It’s presumably in part because Trump’s already shifted conservative ideology so far to the rightThere are those who dislike the metaphor of the frog in the slowly boiling water, but it’s hard to deny its utility. Perhaps frogs aren’t as complacent as the morality tale would suggest, but the idea of a critter becoming acclimated to increasingly dangerous environs deserves some sort of short hand. Particularly at the moment.Republicans see a citizenry unaware that the nation is facing a crisis of the economy and public safety, mirroring the (pun intended) overheated presentation of their nominee, former president Donald Trump. Democrats see a country unconcerned about the risk of tipping into authoritarianism, a concern amplified by Vice President Kamala Harris (and that’s also driven by Trump’s past actions and rhetoric).Partisans tend to see the other party’s candidate as an embodiment of the problem, an extreme manifestation of a political ideology they oppose. Unsurprisingly, then, polling conducted by YouGov for the Economist found that significant portions of the country view Trump and Harris not just as conservative and liberal, respectively, but very liberal or conservative. Perhaps unexpectedly, more Americans say Harris is very liberal (37 percent) than say Trump is very conservative (28 percent).That’s in part because Democrats are less likely to say that Trump is very conservative (40 percent do) than Republicans are to say that Harris is very liberal (71 percent do).That is in part because Republicans are more fervent in their ideology than are Democrats. That’s reflected in how partisans view their own candidates. About half of Republicans say Trump is “conservative” with another quarter saying he’s “very conservative.” Among Democrats, a bit under half say Harris is “liberal” — with nearly a third describing her as “moderate.” What it means to be “conservative” has shifted — perhaps not among purists but certainly among a lot of Americans. Donald Trump has been the Republican nominee for three straight cycles and, as the head of the ticket, has helped reshape the party and redefine right-wing politics.
So by the standard of national politics in 2014, Trump is unquestionably more ideological than Republicans overall. We might not have used “conservative” to describe his politics at the time, since “conservative” was a signifier for Republican spending and social positions. Now it’s a signifier for Trump’s far-right mix of populism, isolationism and xenophobia. And by the standard of the new Trump “conservatism,” Trump is in fact not extreme at all. The water got warmer.Democrats identify themselves as liberal and moderate and see their candidate as liberal or moderate. Republicans identify themselves as conservative and see their candidate as conservative. But presumably in part because Trump has already shifted “conservatism” to the right, his ideology is seen as less fervent than his opponent’s overall.
Q: Can a far-right mix of populism, isolationism and xenophobia be considered inherently authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning, for example as in the case of Trump and MAGA?A: Trump has shown a tendency to aggrandize executive power and resist checks and balances. This includes: Asserting broad emergency powers, issuing controversial [corrupt, actually] pardons, making extensive use of acting appointments, resisting congressional oversight, and claiming immunity from judicial accountability. These actions align with authoritarian efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch.The MAGA movement has engaged in tactics that threaten core democratic processes: Spreading disinformation about election integrity by (i) attempting to overturn legitimate election results, (ii)
passing laws that may enable partisan interference in elections, and (iii) supporting the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Such efforts to subvert democratic norms and institutions are hallmarks of authoritarian movements.The movement revolves heavily around Trump as a strongman figure, with supporters often displaying intense, unquestioning loyalty. This cult of personality is a common feature of authoritarian regimes.There are indications of hostility toward critics and opposition, including attacks on media as "enemies of the people", attempts to silence or discredit political opponents, and combative rhetoric toward those who disagree. This intolerance of dissent reflects authoritarian impulses to suppress opposing views.While not every aspect of the movement is inherently authoritarian, the combination of these factors - executive overreach, undermining of democratic norms, nativism, cult of personality, and intolerance of opposition - creates a political ideology with strong authoritarian leanings. However, it's important to note that supporters may not view these elements as authoritarian, often seeing them instead as necessary measures to "make America great again."
We talk of this thing called “afterlife.” If it exists, and since we have no direct access to it, we can
only imagine it, or if you are the religious type, maybe/probably you believe
in it.
