What you’re describing is exactly what happens when a country abandons its own strategic architecture.
The National Security Strategy is supposed to be the anchor document for every agency in foreign policy. It’s the Bible. It tells the entire system how to align power, diplomacy, and resources. When that document becomes incoherent, performative and openly self‑destructive, the rest of the system collapses with it.
And we’re watching that collapse in real time. Nearly 30 career diplomats and ambassadors are being recalled from posts around the world. That isn’t a routine rotation. It’s a purge of institutional memory at the exact moment the United States needs more diplomatic presence, not less.
Meanwhile, China has deployed roughly three times as many ambassadors globally, building influence while the U.S. hollows out its own corps. It’s hard to project strength when you’re not even showing up.
This is America unrepresented, America uncoordinated, America strategically absent.
A national security strategy that once guided the entire foreign policy apparatus has been reduced to a self‑destruction note. And the world can see it.
Doesn't it remind you of how, immediately before Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin crippled his country by purging the very people who could have led its defense? Russia survived, but at the cost of some 27 million Russians who did not. A lot of how Trump thinks and acts reminds me of how Stalin thought and acted.
Trump prides himself on having no plan, no strategy, just his “golden gut” … which, after Trump Tower was completed, has led to business failures and five (six?) bankruptcies.
David, thank you for your efforts to highlight how Trump's "course of action" will "gravely damage the US," as will all "Trump’s assaults on the nation he was elected to lead." But much of the fault lies with "the nation" and the way we assume presidents are "elected to lead."
The president isn't elected to lead the nation. Our Constitution (prescribing the president's oath), and the president's own words when he is inaugurated expressly emphasize that he is elected not to lead, but to serve. Article II emphasizes that "Before" the President may even begin "the Execution of his Office, he" must "take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Our Constitution begins by emphasizing that "We the People" did "ordain and establish [our] Constitution" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." Article VI emphasized that We the People established "the supreme Law of the Land" and the foremost and constant duty of all our public servants (including all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States") is "to support [our] Constitution."
The constant, overarching duty of the President is to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution." It is not merely to lead us where he wants.
That's not a novel problem, and it's a problem no matter who is in power. Even as James Madison was explaining to people why they should ratify our Constitution he emphasized that ratification was just the first step and our Constitution was only the foundation.
Madison emphasized that we never can merely "trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power." Any "mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments [legislative, executive and judicial], is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands." Already by 1787, "experience assures us, that the efficacy of [any paper] provision [restraining power] has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government."
The People always will need to continue to work to secure our own liberty and security. That's why the First Amendment expressly secures our freedom of expression, communication and association (to expose and oppose the misconduct of our purported public servants). That's also why our Constitution requires the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate to stand for election every two years, requires the President to stand for election every 4 years (and limits his total terms to 8 years), and requires the impeachment, conviction and removal of all civil executive or judicial officers who are guilty of any high crime or high misdemeanor.
Thank you David for your clear analysis of what Trump, his administration and evil cronies are doing to undermine the US and the rule of law. I wish more people would take the time and effort to understand what is happening.
The words of "Trump’s 'peace' envoy Steve Witkoff" remind me of an old Soviet joke about "peace." As you highlighted Witkoff "declared that Russia" purportedly "remains fully committed to achieving peace in Ukraine” but it "nightly bombs [innocent] Ukrainian [civilians] in relentless terror attacks."
Soviet citizens made fun of such assertions by their own government by cleverly revealing the truth. In Russian, the word "mir" means both "peace" and "the world." Soviet citizens would mock their government by emphasizing its position on "mir." "We want mir, and preferably all of it." They start by slyly implying that they want "peace," but they finish by admitting that they really want "the world."
David, you're right that "[t]he rule of law is not merely an abstraction" and Trump has "made a mockery of the nation’s legal system by openly selling pardons." Trump's outrageous abuses of the president's pardon power highlight that it's high time that we put the two sentiments you expressed together and say and do much more about what the "rule of law" actually means, specifically, regarding presidential powers.
In a dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, Justice Scalia powerfully emphasized profoundly important principles and he helped shed a lot of light on what "the rule of law" really means. It means, as John Adams emphasized in 1780, "a government of laws and not of men."
More particular, Scalia emphasized by quoting James Madison (rightly lauded as the Father of our Constitution and the Father of the Bill of Rights) in Federalist No. 51:
“[T]he great security” of the People “against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department [legislative, executive and judicial] the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. . . . Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”
Madison (and Scalia) continued by emphasizing the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest much more power in the Legislative branch than in the Executive and Judicial branches:
“But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power [ ]. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Our Constitution expressly emphasizes the same. The People expressly “vested in a Congress” absolutely “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” in our Constitution. Moreover, the People expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” meant the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all the “Powers” of Congress, “and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Clearly and emphatically, the People expressly vested in Congress the power to make all laws that were necessary and proper to govern “all” the “Powers vested by” our “Constitution” in the President, including any presidential power to appoint or to remove any other officer, the power to grant any pardon, and the power to use our Armed Forces.
