By calling it a rabbit hole you're basically just betraying your own ignorance. This isn't really controversial, as I said. Have at it:

Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment (Porter, 2018)

Why Washington Doesn't Debate Grand Strategy (Friedman & Logan, 2016)

You can download the PDF to the full article.

Right right, so the "Blob" that has been controlling foreign policy for decades and basically has no interest in changing what it's been doing suddenly has radically changed tactics. You do realise these articles don't support the notion anybody is "controlling" Trump behind the scenes, right?

↪frank
I think the present moment is a test for how leftist you really are. If you're white-knuckling the volatility we've had so far, shaking your fist at stupid Trump, then you have a very conservative mindset. He's handing us an economic revolution. If you're a leftist, you're like: go Trump! Get those tariffs!
— frank
Are you saying you believe that Trump is producing an economic revolution? And that you believe this revolution he is hatching is a beneficial thing for America? — Joshs

Read Mark Blyth's comments. He agrees with me and the president of the UAW. ChatteringMonkey mentioned some of this earlier in the thread — frank

Frank, I don’t know how you personally define political conservatism and leftism, but I believe there is much confusion over who exactly they apply to, depending on what country you’re in, what you do for a living, and so many other factors. From my perspective, it is far more helpful and clarifying to define conservativism and leftism from a philosophical vantage.The left and the right seem to have arrived at a kind of consensus that progressivism is grounded philosophically in thinking that can be traced back to German Idealism, and especially Hegel. The various strands of progressivism that include Marxism, wokism, Critical Race Theory and intersectionality, Liberation Theology, Neo and Post-Marxism ( Habermas , Adorno) and Postmodernism (Foucault, Deleuze) all emanate from these philosophical sources. The conceptual scaffolding of post-Hegelianism is the glue that holds together the newer thinking about gender, race, class, and ethics in general , as well as progressive critiques of neo-liberalism and how such political tools as tariffs may fit into such critiques.

So where does Trump fit into this picture of leftism? He doesn’t. Trump’s thinking is profoundly conservative. To understand the philosophical sources for Trump’s view of the world, the glue that holds together his approach to economics, politics and social issues, one must go back 400 to 500 years. Trump is a pre-Enlightenment figure who rejects Enlightenment values (more precisely, he doesn’t understand them). I would even say his approach is theocratic. And he is not alone in this thinking. A strain of anti-democratic thought runs through MAGA. Check out Curtis Yarvin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin

David Brooks and Bret Stephens are among many Conservatives ( George Will, David Frum, etc) who have abandoned the Republican party because of its shift to the anti-Enlightenment , autocratic-theocratic right. I highly recommend Brooks’ recent piece for the Atlantic, ‘I Should Have Seen This Coming’.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/05/trumpism-maga-populism-power-pursuit/682116/

I dont know whether the president of the UAW is a leftist or conservative from a philosophical point of view, but keep in mind that political leftism in the U.S. used to be associated with pro-labor urban blue-collar workers loyal to the democratic party. The large majority of those voters are now Trump supporters, because their philosophical worldview was never progressive, but conservative. Being pro-labor and pro-tariff today isn’t enough to warrant the label ‘leftist’. One must dig beneath the surface and examine what tariffs mean to someone who advocates them, how and for what purposes they intend to implement them. Both conservatives and progressives embrace tariffs in general. The ways in which they differ is a function of how the differences between a conservative and progressive philosophical worldview translate into how and why tariffs are integrated with trade and investment.

For all I know, you and Shawn Fain may be sympathetic to anti-Enlightenment thinking. The other possibility is that both of you are making a colossal and dangerous mistake, confusing Trump’s profoundly backward-looking worldview for a forward-looking progressivism (‘economic revolution’), and as a result hitching your wagon to one of the biggest dangers to American democracy this country has ever seen.

