Drawing the parallels to how Orbán or any dictator has taken over a democracy doesn't seem like it would affect MAGA loyalists. It is not in their nature. At the moment Trump's posted position is that he doesn't agree with Project 2025, but since nothing Trump states has any relation to what he will state next, we cannot use anything he …
Drawing the parallels to how Orbán or any dictator has taken over a democracy doesn't seem like it would affect MAGA loyalists. It is not in their nature. At the moment Trump's posted position is that he doesn't agree with Project 2025, but since nothing Trump states has any relation to what he will state next, we cannot use anything he says. He is hedging his bets by posting that he "disagrees with some of the things they are saying," being ambiguous by not being specific, using this nebulous position to support any nonsense he later states as what he has been saying all along, and hoping nobody can follow the necessarily complicated counterargument. We have seen this before.
The SCOTUS is apparently banking on Trump winning, and the dictator-like power that they are granting the president becoming effective just as he takes office. Or perhaps they know that a Democrat will always respect democracy and will never use the military to go after his opponents, so there is no risk in offering both sides this unconstrained power. In any event, I see the ruling as an invitation to take each Republican in Congress to task: state sufficient evidence that the last election was stolen or face charges of treason, by decree of an Official Act of the President of the United States.
Drawing the parallels to how Orbán or any dictator has taken over a democracy doesn't seem like it would affect MAGA loyalists. It is not in their nature. At the moment Trump's posted position is that he doesn't agree with Project 2025, but since nothing Trump states has any relation to what he will state next, we cannot use anything he says. He is hedging his bets by posting that he "disagrees with some of the things they are saying," being ambiguous by not being specific, using this nebulous position to support any nonsense he later states as what he has been saying all along, and hoping nobody can follow the necessarily complicated counterargument. We have seen this before.
The SCOTUS is apparently banking on Trump winning, and the dictator-like power that they are granting the president becoming effective just as he takes office. Or perhaps they know that a Democrat will always respect democracy and will never use the military to go after his opponents, so there is no risk in offering both sides this unconstrained power. In any event, I see the ruling as an invitation to take each Republican in Congress to task: state sufficient evidence that the last election was stolen or face charges of treason, by decree of an Official Act of the President of the United States.