There are some coincidences here and there, but perhaps nothing illegit.

• The Kremlin backs Orbán (Hungary)
• Orbán (Hungary) backs The Heritage Foundation
• The Heritage Foundation pushes Project 2025
• The Trump administration and Project 2025 overlap

Both Trump/Vance and Orbán periodically whine and complain about Europe / the EU, for example. (As well as Putin.) While critique is welcome, crap has been seen going beyond that. Is there a momentum of sorts towards alignment of sorts (or attempted anyway)?

• PM Orbán takes part in panel discussion in Washington (— Government of Hungary · Mar 8, 2024)
• How Orban Became Putin’s Pawn (— Foreign Policy · Jul 11, 2024)
• Hungarian government proxy is spending a fortune to influence public opinion in the US (— Atlatszo · Oct 23, 2024)
• Why is Hungary’s Viktor Orban cozying up to both Putin and Trump? (— New York Post · Mar 2, 2025)
• Autocracy, Corruption, and Decline: Why Hungary and Orbanism Must Never be a Model for the U.S. (— Just Security · Jun 30, 2025)
• U.S. science and universities are becoming political hostages in the Orbánization of knowledge (— STAT · Sep 2, 2025)

Much more importantly, what's your take, anything to see here? (Could be faces in the clouds.)

An important report from CAP, a democratic-leaning think tank, on Trump’s First 100 Days. Table of Contents:

• Trump’s game plan for establishing an imperial presidency
• Trump’s steps to achieving an imperial presidency
• Weaponizing the Department of Justice for political purposes
• Ending the independence of independent agencies
• Replacing expert civil servants with political loyalists
• Circumventing Congress’ power to decide how to spend federal funds via impoundment
• Weakening the independent media and news reporting
• Misusing the Insurrection Act against Americans to stifle dissent
• Neutralizing the Senate’s role of confirming executive branch nominees
• Attacking the rule of law
• Threatening elections and serving a third term
• Launching government attacks on civil society and perceived enemies

So we're seeing the march of the United States into an authoritarian dictatorship, day by day.

Read on for the details.

And per tradition, I’ll ask, what’s the people of the US doing about it?

We can’t blame narcissistic psychopaths for their attempt at seizing power, but we can criticize the people for not removing such people from positions of corrupt power.

People saying that this isn’t possible are essentially enablers of these people to wield their power without consequences.

For instance, the troops deployed in LA was judged to be illegal. If a presidential order and actions on those orders are illegal, then US Marshalls should arrest Trump. Simple as that really. That’s how non corrupt governments handle people who abuse power.

Yet, since that’s not happening, then the people are responsible for upholding the laws of the nation. Maybe the people should remove him from power by force then? Some would argue that this would be similar to Jan 6, but it’s not, since it’s based on the fact that Trump has acted illegally against the constitution and that the systems of government are unable to uphold that constitution. In that case, there’s no other choice for people than getting their hands dirty and out all the people involved with this corrupt takeover and abuse of power.

A democratic leader who acts illegally has revoked their contract with the people of that democracy. That person should be taken down by force if necessary. How else would the US survive as a democracy than to protect itself from those who want to destroy democratic systems?

There’s a point when these people can’t hide behind the fact they were elected democratically. Almost all dictators were ”voted” for democratically. Would people stand in the middle of Nazi Germany’s peak and honestly defend Hitler for being democratically elected after he seized power and created an authoritarian regime? I don’t think so.

If a presidential order and actions on those orders are illegal, then US Marshalls should arrest Trump. Simple as that really. — Christoffer

No, it's not. Trump is immune. Even before SCOTUS established this (and before they became corrupted), the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel had determined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. So the only way Trump can be held accountable is if he were impeached and removed from office.
The House of Representatives is controlled by Trumpists. They publicly rationalize everything he does. So although a judge determined Trump's action was illegal, Trumpist Congressmen say the judge got it wrong. It will be appealed, and they will continue to say the courts got it wrong unless and until SCOTUS affirms it.