It is only at the most superficial level that Trump’s tariff plan resembles any kind of progressive tariff proposal. At a deeper level, Trump’s tariff goals are antithetical to everything progressivism stands for. Even Mark Blythe acknowledges that Trump may not be a good model to follow on tariffs:

I think there’s a real danger that what I could be doing, and a lot of other people are doing, are basically looking for designs within disorder. This could simply be sane-washing the way that the Trump administration is essentially just going for a grift, whether it’s on taxes, whether it’s hollowing out the state, we don’t know.

Every word you write supporting Trump contributes in a small way to the risk that our democratic system may unravel. We progressives know that our only chance of warding off the damage Trump may do to the country and the world is to convince those like you who mistakenly believe Trump’s ideas are can somehow be aligned with legitimate attempts by thoughtful economists and politicians to solve issues like offshoring that nothing he aims to do is in any way compatible with progressive aims.
Frank, please don’t be an unwitting accomplice to discarding the values I always believed this country stood for.

They do. Both articles seek to explain the continuity of a hawkish, primacy-oriented US foreign policy, despite the wishes of US presidents like Trump and Obama, and despite the wishes of the general public.

Both articles point towards a foreign policy elite that spans both sides of the aisle. A 'deep state', if you will. Stephen Walt, Mearsheimer, etc. - they'll all say the same thing.

Who or what exactly comprises this 'deep state' is a more murky topic, but not necessarily all that relevant.

The bottomline is that the manoeuvre room of a US president is limited, and large swings in policy are unlikely to originate from the US president and his administration alone.

It's a bit ironic really that when something happens that you cannot rationally explain, it must be because they are stupid. Does it ever occur that you might be the one who is not seeing the full picture? A bit like how Ukraine did not see the full picture prior to jumping into bed with Uncle Sam.

↪Tzeentch Right right, so the "Blob" that has been controlling foreign policy for decades and basically has no interest in changing what it's been doing suddenly has radically changed tactics. You do realise these articles don't support the notion anybody is "controlling" Trump behind the scenes, — Benkei

Of course nobody is controlling Trump behind the scenes. Elon Muak’s tech mafia mistakenly thought they could do so, and Wall Street thought they had him in their back pocket, but when you put an autocrat in charge he will eventually give you the middle finger. Just ask Putin’s oligarchs.

You see, the interest on the debt is already a higher spending issue on the budget than defense spending. At that, no DOGE or whoever can touch (even if they tried), because not meeting the interest payments is default.

The interest on the debt is on the average now 3,3% which is over 1% higher than five years ago. Just an additional 1% of interest and the whole debt thing is worse. Think if it would be double, 6,6% which is on the long run quite normal. That would basically double the expenses. And let's remember that we have come from literally from the lowest historical interest rates of all time and now the cycle is going up. — ssu

Believe me I am aware of this. You might be under the misapprehension that the Republicans in this country are actual public servants working for the public good. Maybe from outside the country, despite Trump, it is hard to perceive how bad it really is. Not only do they not give a shit about the debt (despite endless bloviation to the contrary), they thrive off it. The goal is to redirect as much of the non-military budget to their wealthy donors as tax cuts. That is all. The debt is a tool to that end. Even before Trump the debt was likely to fall into a death spiral. Studies have shown that, without the Bush and Trump I tax cuts, revenue would have been better than neutral. THEY DO NOT CARE.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

And no they will likely never default. Instead, they will debase the currency to meet the debt. In fact they have been floating this idea for years now.

Deleuze — Joshs

Deleuze would agree with Nick Land regarding accelerationism. Land was a Marxist, and Land became anti-Enlightenment. Land influenced Vance, who will probably be our next president. There is a little trail from Marx to where we are now. Leftism became a hollowed out corpse. I told you man, read Dark Enlightenment.

I think right now you're kind of frozen by the realization that we might be watching the end of democracy in the US. I understand that. I have the Gettysburg Address memorized and through my life I have repeated it to myself. It's been a touchstone for me no matter what the US was going through. I love the ideals behind the US. So I also became frozen when I read about Vance and started to understand what was happening.

The only thing that could stop it is if some black swan appears out of the Democratic domain and takes the presidency away from Vance. Otherwise, I think through Trump's administration they're going to be filling vacancies with loyalists.

