www.politico.com
Trump challenged the election in court. He further spoke often about how the election was stolen. Both are legitimate in a strong democracy like ours. Both damaged and probably destroyed any positive legacy he had. His conduct was terribly illadvised. I don’t think either damaged the country. On the list of things that public officials do to damage the country, such as legalized corruption and recent congressional antics, Trump’s post election conduct is way down that list.
There's much speculation that the statement (below) by all the living Defense secretaries was the reason the Trump administration didn't proceed with this reprehensible plan.Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines
The Jan. 6 select panel has obtained the draft order and a document titled "Remarks on National Healing." Both are reported here in detail for the first time.
Normal people acting like this is no big deal really blow my damn mind.
I have never trusted Trump... he's too reactionary and does things in the heat of the moment without thinking... or that is the way I see him.
What gets me is how his hardcore supporters will support him yet if I treated those same supporters the way he treats people they would think I was a horse's butt...and they would be correct. However, there is a difference in liking the person and liking his policies but a lot of people can't make that distinction. They are more interested in public perception than policies. Trump is a horse's butt everywhere so there's no being nice in public and then a horse's butt behind the scenes.
Regarding your first question, it's an indicator of an administration's view of what rational, conceivable, or legitimate options it has in front of it. That Trump chose NOT to implement it is also relevant, of course.
I've been closely following Trump for decades, and have read biographies written long before he became president. He's never put anyone or anything before his own self-interest. His own sister (retired federal Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry) has been recorded saying "he has no principles - none." He's been very public in his admiration of corrupt strongmen like Erdogan, who has presided over a backsliding democracy in Turkey, and Putin.
Your last statement is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? We survived him in office once before, why do you think "this country as we've always known it is finished" if he wins again?
If enough Americans voted for Trump to get him elected again, I’d say we have made the choice that we want an authoritarian in charge. That seems like a pretty fundamental change in our democracy.
No, not hyperbolic. Because the guardrails that protected us (barely) in the last election will be further eroded. And with no concerns about reelection, there will be zero self-restraint.
I guess I don't think Trump governed like an authoritarian so much that it fundamentally altered our form of government, or at least not so much more so of one than others we've had. Do you believe he tried to bypass Congress or the Supreme Court, for example, any differently than other Presidents have?
What do you fear Donald Trump would do in a second term with zero self-restraint that would finish the USA as we know it?
Trump certainly says things in the heat of the moment and without thinking. His actions not so much.
Barely protected us? What are you talking about? How weak do you believe our insitutions are?
You've been "closely following Trump for decades"?
Not true... Republicans are trying to align our laws more like other industrialized countries.
Yeah, I don't get this narrative being pushed. It wasn't close; courts across the nation easily and quickly dismissed Trump's legal challenges to the election. The Supreme Court that everyone thought was in the bag for Trump because he nominated three justices, just ruled against him pretty strongly on his privilege claims.
Well it's kind of an indicator of what they were thinking. It says nobody knows who wrote it so it's possible, but unlikely, that Trump knew nothing about it.
The thought processes public officials use in considering actions are are not meaningful. I understand the argument and the attention a draft proposal might attract. But I simply don’t go along with the notion that options considered and rejected are a legitimate subject of public debate, unless of course if the official puts it out there as a topic.
People close to the President gave serious consideration to using the military to overturn the election. But COH thinks it's a nothingburger.
It is indeed an indicator of what they are thinking. I think good government requires the ability of a public official to think about stuff, discuss those thoughts with advisors, and expect confidentiality. I agree that Trump should not be thinking about actions like that, but the notion that such things ought to be public and subject to open debate has its own dangers.
Our institutions, however strong, have no power to stop a mentally ill, impulsive, incompetent individual from destructive acts until it’s too late. I think our democracy and society in general is teetering on the brink of self annihilation. Exhibit A is the fact people are actually willing to vote this man back into office after seeing clearly what he’s about for four years. I’m not optimistic on America’s future. We’ve lost our way, and character as a nation. We are a “Christian Nation”
Look who it is. Mr. "I Pull Stuff Out of My Ass On a Daily Basis" Danc.
LOL. So exposing authoritarian tendencies is the real danger.
No places like those backwoods Europeans, Japan,etc,
The United States has, at least in my lifetime, led the world in election integrity. We've been the model other countries have followed, not the other way around. Sadly, Trump has destroyed confidence in our elections, the cornerstone of democracy, and duped you and millions of others into believing that it's a broken system that needs to be fixed.No places like those backwoods Europeans, Japan,etc,
America the Outlier: Voter Photo IDs Are the Rule in Europe and Elsewhere
In the map here, the blue isn't for America's Democratic Party. Rather, it's for European countries that require voter photo IDs, which Democrats oppose in the U.S. The exception is Britain (green), wwww.realclearinvestigations.com
Noodling something in your brain is one thing; drafting an order another. The second is an indicator that you believe that option a legitimate one. I think that’s important to know.
