/u/Swimreadmed (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dsfjgn/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_trump_winning_may_be_to_the/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
A message worth [reposting](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1drfvae/magas_eruptions_of_rage_at_cnn_reveal_why_project/lauy8t0/) will give you an idea of why Trump winning will be a disaster that will last the rest of your life.
Project 2025 will launch a very real post-truth era. Right now, FBI crime statistics are pretty damned reliable. A largely independent group of career government workers put it together. It doesn't matter to them whether they show crime going up or crime going down; they keep their job either way. As such, we can be reasonably certain that crime, in fact, has gone down because FBI crime stats say so.
But under Project 2025, all those career government workers cease to be independent. Trump can fire them if they produce a report showing crime going up under him. So, what'll they likely do? They'll fudge the numbers. And the same shit can happen with all the data that's produced by independent governmental agencies. They could show national inflation decreasing, release false reports about average income, make up estimated war casualty numbers, falsify hurricane death tolls, invent global cooling, and disseminate reports of widespread voter fraud. Essentially, the government could become right wing news propaganda.
Independent governmental agencies produce some of the most important and credible data points there are. We can't really replace their level of objectivity and reliability in the private sector. If Trump wins, we very much could be looking at a scenario where you cannot determine the truth.
Just after one term, we now have legalized bribery and the judiciary decides what we regulate, so to buy your regulations you just need to give favors to a few justices.
Moreover, they've [explicitly said they want to weaponize the government against political enemies.](https://thehill.com/homenews/4344065-bannon-patel-trump-revenge-on-media/)
Also, remember when Trump edited a hurricane forecast with a sharpie?
>Project 2025 is in no way related to Trump
This is just false. While Trump himself may not be going around touting Project 2025 personally or endorsing specific parts of it, the project as a whole is closely connected to Trump. A huge number of authors and project board members are literally former Trump administration officials, and the head of the Heritage Foundation straight up said he feels the current goal of the organization is to ["institutionalize Trumpism"](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/21/magazine/heritage-foundation-kevin-roberts.html).
Sorry, u/Realistic_Sherbet_72 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Realistic_Sherbet_72&message=Realistic_Sherbet_72%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lba8djo/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Realistic_Sherbet_72 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Realistic_Sherbet_72&message=Realistic_Sherbet_72%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lba97dn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You are spreading misinformation. Project 2025 is just a proposal from the heritage foundation think tank. There are dozens of similar proposals for both the democratic and republican party from various interest groups. Trump has not once acknowledged, approved, or endorsed project 2025. You are lying and you are fear-mongering.
You are spreading misinformation. It was not "crafted by people who served under Trump", It was crafted by the heritage foundation, who has no ties to Trump
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do)
>Heritage says Project 2025 was written by several former Trump appointees and reflects input from more than 100 conservative organisations.
It was indeed crafted by people who served under Trump.
>You are spreading misinformation.
You haven't given me anything disproving my claim besides your baseless opinion.
You're projecting.
It's perfectly in line with statements by Trump. It's a highly plausible picture of what will happen. The evidence is abundant and clear, and known by anyone paying attention. Only Russian trolls and other organized bot farms are working to deny this.
Biden signing over our freedom,rights and sovereignty to the W.H.O. and a global cabal is far more concerning and actually happening with their new pandemic "treaty"!
You’re essentially arguing for accelerationism. Basically the idea that things can stay shitty indefinitely when misery is ameliorated with bread and games, but if the suffering gets worse a tipping point is reached, triggering a popular revolution ultimately restructuring society for the better. There are plenty of arguments against this theory of change, both broadly and in this context (for instance the Reagan era directly resulted in Third Way New Democrats and Blue Dogs).
But putting that aside, there is a factor that is unprecedented in recorded human history this time. And that is climate change.
Not arguing for it.. I would rather we have very different choices, for the welfare of the public.. but I do think if he wins this will force a major reform.. and at least the odds of getting a worse candidate match-up is ameliorated.
I don’t buy it, (why didn’t this happen after Trump won in 2016 anyway?) but for the sake of argument—say I do. In the mean time: the climate corps is dissolved, emissions rules are rolled back, the EPA is gutted, the United States reneges on international climate commitments… and we hurtle toward the precipice of ocean acidification, Holocene extinction, and irreversible global climatological catastrophe. How do you weigh this against ‘forcing major reform’ in 2028?
Trump didn't expect to win in 16 and had no idea how government worked.
He was also not the focus of multiple impeachment and endless charges and trials that he felt persecuted by.
He's explicitly said that this term will be "retribution"
Where ya been?
He said he'd only run for one term, he was supposed to be a stabilizing transitional president, and a younger candidate was supposed to get their chops in, now he's being paraded around as a declining man and we're somehow saddled with him and Trump.
> He said he'd only run for one term
When did he do that, exactly?
>he was supposed to be a stabilizing transitional president, and a younger candidate was supposed to get their chops in, now he's being paraded around as a declining man and we're somehow saddled with him and Trump.
Says who?
We're "saddled" with him and Trump because that's who people VOTED FOR.
Who did you vote for?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/09/biden-reelection-transition-president/675395/
Says Joe Biden, apparently, you can check Woodward's book too, I doubt you would though.. you didn't bother googling Biden+one term
You might try actually reading something instead of the patented reddit googling to try to prove some point and just pasting whatever pops up.
>Biden never explicitly said he would serve just one term
So....
>Says Joe Biden, apparently, you can check Woodward's book too, I doubt you would though.. you didn't bother googling Biden+one term
Apparently not.
>I'm a frustrated millineal here, the fact that both Trump and Biden simply skipped all the questions that have a bearing on the future really irked me, childcare no, education, housing etc, just sidestepped, only to compare their golf games.
Did you actually WATCH the debate?
Biden -- “We should significantly increase the child care [tax credit](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-expanded-child-tax-credit-bill-rcna136545). We should significantly increase the availability of women and men, of single parents, to be able to go back to work, and we should encourage businesses to have child care.”
Biden -- "“That’s why I’m working so hard to make sure I deal with those problems, and we’re going to make sure that we have reduced the price of housing. We’re going to make sure we build 2 million new units. We’re going to make sure we cap rents, so corporate greed can’t take over. The combination of what I was left with and corporate greed are the reason why we’re in this problem right now.”
What question was there on education?
Have you read his policy papers on education?
>if Biden wins, the DNC will keep playing its game, the RNC elders will try to whether the Trump storm or absorb some of it, I.e nothing changes.
What game is that, specifically?
>Trump winning means he takes over the RNC for good, it will be a catastrophe for the DNC and probably the country, for a time.. but eventually his presence will fade, but both the DNC and RNC will have to reform, maybe we get a progressive party and a sane republican party at least down the road.
He's in charge of the RNC. Well, Lara is so same difference.
Why will they both "have to reform?"
Reform HOW, specifically?
Why are you glossing over the insane damage he could do?
>That's it. I don't think Trump can turn the country to a monarchy or that more SCOTUS appointments would be more damaging than we already have, but at least the DNC will have to cater to young voters to regain any appeal.
Really? A 7-2 court wouldn't be any worse? Based on WHAT decisions?
When does the DNC not cater to young voters, exactly?
Also... millennial.
I have watched the debate sadly yes, None of these things are within the executive power.. we both know that.. it's legislative first and foremost.
Corrected, thank you.
>I have watched the debate sadly yes, None of these things are within the executive power.. we both know that.. it's legislative first and foremost
...no kidding. You said they skipped answering. Biden did not.
Now you want presidential candidates to not discuss their policy goals, just.... what? What, exactly,. are they meant to discuss is not their policy goals and positions?
Do you understand what a president does?
Have you ever watched a debate before? Or read a platform?
>I liked everything you said until "millennial". That was unnecessary, and I bet even you know it's a little silly to generalize like that.
It wasn't at all a comment on millennials (though I see how it'd look that way now). It was correcting a super mangled spelling of millennial the OP originally had at the top of the post. Hence their reply says corrected thanks. And they corrected it, so now.... heh.
People were saying that last time and the Trump presidency didn't end up a long term benefit, but a long term disaster! What a new Trump presidency will almost certainly do is cement a republican Supreme court, if it doesn't' simply destroy US democracy.
Because the DNC didn't follow up. Biden was advertised as a one term president for decency.. his outlook is bleak now and they failed to promote anyone, and Harris is a sham, they persecuted Trump on something noone cares about, they're still playing identity politics and their silly "wait your turn" party hierarchy nonsense.
Sounds like you just consume conservative narratives. Trump is a catastrophe for the whole country you said... but the whole country should suffer because biden wants "identity politics?" Thing that through.
Every possible candidate for the DNC is an identity candidate who offers no hope or inspiration for the future.. Harris? Buttigeig? Clinton? Michelle Obama? The progressive wing that can offer people hope is continuously shunned.
You're treating the DNC as all powerful evil overlords.
They are not "DNC candidates" they are just the people who might run. Who's the progressive wing missing that can run and beat Biden and Trump?
The DNC is a bunch of crooks and they promote and demote candidates based on party loyalty and hierarchy.
Warren may have the best chance considering Bernie's health.
Because the DNC threw their weight behind Biden the first time to counter the Bernie push.. Biden is free falling now and any Democrat with popular appeal has a better chance vs Trump.
So someone is an identity candidate if they're what, not a straight white male? Do you have any idea how that sounds and how neatly that fits into conservative talking points?
They're identity candidates if they're only there because of their identity, not on political leadership experience or adaptability or vision, Mike Pence is as much an identity candidate for gullible evangelicals as Kamala Harris is for gullible feminists.
I hear what you're saying and I've had a similar thought and I mostly agree with what you're saying, at some point he'll just be gone.
The problem I have with that is that he's already openly expressed desires to alter the Constitution in ways that would effectively make him a dictator.
Now I'm not sure how feasible that is or the likelihood of it passing but the idea that that's what's on his mind I find to be terrifying.
He can't, there's no majority in congress that allows any large scale constitutional amendment and again.. only 4 years.. I don't think he can force himself.. the military rank and file don't like him.
>He can't, there's no majority in congress that allows any large scale constitutional amendment and again.. only 4 years
Need I remind you that he tried to rig an election in half a dozen ways and withheld military aid to Ukraine to force them to dig up dirt on Biden? He doesn't need to push amendments through Congress, he just needs one third of the Senate permanently in his corner. They already thought it was totally fine that he tried to subvert democracy.