So I wasn't analyzing Trump's ideology when I said what's happening should be welcome to a leftist. I was suggesting we just look at the possibilities that come into existence with those tariffs. As @ChatteringMonkey mentioned, it's going to be hard to see that while fully armored up to fight Trump.

Let’s start with the premise: “free trade is good for economies with excess production and trade surpluses.” That is a misunderstanding of how trade works. Free trade isn’t some rigged game that only benefits surplus countries. — Benkei

If it would be this way, then colonies of European empires would have enjoyed an absolutely great economic time, because they had huge trade surpluses. They exported huge amounts of resources, but usually got far less imports manufactured items from their colonial masters. That some poor country exports a lot to the US compared to the few imports from the US (as the country is poor), doesn't make it so that the poor country is stealing from the US (as Trump thinks).

The US receives massive foreign capital inflows. Foreigners buy US Treasury bonds, stocks, real estate and invest in businesses. Those inflows keep interest rates low, fund domestic investment and support the dollar’s global role. In other words, the trade deficit is not some evidence of decline. It is the accounting counterpart of America’s central role in the global financial system. That is just how the balance of payments works. — Benkei

Exactly. And this is the part that many Americans do not understand. How important to all of this is the role of the dollar and just why it is so.

Note the difference when some country exports stuff to Sri Lanka and to the US. In Sri Lanka, the exporter gets Sri Lankan rupees, which he mainly can use either inside the country, or then exchange into a currency his preference. From the US he gets dollars, which he can also use in the US or he can use for example to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

Let's assume that the governments of Sri Lanka and the US both spend recklessly and have huge deficits and basically print more money. Who do you think of the foreigners that export to these countries get a bit nervous about this? The one's holding lot of Sri Lankan rupees or the one's holding US dollars? In fact, for Sri Lanka it's foreign currency reserves that the central bank has are important, because Sri Lanka is a poor country. The US on the other hand is the largest economy and it's dollar is the reserve currency.

The US didn’t create the global economic order to rack up trade surpluses. It created the order to prevent another world war, contain communism and entrench a rules-based system in which it would remain the institutional and financial center, regardless of whether it was exporting more goods than it imported. That strategy worked. — Benkei

It worked so well that Nixon could take the US dollar off the gold standard and the credibility of the US dollar didn't collapse. Oil was sold in dollars as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States had pegged their currencies to the dollar... because of the alliances/security guarantees the US had with them (called Twin Pillars back then).

Now, of course, Trump is making his best effort to do away with these alliances that have been crucial for the US.

Deleuze would agree with Nick Land regarding accelerationism. Land was a Marxist, and Land became anti-Enlightenment — frank

No, Deleuze would not agree with Land about accelerationism. Land hadn’t the vaguest idea what the essence of Deleuze's philosophy was. I read The Dark Enlightenment, and it, like the New Right in general, is the very antithesis of Deleuzianism. There is nothing ‘hollowed out’ about the philosophical underpinnings of leftism, expect for those who were never capable of understanding its concepts in the first place. This is easy to demonstrate.
The New Right is just traditionalism dressed up in the garb of cool-kid hipsterism. To them leftism is group-think, because they don’t have what it takes intellectually to join the group.

I think right now you're kind of frozen by the realization that we might be watching the end of democracy in the US.The only thing that could stop it is if some black swan appears out of the Democratic domain and takes the presidency away from Vance. Otherwise, I think through Trump's administration they're going to be filling vacancies with loyalists — frank

I’m not frozen. I have full confidence that progressive America will not only survive , but continue to thrive and grow. The reason for Trump in the first place is the growing dominance of progressive voices in Americana culture, overwhelmingly so in the cities and universities. Nothing Trump does will change that. He is holding onto a thin political majority at the moment, but the damage he is doing to the economy will peel away those non-MAGA voters he counted on to win the election. Tyrants always end up pushing things too far and causing their own downfall. Trump’s stupidity has already begun to alienate the financial community and many in the business
community.