That was 7 years ago:

How everything became the culture war
^{— Michael Grunwald · POLITICO · Nov 3, 2018}

Much of the article aged fairly well.

, how far does the immunity go?
All the way until impeachment + conviction by Congress?

Trump's "Fifth Avenue" sequel
^{— Axios · Jan 9, 2024}

Possible Exxon business for lifting of sanctions (which apparently matter to Putin):

Exclusive: US and Russian officials discussed energy deals alongside latest Ukraine peace talks
^{— Reuters · Aug 26, 2025}

Does Sullivan's accusation hold up?

Trump threw away America’s relationship with India just to PROTECT his family’s business interests with Pakistan — a move he says makes US allies like Japan & Germany wonder if they can TRUST Washington at all.
^{— MeidasTouch via Megh Updates · Sep 2, 2025 · 1m:32s}
Ex-US NSA Jake Sullivan Accuses Trump Of Sacrificing India Ties For Family's Business With Pakistan
^{— CNN-News18 · Sep 2, 2025 · 5m:47s}

If this...stuff is true, then...corruption of sorts, though I doubt the Trumpets care.

Relativist, how far does the immunity go?
All the way until impeachment + conviction by Congress? — jorndoe

Immunity applies to any acts that are part of his official duties. For example, he can't be prosecuted for illegally firing people, illegally withholding funds from universities, or violating the Posse Comitatus Act (ordering the National Guard to enforce the law). He's done all these things.

He could have been convicted for his 2020 election fraud, when he wasn't in office. He was indicted for this, but it was dropped when he became President because (it has been decided years ago) any prosecution would interfere with his official duties.

He could certainly be impeached for any of the crimes he's committed, and it Dems control the House after the 2026 elections, they may do that. GOP won't, because Trump controls them. Regardless, even if impeached, he won't be convicted because it requires 2/3 of Senate.

It's going to be a long 4 years.

We basically won't have a CDC in 2028. Aaaaaaaah!

The damage to the DOJ is also concerning. For that matter, Trump is endeavoring to hire only MAGAs for all government jobs:

"...questions, outlined under the administration’s Merit Hiring Plan, ask candidates how they would “advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities,” and to name “one or two executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you,” and how candidates will help implement them if hired."
--
https://marylandmatters.org/2025/08/25/opm-trumps-hiring-questions-mandatory-to-ask-but-optional-to-answer/

And he keeps trying to use the military for domestic crime issues. I wonder if that will feel normal in 2028.

As in so many matters, the permission granted in those orders is contingent upon whether or not Congress resumes the power granted to it by the Constitution. The illegality of ignoring existing statutes is not enough, although a helpful stumbling block going forward.

My prediction: he will not send troops to a city, like Chicago, because that would be a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. He can, and will, send the National Guard to places like New Orleans - where the Governor invites him, since the law allows it. He will then blame Democratic governors for not inviting him and letting their crime rates continue. The whole thing is political theater. This cannot solve a city's crime problem because it can only be temporary. At best, crime will be down temporarily.

My prediction: he will not send troops to a city, like Chicago, because that would be a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. — Relativist

But Trump is Hitler, and America is becoming fascist!

The whole thing is political theater. — Relativist

I agree. I'm just trying to see the point. Trump says crime is out of control in DC when the statistics say the opposite. He then sends in the National Guard. Whether this is the point or not, it gets people used to the idea that a military body is rightly used for domestic issues.

What do you think the goal is?

I don't assume a master plan - he's not that smart. I think the goal is to stoke his ego. He's playing to his supporters, who perceive him as a tough guy who gets things done ("only I can fix it").

I'm sure that's true, but the control he presently has isn't so much his doing. People flocked to him with lists of supporters to plant in government jobs, like project 2025? You think I'm overthinking it?

You're right about that. He's executing Project 2025 to create a MAGA "deep state". People like Stephen Miller are the real strategists, and they know how to play Trump.