But…
What if what we are experiencing now is an/the “afterlife”
of some existence we had before the current one? Is that impossible?
Like dreaming is an altered state of existence from what we
experience in our waking hours, maybe life as we experience it is just an
altered state of our “real” existence.
Take these thoughts and run with them (i.e., speculate).
(by PrimalSoup)
“Everything is deadlocked and the composition of the electorate is unknowable, and there are so many things that are unprecedented,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons, who served as Harris’s communications director until last year. “We can’t look back with any level of security because we haven’t had an African American woman on the ticket. We haven’t had a former president running again. We haven’t had a campaign with two assassination attempts. We haven’t switched out a candidate two months before Election Day before. .... So it’s just hard to know. If you’re not nervous, you’re not paying attention.” .... “Now that the sugar high is gone, people have realized what Kamala Harris has said from the start, which is that she is the underdog. This is going to be a fight. … These numbers are just so stubborn.”
Trump is not women's "protector": New Brett Kavanaughreport shows MAGA protects predatorsRepublicans believed the allegations against Trump's Supreme Court pick — and knew Trump would still defend himTrump won't protect women, but on Tuesday, we were reminded of who he is determined to protect: Men he believes to be his fellow sexual assailants. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., released a years-long investigation into how the Trump White House responded when Christine Blasey Ford accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape during his 2018 confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, Trump's goal was to suppress evidence and silence anyone who could corroborate her story. Yet the details that show the extent of the cover-up are still shocking.Trump told the public at the time that the FBI had "free rein" to investigate the allegation and he wanted them "talking to everybody." This was a flat-out lie. As the new report outlines, the White House blocked the FBI from interviewing either Kavanaugh or Blasey Ford. Investigators were barred from interviewing corroborating witnesses. A "tip line" was set up, but tips were sent to the White House, which ignored them. It's important to remember there was a lot of corroborating evidence, including another woman who claimed Blasey Ford was abused by Kavanaugh in front of witnesses. As Whitehouse said on Twitter, the investigation "was a sham, controlled by the Trump White House, for political cover to Senate Republicans to put Judge Kavanaugh on track to confirmation."Polls at the time showed most Americans believed Kavanaugh was guilty. The White House cover-up shows Trump and his staff also believed in Kavanaugh's guilt. If they thought Kavanaugh was innocent, they would have been eager to conduct an investigation to exonerate him. Instead, they ignored over 4,500 tips and prevented the FBI from doing basic background research.
There are several major lies that MAGA supporters are currently asserting:
MAGA supporters continue to propagate false claims about the 2020 election, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary
They assert widespread voter fraud occurred, particularly with mail-in ballots.Some claim that 20% of Pennsylvania's mail-in ballots were fraudulent, even though mail-in ballots for the upcoming election haven't even been sent out yet.Attacks on Democratic OpponentsMAGA supporters, led by figures like Elon Musk, are spreading false narratives about Democrats:They claim Democrats want to take away freedoms, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and voting rights.Some falsely assert that Democrats are bringing illegal immigrants into the U.S. so they can vote for Democratic candidates.MAGA supporters are distorting the nature of legal actions against Trump
** Instead of mostly ignorance, is it mostly a matter of knowing lies, slanders and crackpottery grounded in the authoritarianism and moral rot inherent in the our means justify our ends mindset? In my opinion, it probably is more motivated ignorance than knowing lies, although both are non-trivially present.Some claim that the Department of Justice authorized the use of "deadly force" during the Mar-a-Lago search, which is false.
They portray legal actions against Trump as politically motivated "lawfare" rather than legitimate law enforcement.MAGA supporters are promoting various [crackpot] conspiracy theoriesSome suggest that if Trump doesn't win, "this will be the last election," implying a threat to democracy from his opponents rather than his own actions. They portray Trump as a victim of assassination attempts, mischaracterizing legal actions as violent threats.
These lies persist despite being readily debunked, demonstrating what some observers call "motivated ignorance"** among MAGA supporters. The spread of these falsehoods through social media platforms and conservative news outlets continues to shape the political discourse, even as the 2024 election approaches.
