I wonder how many moderate voters actually know what Donald Trump's agenda is if he wins the presidency again. Here's a list of Trump proposals, some official and others just musings on the campaign trail. The question is, which ones should we take seriously?
Sounds like a fast track to 3rd World status.
Shorter Donald Trump: why can’t we be more like North Korea instead of the shit hole we are now?
"Discovering online work was a game-changer for me. It's not just about earning dollars; it's about creating a lifestyle of freedom and flexibility!""Join me on the path to financial freedom! Start earning dollars online today by just a single click."
Here........................ https://t.ly/EYJVX
For the record re mifepristone, it's been 71 days since he was going to have a statement in the next 14 days.
Conservatism is time counted in reverse dog years.
A+ #1
Trump’s health care plan was supposed to be out in two weeks - two weeks 6 years ago. Why can’t I shake the feeling Donald just makes up things on the fly?
That is not Trump's agenda. That is a heap of things he said, which has nothing to do with what he intends to do.
What he intends to do to "keep the country strong" (like his pals), i.e. suppress the population.
I am saying it again: pretending that Trump has actual policies makes it easier for him to pretend that he is just "another politician", rather than wanna-be dictator. It needs to stop.
Good point. He didn’t get anything done last time except sign the tax cut that the Republicans would have passed in any case. He’s willfully ignorant about government functioning, but he doesn’t care much about it either, so he lets his appointees do pretty much what they want. Some of them will pursue some of the cockamamie ideas KD lists; some will just look for graft opportunities.
I think TFG will mostly devote his energies to punishing anyone who has crossed him, and to some performances for his cult.
You don't think he will want to "keep the country strong" like his pals (Putin, Xi, Kim)?
He appointed lots of far right wing judges. The short and long-term damage is immeasurable...
Oh, true, it was him just rubber-stamping the candidates that Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell put up. Saved him having to actually think about who he should nominate.
I disagree. Trying to convince disengaged voters Trump wants to be a dictator sounds like nothing but the typical wild hyperbole politicians hurl at each other at election time.
Get those voters to focus on his most unpopular stated goals and educate them about the implications.
In other words: "Voters are idiots, act accordingly."
Maybe.
But at least some of them will realize that Trump is not serious on the policies that he states, and then they will not have a reason not to vote for him.
Almost no moderate voters know anything about Trump's plans. And if you tried to tell them, they would either ignore you or just not believe you. They will bring up some bullshit they saw on social media about the price of eggs or shoplifting or crisis at the border or some other thing that has nothing to do with their lives, but they see & hear about it every day.
Yup - price of eggs, price of bacon, etc.
Did you forget 'repeal the clean water act?' so coal and other polluters don't have to worry about downstream effects?
I think this is a moot distraction.
First, MAGA folks do not care about policy nearly as much as they do about the esprit de corps of being MAGA. At its core, MAGA is about channeling one's fears, shortfalls, and failures onto others (or in their own words, sticking it to the Man). If you wanted to convert them, policy wouldn't matter one bit.
Second, by using policy differences to appeal to undecided voters you're signaling to them that it's the policy differences between the two that matters -- is that what you really want them to focus on? Is the survival of liberal democracy downgraded to below policy differences? Making this about policy is giving voters a choice to not vote or to stick with their preferred political party community.
Third, by now everyone should recognize that Trump is nothing more than a tasteless, cheap salesperson (who puts ketchup on his steak.) He will lie, lie, and lie some more. He will tell one person one thing and turn around to tell someone else the complete opposite. When you ask "which ones we should take seriously", you're missing the point -- he does not care and he'll tell people he both supports these policies and rejects them to fit his needs.
This does not mean all policy is off the table. But circling back to your question -- which "ones" should we take seriously -- look back to what Trump did and did not do in his 4 years. Highlight his public praise for "his" justices in overturning Roe. Point to his attempt to repeal the ACA and his withering attacks on John McCain even after he died a war hero.
+1
Trump cares not a whit about policy. He just says stuff that he thinks will rile up his base. The real danger is the people he will bring in with him - people who do care about policy.
+2
Agree with all of this
Precisely. Trump's Stephen Miller is a major part of the Project 2025. They're the types who are coming up with policy.
On your list one thing stands out: gender affirming care for trans kids. There are Democrats who are skeptical about this. The organization Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG) has a web site that makes the case. Here are three questions:
1) What exactly is a "trans kid". Is it an innate, permanent state? Be precise.
