situation, one expedites it). if you don't like snap and support republican policy (which you're continously arguing for), you're pushing for people to be trapped in poverty, let alone starve.

(that you live in japan has nothing to do with your arguments here, since you're arguing on the principles of governance in general.)

-

the issue is that your musings of 100% reliability or whatever is the kind of weird thought experiment stuff, where you dream about shaping the world's clay in a way that's right and proper to you. the problem is that it's not the real world. snap is an incredibly restricted policy, and yet is hilariously widespread in the states. this should get you a sense of its necessity, rather than some notion of overbearing bureaucracy; it's a result of poverty, which is a result of the policy of a government style that considers handouts dangerous and bootstraps necessary. snap only exists because households are reliant on it. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap 62% of the recipients are families with children, 37% are old or have a disability. and it has huge returns on the dollar. so it's simply pragmatic to do. and you understand that it's pragmatic to do.

meanwhile, you say the government should not X, and i sincerely just ask why not. i seriously question where your worry comes from. you throw up percentages of government dependency as if it means anything.

so your "concern is avoiding a situation where you have a population wholly dependent on government subsidy, irrespective of their ability to pay", with the maxim that the government needs to have a "reasonable limitation". first off, the two don't actually have anything to do with one another, esp as the latter sentence is so vague. reasonable limitation can mean literally everything because "reasonable" carries the whole weight of what limitation means (reasonable is just the smartsounding word for good, it's hugely subjective). so it's a bad maxim. and secondly, for the "dependency" itself being total; let's go there for a bit.

say some people get a free ride. why do you care?

like, really? honestly? does it sting?

-

there's two general aversions to programs like these, and none of them (if applicable to your position) make you look good.

first is a principle of practical application. the idea is that government dependence gets toxically ingrained in a community. i get it. but people on snap won't bootstrap themselves out of the situation without it. they'll just afford their food while being in poverty, revolt in poverty, or die in poverty. we know that empirically. food works interestingly like that. it's like healthcare. you can't really put a price on your life. you'll make it work. but we don't generally have a sense on that in the west because food revolts are a thing of the past; food policy has replaced it to ensure stuff like that doesn't happen, stuff stays as cheap as possible, etc. healthcare has the exact same function. the difference is that the industry is much more specialized and much more dangerous if it goes wrong (moldy bread, you get food poisoning, air bubbles in the needle, you die). if left alone, food prices will always be maximized to what the poor can barely afford.

anyways, the ride naturally isn't free. it costs money - and earns more back lol. snap as a policy both patches the economic base for the recipients, and the money goes straight back into the economy, since we're dealing with a poor income bracket. right wingers that have an aversion to government programs because of efficiency, spending concerns, socioeconomic mobility, etc etc. the aversion as to practical application is that government doesn't do stuff very well. and to that, sure, often the case. for snap, it's literally is good on all of these.

the second is the question of principle. it's again the idea what's fair, but it's kind of a different question than practical applicability. it's how the world should look. and how it just bothers them if people lack in virtue - even if noone gets hurt by anything. the right tends to have a very stringent sense of "fairness" specifically in this regard, where they don't look at the actual material context of a situation, but rather as to whether is something is fair to them on a more ontological level. does something exist within the system that stings.

-

so for this being wrong on principle.

my tangent for today. i promise, it's relevant.

some years ago in denmark, we had a minor celebrity - although more of an infamous character in the media - "Dovne" Robert, (lit. Lazy Robert) who had found a way to game the system and basically rely on government subsidies while being fully healthy. he didn't want to work and just enjoyed life at a reasonable quality doing nothing productive. he got targeted as a nexus of right wing concerns, as he represented a subset of the people getting social subsidies - a subset that does exist - who were able to skirt the system and not do anything.

Robert's media cycle (which lasted a long time) was emblematic of policy changes in the more recent years. first, of course, numerous cuts all around. second was the more sinister one. danish social democracy still has a huge safety net and is still quite thorough; even if its gotten insanely cut, you still get subsidies in many respects, but the amount of bureaucracy around it has absolutely exploded. i can't quantify how many weird checks and rules and government departments you have to keep up with so they can thoroughly vet whether you cheat the system. this both meant a system that's byzantine and slow, and a system that's hugely expensive, because making sure people don't cheat - managing communications, development costs, office costs, lawyers for the legalese, it, mailing systems, positions above and below and between the institutions (including in government) getting paid to manage the inbetweens, and all of it, all of it are jobs that cost money. so in order to make sure people like Robert didn't cheat, denmark very quickly expanded its bureaucracy into a system that's both inefficient and incredibly costly.

and with all that outlined, do a mental cost-benefit analyses. how much money does it save?