Even before Trump the debt was likely to fall into a death spiral. Studies have shown that, without the Bush and Trump I tax cuts, revenue would have been better than neutral. THEY DO NOT CARE.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

And no they will likely never default. Instead, they will debase the currency to meet the debt. In fact they have been floating this idea for years now. — hypericin

Debasing the currency is just one way to default. So is hyperinflation too. And the actual policy that has been talking about is high inflation, not hyper inflation (as that simply means that the belief in the currency has evaporated). Few years with 20% inflation make wonders on the debt!

Anyway, I think it's more about being short sighted and hoping that the crisis won't come now. After all, the system that went off the gold standard in 1971 has continued to this day. So why not 10 years more?

No, they quite obviously don't. Maybe read them again.

Friedman & Logan's point is that there's no real debate because of consensus around US primacy, the Blob doesn't typically engage in first-principles questioning, they don't debate what the strategy should be but focus on how to execute it; it's institutional inertia.

Patrick Porter argues purusing primacy isn't inherently rational or constantly reassessed but instituionalised. It's reinforced by beliefs, norms and habit of the Blob which creates the Overton window if you will of legtimate policy. Even if global conditions suggest alternatives (at least in his view) the continuity of primacy prevails. That is not a secret cabal but power married to ideology and bureacracy. He demonstrates this with Clinton and Trump's previous administration. It's institutional inertia.

Both articles are a critique of foreign policy establishment's resistance to change and doesn't support Trump being managed by anyone.

It does support my point that if the Blob is resistant to change, it's entirely unlikely they are now masterminding this wild departure from the status quo. Trump's erratic moves all contradict the Blob preferences with respect to NATO, Russia and trade.

The absence of logic and coherence in Trump's foreign policy suggests no one competent or unified is currently in control. If they're so fucking smart as you seem to suggest because there's some hidden goal we simpletons can't fathom, then they'd understand their economics. And no matter how smart they are, that still does not make basic economic facts dissappear. The same facts that perfectly predict how this will affect US economic power negatively.

Nobody is in control.

Doge meanwhile is dismantling key agencies and cutting funding that obviously undermine the Blob.

Nobody is in control.

Trump is an idiot and does not have any trust among foreign leaders so he can't get anything done either.

Nobody is in control.

Has anyone considered that all of this is Stephen Miran's plan to devalue the dollar? His Mar-a-Lago accord spells out both increased tariffs and threatening to leave military collaborations, precisely what Trump has done.

https://www.nordea.com/en/news/mar-a-lago-accord-explained-a-new-era-for-the-dollar

Well, you may be right. We'll see.

I heard a good analogy today. I could claim that my barber is taking advantage of me. He takes my money every time but doesn’t pay me anything ever. There is clearly an imbalance there, a trade imbalance. He’s ripping me off and I’m not going back until we have a balance of trade.

A few posts ago 'the Blob' was a "rabbit hole" that "made your eyes glaze over". Now you seem to agree that its existence is not controversial, but you downplay its importance.

I also never used words like "cabal" or claimed that Trump was being "managed." Those are assertions you made up yourself.

Here are quotes that support my previous assertions (1. continuous hawkish, primacy-based foreign policy, 2. bipartisan support among the elites):

Debate over grand strategy is nearly absent in US politics. Relative military power, over time, generated bipartisan support for primacy, a grand strategy that sees global US military dominance as the basis for US security. The elite consensus in favor of primacy saps political demand for critical analysis of it or consideration of alternative grand strategies. — Friedman & Logan

The democratic explanation for primacy’s dominance also lacks support. According to a 2014 Chicago Council on Global Affairs study, the public is far less enthusiastic about taking an “active” role in global affairs and global leadership than elites.That divide holds across partisan lines. There is a substantial gap between elites identifying as Democrat, Republican, or Independent and the public for each group. Similarly, elites are more supportive of using force to defend allies and long-term US military bases and more likely to agree that those garrisons produce stability.Various studies show that the public is historically less hawkish on issues of war and defense spending than elites. — Friedman & Logan