Trump's abuses and usurpations of power (in violation of our Constitution and his oath) highlight the need for Congress to finally enact legislation starting to regulate or better regulating the powers Trump is abusing.
Nancee, people who support the President's abuses and usurpations of power want us to think that Congress has ceded its power. But the point of the rule of law is that the law rules. Congress has no power to cede its powers. As Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS emphasized in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS explained what they meant:
"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory [governing] every such government must be, that an act of the legislature [indeed, any act of any public servant], repugnant to the constitution, is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society."
Our Constitution (the literal text of Articles VI and VII) expressly established the supreme law of the land, with our Constitution as the paramount law governing all of us and all of our public servants. Article I emphasizes that We the People by our Constitution (the paramount law of the supreme law of the land) vested in Congress, alone, literally "All legislative Powers herein granted." Then, we expressly clarified and emphasized that we meant the power to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" all the "Powers" of Congress "and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The primary point of our Constitution and of Marbury v. Madison is that neither Congress nor the President nor any judicial officer can possibly have any power to knowingly violate our Constitution. Our Constitution and Marbury v. Madison emphasized that even if they all act together for the same purpose (i.e., Congress enacting a law that violates our Constitution, the President executing such law and judges applying such law) they still have no power to violate our Constitution. That's the point of having a Constitution that is written, as Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS emphasized in Marbury v. Madison.
Maybe an analogy will help. If someone commits a murder, the perpetrator's prosecution, trial, conviction and punishment will be no comfort to the victim. Even so, all the processes of law involved, as well as the result, serve purposes that benefit society at large.
Having a republic is a lot like raising children. Some children do outrageously bad things, and some grow up to do even worse things. That doesn't mean the processes of parenting or the processes of society aren't functioning. It's not true that merely because some people are bad and many people do bad things that the processes designed to prevent, discourage or punish bad people and bad conduct aren't functioning. They are functioning. The more important point, though, is that the processes can be refined to function better. Our processes were designed to be refined.
The problems we're seeing--the bad behavior by Trump and the people who are supporting him or using him--serve (and should be made to serve) the purposes of our processes. For very good reason the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution used especially emphatic and sweeping language in Article I.
We the People vested in Congress “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” in our Constitution. The People expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” meant the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all the “Powers” of Congress, “and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
We gave Congress the power (and we assigned the duty) to make all laws that are necessary and proper to prevent the president from abusing or usurping powers and to punish him for doing so. So, for example, nothing in United States v. Trump does or can deprive Congress of the power to enact criminal laws punishing the usurpation of power by the president. Everything the Trump-supporting SCOTUS justices wrote in United States v. Trump was a smokescreen that many good lawyers could make essentially irrelevant in mere minutes.
At least as important, our Constitution reserved to the People the power to remove and replace members of Congress who don't fulfill their duty to support our Constitution. We can remove and replace the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate every two years.
The process that really is not working is the electoral process. One of the biggest problems with America is that we let our so-called public servants manipulate us into thinking that we need to fight each other (e.g., as Democrats or Republicans) rather than using our power to make our Constitution function better. As the Preamble emphasizes, We the People established our Constitution, to "form a more perfect Union" and better "establish Justice" and better "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves.
One aspect of that problem is the great dangerous lie by about six current SCOTUS justices (and some recent past justices) that partisan gerrymandering doesn't violate our Constitution. Partisan mentality, including partisan gerrymandering, is what's most fundamentally making America most fundamentally weak. It's hard to find a more blatant violation of virtually everything our entire Constitution represents and secures than partisan gerrymandering.
When dictators corrupt mainstream media, a better source is independent newsletters. I found about the Canadian version of the 60 Minutes broadcast in the The Breakdown newsletter by Allison Gill. I've added that to the list of the top 105 newsletters. Public Notice is already on the list.
Watch the 60 Minute report on CECOT that Bari Weiss blocked: 105 top newsletters vs. Corporate BS (CBS)
This is what happens when a Russian-owned criminal becomes president. Go to fiftyfifty.one and see what you can do to help stop them. The cavalry is not coming. We the People need to stop this.