No, it's not. Trump is immune. Even before SCOTUS established this (and before they became corrupted), the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel had determined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. So the only way Trump can be held accountable is if he were impeached and removed from office.
The House of Representatives is controlled by Trumpists. They publicly rationalize everything he does. So although a judge determined Trump's action was illegal, Trumpist Congressmen say the judge got it wrong. It will be appealed, and they will continue to say the courts got it wrong unless and until SCOTUS affirms it. — Relativist

Yes…. and if people oppose the idea of this being actual rising fascism, they’re delusional. I’m still waiting for people to ignite some actual rage in opposition to all of this. There still not enough of anti-fascist rage going around. Instead, people, even on the side of criticizing Trump and his followers, treat them as a sort of legitimate political side.

But I find it pretty simple; whenever the democratic mechanism gets dismantled and the laws and regulations doesn’t work on a leader who abuse his power for whatever reason, he and his loyalists should be removed, with force if necessary. And if it can’t be done by the agencies meant to protect the nation, then it’s up to the people to do it instead.

I’m still waiting for the people to rage enough that it starts to become dangerous for Trump and his loyalists. Because that could fuel political actors in opposition to take much stronger action and not fiddle around without actual opposition.

But maybe they’re holding back because they want Trump to screw things up enough to win the mid term. And then when they have that power we will see that rage come down on Trump harder than we’ve ever seen on the US political stage. Well, one can only hope that’s the long game they’re playing. If not, then the people itself will need to do something.

I’m still waiting for people to ignite some actual rage in opposition to all of this. There still not enough of anti-fascist rage going around. Instead, people, even on the side of criticizing Trump and his followers, treat them as a sort of legitimate political side. — Christoffer

The majority of the population doesn't care about (what can be characterized as) legal technicalities, they simply want action that achieves the results they desire. For this reason, I truly wish the center and left would focus on the aspects of Trump's actions that are illegal and unconstitutional, and remind everyone on why the "technicalities" matter - rule of law is critical to our system of government.

I'll give one blatant example. The administration has been denying due process rights to individuals it chooses to deport. Abrego Garcia is the most stark example. He was arrested and deported (in defiance of a court order) based on flimsy evidence he's a gang member. They have consistently claimed he's a horrible criminal, and attacked the left for coddling him. When they finally acceded to court intervention, they fished for what other charges they could pin on him. They took the unprecedented, and absurd, action of working a plea deal with a man who accused Garcia of human trafficking (bringing undocumented workers into the US). Plea deals are typically made with low level guys in a criminal organization to make a case against the higher-ups. In this case, the plea deal was made with a higher up to get Garcia - the lowest level guy in the (alleged) activity.

There's many more instances. Generally, reporting (on the left and center) mentions the illegality, but indirectly trivialize it by criticizing the policy, the morality, and painting a sympathetic view of the victim. Reporting on the right typically ignores the illegality (often criticizing the judges who rule this way) and stresses how great it is to get rid of illegals.

The importance of rule of law is a non-partisan issue, and more stress on Trump's attack on rule of law should be placed. His die-hard supporters will never care, but the other 20% of Republicans would probably care if it were made clear to them.

The majority of the population doesn't care about (what can be characterized as) legal technicalities, they simply want action that achieves the results they desire. For this reason, I truly wish the center and left would focus on the aspects of Trump's actions that are illegal and unconstitutional, and remind everyone on why the "technicalities" matter - rule of law is critical to our system of government.

They would then be forced to admit their own illegal and unconstitutional actions. Trump has almost always won his Supreme Court cases during his second term. In July it was reported that the U.S. Supreme Court granted all 15 of President Donald Trump's emergency applications since April.

The rule of law has been a thorn in the sides of Trump’s opponents, so it would be a little comical to hear them opine about the rule of law now.

Give me a few examples of recent Democratic Presidents flouting or undermining rule of law. I don't recall any court orders being violated, nor anyone's due process rights being denied.