The Blob emerged from World War II, as the United States’ rising power generated a demand for security expertise. U.S. government officials turned to a group of experts who formed into a cohesive, influential class. Their commitment to primacy became an article of faith. As a grand strategy, primacy warrants scrutiny. It demands significant upfront investments, implicates national security in developments far and wide, and makes the United States prone to the frequent use of force. Yet the Blob’s achievement was to erect primacy as the seemingly natural framework of U.S. diplomacy. — Porter

The foreign policy establishment is not monolithic. Its members dispute issues below the grand strategic level, such as human rights, the extent of multilateral cooperation, democracy promotion, and specific interventions. Until the 1960s, it was mostly a patrician, predominantly white, Protestant class that internalized values nurtured “in prep schools, at college clubs, in the boardrooms of Wall Street, and at dinner parties.” It then incorporated nonwhites, women, first-generation immigrants, Jews, and Roman Catholics, to form a more heterogeneous class of coastal internationalists, oriented around the Ivy League. Still, this cross-section of internationalist elites is united by a consensus. They want the United States to remain engaged in upholding world order. They are primacists. They fear U.S. retreat from overseas responsibilities and warn that abandonment would lead to the return of rival power blocs, economic stagnation, and catastrophe. They have established primacy as the only viable, legitimate grand strategy, and as an ingrained set of ideas, while installing themselves as insiders, positioned to steer the state. — Porter

Both articles discuss also several presidencies, including Trump 1, as a showcase for how the Blob limits the power of US presidents, as I also argued.

It's rather sad you still seem hellbent on invalidating my views when the articles state literally what I've been saying here. That's why I've stopped bothering to share sources - people here aren't able to deal with information that conflicts with their own views and it's just not worth my time and effort.

I had hoped, after all your grandstanding about the quality of discussion and locking of a thread, you might've approach things differently, but alas.

As an aside, , both the youtube and the Trump message it's referring to were from verified accounts of known public figures, so I'm thinking they're valid enough, despite being on social media. That's just my personal take, don't want to violate forum rules.

In addition to general communication, Internet social media seems to be an emerging secondary (perhaps toward primary) means of making news available; many major sources have verified presence. It's an evolving ecosystem. It's also poisoned by dis/mal/misinformation and other noise; that's a real problem with no easy, immediate solution.

Has anyone considered that all of this is Stephen Miran's plan to devalue the dollar? His Mar-a-Lago accord spells out both increased tariffs and threatening to leave military collaborations, precisely what Trump has done — Christoffer

This idea has been discussed. Most conclude
that Trump isn’t following the plan.

No one outside of Trump’s inner circle considers Miran’s ideas and plans to be coherent, credible, or realistic.
Even more damning to the narrative that Miran is the strategic genius guiding Trump’s actions is the fact that Trump himself isn’t following Miran’s roadmap. Instead of targeting specific trade imbalances or building pressure toward a coordinated currency adjustment, the administration’s tariff strategy in 2025 has been indiscriminate and poorly sequenced. Allies like Canada and Mexico have been hit just as hard as rivals, undermining any hope of building a coalition for the mythical Mar-a-Lago Accord.

The rollout has been chaotic, with inconsistent exemptions and retaliations flying in every direction. If Miran truly intended for tariffs to be a form of surgical economic leverage, Trump is wielding them like a sledgehammer in a glassware shop. It’s yet another contradiction in a portfolio full of them: Miran provides the blueprint of a modern Taj Mahal, Trump builds a treehouse with a blowtorch, and Republicans and their cheerleaders pretend it’s an architectural masterpiece. (Michael Barnard)

I know it's very popular to chalk all of this up to Trump's incompetent machinations, but I don't subscribe to such a view. I don't think he's all that important or powerful. Washington drives this bus - they aren't dummies - and people like Trump are the perfect lightning rod. — Tzeentch

You were implying control, called them deep state, etc. So yes, my eyes. Glazed. Still do. There's clearly nobody at the wheel.