Perhaps someday, long after the second Trump Administration has been consigned to the historical trash basket, some foreign policy guru will realize that his decision to alienate our European allies set Europe free to determine its own defense posture and become an independent player in the international relations game. And when Europe starts making its own security decisions, why shouldn't it find a way to coexist with Chinese aspirations on the world stage?
Apparently, HE is a reflection of what half of us already are - lazy, dumb, self-centered, racist; otherwise, he would never have been on the ballot 3 times, elected twice.
If we get another democratic president* every single member of the Republican party needs to go to prison, along with their fascist billionaire owners. And every single fucking person who voted for trump needs to have their voting rights revoked.
My book club read Project 2029 2 summers ago. The first chapter I read was the one on the Department of Education. In it I realized that it was a formula for turning the US into a third world country. I lived and taught in an international school in the Dominican Republic one year and have a sense of what that looks like. It is hard to come back from that to first world status without help. Just who is going to help the US once Trump and his ilk get done with it? Hopefully we the people can make the US into its best self once they are gotten rid of. This cannot come to soon for me.
If I could illustrate Trump’s attempt to reinvent the wheel, I’d depict it as having four flat sides, effectively grinding any progress we’ve achieved as a country to a screeching halt. The prime example of the effects of his overt destruction of our society to a stinky pile of doo doo is this issue of turning around the statistics of what the deportation of immigrants has meant to our economy: Whereas there are fewer candidates for jobs, there also is a concurrent increase in unemployment, perhaps anywhere from a quarter to a third from previous levels. Incredibly qualified people are without work. Today’s stat of increases in GDP mask effectively that any benefit from whatever Trump has done to increase that statistic is going directly to his pockets as well as to his billionaire buddies who have caved to his insanity in order to increase their personal wealth from considerably rich to bloated. All this at the expense of the rest of us.
What you’re describing is exactly what happens when a country abandons its own strategic architecture.
The National Security Strategy is supposed to be the anchor document for every agency in foreign policy. It’s the Bible. It tells the entire system how to align power, diplomacy, and resources. When that document becomes incoherent, performative and openly self‑destructive, the rest of the system collapses with it.
And we’re watching that collapse in real time. Nearly 30 career diplomats and ambassadors are being recalled from posts around the world. That isn’t a routine rotation. It’s a purge of institutional memory at the exact moment the United States needs more diplomatic presence, not less.
Meanwhile, China has deployed roughly three times as many ambassadors globally, building influence while the U.S. hollows out its own corps. It’s hard to project strength when you’re not even showing up.
This is America unrepresented, America uncoordinated, America strategically absent.
A national security strategy that once guided the entire foreign policy apparatus has been reduced to a self‑destruction note. And the world can see it.
—Johan
Doesn't it remind you of how, immediately before Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin crippled his country by purging the very people who could have led its defense? Russia survived, but at the cost of some 27 million Russians who did not. A lot of how Trump thinks and acts reminds me of how Stalin thought and acted.
Trump prides himself on having no plan, no strategy, just his “golden gut” … which, after Trump Tower was completed, has led to business failures and five (six?) bankruptcies.
The ultimate bankruptcy will be the one of his character.
Will be? He became character bankrupt the moment he joined his father’s business!
According to his niece, he was an asshole even as a child.
Also, second choice after Mary’s father.
Even then, he had narcissistic personality disorder.
David, thank you for your efforts to highlight how Trump's "course of action" will "gravely damage the US," as will all "Trump’s assaults on the nation he was elected to lead." But much of the fault lies with "the nation" and the way we assume presidents are "elected to lead."
The president isn't elected to lead the nation. Our Constitution (prescribing the president's oath), and the president's own words when he is inaugurated expressly emphasize that he is elected not to lead, but to serve. Article II emphasizes that "Before" the President may even begin "the Execution of his Office, he" must "take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Our Constitution begins by emphasizing that "We the People" did "ordain and establish [our] Constitution" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." Article VI emphasized that We the People established "the supreme Law of the Land" and the foremost and constant duty of all our public servants (including all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States") is "to support [our] Constitution."
The constant, overarching duty of the President is to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution." It is not merely to lead us where he wants.
To Republicans in power, the Constitution is just single-ply toilet paper, except for the Second Amendment, which they view as a shoot to kill order.
That's not a novel problem, and it's a problem no matter who is in power. Even as James Madison was explaining to people why they should ratify our Constitution he emphasized that ratification was just the first step and our Constitution was only the foundation.
Madison emphasized that we never can merely "trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power." Any "mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments [legislative, executive and judicial], is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands." Already by 1787, "experience assures us, that the efficacy of [any paper] provision [restraining power] has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government."