There are close to 400 cases against the Trump administration, and a majority are pending. He's likely to lose a large number. I'll mention a few.

His coercion of law firms who support liberal causes (like Perkins Coie) is unprecedented, and will not survive the court challenges.

His multiple violations of the Impoundment Act.

His executive order on "Birthright Citizenship", in direct defiance of prior SCOTUS rulings.

The issue is broader than violating the law. He may have the legal authority to punish career DOJ lawyers for prosecuting cases against Jan 6 criminals, while treating the criminals as heroes - but it certainly is inconsistent with rule of law.

His politicization of the DOJ is unprecedented. They have lost much of the independence they've had since Watergate. It's appalling that his "former" defense attorney (Todd Blanche) has the role of deputy AG, but is still actively working to protect Trump, as in his sham (quid pro quo) interview of Gislaine Maxwell. The DOJ also filed a frivolous lawsuit against Maryland Judges, because Trump didn't like some rulings.

The DOJ's treatment of the Epstein files seems largely based on protecting Trump, including the performative request to release the irrelevant Grand Jury Testimony - which the judge called them out on.

These are just a few things off the top of my head. I eagerly await your damning facts that demonstrate similar or worse behavior by Democratic administrations.

You just listed, nearly verbatim, a bunch of lawfare complaints from anti-Trump plaintiffs and lawyers, which you imply are “damning facts”, even though they haven’t been ruled on.

You know what has been ruled on? Biden’s agenda and a series of progressive causes, much of which have been deemed unconstitutional and unlawful by the highest court in the land.

"I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School, referring to another conservative court that frustrated a Democratic president.

John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under Republican former President George W. Bush, said Biden experienced "an amazing number of defeats" in his biggest cases as president.
"It's hard to think of another president in our lifetimes who lost so many high-profile cases on issues so near and dear to his constitutional agenda," said Yoo, now a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-biden-historic-series-defeats-2025-01-18/

Trump ally and conservative pundit Charlie Kirk was sniped in the neck while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University earlier today. Conflicting reports about whether he is dead or not. Not sure if shooter has been apprehended.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/10/us/charlie-kirk-shot-utah

Sounds about right.

We should arm conservatives so they can defend themselves.

MAGA's "Reichstag fire" moment?!

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/northern-utah/political-activist-believed-shot-at-utah-valley-university-speaking-appearance

:mask:

He's gonna find an excuse one way or another to be honest. If he wants to expose himself as an authoritarian tyrant then let him, but I just hope people recognize it for what it is when it happens.

reports are circulating that the weapon and bullets used to assassinate Charlie Kirk were labelled or engraved with “transgender and anti-fascist ideology”.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/us-news/gun-charlie-kirk-shot-with-revealed/

Personally, I would remain skeptical of such engravings as it would be the perfect cover for more sinister suspects, such as the cartels or some foreign-influence operation, who may be trying to goad the reactionaries into action.

So Jair Balsanaro got the sentence Trump should have got - 27 years for an attempted coup.

I saw that. That's crazy. I'm a bit of a fanatic so I have no doubt he'll actually be on a beach in Belize after a facelift and tan sipping cocktails delivered by scantily clad maidens until he no longer remembers what memories are. Just my take.

Also, this has nothing to do with Trump. Remember, all the enemy can do is distract you to throw you off mentally. And your post seems to be a fairly sufficient example of said phenomenon.

Also, this has nothing to do with Trump. — Outlander

“The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!” Trump said in a letter that he sent to Brazil’s president, who is widely known as Lula, and posted to Truth Social on July 9.

Trump’s letter went on to tie Bolsonaro’s prosecution and de Moraes’ social media rulings to the tariffs he’d later impose: “Due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-brazilian-products-tariffs-bolsonaro-rcna222534

So Jair Balsanaro got the sentence Trump should have got - 27 years for an attempted coup. — Wayfarer

:clap: Brazil has a functioning judicial system. Good to see. May he rot in prison, that piece of shit.