Would you say leftism is closer to Hegel than to labor unions?

No one outside of Trump’s inner circle considers Miran’s ideas and plans to be coherent, credible, or realistic.

I know, but his inner circle are a bunch of conspiracy theorists and idiots like Kennedy. What normal people think about Miran's plan is not relevant to what Trump and his inner circle believes.

Trump himself isn’t following Miran’s roadmap. Instead of targeting specific trade imbalances or building pressure toward a coordinated currency adjustment, the administration’s tariff strategy in 2025 has been indiscriminate and poorly sequenced.

Because they are morons. Just look at the run through of how they came up with the tariff calculations. They essentially have a hand drawn blueprint to build a house and none of them has ever hold a hammer, that's how they're executing the plan.

Miran provides the blueprint of a modern Taj Mahal, Trump builds a treehouse with a blowtorch, and Republicans and their cheerleaders pretend it’s an architectural masterpiece. (Michael Barnard)

I actually wrote my answer before reading that segment so yes, exactly like that... except Miran didn't provide a blueprint of Taj Mahal, but a shopping mall with a roof that won't hold the coming winter snow.

This idea has been discussed. Most conclude
that Trump isn’t following the plan. — Joshs

So it doesn't matter if he isn't following the plan. People who've met Trump says that he acts all nice nice and shit in the room with them, but that he is totally clueless about most things overall. He has gathered loyalists around him and they all try to act out complex policies and orders on his behalf. They're the most incompetent cabal that's ever been.

Just because "there's a plan" doesn't mean anything is going well according to it, or that the plan was good to begin with, it just means that was the reasoning behind all of it.

If anything it hints as to when the dumpster fire might end as a failure to succeed with the end goal of the plan would be the reason to retreat from it. If the people doesn't demand Trump's blood, then the plan will surely be abandoned at some point.

In the end it doesn't change the fact that there are actual morons running the US. People usually say politicians are idiots, but that's mostly because they're failing something. This time... they are actual morons.

↪Joshs
Would you say leftism is closer to Hegel than to labor unions? — frank

You’d have to talk to the individuals in the unions, but in general I’d say that blue-collar unions will be dominated by social conservatives. Probably a bit different for teachers’ unions.

, it's being given some further attention:

Ocasio-Cortez: Colleagues ‘should probably disclose’ recent stock purchases now
^{— Filip Timotija · The Hill · Apr 10, 2025}

Could just be "Trump’s loose lips and sticky fingers" I suppose. Insider trading is still illegal.

You’d have to talk to the individuals in the unions, but in general I’d say that blue-collar unions will be dominated by social conservatives. Probably a bit different for teachers’ unions. — Joshs

We have a very different conception of leftism. I think for you, it's more of an academic thing. I say this because you said the strength you see in it is philosophical. I gather you see it as something that only people with specialized knowledge understand.

To me, it's about a response to the way that people end up being nothing more than machines in a liberal world. There's something deathly about liberalism. The Left is about finding a way back from that, while hopefully keeping some of the awesomeness that liberalism created.

As for conservatism, did you see the people carrying signs saying "Hands Off"? That is the very essence of conservatism: to maintain the status quo, to hold on to what we know works. Our species is alive and well in this moment because of our conservative side, that preserves traditions and hands them on to the next generation.

I remember you predicting that of all the wars that Trump is lusting to have, a war with Panama was the second likeliest one. Given that the US and Panama recently partnered to secure the canal and deter China, with a special nod to Panama’s sovereignty, I’m curious if your fears abated or if they still remain.

On to the next scandal. As always with Trump, just when you think it can't get worse, it gets worse. Yesterday saw the publication of an Executive Order, on White House stationary, which began:

Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority. Krebs’ misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic. CISA, under Krebs’ leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Krebs, through CISA, promoted the censorship of election information, including known risks associated with certain voting practices. Similarly, Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines.

Bolds added. So, here is a former senior official, being sanctioned by the White House, for telling the truth! How long until fines are introduced by the MAGA Administration for 'disseminating false information about the 2020 election', 'false information' being that the election was won by Joseph R. Biden. And all of this, under the banner of so-called 'free speech', which in MAGA world, means adherence to Trump's lies.