(and a premature reminder that you can't just drop the subsidies for the poor. see the pragmatic appeal above. most people want to work and the poor spend 100% of their income on real economic activity)

anyways, you know who pushed for this bureaucracy? the red tape, the expenses? the right.

because when it came down to it, not even money matters much. there's just something fundamental to a lot of right wingers, that they just can't deal with the idea that a system may end up with a subset acting in people not acting virtuously. they push for this policy, voters and government, because the idea of some random idiot cheating the system is unfair. so just let the system burn, i guess, because some ontological idea of virtuous bootstrapping. this drive is so powerful that it caused the right to have some ideological breakdown, pushing past their prejudice towards government, so they could catch those cheaters.

-

so, i don't know how much of that, tone aside, resonates with you. you're welcome to ignore most of it.

however. i do want to know - asking the question again -

say some people get a free ride. why do you care?


with the context that the material conditions of real poverty necessiates stuff like snap, and the context that snap earns the money right back and then some.
 
I disagree, he was pretty notable even before then. He’d had a best-selling book, appearances on Oprah and Letterman, lots of publicity in tabloids and such.

However, it was definitely his years as a host that helped him hone his TV persona. 2000 Trump couldn’t be Rally Trump.
I thought about it afterwards and remembered that Alternate Biff Tannen from Back to the Future Part 2 was based off Trump, so he had to be at least decently known in the 1980s for the trope to kick in.
 
I thought about it afterwards and remembered that Alternate Biff Tannen from Back to the Future Part 2 was based off Trump, so he had to be at least decently known in the 1980s for the trope to kick in.
So was the guy from Gremlins II. Him and Ted Turner.

@Angst — read your post but heading out the door. Will reply when I’m back home.
 

'There's no due process': ICU nurse, army veteran among U.S. citizens caught in ICE dragnet​

Amanda Trebach is a U.S. citizen, and ICE detained her anyway. She's not the only one

Amanda Trebach, an intensive care nurse who has been trying to keep her migrant patients safe from immigration raids, never expected American law enforcement to use the same kind of violence against her, a U.S. citizen.

But video filmed and posted by fellow organizers during one confrontation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in August shows Trebach forced to the pavement and roughhoused by federal agents, who violently arrest and detain her.

"You don't know who they are. They don't identify themselves. There's no due process,” she told CBC News.

The incident occurred as Trebach and other members of a Los Angeles activist group called Harbor Area Peace Patrols had been circulating images of licence plates on nondescript vehicles to alert migrant communities to their presence.

On Aug. 8, volunteers were photographing ICE agents leaving a staging site for raids on Terminal Island, whose Japanese residents were the first in America to be displaced and forcibly detained in internment camps during the Second World War.

Shortly after, the officers stopped their vehicle and jumped out; Trebach says they knelt on her head, handcuffed her and threw her into the back of a black van.

She says ICE “kidnapped” her and told her to stop taking photos.

“I just said, ‘Let me go. We're here. It's our right to monitor you,’” said Trebach. “I'm a citizen.”

Trebach was released without charge hours later.

“As is her constitutional right, Amanda was documenting the movements of the masked kidnappers,” Harbor Area Peace Patrols’ parent organization, Union del Barrio, wrote in a social media post detailing Trebach’s detainment.

ICE officers themselves have leaned into characterizations of their arrests as abductions. In an incident two weeks later, agents were videotaped taunting Peace Patrol activists from their van saying, “Good morning ladies! A-kidnapping we will go.”

Trebach is hardly the only U.S. citizen arrested and detained without charge. In a recent investigation, ProPublica found that more than 170 U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration enforcement as of Oct. 5.

University of California in Los Angeles law professor Jonathan Zasloff says ICE has effectively been operating with “impunity” despite the growing cases of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants getting caught up in their raids.

'The constitution is right there'​

Even citizens not actively involved in advocacy have been swept up in violent immigration raids.

George Retes, a U.S. army veteran, was on his way to work as a security guard at a legal marijuana grow operation called Glass House Farms in Ventura County, Calif., when he got caught between an active ICE raid and an organized protest.

In a FOX 11 Los Angeles livestream, Retes is seen driving up to a wall of federal officers in military gear. Within two minutes, dozens of agents advance across the road, unleashing tear gas on the crowd of demonstrators.

After smoke from the tear gas can be seen engulfing his car, Retes, in an account of his arrest, writes that despite having identified himself as a citizen, ICE agents "smashed my driver-side window, and pepper-sprayed my face" as "others stood by and watched."

“Even though I’m just complying, an agent puts his knee on my back and another agent puts his knee on my neck. And as they’re doing that I’m just telling them I can’t breathe,” Retes, 25, told CBC News.

Retes said this kind of behaviour seems to contravene U.S. laws.

“The constitution is right there," he said. "I mean, that’s everything we stand for.”

In a statement, ICE claimed Retes was “violent and refused to comply with law enforcement,” and blocked agents by “refusing to move his vehicle out of the road.” But ICE did not address why agents escalated the matter so quickly.

During the marijuana farm raids, federal authorities arrested more than 360 people — one of the largest ICE operations since Donald Trump became U.S. president for a second time in January. Among those arrested were four U.S. citizens, charged with assaulting or resisting officers.