The People always will need to continue to work to secure our own liberty and security. That's why the First Amendment expressly secures our freedom of expression, communication and association (to expose and oppose the misconduct of our purported public servants). That's also why our Constitution requires the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate to stand for election every two years, requires the President to stand for election every 4 years (and limits his total terms to 8 years), and requires the impeachment, conviction and removal of all civil executive or judicial officers who are guilty of any high crime or high misdemeanor.
Thank you David for your clear analysis of what Trump, his administration and evil cronies are doing to undermine the US and the rule of law. I wish more people would take the time and effort to understand what is happening.
The words of "Trump’s 'peace' envoy Steve Witkoff" remind me of an old Soviet joke about "peace." As you highlighted Witkoff "declared that Russia" purportedly "remains fully committed to achieving peace in Ukraine” but it "nightly bombs [innocent] Ukrainian [civilians] in relentless terror attacks."
Soviet citizens made fun of such assertions by their own government by cleverly revealing the truth. In Russian, the word "mir" means both "peace" and "the world." Soviet citizens would mock their government by emphasizing its position on "mir." "We want mir, and preferably all of it." They start by slyly implying that they want "peace," but they finish by admitting that they really want "the world."
Thank you for your work.
David, you're right that "[t]he rule of law is not merely an abstraction" and Trump has "made a mockery of the nation’s legal system by openly selling pardons." Trump's outrageous abuses of the president's pardon power highlight that it's high time that we put the two sentiments you expressed together and say and do much more about what the "rule of law" actually means, specifically, regarding presidential powers.
In a dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988, Justice Scalia powerfully emphasized profoundly important principles and he helped shed a lot of light on what "the rule of law" really means. It means, as John Adams emphasized in 1780, "a government of laws and not of men."
More particular, Scalia emphasized by quoting James Madison (rightly lauded as the Father of our Constitution and the Father of the Bill of Rights) in Federalist No. 51:
“[T]he great security” of the People “against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department [legislative, executive and judicial] the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. . . . Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”
Madison (and Scalia) continued by emphasizing the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest much more power in the Legislative branch than in the Executive and Judicial branches:
“But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power [ ]. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Our Constitution expressly emphasizes the same. The People expressly “vested in a Congress” absolutely “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” in our Constitution. Moreover, the People expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” meant the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all the “Powers” of Congress, “and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Clearly and emphatically, the People expressly vested in Congress the power to make all laws that were necessary and proper to govern “all” the “Powers vested by” our “Constitution” in the President, including any presidential power to appoint or to remove any other officer, the power to grant any pardon, and the power to use our Armed Forces.
Trump's abuses and usurpations of power (in violation of our Constitution and his oath) highlight the need for Congress to finally enact legislation starting to regulate or better regulating the powers Trump is abusing.
Trump has certainly usurped, but Congress has also outrageously ceded its power.
Nancee, people who support the President's abuses and usurpations of power want us to think that Congress has ceded its power. But the point of the rule of law is that the law rules. Congress has no power to cede its powers. As Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS emphasized in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS explained what they meant:
"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory [governing] every such government must be, that an act of the legislature [indeed, any act of any public servant], repugnant to the constitution, is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society."
Our Constitution (the literal text of Articles VI and VII) expressly established the supreme law of the land, with our Constitution as the paramount law governing all of us and all of our public servants. Article I emphasizes that We the People by our Constitution (the paramount law of the supreme law of the land) vested in Congress, alone, literally "All legislative Powers herein granted." Then, we expressly clarified and emphasized that we meant the power to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" all the "Powers" of Congress "and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The primary point of our Constitution and of Marbury v. Madison is that neither Congress nor the President nor any judicial officer can possibly have any power to knowingly violate our Constitution. Our Constitution and Marbury v. Madison emphasized that even if they all act together for the same purpose (i.e., Congress enacting a law that violates our Constitution, the President executing such law and judges applying such law) they still have no power to violate our Constitution. That's the point of having a Constitution that is written, as Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS emphasized in Marbury v. Madison.
I'm not seeing how that makes a practical difference once the deed(s) - whether through usurpation, concession, or judicial "permission" - take place.
Maybe an analogy will help. If someone commits a murder, the perpetrator's prosecution, trial, conviction and punishment will be no comfort to the victim. Even so, all the processes of law involved, as well as the result, serve purposes that benefit society at large.
But those processes aren't functioning, so the intended purposes to benefit society aren't achieved.
Having a republic is a lot like raising children. Some children do outrageously bad things, and some grow up to do even worse things. That doesn't mean the processes of parenting or the processes of society aren't functioning. It's not true that merely because some people are bad and many people do bad things that the processes designed to prevent, discourage or punish bad people and bad conduct aren't functioning. They are functioning. The more important point, though, is that the processes can be refined to function better. Our processes were designed to be refined.