2) What exactly is "gender"? Is it different from "sex"? Be precise.
3) What is "gender affirming care"?
"Gender affirming care" sounds so positive, but the accurate name is "Sex Trait Modification" (STM). Whatever "gender" may be, it is "sex" that is the target.
These questions deserve answers that go beyond "tribal".
But why is this even a matter of concern for the Federal Government?
Apparently "gender identity" is a matter of concern for the Federal Government. It is the fundamental idea in the recent Title IX rules put forth by the current administration. The amazing thing is that the rules nowhere define "gender". The definition of "gender identity" is then in terms of "gender". Just to confuse things, there is also mention of "appearances" and "mannerisms". Along the way, the concept of "sex" is redefined so as to include "gender orientation" and "gender identity" as manifestations of "sex". My sympathy for Trump is limited, but he has a point about overreach.
It's a concern for the Federal government only because various states have decided it's their concern. If everyone just left people the hell alone, this wouldn't be necessary.
I can answer these questions for you.
1. Mind your own fucking business.
2. Mind your own fucking business.
3. Mind your own fucking business.
Hopefully, these are helpful to you in your journey to mind your own fucking business.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
<3
This +1000. Gender affirming care should be between the minor patient, their parents and their doctors. Everyone else on the face of the earth should butt the fuck out. It’s none of their goddamn business what medical care someone is getting.
Nothing is quite that simple. Should insurance companies be mandated to pay for sex trait modification?
Sex is what you have with your lover. Gender is not.
Why do Trump Republicans devote so much time and energy to pushing their own bigotry on people who don't share it? Be precise.
I don’t know what he has in mind, but it’s sure going to be fascinating to find out! I expect some version of the Chinese cultural revolution and American McCarthyism where Christian fascists attack liberals. Probably using AI.
It’s all about the purge.
Like this…
https://www.fox17online.com/news/local-news/grand-rapids/grand-rapids-churches-in-opposition-to-crcs-stance-on-sexuality-face-discipline-following-synod
< >
Yup. The MAGA faithful only want T to deliver one thing- Stick it to the liberals.
As has been observed elsewhere, while TCFG is dangerous in many ways, executing policy is not one of them. HOWEVER, one thing he WILL do is have competent civil servants driven out of the government and replaced by ignorant, zealous hacks, most of whom will have no particular agenda other than Being Noticed By Him, and to do that THEY will do -- or at least try to do -- ALL these things, and many more, even loopier things.
Plus there will be some who really ARE driven by an agenda, eg the religiostic authoritarian / Dominionist types, and they'll do things just as bad or even worse, and more thoroughly.
#2 sounds like something Putin's puppy would say.
Guy is flaming moron. Always has been always will be. His home state knows it, I wish the rest of the country did too.
Did I miss the Convicted Felon's major Program of Retribution and Revenge upon
(1) Democrats who have hurt him.
(2) Democrats in general.
(3) Republicans who have turned on him.
(4) Republicans who have been lukewarm in their praises of him.
Some of these categories include judges, prosecutors, and even his own lawyers. Yes, it's personal now. It's always personal.
Boys and girls, can you say "Kim", I knew you could.
Trump has no values or beliefs other than a deep and committed support for Donald Trump. Most of the listed items are throw aways to entice his supporters. Ones that he will implement are:
2. Ukraine crossed him and refused to do an investigation of Hunter Biden.
5. Not because he hates Obamacare, but because he hates Obama.
7. Because he is Donald Trump.
9. Because Scotland built a wind farm by his golf course.
13. Because they are democratic cities.
15., 16., & 17.: Because nothing is Trump’s default mode.
Mt Rushmore and forget the rest except if there's money.
> which ones should we take seriously?
all of them. When people tell you what they will do, you should believe them (even if they are congenital liars).
Trump doesn't want to slash aid to Ukraine. I quote his incoherent, Alice-in-Wonderland policy in full, as cited by his close adviser Robert O'Brien:
Unfortunately, many disengaged voters might think that sounds great. Much better to say "Trump wants to be the 21st century Neville Chamberlain, handing over lots of Ukraine to Russian aggression so he can bleat about 'Peace in our time'."
Unfortunately, many disengaged voters might think that sounds great.
I think you misspelled “ignorant,” or perhaps “uninformed” if you were trying to be charitable. Because anybody with a fleeting familiarity with current events would know that Robert O’Brien’s statement is ridiculous on its face.