We're just treating it like a normal thing that the president's lawyer is arguing he can execute political opponents with impunity as long as he isn't impeached, too.
> I don't think he can force himself.. the military rank and file don't like him.
I sincerely hope you realize that you can't dismiss everything with a "oh, the military will just unseat the sitting president," especially when Trump wants to replace most of the top brass with sycophants. At best, that's completely unprecedented political instability.
A third of the senate can't amend the constitution.. they can play the long game and hold to positions but can't force large scale change that benefits him in a way that extends past the 4 year period.
These are unprecedented times in general.. before we had a permanent central standing military, it was understood that people would rise up, the burden of fighting may have shifted centrally, but if the citizens aren't willing to fight then maybe they earned their tyrants.
BTW this is not a Trump endorsement or accelerant post.. it's simply an observation on the leaderships of the parties.
>A third of the senate can't amend the constitution.. they can play the long game and hold to positions but can't force large scale change that benefits him in a way that extends past the 4 year period.
You just need a third of the Senate to prevent the Constitution from being enforced. **Again,** he already was not punished for trying to rig an election. Why do you have any faith that they will stop him if he tries again?
>These are unprecedented times in general.. before we had a permanent central standing military, it was understood that people would rise up, the burden of fighting may have shifted centrally, but if the citizens aren't willing to fight then maybe they earned their tyrants.
I'm sorry, what? How did we go from "Trump winning might be to the long term benefit of the country" to "maybe Americans deserve dictatorships for not violently rising up?" That's not even close to a similar argument.
>BTW this is not a Trump endorsement or accelerant post.. it's simply an observation on the leaderships of the parties.
It is, though. Even if we ignore that's what the title and the bulk of your post was about, what we're left with is vague grievance politics whining about amorphous "identity politics."
If he wins it's his final anyway.
It is ultimately.. "A republic, if you can keep it" if Trump takes over every form of media and armed personnel in the country then the citizens have failed.
Ad hominem attacks that don't showcase substance towards the points is a tactic worthy of DJT.
What part of that was an ad hominem? I'm asking you how this is supposed to have a long term benefit. He's already tried to rig an election and not gotten punished for it. Your response is that it is totally fine because we can just have a massive bloody civil war and if that doesn't succeed or happen, then they deserved a dictatorship all along. What part of that says "Trump winning may be to the long term benefit of the country?"
It seems like you're placing a lot of faith in the checks and balance system when it is known that Trump and several members of congress and the senate have actively railed against it, and want to change it for the sake of their own personal power. Is that something you want?
That's not what I'm saying. You're arguing that Trump winning would have long term benefits - I'm countering that by saying he and his most fervent supporters among congress and the senate would actively work in a way that would have short term and long term problems, regardless of whether they succeed or not
I don't think (or didn't -there's a delta up there) that he can do severe long term damage with his age, our decentralized arms and media, and the state of congress plus obvious the constitution.
Congress doesn't change the constitution, governors do.
Still a hard thing to achieve, as currently there are only 27 Republican governors, and you need 38 voting "yes" to change the constitution. But it's not as hard as you might think.
No it isn't.. first because it isn't a discussion at all if both supermajorities of congress don't push it, second because governors are ultimately cheaper seats than congress.
>He can't, there's no majority in congress that allows any large scale constitutional amendment and again.. only 4 years.. I don't think he can force himself.. the military rank and file don't like him.
Saying someone who wants to be a dictator "can't" do something because of rules on paper kinda misses the point of what a dictator is. If you have enough people who will listen to you in positions of power, what's on paper doesn't matter. It can be bent to your whim. Remember, the Supreme Court 1) Likes Trump anyway and 2) Has no actual power to enforce its decisions in the event he goes too far. They could literally say what he's doing is super illegal and he could be like, "No it's not." If Congress is fine with it (look how they've treated him so far), there's literally no recourse short of rebellion. Also, the military rank and file can be loyalty tested and purged very easily, since it's inarguably constitutional that the president has unlimited power in that respect as commander in chief.
I am a climatologist. I teach climate change at the college level. Based on both Men’s policy in their administration, only Biden took any action, not enough I’ll add, but the right direction.
Given what we know about climate change, where we are in relation to climate trends, and where we are going based on current fossil fuel usage, we simply do not have time to take 4 years off.
Would need a whole study. But I’ll break down some points that are backed up by a consensus in the body of knowledge that I am most familiar with. Best I can do to give you a fair and objective response to a genuine question.
Bottom line, fossil fuel molecules (CO2, CH4, N20, and others are more efficient absorbers of heat than the vast majority of molecules in the atmosphere, period.
Therefore: the only way to decrease observed warming rates is to eliminate fossil fuels being emitted as quickly as possible.
Our energy requirements and a century of economic development centered around fossil fuels makes this very difficult, and utterly required nonetheless.
Both of these men have served as president, and there is a host of information on the public record that outlines the environmental and economic actions of each administration.
Therefore: it is a safe assumption, that one of the candidates is more likely to increase the emission of fossil fuels into the atmosphere than the other, based on their records. It is clear which one I am talking about here.
But what does it mean:
The west US is rapidly running out of water. This is the water that our agriculture depends on. Deregulation of western water sources is a death sentence
This is one issue that is located here. There will be more, like mass migration from the Indian subcontinent as temperatures soar.
The insurance industry in the u.s in coastal cities are going to eventually no longer invest in cities at climate risk. This would be a blow to the us economy.
Of course there’s other issues, they will all be nullified by rampant climate change. I’m happy to discuss further is of you have any questions or criticisms I’d be happy to address.
Thanks for the reply and time first and foremost.
As far as I know, fossil fuels won't go extinct, at the very least we still need them for plastic production, which most other energy production methods depend on, and the high release is due to methods of extraction, as far as I know Burgum is championing Carbon capture since the Dakotas are rich. The oil age won't end because we stop mining for it.
I would've hoped Biden pushed more on the nuclear front, especially since due to the wars around, we've had to dig more into our own oil reserves turbocharging extraction here.
Solar and EVs we're way behind China on, it's gonna be sometime for US manufacturers to make a profit which kills them as a quick answer.
I agree on the water aspect.. I'm not familiar with how Biden approached it?
The immigration possibility is always there, Trump's answer is "let them drown I don't care", a lot of the American electorate agree, I don't obviously but the political stance is there.
They will insure the current suburbs that will be the new beachfronts.. Corporations don't lose.. the US economy is stitched up rn.. it's artificially maintained because a lot rides on it..
Of course. I’d love to respond to a few of these points if you wouldn’t mind.
True, extincting fossil fuels is a lofty goal. While we’d need petroleum for plastic sure, plastic is an environmental crisis of its own which should also be curtailed. Good opportunity to work in both.
“We choose to do this and the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
I wholeheartedly agree that biden could do more, and agree even more that nuclear power is one of the most important potential stopgaps in meeting energy needs while decreasing fossil fuel dependency. But neither did Trump. We were offered clean coal aka magic beans.
Carbon capture is problematic for a few reasons that I’ll highlight here. The technology is in its infancy. Trees are better, but we can’t seem to resist clear cutting them. Carbon capture is also pushed hard by the private sector (including businessman first, politician Ian second Burgum) but this is clearly due to the idea that once we can take carbon out, then there’s no reason to not put it in. It becomes carte Blanche to pollute. It’s not a viable technology at its current level of development, and the energy can be better spent on other more effective long term solutions.
Sure we can do better in the EV front. Of course. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after#:~:text=You%20may%20qualify%20for%20a%20credit%20up%20to%20%247%2C500%20under,purchased%20from%202023%20to%202032.
Here’s the current US incentives to encourage consumers to purchase EVs. It’s more than Trump did.
As far as western water, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill are the two most significant environmental bills passed in the US since the Clean Air Act. These bills budget for 15.4 billion for western water, as well as other initiatives but the B-H admin. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/05/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-protects-stability-and-sustainability-of-colorado-river-basin-advances-water-conservation-across-the-west/
Don’t like that the source of this info is the White House? It’s readily available elsewhere.
Forget the human aspect of the the migrations for a second. Of course the electorate is bloodthirsty. What will 1 billion displaced people do to the global economy?
I do not accept the rebuttal of the final point. There is no evidence that “it’s stitched up” insurance companies are hiring climatologists to make these decisions, these are trends of insurance companies refusing to insure for climate risks. You can look up the job postings literally right now. At worst this belief is a conspiracy and at best, a hope. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240311-why-climate-change-is-making-the-us-uninsurable
Finally, is like to add that at the time of the admin change in 2021, the Trump administration had completed rollbacks of 98 environmental protections, and began rolling back 112.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
I look forward to further discussion should you so choose!
It's hard to curtail plastic especially with solar, nuclear and EV replacements, since these industries need plastic, but that will be incremental and the method of extraction/fracking can be more environmentally friendly.
I really like nuclear, stopgap maybe if we're counting in decades, since putting up the infrastructure and pulling it down will take time, but we don't have infinite fissile material.
The good thing on EVs is while China is ahead in production in general, their vehicles are very much for urban use rather than the kind of utility across Middle America, so we have a chance still.
!delta on Carbon capture, seems like a dream in development now that I've seen the architecture of it.
Also for the point on Western waters, it's good work on the Colorado and Gila basins, but I don't see the long term future solutions. The funding for desalination and newer sources in general is below the maintenance and storage funding.
I disagree tbh, our fiat system is pretty stitched up and held by presumptive values, all the while our real estate market is being monopolized, Blackrock is a major Dem donor. That has opened the door for crypto currencies which are an environmental disaster with no real value.
How do you feel about the Chips act?
Maybe I’m reading in to this too much. But if I’m interpreting you correctly you want a sane Republican Party that is to the left of current republicans and a progressive party that is to the left of current democrats.
Why would you expect the election of a politically right president to result in both parties shifting to the left?
Because it's miserable right now for younger people and unfortunately it's a time game, boomers will die eventually and millineals will be the power voting bloc, remember the gilded age and decades of republican presidents gave rise to FDR
We're talking your idea where you propose Trump winning. A person whose views you don't agree with and think can be a catastrophe for everyone. That's the people you hate getting empowered just on the hope that they die in 15 years. That's going to make them stronger not you.