The problems we're seeing--the bad behavior by Trump and the people who are supporting him or using him--serve (and should be made to serve) the purposes of our processes. For very good reason the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution used especially emphatic and sweeping language in Article I.
We the People vested in Congress “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” in our Constitution. The People expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” meant the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all the “Powers” of Congress, “and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
We gave Congress the power (and we assigned the duty) to make all laws that are necessary and proper to prevent the president from abusing or usurping powers and to punish him for doing so. So, for example, nothing in United States v. Trump does or can deprive Congress of the power to enact criminal laws punishing the usurpation of power by the president. Everything the Trump-supporting SCOTUS justices wrote in United States v. Trump was a smokescreen that many good lawyers could make essentially irrelevant in mere minutes.
At least as important, our Constitution reserved to the People the power to remove and replace members of Congress who don't fulfill their duty to support our Constitution. We can remove and replace the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate every two years.
The process that really is not working is the electoral process. One of the biggest problems with America is that we let our so-called public servants manipulate us into thinking that we need to fight each other (e.g., as Democrats or Republicans) rather than using our power to make our Constitution function better. As the Preamble emphasizes, We the People established our Constitution, to "form a more perfect Union" and better "establish Justice" and better "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves.
One aspect of that problem is the great dangerous lie by about six current SCOTUS justices (and some recent past justices) that partisan gerrymandering doesn't violate our Constitution. Partisan mentality, including partisan gerrymandering, is what's most fundamentally making America most fundamentally weak. It's hard to find a more blatant violation of virtually everything our entire Constitution represents and secures than partisan gerrymandering.
David very much appreciate your analysis here. Thank you.
When dictators corrupt mainstream media, a better source is independent newsletters. I found about the Canadian version of the 60 Minutes broadcast in the The Breakdown newsletter by Allison Gill. I've added that to the list of the top 105 newsletters. Public Notice is already on the list.
Watch the 60 Minute report on CECOT that Bari Weiss blocked: 105 top newsletters vs. Corporate BS (CBS)
https://thedemlabs.org/2025/12/23/60-minute-cecot-prison-bari-weiss-blocked-top-newsletters/
This is what happens when a Russian-owned criminal becomes president. Go to fiftyfifty.one and see what you can do to help stop them. The cavalry is not coming. We the People need to stop this.
Perhaps someday, long after the second Trump Administration has been consigned to the historical trash basket, some foreign policy guru will realize that his decision to alienate our European allies set Europe free to determine its own defense posture and become an independent player in the international relations game. And when Europe starts making its own security decisions, why shouldn't it find a way to coexist with Chinese aspirations on the world stage?
And perhaps because Trump destroyed our alliances, America becomes mostly defenseless and the country falls to Russia.
Truly, Trump is trying to remake America in his own image—lazy, dumb, self-centered, racist.
Apparently, HE is a reflection of what half of us already are - lazy, dumb, self-centered, racist; otherwise, he would never have been on the ballot 3 times, elected twice.
*sigh* Can’t argue with that.
If we get another democratic president* every single member of the Republican party needs to go to prison, along with their fascist billionaire owners. And every single fucking person who voted for trump needs to have their voting rights revoked.
*Big "if", I know
My book club read Project 2029 2 summers ago. The first chapter I read was the one on the Department of Education. In it I realized that it was a formula for turning the US into a third world country. I lived and taught in an international school in the Dominican Republic one year and have a sense of what that looks like. It is hard to come back from that to first world status without help. Just who is going to help the US once Trump and his ilk get done with it? Hopefully we the people can make the US into its best self once they are gotten rid of. This cannot come to soon for me.
I see he's got that glob of makeup smeared on the back of his hand again. It shows up in the photo clearly.
Shit, I don't want to ruin my holidays reading about that asshole and his regime.
Excellent compilation of the egregious corruption and the formidable threat it poses.
If I could illustrate Trump’s attempt to reinvent the wheel, I’d depict it as having four flat sides, effectively grinding any progress we’ve achieved as a country to a screeching halt. The prime example of the effects of his overt destruction of our society to a stinky pile of doo doo is this issue of turning around the statistics of what the deportation of immigrants has meant to our economy: Whereas there are fewer candidates for jobs, there also is a concurrent increase in unemployment, perhaps anywhere from a quarter to a third from previous levels. Incredibly qualified people are without work. Today’s stat of increases in GDP mask effectively that any benefit from whatever Trump has done to increase that statistic is going directly to his pockets as well as to his billionaire buddies who have caved to his insanity in order to increase their personal wealth from considerably rich to bloated. All this at the expense of the rest of us.