Retes was held for three days before being released. He was in such a state of distress over what happened that the detention facility put him on suicide watch, he told The Associated Press.

Retes missed his daughter’s third birthday while locked up, he said, and is now suing the federal government for unconstitutional detention. He has not been charged.

“It's just crazy that all this can happen," he said. "But it doesn't change what the flag stands for or what it means to be an American.”

ICE operating with 'impunity'​

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said ramped-up immigration enforcement is removing the worst kind of “criminal illegal aliens” off U.S. streets and sending a message: “Self-deport or we will arrest and deport you.”

Survey data from February 2024 to March 2025 shows about one-third of Americans agree that immigrants in the country illegally should be deported — though most believe arrests should not happen in places like schools and hospitals.

Masked immigration enforcement agents have arrested people in and outside of public institutions — including hospitals, schools and courthouses — on multiple occasions. This has caused some migrants to avoid medical care out of fears they’ll be detained, including at the hospital in South Los Angeles where Trebach works.

“What Trump is doing is placing fear in the communities,” Trebach said. “They're trying to make us fearful so they can take over more power.”

There is also an explicit mandate for ICE officers to arrest as many people as possible to meet Trump’s mass deportation quota of 3,000 people a day, or over a million a year.

In June, California Gov. Gavin Newsom decried the “chaotic federal sweeps” across his state to meet an “arbitrary arrest quota” that is “reckless” and “cruel.”

Based on government figures from last year showing the number of immigrants with criminal convictions and pending charges being tracked by ICE, the administration is about 350,000 “illegal aliens” short of its target.

Social media accounts, websites and even dedicated apps have documented sightings of immigration agents across the country, including a widely used phone app called ICEBlock.

Under pressure from the administration, Apple and Google removed ICEBlock from the app store earlier this month. Apple told the app’s creator it had violated the company’s policies because “its purpose is to provide location information about law enforcement officers that can be used to harm such officers individually or as a group.”

In September, the U.S. Supreme Court paused an injunction by a California district court to block “roving” immigration patrols on the basis that ICE was stopping people based on their race, language, employment or location.

In her dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Fourth Amendment “prohibits exactly what the government is attempting to do here: seize individuals based solely on a set of facts that ‘describe a very large category of presumably innocent people.’”

The American Civil Liberties Union called the Supreme Court ruling “outrageous,” saying it normalizes a culture of fear for anyone perceived as Latino who are subjected to increased racial profiling, arbitrary inspections and detentions.

Zasloff, the UCLA law professor, told CBC News this is an effort to return America from “a modern, more diverse” country to “what it might have been in the 1830s.”

Al Muratsuchi, a California state assemblymember who represents the South Bay region of Los Angeles, says his constituents, many of whom are working-class immigrants in industries like landscaping and construction, are being systematically victimized.

“We're seeing similar themes of immigrants being a threat and being targeted based on their race,” Muratsuchi, who is a son of Japanese American immigrants, told CBC News.


U.S. not a police state 'yet'​

ICE routinely promotes its activities on social media, including its use of force against migrants whom Trump has repeatedly described as “vermin.” One shows ICE agents dragging away a Portland protester on a cart. Officers tackle a man in another action-packed arrest compilation.

Rock video-style clips posted by Greg Bovino, commander and nearly 30-year veteran of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), depict everything from clashes with protesters to an alternative take on Star Wars that likens his agency to Darth Vader.

CBC News made detailed requests for an interview with Bovino through CBP. Three weeks later, the agency has still not responded.

Despite the risks, a growing number of Americans like Trebach — millions in recent weeks — are fighting for what they believe the nation represents.

In Illinois, the latest epicentre of Trump’s crackdown on immigration and “domestic terrorism,” demonstrators sued law enforcement, accusing them of violating their constitutional rights through excessive crowd control tactics like tear gas.

Two National Guard members recently told As It Happens they are refusing orders to deploy to Chicago.

Zasloff doesn't think America is a police state “yet,” though he believes the Trump administration is trying to turn it into one.

“But that’s always the case with any competitive authoritarian system,” said Zasloff, pointing to Trump’s declining approval ratings and the growing movement to stop his administration.

“For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.”

On Thursday afternoon, ICE boasted on X about having deported “over 5,300 criminal aliens throughout the Los Angeles area.”

That same hour, DHS posted a Halloween-themed montage of agents clashing with demonstrators and arresting immigrants, with the caption: “There will be no sanctuary for creatures & criminals of the night.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-citizens-ice-arrests-detentions-9.6960504
 
Last edited:
After a ceremonial meeting with Emperor Naruhito where Trump again broke an ally's royal protocol, shaking the Emperor's hand instead of bowing, the POTUS appeared confused and lost during a welcome ceremony with Prime Minister Takaichi.

He looked lost, followed the PM around as she tried to direct him, randomly saluted a Japanese flag, and was eventually ushered back to where he started.

 
Back
Top Bottom