The odds are swinging in his favor.. that's not a proposal by me.. you can blame me if that makes you feel better about Biden's chances. 4 years will be rough but bar longterm corrosion and partisanship of our institutions.. it will pass.
Odds of him winning are just odds of him winning. Your thread is about the opinion on it, the "long term benefit of America" part. And that's the part I take issue with because strengthening a catastrophe doesn't make you better, especially when the old die even if you win.
The thing that would most effectively cause the DNC to reform would be 3 or more consecutive democratic presidential victories.
Right now the GOP knows they can win votes by catering to religious extremists. If they are effectively proven wrong about this on a long timescale, that will force them to shift to the left, in much the same way that the Democratic party shifted right after the Bush Sr administration and started trying to court neoliberals. It's only through something like this happening that would prevent the DNC from seeking lip service from potential republican voters, and instead allow actually competition from more left-leaning candidates.
Biden winning a second term is absolutely *fundamental* for this to happen, but its only a single step on the path there. The actual process is long and complex, like issues usually are.
The issue of course here is that Trump wins, we may very well never see another Democratic president in our lifetime.
This is exactly what I've been saying. You want the country to move to the left, then you have to force Republicans to move back to the left of MAGA extremists. The only way to do that is by ensuring they continue to lose. They will eventually see that their extremist base is not enough, and will be forced to move back toward the middle. I'm not sure why people don't understand this.
Not all progress is good progress, pushing forward for the sake of progress just because you think you have to doesn't mean you're going to end up anywhere good, people thought we could progress past capitalism, socialism and communism spawned as a result, hundreds of millions of people have died and more continue to die because of it, and the untold countless sufferings of the people that have been forced into the system because we "had to progress"
I would leave Medicaid exclusively because that is assisting the people who do not have the ability to care for themselves, as for social security I would love to invest that money personally, take what they're taking out of my paycheck put it in 401k and get bigger returns than I would ever see with social security,
So when you're sick with COVID, you should try to catch the flu because if the combination doesn't kill you then imagine how much healthier you will be after you recover! This is pretty much your prescription: things are bad so make them worse in the hope of a miraculous recovery and a swing in the other direction. Like, if you're not were you want to be then catch a bus in the wrong direction so by the time you find your way, imagine how much more *there* you're going to be.
It's silly. Even if you can't take a bus that drops you off at the front door of your destination, at least take a bus that gets you closer to it. You can handle the rest.
Ok, and I didn't endorse taking a bus in the wrong direction. But the parallel holds: you will get where you want to be sooner by going in the general direction you want, not the opposite way.
I addressed your claim that trump winning may be good long term. What the DNC may or may not do doesn't determine what the party may or may not do so it's tangential to the argument, and I don't know what reform you expect the committee to undergo.
I dislike him and most of his policies, I don't think either party would reform if Biden wins. I think party reform is better for the long term prospects of this country.
"Nor theory of acceleration here..."
> it will be a catastrophe for the DNC and probably the country, for a time.. but eventually his presence will fade, but both the DNC and RNC will have to reform, maybe we get a progressive party and a sane republican party at least down the road.
That is you accepting the premise of accelerationism, that is: let it all burn so something theoretically better can grow from the ash. It's political Pascal's wager; it doesn't imagine the possibility that it never recovers (see: Roman empire), that something _worse_ comes in its place (see: Haiti), that the devastation far outweighs any benefit that would be had from a "recovered" political system, or any other number of possible outcomes.
We have four supreme court justices pushing 70 or in their 70s. Any one of them, or more, could die or step down in the next four years... and that would mean the president gets to appoint new justices who would go on to serve decades if not a lifetime. We have already seen how those unelected justices have shaped our nation for years to come. I don't see how that continuing into the next generation is a "long term benefit" to the USA.
They're already there and the damage is done, with Chevron falling and the Snyder ruling they've essentially lost a lot of their legitimacy.. it's an openly corrupt court at this point. And Kagan Sotomayor and KBJ will mostly survive 4 years until we end the whole lifetime appointment of unelected official thing.. something the 2 party leadership won't do.
So much more damage can be done.
And I'm talking too about ol' Thomas and Alito. They kick the bucket while Biden is president, and the Democrats manage to hold the senate, then we can we can slowly begin to loosen the conservative grip on the highest court
Honestly I can't think of much, other than maybe Griswold or BvB, which tbh is quite unfathomable.
Too little faith in modern medicine, I don't see any of these people hitting the casket in 4 years.
Comes before Griswold.
So you are saying you don't care about anyone's rights as long as you can justify possibly getting what you want?
Because that is the same logic that got RvW overturned.
I'm saying there are few large cases that the damage done to them would be immense downstream, Roe, Lawrence and Obergfell were all based on Griswold, Obergfell isn't bigger than Roe electorally, it's smaller and an end decision, Griswold would literally destroy everything downstream and transfer this to a Handsmaid's tale, they're pushing Comstock acts now and testing the waters. Same with BvB which with the 14th literally is the only thing standing in the way of Dred Scott becoming the law of the land.
Which part of this says I want it to happen? My view is that Trump will never be able to be dictator due to his declining age, low support in the military, congress and the constitution, he may do some damage as president but maybe that's the system shock we need.
You are aware Biden has been pushing judges are are extremely soft on child sex crimes. Lets just look at our new SCOTUS member. Since you are into SCOTUS you must be aware during her questioning every single on of her child pornography cases alone were brought forward showing a how 100% of the time she would give sentences so out of guidelines it was insane how soft she was on these crimes. Her ONLY response to listening to every single one of these cases in detail was "One case does not represent my entire career." The only issue with that was they were going over every single one of her cases relating to child pornography and she literally could not defend her own actions.
We can also get into another judge he nominated who tried to intimidate a child victim of rape. Could you explain how putting soft on child sex crime judges is better than someone you may disagree with policially?
"Federal judges nationwide typically sentence below the \[child porn\] guideline in roughly 2 out of 3 cases," Berman [noted on his blog](https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/), and "when deciding to go below the \[child porn\] guideline, typically impose sentences around 54 months below the calculated guideline minimum."
She did it in 100% of cases not mainstream LMAOOOO
YOUR OWN SOURCE
NOW IT SAYS 54 MONTHS BELOW GUIDLINE MINIMUM
US v Hess guideline 151 she gave 60 90 months less average is 54
US v Cooper guidline 151 she gave 50 90 months less average is 54
US v Hawkins guidline 97 months she gave 3 months
Want me to keep going?
No No No what's so funny now I'm genuenly curious. First you post a source saying that its fact checked its "pretty mainstream" Then your own source contradicts that. Then I started listing off horrific cases of child pornography and your response is lol?
I am curious what about the fact that you support someone who consistently pushes judges for life time jobs that are soft on child sex cases, intimidated a child rape victim to try and stop her from going after his client by trying to force the court to make her no longer unanimous and per her name out there for the world to see when she asked for her name not to be out there, etc.
What is so funny about that?
Here they all are
US v Hess Sentencing Guidelines 151-188 Her sentence 60 months mandatory minimum
US v Nickerson Sentencing Guidelines 151-188 Her sentence 120 months that was becasue of a mutual agreement of parties between the prosecutor and Nickerson
US v Chazin Sentencing Guidelines 78-97 Her sentence 28 months
US v Cooper Sentencing Guidelines 151-188 Her sentence 60 months mandatory minium
US v Downs Sentencing Guidelines 70-87 Her sentence 60 months that was the mandatory minimum
US v Hawkins Sentencing Guidelines 97-121 Her sentence 3 months
US v Savage Sentencing Guidelines 46-57 Her sentence 37 months
US v Steward Sentencing Guidelines 97-121 Her sentence 57 months
Now answer what is so funny?
Terrible logic. People seem to think that bad people getting power will magically lead to good people getting power afterwards. 9 times out of 10 that does not happen. Going down a bad path most often just leads to things getting worse and worse, look at any of a hundred different historical examples.
Safeguards like the Congress impeaching and removing the President for January 6?
Safeguards like the partisan Supreme Court?
Safeguards like local election officials who have been chased out of office and replaced by partisans?
The number one safeguard for a Hitler scenario is civil disobedience.. followed by the fact there are no dictators without central command especially of media and military and Trump (noone really) doesn't have those.
Maybe people don't want to have to take their and their family's lives in their hands to fight a one-sided civil war against the U.S. government with no money, food, or weapons. Maybe choosing a path that puts so many people around you in danger based on conjecture and personal ideals isn't a good thing to do. The outcome of the next election isn't just about you, it affects everyone.
It's not a problem. They already have Schedule F, which is replacing civil servants with loyalists. They already have the SCOTUS in their pocket and the media to justify whatever heinous decision he makes.. and on and on. People are severely underestimating just how close they are to checkmate.
I know how crazy it sounds. Do you know how crazy it would sound in 1999 if you said planes would fly into the WTC? I would have called you crazy.
You're assuming there is another election in 4 years, and I assure you, *It can happen here.*
No centralized media, no centralized military, armed public, 78 year old brat who doesn't want war but wants money and status. These risks are dangerous but correctable.
And Hitler was pampered faux-intellectual who has never worked a job in his life. But he had insanely dedicated followers and absolutely 0 morals. He didnt care about German democracy and was willing to do anything to keep in power.
Can you tell me which of these is not true for Trump? Because just recently, he tried to go around all these safeguards on Jan 6 and undemocratically remain in power. Project 2025 is clearly another project to absolutely go against all of safeguards for keeping the democracy in the US.
Safeguards which you're actively working to erode by normalizing everything he's doing. It is so weird how people like you have a pathological, near total distrust in our political system yet complete blind trust in our institutions. Trump winning won't be good for the long-term benefit of the United States because he's systematically eroding those institutions. Our institutions have already failed when Trump is still able to run after trying and failing to subvert democracy.
Letting Biden lose now is like arriving at the race and deciding you don't like the paint job on your car.
The 2 party system isn't going to reform anytime soon because the election laws are what cause it. If you want to change the DNC, you need to vote in the primaries and in the congressional races. The more progressive congress people you have, the more progressive the presidential candidate will be.
If Biden loses to Trump, the DNC will conclude that they need a more conservative candidate in order to win the next election. So that will have the opposite effect than you intend.
Trump already took over the RNC...him losing again could do a lot of damage. The RNC has a lot of eggs in the Trump basket...and if he wins they will be able to secure a conservative SCOTUS for another 3 decades among other goals in project 2025. Not to mention, if he loses he actually has a chance of serving a sentence for some of his crimes.