More on this topic.

Of all the many outrages that Trump is visiting on the nation, this must be among the worst.

Of all the many outrages that Trump is visiting on the nation, this must be among the worst. — Wayfarer

Absolutely. And one of the most chilling things I’ve ever heard are these comments from Miles Taylor, who , along with Krebs , was singled out by Trump for investigation, in his case for writing a book about his experience serving in Trump’s first administration. In this short interview before the election, he warns the American public that the second Trump administration would be structured like Germany’s third reich. I’m horrified to admit that, while I have always despised Trump, a year ago I would have considered that forecast a bit over the top. Now I know that Taylor’s prediction was spot on.

↪ssu

I remember you predicting that of all the wars that Trump is lusting to have, a war with Panama was the second likeliest one. Given that the US and Panama recently partnered to secure the canal and deter China, with a special nod to Panama’s sovereignty, I’m curious if your fears abated or if they still remain — NOS4A2

How about your fears? Do you fear that we now have our first dictator as president? Do you not find this EO terrifying:

Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods Presidential Memoranda
April 9, 2025

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-associated-with-an-egregious-leaker-and-disseminator-of-falsehoods/

Thom Hartmann is certainly afraid:

The highest form of freedom in a democracy isn’t just the right to vote or protest—it’s the right to speak truth to power. To call out corruption. To challenge lies. To stand firm when the powerful demand silence. This is the freedom that sustains all others.
And it’s the one Donald Trump tried to crush Wednesday with the stroke of a pen.

When he signed an Executive Order (EO) directing the Justice Department to investigate Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor—two public servants whose only crime was telling the truth—Trump didn’t just abuse his office. He weaponized the government against honesty itself.
This wasn’t law enforcement: It was political vengeance. This wasn’t democracy: It was a warning shot from the edge of autocracy. And if we let this slide—if we treat it as just another Trump headline—we are inviting the next strongman to do the same, only worse.
The freedom to speak truth to power is either sacred, or it’s gone.

Thus, Donald Trump just moved America miles down the road toward our becoming a police state. There’s no other way to describe it.
​His EO demanding criminal investigations into Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor—and his public statement that Taylor is a “traitor” guilty of “treason”—are nothing short of a blatant assault on the rule of law and a perilous step toward turning America into a dictatorship.
This isn’t just about settling personal scores; it’s a calculated move to instill fear, silence dissent, and dismantle the very foundations of our democratic institutions.​

Can you imagine yourself being called a traitor by the president of the United States and thus potentially facing prison? Having to hire expensive attorneys that may well force you to sell your home to pay for defending yourself? Not to mention having to protect yourself and your family from the rightwing enforcers who are probably at this moment doxxing and threatening Krebs and Taylor?
This echoes tactics used by autocrats throughout history: Stalin’s purges, Nixon’s enemies list (though less successfully executed), and more recently, Orbán in Hungary, Duterte in the Philippines, or Putin in Russia. If normalized, it risks further turning the U.S. into an illiberal democracy or autocracy, where elections occur but power is retained through fear, manipulation, and coercion. Or worse, a violent kleptocracy like Russia.

Yes, Miles Taylor too. He's utterly on-point in that analysis, given a year ago :yikes:

To me, it's about a response to the way that people end up being nothing more than machines in a liberal world. There's something deathly about liberalism. The Left is about finding a way back from that, while hopefully keeping some of the awesomeness that liberalism created.

As for conservatism, did you see the people carrying signs saying "Hands Off"? That is the very essence of conservatism: to maintain the status quo, to hold on to what we know works. Our species is alive and well in this moment because of our conservative side, that preserves traditions and hands them on to the next generation. — frank

Tell me , Frank. Why does this sound like it could have come directly out of a New Right manifesto? Have you been dipping into Yarvin and Land?

, is that legal without proving the election was rigged?
Maybe the law no longer matters in the US.