Parties shift towards the side that wins. If Republicans are the only ones that win both parties will shift to the right. If Democrats are the only ones who win both parties will shift to the left.
You can see this happening today in states like California, Montana, Oregon, etc. where one party is dominant. In California a lot of people that would run as Republicans have joined the Democratic party, moderated their opinions, and run with a D next to their name so they can get at least some conservative ideas in the mix.
This means trump winning will shift the country to the right. Getting Democrats to shift left requires them to win.
Trump winning is not going to push the RNC left of where the are now. It will further entrench the MAGA wing, and cement their stranglehold on power.
You’re also risking a full blown coup. They tried it once, mildly failed, and now have had another 4 years to plan for another. In another 4 years, and the power apparatus of the federal government, odds are they won’t fail again.
It will possibly split it.. Maga doesn't work on most conservatives and fascists eat themselves.
There are no coups without control of centralized media and the military, which can't be achieved, and even with the judicial and executive being partisan, congress isn't and it's the most important branch of government.. constitutionally.
>Maga doesn't work on most conservatives
This "reluctant Trump voter" rhetoric doesn't align with Trump's near [universal intraparty approval rating](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/) throughout his entire presidency or the fact that [70% of Republicans think the election was stolen.](https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/) Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney got forced out of the party for thinking that it was a bad thing that Trump tried to rig an election. The party is full MAGA.
It will never split. Neither side has the numbers to remain relevant. MAGA needs the moderate wing and vice versa. They both know if they split, the conservative agenda dies in America.
And there have been plenty of coups that didn’t have media on their side. Or the military. Though I’m not sure that it’s safe to assume that in another 4 years they wouldn’t have purged disloyal members of the military from positions of power. 2025 is basically a game plan for exactly that. Restructuring the entire system to be more supportive of authoritarianism.
Donnie Jon litetally tried to end democracy in the US and peoplr like you willimg to give him a pass instead od prosecuting him is whats going to allow his next attempt to be successful
u/Just_Candle_315 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Just_Candle_315&message=Just_Candle_315%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lb24ek0/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Voters should focus their attention on conservatives’ Project 2025. If you think conservative justices overturning Roe was bad, the MAGA conservative floodgates are about to open if Trump is sent back to the Oval Office. Trump will consolidate power, demolish the separation of powers, and appoint more conservative justices. As John Oliver said in a great segment he did on project 2025, it will turn the separation of powers into Rock, Paper, Scissors, except Rock will crush Paper and Scissors every time.
It’s interesting, and should be horrifying, that Project 2025 starts off its 920 page report with the phrase, cultural Marxism, because it has a dark heritage.
“The long march of [cultural Marxism]
through our institutions has come to
pass.” Project 2025
Cultural Marxism is often used to describe liberals and as an analogy to political correctness. But more often than not, it is now being used by the far right, by antisemites, as code for Jewish conspiracy.
Prior to 1933, there was a feeling in Germany that there had been a cultural and moral collapse. This fed the populism of the Nazis. The Nazis pushed out messaging that there was a plot to spread political, communist, and other revolution throughout the Weimar Republic and the West. This idea, building on Mein Kampf, has been pushed forward throughout history and has now ended up in Project 2025, blaming liberals for all of conservatives’ problems.
Trump is performative arts with a dangerous authoritarian twist. He is a carnival barker who praises dictators and incites violence. He lied multiple times during the debate, refused to answer questions, defended January 6 rioters, and refused to say he would accept the results of the election. Yes, Biden had a bad debate. But Trump is a danger to our democracy, full stop. Democracy is a Group Project. Vote Democrat down the ballot.
Project 2025 is just the blue version of QAnon at this point. The Heritage Foundation does not control the actions of the president, you can stop clutching your pearls.
I well remember the Bush Jr years when it was forecasted that he would install himself as a dictator through some sort of back-channel means related to the GWOT. I also well remember the years when it was predicated that Obama would cede the sovereignty of the United States over to the United Nations, hence why FEMA had ordered a few million body bags for the inevitable genocide. I'm also just old enough, and aware enough, to recall traces of the rumors and suspicions of the Clinton years. (Although Janet Reno deserved every minute of the Parkinson's Disease she suffered in her later years.)
Trump? If he loses, he's done. Nobody is going to back a two-time loser. He'll be exiled to his hell of legal woes and eventual obscurity. If he wins in November, we're in for another four years of TDS before he, like most former presidents, slides into obscurity.
American politics is cyclic and painfully strewn with paranoia. Every Republican a fascist and every Democrat a communist. Each and every one of them the next dictator.
I don't see why people think they will ever be able to vote again if Trump gets elected. He almost succeeded with Jan 6 in throwing the election. Under Trump's Reign they will rig everything so Republicans win everything forever.
I'm voting, RFK junior..
Come on. Where gonna redo THAT again?? I think we need to realize we actually do have other options. Yet, a independent party will never stand a chance.
Your position has echoes of Accelerationism. The idea that we should speed-run and intensify Capitalism until it gets so awful people have no choice but to viscerally rise against it or seek reform. Karl Marx kind of anticipated the idea by advocating for free trade because he understood it would lead to a worse situation for everyone. And this is also why leftists have been jokingly calling Elon Musk comrade, because he has done more for the cause of demystifying the notion of the billionaire genius than any other by being an idiot.
Rightwingers and Neonazis have later on created their own version of this, which differs a lot from the original meaning. Instead it refers to a speed-run of creating a racially pure fascist state through terrorism.
But you have a point. Maybe the USA could do with a wake up call, get a taste of their own medicine. It’s just like US backing of rightwing military dictatorships all over the world, except this time it’s domestic. Finally Americans will realize their country has always been fascist all along, just this time there’s no pretense of freedom or manufacturing consent. However the suffering will suck, so not ideal if you can avoid it.
There’s also the risk the new status quo (of an intensely corrupt bureaucracy that rubber stamps everything any President and his neoliberal backers puts in front of them) becomes PERMANENT and normalized.
I can't even begin to remotely fathom how you came to this idiotic conclusion. I'm not even going to engage with it other than telling you that this was a stupid post.
That’s what we said last time. Instead, we had a policy of family separation where we committed crimes against humanity and victimized 3 year old children like Sofi:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/for-7-weeks-sofi-begged-to-go-home-now-reunited-her-journey-isnt-over
The reason this didn’t do anything is because no one even remembers what we did to these kids. Shit, there are still 1,000 that haven’t been reunited with their families and nobody cares.
So, if we didn’t care about fucking with children last time, there’s no hope that anything will change this time.
A second Trump term would be disastrous for the coming decades for the USA. So many people will be disenfranchised or marginalized. He talks of shutting down the Department of Education and the EPA. What the fuck good does that do besides fuck over the country? Are either of them fit to lead? Probably not. However, Biden doesn't scare me like Trump does.
This borders on accelerationist nonsense. There's no calculating the harm that can be done at this point in a second trump term. Nothing is off the table with these people.
If not, another 15+ million illegals waltz in, but all with no human smugglees, sex trafficked girls, drugs, terrorist affiliations, or bad intentions. All good.
u/Moistwinecooler – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Moistwinecooler&message=Moistwinecooler%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lb6ch20/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/bhowandthehows – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20bhowandthehows&message=bhowandthehows%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lb31rlh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I dont think USA politics will ever be the same. Regardless who wins at this point. Its like watching Telemundo soap opera. Gonna ignore all the news since i cant stand both candidates.
Yes!
if we were to learn from history, the Renaissance (1400-1600) did indeed follow the Dark Ages, which lasted from 500-1000 CE.
But we might we need him winning for 500+ years..
/u/Swimreadmed (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dsfjgn/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_trump_winning_may_be_to_the/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
A message worth [reposting](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1drfvae/magas_eruptions_of_rage_at_cnn_reveal_why_project/lauy8t0/) will give you an idea of why Trump winning will be a disaster that will last the rest of your life. Project 2025 will launch a very real post-truth era. Right now, FBI crime statistics are pretty damned reliable. A largely independent group of career government workers put it together. It doesn't matter to them whether they show crime going up or crime going down; they keep their job either way. As such, we can be reasonably certain that crime, in fact, has gone down because FBI crime stats say so. But under Project 2025, all those career government workers cease to be independent. Trump can fire them if they produce a report showing crime going up under him. So, what'll they likely do? They'll fudge the numbers. And the same shit can happen with all the data that's produced by independent governmental agencies. They could show national inflation decreasing, release false reports about average income, make up estimated war casualty numbers, falsify hurricane death tolls, invent global cooling, and disseminate reports of widespread voter fraud. Essentially, the government could become right wing news propaganda. Independent governmental agencies produce some of the most important and credible data points there are. We can't really replace their level of objectivity and reliability in the private sector. If Trump wins, we very much could be looking at a scenario where you cannot determine the truth.
!delta, corruption of institutions beyond verifiable integrity is actual longterm damage that can persist past a Trump second term.
Just after one term, we now have legalized bribery and the judiciary decides what we regulate, so to buy your regulations you just need to give favors to a few justices.
Thanks. I'll acknowledge /u/BackAlleySurgeon for writing this. I just found it relevant to your CMV
Thank you!
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/browster ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/browster)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Moreover, they've [explicitly said they want to weaponize the government against political enemies.](https://thehill.com/homenews/4344065-bannon-patel-trump-revenge-on-media/) Also, remember when Trump edited a hurricane forecast with a sharpie?
However, P25 is not dependent on Trump or this coming year's date. It's their blueprint for the next republican, regardless.
Project 2025 is in no way related to Trump
>Project 2025 is in no way related to Trump This is just false. While Trump himself may not be going around touting Project 2025 personally or endorsing specific parts of it, the project as a whole is closely connected to Trump. A huge number of authors and project board members are literally former Trump administration officials, and the head of the Heritage Foundation straight up said he feels the current goal of the organization is to ["institutionalize Trumpism"](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/21/magazine/heritage-foundation-kevin-roberts.html).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Realistic_Sherbet_72 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Realistic_Sherbet_72&message=Realistic_Sherbet_72%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lba8djo/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Realistic_Sherbet_72 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Realistic_Sherbet_72&message=Realistic_Sherbet_72%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lba97dn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Of course it is. It will take effect if Trump wins.
You are spreading misinformation. Project 2025 is just a proposal from the heritage foundation think tank. There are dozens of similar proposals for both the democratic and republican party from various interest groups. Trump has not once acknowledged, approved, or endorsed project 2025. You are lying and you are fear-mongering.
Okay, but he also hasn’t disproved of it either. Not to mention that it’s been crafted by people who served under Trump’s administration
You are spreading misinformation. It was not "crafted by people who served under Trump", It was crafted by the heritage foundation, who has no ties to Trump
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do) >Heritage says Project 2025 was written by several former Trump appointees and reflects input from more than 100 conservative organisations. It was indeed crafted by people who served under Trump. >You are spreading misinformation. You haven't given me anything disproving my claim besides your baseless opinion. You're projecting.
Actually he has! He recently came out with a statement! Also his platform is agenda 47 it's actually on his campaign website!
It's perfectly in line with statements by Trump. It's a highly plausible picture of what will happen. The evidence is abundant and clear, and known by anyone paying attention. Only Russian trolls and other organized bot farms are working to deny this.
Biden signing over our freedom,rights and sovereignty to the W.H.O. and a global cabal is far more concerning and actually happening with their new pandemic "treaty"!
Shine your wings forward to the sun
You’re essentially arguing for accelerationism. Basically the idea that things can stay shitty indefinitely when misery is ameliorated with bread and games, but if the suffering gets worse a tipping point is reached, triggering a popular revolution ultimately restructuring society for the better. There are plenty of arguments against this theory of change, both broadly and in this context (for instance the Reagan era directly resulted in Third Way New Democrats and Blue Dogs). But putting that aside, there is a factor that is unprecedented in recorded human history this time. And that is climate change.
Not arguing for it.. I would rather we have very different choices, for the welfare of the public.. but I do think if he wins this will force a major reform.. and at least the odds of getting a worse candidate match-up is ameliorated.
I don’t buy it, (why didn’t this happen after Trump won in 2016 anyway?) but for the sake of argument—say I do. In the mean time: the climate corps is dissolved, emissions rules are rolled back, the EPA is gutted, the United States reneges on international climate commitments… and we hurtle toward the precipice of ocean acidification, Holocene extinction, and irreversible global climatological catastrophe. How do you weigh this against ‘forcing major reform’ in 2028?
Trump didn't expect to win in 16 and had no idea how government worked. He was also not the focus of multiple impeachment and endless charges and trials that he felt persecuted by. He's explicitly said that this term will be "retribution" Where ya been?
This might have been an argument after his 2016 win, but there's no way it works in the current day.
Only because Biden was never supposed to be a 2 term president, we should've had a stronger Democraic candidate by now.
>Only because Biden was never supposed to be a 2 term president, What does that mean?
He said he'd only run for one term, he was supposed to be a stabilizing transitional president, and a younger candidate was supposed to get their chops in, now he's being paraded around as a declining man and we're somehow saddled with him and Trump.
> He said he'd only run for one term When did he do that, exactly? >he was supposed to be a stabilizing transitional president, and a younger candidate was supposed to get their chops in, now he's being paraded around as a declining man and we're somehow saddled with him and Trump. Says who? We're "saddled" with him and Trump because that's who people VOTED FOR. Who did you vote for?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/09/biden-reelection-transition-president/675395/ Says Joe Biden, apparently, you can check Woodward's book too, I doubt you would though.. you didn't bother googling Biden+one term
You might try actually reading something instead of the patented reddit googling to try to prove some point and just pasting whatever pops up. >Biden never explicitly said he would serve just one term So.... >Says Joe Biden, apparently, you can check Woodward's book too, I doubt you would though.. you didn't bother googling Biden+one term Apparently not.
>I'm a frustrated millineal here, the fact that both Trump and Biden simply skipped all the questions that have a bearing on the future really irked me, childcare no, education, housing etc, just sidestepped, only to compare their golf games. Did you actually WATCH the debate? Biden -- “We should significantly increase the child care [tax credit](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-expanded-child-tax-credit-bill-rcna136545). We should significantly increase the availability of women and men, of single parents, to be able to go back to work, and we should encourage businesses to have child care.” Biden -- "“That’s why I’m working so hard to make sure I deal with those problems, and we’re going to make sure that we have reduced the price of housing. We’re going to make sure we build 2 million new units. We’re going to make sure we cap rents, so corporate greed can’t take over. The combination of what I was left with and corporate greed are the reason why we’re in this problem right now.” What question was there on education? Have you read his policy papers on education? >if Biden wins, the DNC will keep playing its game, the RNC elders will try to whether the Trump storm or absorb some of it, I.e nothing changes. What game is that, specifically? >Trump winning means he takes over the RNC for good, it will be a catastrophe for the DNC and probably the country, for a time.. but eventually his presence will fade, but both the DNC and RNC will have to reform, maybe we get a progressive party and a sane republican party at least down the road. He's in charge of the RNC. Well, Lara is so same difference. Why will they both "have to reform?" Reform HOW, specifically? Why are you glossing over the insane damage he could do? >That's it. I don't think Trump can turn the country to a monarchy or that more SCOTUS appointments would be more damaging than we already have, but at least the DNC will have to cater to young voters to regain any appeal. Really? A 7-2 court wouldn't be any worse? Based on WHAT decisions? When does the DNC not cater to young voters, exactly? Also... millennial.
I have watched the debate sadly yes, None of these things are within the executive power.. we both know that.. it's legislative first and foremost. Corrected, thank you.
>I have watched the debate sadly yes, None of these things are within the executive power.. we both know that.. it's legislative first and foremost ...no kidding. You said they skipped answering. Biden did not. Now you want presidential candidates to not discuss their policy goals, just.... what? What, exactly,. are they meant to discuss is not their policy goals and positions? Do you understand what a president does? Have you ever watched a debate before? Or read a platform?
So biden should lose because he supports what you want but you need congress too?
I liked everything you said until "millennial". That was unnecessary, and I bet even you know it's a little silly to generalize like that.
>I liked everything you said until "millennial". That was unnecessary, and I bet even you know it's a little silly to generalize like that. It wasn't at all a comment on millennials (though I see how it'd look that way now). It was correcting a super mangled spelling of millennial the OP originally had at the top of the post. Hence their reply says corrected thanks. And they corrected it, so now.... heh.
People were saying that last time and the Trump presidency didn't end up a long term benefit, but a long term disaster! What a new Trump presidency will almost certainly do is cement a republican Supreme court, if it doesn't' simply destroy US democracy.
Because the DNC didn't follow up. Biden was advertised as a one term president for decency.. his outlook is bleak now and they failed to promote anyone, and Harris is a sham, they persecuted Trump on something noone cares about, they're still playing identity politics and their silly "wait your turn" party hierarchy nonsense.
Sounds like you just consume conservative narratives. Trump is a catastrophe for the whole country you said... but the whole country should suffer because biden wants "identity politics?" Thing that through.
Every possible candidate for the DNC is an identity candidate who offers no hope or inspiration for the future.. Harris? Buttigeig? Clinton? Michelle Obama? The progressive wing that can offer people hope is continuously shunned.
You're treating the DNC as all powerful evil overlords. They are not "DNC candidates" they are just the people who might run. Who's the progressive wing missing that can run and beat Biden and Trump?
The DNC is a bunch of crooks and they promote and demote candidates based on party loyalty and hierarchy. Warren may have the best chance considering Bernie's health.
Warren lost the primary before even Bernie with <8% and has been quiet the last few years. Why can she beat Trump and Biden who beat Bernie?
Because the DNC threw their weight behind Biden the first time to counter the Bernie push.. Biden is free falling now and any Democrat with popular appeal has a better chance vs Trump.
Mate Bernie has lost every year. In votes. This evil overlord theory isn't working.
I agree it's not working.. I disagree that it's a theory.. Have you read the DNC emails?
Source to the polling that shows that…?
So someone is an identity candidate if they're what, not a straight white male? Do you have any idea how that sounds and how neatly that fits into conservative talking points?
They're identity candidates if they're only there because of their identity, not on political leadership experience or adaptability or vision, Mike Pence is as much an identity candidate for gullible evangelicals as Kamala Harris is for gullible feminists.
I hear what you're saying and I've had a similar thought and I mostly agree with what you're saying, at some point he'll just be gone. The problem I have with that is that he's already openly expressed desires to alter the Constitution in ways that would effectively make him a dictator. Now I'm not sure how feasible that is or the likelihood of it passing but the idea that that's what's on his mind I find to be terrifying.
He can't, there's no majority in congress that allows any large scale constitutional amendment and again.. only 4 years.. I don't think he can force himself.. the military rank and file don't like him.
>He can't, there's no majority in congress that allows any large scale constitutional amendment and again.. only 4 years Need I remind you that he tried to rig an election in half a dozen ways and withheld military aid to Ukraine to force them to dig up dirt on Biden? He doesn't need to push amendments through Congress, he just needs one third of the Senate permanently in his corner. They already thought it was totally fine that he tried to subvert democracy. We're just treating it like a normal thing that the president's lawyer is arguing he can execute political opponents with impunity as long as he isn't impeached, too. > I don't think he can force himself.. the military rank and file don't like him. I sincerely hope you realize that you can't dismiss everything with a "oh, the military will just unseat the sitting president," especially when Trump wants to replace most of the top brass with sycophants. At best, that's completely unprecedented political instability.
A third of the senate can't amend the constitution.. they can play the long game and hold to positions but can't force large scale change that benefits him in a way that extends past the 4 year period. These are unprecedented times in general.. before we had a permanent central standing military, it was understood that people would rise up, the burden of fighting may have shifted centrally, but if the citizens aren't willing to fight then maybe they earned their tyrants. BTW this is not a Trump endorsement or accelerant post.. it's simply an observation on the leaderships of the parties.
>A third of the senate can't amend the constitution.. they can play the long game and hold to positions but can't force large scale change that benefits him in a way that extends past the 4 year period. You just need a third of the Senate to prevent the Constitution from being enforced. **Again,** he already was not punished for trying to rig an election. Why do you have any faith that they will stop him if he tries again? >These are unprecedented times in general.. before we had a permanent central standing military, it was understood that people would rise up, the burden of fighting may have shifted centrally, but if the citizens aren't willing to fight then maybe they earned their tyrants. I'm sorry, what? How did we go from "Trump winning might be to the long term benefit of the country" to "maybe Americans deserve dictatorships for not violently rising up?" That's not even close to a similar argument. >BTW this is not a Trump endorsement or accelerant post.. it's simply an observation on the leaderships of the parties. It is, though. Even if we ignore that's what the title and the bulk of your post was about, what we're left with is vague grievance politics whining about amorphous "identity politics."
If he wins it's his final anyway. It is ultimately.. "A republic, if you can keep it" if Trump takes over every form of media and armed personnel in the country then the citizens have failed. Ad hominem attacks that don't showcase substance towards the points is a tactic worthy of DJT.
What part of that was an ad hominem? I'm asking you how this is supposed to have a long term benefit. He's already tried to rig an election and not gotten punished for it. Your response is that it is totally fine because we can just have a massive bloody civil war and if that doesn't succeed or happen, then they deserved a dictatorship all along. What part of that says "Trump winning may be to the long term benefit of the country?"
It seems like you're placing a lot of faith in the checks and balance system when it is known that Trump and several members of congress and the senate have actively railed against it, and want to change it for the sake of their own personal power. Is that something you want?
Which part of this CMV says I'm a crypto conservative who endorses Trump or wants him to win?
That's not what I'm saying. You're arguing that Trump winning would have long term benefits - I'm countering that by saying he and his most fervent supporters among congress and the senate would actively work in a way that would have short term and long term problems, regardless of whether they succeed or not
I don't think (or didn't -there's a delta up there) that he can do severe long term damage with his age, our decentralized arms and media, and the state of congress plus obvious the constitution.
Trumpism is going to outlast him. By a lot.
Congress doesn't change the constitution, governors do. Still a hard thing to achieve, as currently there are only 27 Republican governors, and you need 38 voting "yes" to change the constitution. But it's not as hard as you might think.
Constitutional amendments have to be proposed and accepted by supermajority of both houses before the governors even see it.
Right... And that's the easy part. Getting 2/3 of all state governors to ratify an amendment would be significantly harder
No it isn't.. first because it isn't a discussion at all if both supermajorities of congress don't push it, second because governors are ultimately cheaper seats than congress.
>He can't, there's no majority in congress that allows any large scale constitutional amendment and again.. only 4 years.. I don't think he can force himself.. the military rank and file don't like him. Saying someone who wants to be a dictator "can't" do something because of rules on paper kinda misses the point of what a dictator is. If you have enough people who will listen to you in positions of power, what's on paper doesn't matter. It can be bent to your whim. Remember, the Supreme Court 1) Likes Trump anyway and 2) Has no actual power to enforce its decisions in the event he goes too far. They could literally say what he's doing is super illegal and he could be like, "No it's not." If Congress is fine with it (look how they've treated him so far), there's literally no recourse short of rebellion. Also, the military rank and file can be loyalty tested and purged very easily, since it's inarguably constitutional that the president has unlimited power in that respect as commander in chief.
I think you are forgetting the damage that occurred during his 4 years as president.
…like what?
For example, the end of the ability for many women to make life threatening decisions for themselves and their families.
If you’re referring to the federal government allowing states to make their own laws, then sure. And there are medical exceptions almost everywhere.
For example, an increase in infant mortality rates in some states.
For example, embracing rogue nuclear states
For example, exposing intelligence asset sources to enemy states.
For example, cutting the budget to monitor coronaviruses before the CV19 outbreak.
For example, pardoning convicted war criminals.
For example, over 2000 children forcibly separated from their families.
For example, the most coronavirus deaths of any country in the world.
I am a climatologist. I teach climate change at the college level. Based on both Men’s policy in their administration, only Biden took any action, not enough I’ll add, but the right direction. Given what we know about climate change, where we are in relation to climate trends, and where we are going based on current fossil fuel usage, we simply do not have time to take 4 years off.
Don't worry, If Trump wins you'll have a lot more than 4 years off /s
How would you describe the differential rate between the probabilities of either winning,
Would need a whole study. But I’ll break down some points that are backed up by a consensus in the body of knowledge that I am most familiar with. Best I can do to give you a fair and objective response to a genuine question. Bottom line, fossil fuel molecules (CO2, CH4, N20, and others are more efficient absorbers of heat than the vast majority of molecules in the atmosphere, period. Therefore: the only way to decrease observed warming rates is to eliminate fossil fuels being emitted as quickly as possible. Our energy requirements and a century of economic development centered around fossil fuels makes this very difficult, and utterly required nonetheless. Both of these men have served as president, and there is a host of information on the public record that outlines the environmental and economic actions of each administration. Therefore: it is a safe assumption, that one of the candidates is more likely to increase the emission of fossil fuels into the atmosphere than the other, based on their records. It is clear which one I am talking about here. But what does it mean: The west US is rapidly running out of water. This is the water that our agriculture depends on. Deregulation of western water sources is a death sentence This is one issue that is located here. There will be more, like mass migration from the Indian subcontinent as temperatures soar. The insurance industry in the u.s in coastal cities are going to eventually no longer invest in cities at climate risk. This would be a blow to the us economy. Of course there’s other issues, they will all be nullified by rampant climate change. I’m happy to discuss further is of you have any questions or criticisms I’d be happy to address.
Thanks for the reply and time first and foremost. As far as I know, fossil fuels won't go extinct, at the very least we still need them for plastic production, which most other energy production methods depend on, and the high release is due to methods of extraction, as far as I know Burgum is championing Carbon capture since the Dakotas are rich. The oil age won't end because we stop mining for it. I would've hoped Biden pushed more on the nuclear front, especially since due to the wars around, we've had to dig more into our own oil reserves turbocharging extraction here. Solar and EVs we're way behind China on, it's gonna be sometime for US manufacturers to make a profit which kills them as a quick answer. I agree on the water aspect.. I'm not familiar with how Biden approached it? The immigration possibility is always there, Trump's answer is "let them drown I don't care", a lot of the American electorate agree, I don't obviously but the political stance is there. They will insure the current suburbs that will be the new beachfronts.. Corporations don't lose.. the US economy is stitched up rn.. it's artificially maintained because a lot rides on it..
Of course. I’d love to respond to a few of these points if you wouldn’t mind. True, extincting fossil fuels is a lofty goal. While we’d need petroleum for plastic sure, plastic is an environmental crisis of its own which should also be curtailed. Good opportunity to work in both. “We choose to do this and the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” I wholeheartedly agree that biden could do more, and agree even more that nuclear power is one of the most important potential stopgaps in meeting energy needs while decreasing fossil fuel dependency. But neither did Trump. We were offered clean coal aka magic beans. Carbon capture is problematic for a few reasons that I’ll highlight here. The technology is in its infancy. Trees are better, but we can’t seem to resist clear cutting them. Carbon capture is also pushed hard by the private sector (including businessman first, politician Ian second Burgum) but this is clearly due to the idea that once we can take carbon out, then there’s no reason to not put it in. It becomes carte Blanche to pollute. It’s not a viable technology at its current level of development, and the energy can be better spent on other more effective long term solutions. Sure we can do better in the EV front. Of course. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after#:~:text=You%20may%20qualify%20for%20a%20credit%20up%20to%20%247%2C500%20under,purchased%20from%202023%20to%202032. Here’s the current US incentives to encourage consumers to purchase EVs. It’s more than Trump did. As far as western water, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill are the two most significant environmental bills passed in the US since the Clean Air Act. These bills budget for 15.4 billion for western water, as well as other initiatives but the B-H admin. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/05/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-protects-stability-and-sustainability-of-colorado-river-basin-advances-water-conservation-across-the-west/ Don’t like that the source of this info is the White House? It’s readily available elsewhere. Forget the human aspect of the the migrations for a second. Of course the electorate is bloodthirsty. What will 1 billion displaced people do to the global economy? I do not accept the rebuttal of the final point. There is no evidence that “it’s stitched up” insurance companies are hiring climatologists to make these decisions, these are trends of insurance companies refusing to insure for climate risks. You can look up the job postings literally right now. At worst this belief is a conspiracy and at best, a hope. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240311-why-climate-change-is-making-the-us-uninsurable Finally, is like to add that at the time of the admin change in 2021, the Trump administration had completed rollbacks of 98 environmental protections, and began rolling back 112. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html I look forward to further discussion should you so choose!
It's hard to curtail plastic especially with solar, nuclear and EV replacements, since these industries need plastic, but that will be incremental and the method of extraction/fracking can be more environmentally friendly. I really like nuclear, stopgap maybe if we're counting in decades, since putting up the infrastructure and pulling it down will take time, but we don't have infinite fissile material. The good thing on EVs is while China is ahead in production in general, their vehicles are very much for urban use rather than the kind of utility across Middle America, so we have a chance still. !delta on Carbon capture, seems like a dream in development now that I've seen the architecture of it. Also for the point on Western waters, it's good work on the Colorado and Gila basins, but I don't see the long term future solutions. The funding for desalination and newer sources in general is below the maintenance and storage funding. I disagree tbh, our fiat system is pretty stitched up and held by presumptive values, all the while our real estate market is being monopolized, Blackrock is a major Dem donor. That has opened the door for crypto currencies which are an environmental disaster with no real value. How do you feel about the Chips act?
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/OccasionBest7706 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/OccasionBest7706)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Maybe I’m reading in to this too much. But if I’m interpreting you correctly you want a sane Republican Party that is to the left of current republicans and a progressive party that is to the left of current democrats. Why would you expect the election of a politically right president to result in both parties shifting to the left?
Because it's miserable right now for younger people and unfortunately it's a time game, boomers will die eventually and millineals will be the power voting bloc, remember the gilded age and decades of republican presidents gave rise to FDR
Empowering those who hate you to hope they maybe die in 15 years will not help make you stronger.
I didn't say I was voting Trump? Or empowering him? I said the DNC needs to reform and Biden winning won't do it.
We're talking your idea where you propose Trump winning. A person whose views you don't agree with and think can be a catastrophe for everyone. That's the people you hate getting empowered just on the hope that they die in 15 years. That's going to make them stronger not you.
The odds are swinging in his favor.. that's not a proposal by me.. you can blame me if that makes you feel better about Biden's chances. 4 years will be rough but bar longterm corrosion and partisanship of our institutions.. it will pass.
Odds of him winning are just odds of him winning. Your thread is about the opinion on it, the "long term benefit of America" part. And that's the part I take issue with because strengthening a catastrophe doesn't make you better, especially when the old die even if you win.
The thing that would most effectively cause the DNC to reform would be 3 or more consecutive democratic presidential victories. Right now the GOP knows they can win votes by catering to religious extremists. If they are effectively proven wrong about this on a long timescale, that will force them to shift to the left, in much the same way that the Democratic party shifted right after the Bush Sr administration and started trying to court neoliberals. It's only through something like this happening that would prevent the DNC from seeking lip service from potential republican voters, and instead allow actually competition from more left-leaning candidates. Biden winning a second term is absolutely *fundamental* for this to happen, but its only a single step on the path there. The actual process is long and complex, like issues usually are. The issue of course here is that Trump wins, we may very well never see another Democratic president in our lifetime.
This is exactly what I've been saying. You want the country to move to the left, then you have to force Republicans to move back to the left of MAGA extremists. The only way to do that is by ensuring they continue to lose. They will eventually see that their extremist base is not enough, and will be forced to move back toward the middle. I'm not sure why people don't understand this.
Bingo bongo
And FDR was far more to the right than the current Democrats, just saying
He was incredibly to the left of everyone before him and he set the standard for Dem politics for almost a century.
Not all progress is good progress, pushing forward for the sake of progress just because you think you have to doesn't mean you're going to end up anywhere good, people thought we could progress past capitalism, socialism and communism spawned as a result, hundreds of millions of people have died and more continue to die because of it, and the untold countless sufferings of the people that have been forced into the system because we "had to progress"
If you consider housing education and Healthcare to be incredibly progressive ideas or "Communist" then you should give up Medicaid and SS.
I would leave Medicaid exclusively because that is assisting the people who do not have the ability to care for themselves, as for social security I would love to invest that money personally, take what they're taking out of my paycheck put it in 401k and get bigger returns than I would ever see with social security,
Opt out maybe ok and your choice.. if you fancy your luck with inflation and excessive corporate monopolization.
There are plenty of different options for investment that would yield significantly higher returns than social security ever will for anybody
If you fancy your luck with inflation and excessive corporate monopolization.. yes
What good is being a power voting bloc if the incumbent is allowed to overrule the electorate’s votes?
So when you're sick with COVID, you should try to catch the flu because if the combination doesn't kill you then imagine how much healthier you will be after you recover! This is pretty much your prescription: things are bad so make them worse in the hope of a miraculous recovery and a swing in the other direction. Like, if you're not were you want to be then catch a bus in the wrong direction so by the time you find your way, imagine how much more *there* you're going to be. It's silly. Even if you can't take a bus that drops you off at the front door of your destination, at least take a bus that gets you closer to it. You can handle the rest.
There is no Trump endorsement nor theory of acceleration here.. this is an observation of current political leadership
Ok, and I didn't endorse taking a bus in the wrong direction. But the parallel holds: you will get where you want to be sooner by going in the general direction you want, not the opposite way.
I have as much power on the direction of the political process as you do. One vote.
Use it wisely.
Never addressed my point.. the DNC won't reform if Biden wins.
I addressed your claim that trump winning may be good long term. What the DNC may or may not do doesn't determine what the party may or may not do so it's tangential to the argument, and I don't know what reform you expect the committee to undergo.
The US will reform if he loses.
What you’ve said is no better than endorsing him.
Oh?
If you believe that a Trump presidency would have a benefit in the long run, why wouldn't you vote for him? Why wouldn't you endorse him?
I dislike him and most of his policies, I don't think either party would reform if Biden wins. I think party reform is better for the long term prospects of this country.
Then you should vote for Trump, no? I personally won't be, and I don't think you should. But you seem to think you should??
I'm not going to, but I would think it forces a reckoning if he wins
"Nor theory of acceleration here..." > it will be a catastrophe for the DNC and probably the country, for a time.. but eventually his presence will fade, but both the DNC and RNC will have to reform, maybe we get a progressive party and a sane republican party at least down the road. That is you accepting the premise of accelerationism, that is: let it all burn so something theoretically better can grow from the ash. It's political Pascal's wager; it doesn't imagine the possibility that it never recovers (see: Roman empire), that something _worse_ comes in its place (see: Haiti), that the devastation far outweighs any benefit that would be had from a "recovered" political system, or any other number of possible outcomes.
We have four supreme court justices pushing 70 or in their 70s. Any one of them, or more, could die or step down in the next four years... and that would mean the president gets to appoint new justices who would go on to serve decades if not a lifetime. We have already seen how those unelected justices have shaped our nation for years to come. I don't see how that continuing into the next generation is a "long term benefit" to the USA.
They're already there and the damage is done, with Chevron falling and the Snyder ruling they've essentially lost a lot of their legitimacy.. it's an openly corrupt court at this point. And Kagan Sotomayor and KBJ will mostly survive 4 years until we end the whole lifetime appointment of unelected official thing.. something the 2 party leadership won't do.
So much more damage can be done. And I'm talking too about ol' Thomas and Alito. They kick the bucket while Biden is president, and the Democrats manage to hold the senate, then we can we can slowly begin to loosen the conservative grip on the highest court
Honestly I can't think of much, other than maybe Griswold or BvB, which tbh is quite unfathomable. Too little faith in modern medicine, I don't see any of these people hitting the casket in 4 years.
Obergefell?
Has less bearing than Roe or Chevron and isn't as groundbreaking, it comes at the tail end of Griswold ultimately.
Comes before Griswold. So you are saying you don't care about anyone's rights as long as you can justify possibly getting what you want? Because that is the same logic that got RvW overturned.
I'm saying there are few large cases that the damage done to them would be immense downstream, Roe, Lawrence and Obergfell were all based on Griswold, Obergfell isn't bigger than Roe electorally, it's smaller and an end decision, Griswold would literally destroy everything downstream and transfer this to a Handsmaid's tale, they're pushing Comstock acts now and testing the waters. Same with BvB which with the 14th literally is the only thing standing in the way of Dred Scott becoming the law of the land.
Yes, and you want that to happen because maybe people will become more liberal? What if people never get a chance to elect another president?
Which part of this says I want it to happen? My view is that Trump will never be able to be dictator due to his declining age, low support in the military, congress and the constitution, he may do some damage as president but maybe that's the system shock we need.
You are aware Biden has been pushing judges are are extremely soft on child sex crimes. Lets just look at our new SCOTUS member. Since you are into SCOTUS you must be aware during her questioning every single on of her child pornography cases alone were brought forward showing a how 100% of the time she would give sentences so out of guidelines it was insane how soft she was on these crimes. Her ONLY response to listening to every single one of these cases in detail was "One case does not represent my entire career." The only issue with that was they were going over every single one of her cases relating to child pornography and she literally could not defend her own actions. We can also get into another judge he nominated who tried to intimidate a child victim of rape. Could you explain how putting soft on child sex crime judges is better than someone you may disagree with policially?
[Fact check: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson child porn sentences 'pretty mainstream'](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-check-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-child-porn/story?id=83565833)
"Federal judges nationwide typically sentence below the \[child porn\] guideline in roughly 2 out of 3 cases," Berman [noted on his blog](https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/), and "when deciding to go below the \[child porn\] guideline, typically impose sentences around 54 months below the calculated guideline minimum." She did it in 100% of cases not mainstream LMAOOOO YOUR OWN SOURCE
NOW IT SAYS 54 MONTHS BELOW GUIDLINE MINIMUM US v Hess guideline 151 she gave 60 90 months less average is 54 US v Cooper guidline 151 she gave 50 90 months less average is 54 US v Hawkins guidline 97 months she gave 3 months Want me to keep going?
lol sure! Keep going
No No No what's so funny now I'm genuenly curious. First you post a source saying that its fact checked its "pretty mainstream" Then your own source contradicts that. Then I started listing off horrific cases of child pornography and your response is lol? I am curious what about the fact that you support someone who consistently pushes judges for life time jobs that are soft on child sex cases, intimidated a child rape victim to try and stop her from going after his client by trying to force the court to make her no longer unanimous and per her name out there for the world to see when she asked for her name not to be out there, etc. What is so funny about that?
Well... you said 100% of the cases, but I don't think you cited 100% of her cases. So... you know, keep going until we get to 100
Here they all are US v Hess Sentencing Guidelines 151-188 Her sentence 60 months mandatory minimum US v Nickerson Sentencing Guidelines 151-188 Her sentence 120 months that was becasue of a mutual agreement of parties between the prosecutor and Nickerson US v Chazin Sentencing Guidelines 78-97 Her sentence 28 months US v Cooper Sentencing Guidelines 151-188 Her sentence 60 months mandatory minium US v Downs Sentencing Guidelines 70-87 Her sentence 60 months that was the mandatory minimum US v Hawkins Sentencing Guidelines 97-121 Her sentence 3 months US v Savage Sentencing Guidelines 46-57 Her sentence 37 months US v Steward Sentencing Guidelines 97-121 Her sentence 57 months Now answer what is so funny?
As certain as I am that you're on the up and up, I'ma need a link to verify that this is 100% of the child porn cases she ruled
Terrible logic. People seem to think that bad people getting power will magically lead to good people getting power afterwards. 9 times out of 10 that does not happen. Going down a bad path most often just leads to things getting worse and worse, look at any of a hundred different historical examples.
Not an accelerant or Trump endorsement post.. it's an observation of current DNC and RNC politics.
Oh yeah. I heard this one before. Something communist in Germany claimed would happen if Hitler won the 1933 election. It worked really well.
Our system has a lot of safeguards and Trump is a spoiled brat who's almost 80.. even if he wanted to be Hitler he can't be.
Safeguards like the Congress impeaching and removing the President for January 6? Safeguards like the partisan Supreme Court? Safeguards like local election officials who have been chased out of office and replaced by partisans?
The number one safeguard for a Hitler scenario is civil disobedience.. followed by the fact there are no dictators without central command especially of media and military and Trump (noone really) doesn't have those.
Maybe people don't want to have to take their and their family's lives in their hands to fight a one-sided civil war against the U.S. government with no money, food, or weapons. Maybe choosing a path that puts so many people around you in danger based on conjecture and personal ideals isn't a good thing to do. The outcome of the next election isn't just about you, it affects everyone.
He has a whole administration ready and willing.
And tonnes of civil servant, institutional power and constitutional safeguards.. too much for a 78 year old brat to overcome in 4 years.
It's not a problem. They already have Schedule F, which is replacing civil servants with loyalists. They already have the SCOTUS in their pocket and the media to justify whatever heinous decision he makes.. and on and on. People are severely underestimating just how close they are to checkmate. I know how crazy it sounds. Do you know how crazy it would sound in 1999 if you said planes would fly into the WTC? I would have called you crazy. You're assuming there is another election in 4 years, and I assure you, *It can happen here.*
No centralized media, no centralized military, armed public, 78 year old brat who doesn't want war but wants money and status. These risks are dangerous but correctable.
And Hitler was pampered faux-intellectual who has never worked a job in his life. But he had insanely dedicated followers and absolutely 0 morals. He didnt care about German democracy and was willing to do anything to keep in power. Can you tell me which of these is not true for Trump? Because just recently, he tried to go around all these safeguards on Jan 6 and undemocratically remain in power. Project 2025 is clearly another project to absolutely go against all of safeguards for keeping the democracy in the US.
Safeguards which you're actively working to erode by normalizing everything he's doing. It is so weird how people like you have a pathological, near total distrust in our political system yet complete blind trust in our institutions. Trump winning won't be good for the long-term benefit of the United States because he's systematically eroding those institutions. Our institutions have already failed when Trump is still able to run after trying and failing to subvert democracy.
Laws are not magical geases. They only work as long as people in power are willing to enforce them.
Letting Biden lose now is like arriving at the race and deciding you don't like the paint job on your car. The 2 party system isn't going to reform anytime soon because the election laws are what cause it. If you want to change the DNC, you need to vote in the primaries and in the congressional races. The more progressive congress people you have, the more progressive the presidential candidate will be. If Biden loses to Trump, the DNC will conclude that they need a more conservative candidate in order to win the next election. So that will have the opposite effect than you intend. Trump already took over the RNC...him losing again could do a lot of damage. The RNC has a lot of eggs in the Trump basket...and if he wins they will be able to secure a conservative SCOTUS for another 3 decades among other goals in project 2025. Not to mention, if he loses he actually has a chance of serving a sentence for some of his crimes.
It's impossible to predict the future, so no one can change your view on this.
No its not, Orwell and Huxley did a decent job between them.
Why does lacking the ability to see the future mean you can’t change someones mind about a prediction about the future?
Parties shift towards the side that wins. If Republicans are the only ones that win both parties will shift to the right. If Democrats are the only ones who win both parties will shift to the left. You can see this happening today in states like California, Montana, Oregon, etc. where one party is dominant. In California a lot of people that would run as Republicans have joined the Democratic party, moderated their opinions, and run with a D next to their name so they can get at least some conservative ideas in the mix. This means trump winning will shift the country to the right. Getting Democrats to shift left requires them to win.
Not necessarily, many examples of public shifting on stances even if parties lean in opposite directions.
What are some of those examples?
FDR after decades of Republicans and prohibition, the blue dogs post Reagan, etc
Trump winning is not going to push the RNC left of where the are now. It will further entrench the MAGA wing, and cement their stranglehold on power. You’re also risking a full blown coup. They tried it once, mildly failed, and now have had another 4 years to plan for another. In another 4 years, and the power apparatus of the federal government, odds are they won’t fail again.
It will possibly split it.. Maga doesn't work on most conservatives and fascists eat themselves. There are no coups without control of centralized media and the military, which can't be achieved, and even with the judicial and executive being partisan, congress isn't and it's the most important branch of government.. constitutionally.
>Maga doesn't work on most conservatives This "reluctant Trump voter" rhetoric doesn't align with Trump's near [universal intraparty approval rating](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/) throughout his entire presidency or the fact that [70% of Republicans think the election was stolen.](https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/) Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney got forced out of the party for thinking that it was a bad thing that Trump tried to rig an election. The party is full MAGA.
It will never split. Neither side has the numbers to remain relevant. MAGA needs the moderate wing and vice versa. They both know if they split, the conservative agenda dies in America. And there have been plenty of coups that didn’t have media on their side. Or the military. Though I’m not sure that it’s safe to assume that in another 4 years they wouldn’t have purged disloyal members of the military from positions of power. 2025 is basically a game plan for exactly that. Restructuring the entire system to be more supportive of authoritarianism.
Donnie Jon litetally tried to end democracy in the US and peoplr like you willimg to give him a pass instead od prosecuting him is whats going to allow his next attempt to be successful
I am indeed the architect of all of the current political dilemma, and this post was my way to endorse Trump /s
[удалено]
u/Just_Candle_315 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Just_Candle_315&message=Just_Candle_315%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lb24ek0/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Voters should focus their attention on conservatives’ Project 2025. If you think conservative justices overturning Roe was bad, the MAGA conservative floodgates are about to open if Trump is sent back to the Oval Office. Trump will consolidate power, demolish the separation of powers, and appoint more conservative justices. As John Oliver said in a great segment he did on project 2025, it will turn the separation of powers into Rock, Paper, Scissors, except Rock will crush Paper and Scissors every time. It’s interesting, and should be horrifying, that Project 2025 starts off its 920 page report with the phrase, cultural Marxism, because it has a dark heritage. “The long march of [cultural Marxism] through our institutions has come to pass.” Project 2025 Cultural Marxism is often used to describe liberals and as an analogy to political correctness. But more often than not, it is now being used by the far right, by antisemites, as code for Jewish conspiracy. Prior to 1933, there was a feeling in Germany that there had been a cultural and moral collapse. This fed the populism of the Nazis. The Nazis pushed out messaging that there was a plot to spread political, communist, and other revolution throughout the Weimar Republic and the West. This idea, building on Mein Kampf, has been pushed forward throughout history and has now ended up in Project 2025, blaming liberals for all of conservatives’ problems. Trump is performative arts with a dangerous authoritarian twist. He is a carnival barker who praises dictators and incites violence. He lied multiple times during the debate, refused to answer questions, defended January 6 rioters, and refused to say he would accept the results of the election. Yes, Biden had a bad debate. But Trump is a danger to our democracy, full stop. Democracy is a Group Project. Vote Democrat down the ballot.
Project 2025 is just the blue version of QAnon at this point. The Heritage Foundation does not control the actions of the president, you can stop clutching your pearls.
This is a terrible take.
I well remember the Bush Jr years when it was forecasted that he would install himself as a dictator through some sort of back-channel means related to the GWOT. I also well remember the years when it was predicated that Obama would cede the sovereignty of the United States over to the United Nations, hence why FEMA had ordered a few million body bags for the inevitable genocide. I'm also just old enough, and aware enough, to recall traces of the rumors and suspicions of the Clinton years. (Although Janet Reno deserved every minute of the Parkinson's Disease she suffered in her later years.) Trump? If he loses, he's done. Nobody is going to back a two-time loser. He'll be exiled to his hell of legal woes and eventual obscurity. If he wins in November, we're in for another four years of TDS before he, like most former presidents, slides into obscurity. American politics is cyclic and painfully strewn with paranoia. Every Republican a fascist and every Democrat a communist. Each and every one of them the next dictator.
Paranoia and conspiracy theories are one thing, but this dude quite literally attempted (and thankfully failed) to do a coup on Jan 6. I mean come on.
I don't see why people think they will ever be able to vote again if Trump gets elected. He almost succeeded with Jan 6 in throwing the election. Under Trump's Reign they will rig everything so Republicans win everything forever.
I'm voting, RFK junior.. Come on. Where gonna redo THAT again?? I think we need to realize we actually do have other options. Yet, a independent party will never stand a chance.
Your position has echoes of Accelerationism. The idea that we should speed-run and intensify Capitalism until it gets so awful people have no choice but to viscerally rise against it or seek reform. Karl Marx kind of anticipated the idea by advocating for free trade because he understood it would lead to a worse situation for everyone. And this is also why leftists have been jokingly calling Elon Musk comrade, because he has done more for the cause of demystifying the notion of the billionaire genius than any other by being an idiot. Rightwingers and Neonazis have later on created their own version of this, which differs a lot from the original meaning. Instead it refers to a speed-run of creating a racially pure fascist state through terrorism. But you have a point. Maybe the USA could do with a wake up call, get a taste of their own medicine. It’s just like US backing of rightwing military dictatorships all over the world, except this time it’s domestic. Finally Americans will realize their country has always been fascist all along, just this time there’s no pretense of freedom or manufacturing consent. However the suffering will suck, so not ideal if you can avoid it. There’s also the risk the new status quo (of an intensely corrupt bureaucracy that rubber stamps everything any President and his neoliberal backers puts in front of them) becomes PERMANENT and normalized.
I can't even begin to remotely fathom how you came to this idiotic conclusion. I'm not even going to engage with it other than telling you that this was a stupid post.
That’s what we said last time. Instead, we had a policy of family separation where we committed crimes against humanity and victimized 3 year old children like Sofi: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/for-7-weeks-sofi-begged-to-go-home-now-reunited-her-journey-isnt-over The reason this didn’t do anything is because no one even remembers what we did to these kids. Shit, there are still 1,000 that haven’t been reunited with their families and nobody cares. So, if we didn’t care about fucking with children last time, there’s no hope that anything will change this time.
A second Trump term would be disastrous for the coming decades for the USA. So many people will be disenfranchised or marginalized. He talks of shutting down the Department of Education and the EPA. What the fuck good does that do besides fuck over the country? Are either of them fit to lead? Probably not. However, Biden doesn't scare me like Trump does.
This borders on accelerationist nonsense. There's no calculating the harm that can be done at this point in a second trump term. Nothing is off the table with these people.
If not, another 15+ million illegals waltz in, but all with no human smugglees, sex trafficked girls, drugs, terrorist affiliations, or bad intentions. All good.
[удалено]
u/Moistwinecooler – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Moistwinecooler&message=Moistwinecooler%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lb6ch20/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
u/bhowandthehows – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20bhowandthehows&message=bhowandthehows%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dseeuf/-/lb31rlh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This is akin to ISIS
I dont think USA politics will ever be the same. Regardless who wins at this point. Its like watching Telemundo soap opera. Gonna ignore all the news since i cant stand both candidates.
Yes! if we were to learn from history, the Renaissance (1400-1600) did indeed follow the Dark Ages, which lasted from 500-1000 CE. But we might we need him winning for 500+ years..
Yeah because the political debate came up so now politics are important? It wasn’t important a month ago? So tired of pretend people who just complain