6 ms·

> You really thing the adminstration's goal is for Americans to not have running water & electricity, Their goal is to stay in power at all costs. Again, they

> You really thing the adminstration's goal is for Americans to not have running water & electricity, Their goal is to stay in power at all costs. Again, they themselves have stated this plainly enough. If there is collateral damage to the American people as a consequence of their ambition, well, that's a sacrifice they are willing to make.

andsoitis 8mo ago
> Their goal is to stay in power at all costs. How, then, do you explain their frequent retreat, e.g. on ICE, on tariffs, etc.? I think they are pushing very very hard on many fronts, but even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback.
- hackyhacky 8mo ago
  > they are limited by what Americans will allow Sure. The current administration is more message-focused than policy-focused. That's because most voters have no idea about policies, and know only how it's spun on Fox News. This fact makes it all the more frustrating that so many business and influential people are failing to push back when their voice could make a difference.
- 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
  > even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback. But that doesn't change their goal. They have openly stated what they want, the fact that courts have sometimes intervened or that fig leaves have been given doesn't change the long-term goal. Were they retreating on ICE when they said they want them at polling stations? It seems like an escalation to me.
  - andsoitis 8mo ago
    > But that doesn't change their goal. OK, let's assume that. Goal is one thing. How far they're willing and able to go (and hence be effective in getting that goal) is a different matter. That's my argument. The current adminitration has shown that their ego (adoration) is a limiting factor in what they're willing to do for power. To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? Is it just political theater?
    - 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
      > OK, let's assume that. No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! > To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? This isn't about "Top Republicans," it is about the administration. The same administration that is actively trying to nationalize elections to prevent that bloodbath. Secondly, is it conceivable that Republicans fearing an electoral bloodbath would make them more likely to support aggressive election interference (ICE a polling stations, new election laws, Federal takeover of elections, re-litigating 2020 Georgia results)?
      - andsoitis 8mo ago
        > > OK, let's assume that. > No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! Really honest question... can you point us to that explicit statement? The Trump administration's official executive orders and fact sheets repeatedly state their goal is to have "free, fair, and honest elections". They have specific policy proposals around voter ID, citizenship verification, and election integrity measures. I will concede that what they think is free and fair, others might not, like legal ID requirement, so that's a requirement reasonable people can disagree on. But I do think, but am very open to be proven wrong, that they explicitly state that they want to do away with free elections. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres... https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-protects-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
        5upplied_demand 8mo ago
        Other people have already shared the multiple statements Trump has made, I've added some below. > “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election...” > "You Won't Have to Vote Anymore" > "The Republicans should say: 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,"

andsoitis 8mo ago

> Their goal is to stay in power at all costs. How, then, do you explain their frequent retreat, e.g. on ICE, on tariffs, etc.? I think they are pushing very very hard on many fronts, but even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback.

hackyhacky 8mo ago
> they are limited by what Americans will allow Sure. The current administration is more message-focused than policy-focused. That's because most voters have no idea about policies, and know only how it's spun on Fox News. This fact makes it all the more frustrating that so many business and influential people are failing to push back when their voice could make a difference.
5upplied_demand 8mo ago
> even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback. But that doesn't change their goal. They have openly stated what they want, the fact that courts have sometimes intervened or that fig leaves have been given doesn't change the long-term goal. Were they retreating on ICE when they said they want them at polling stations? It seems like an escalation to me.
- andsoitis 8mo ago
  > But that doesn't change their goal. OK, let's assume that. Goal is one thing. How far they're willing and able to go (and hence be effective in getting that goal) is a different matter. That's my argument. The current adminitration has shown that their ego (adoration) is a limiting factor in what they're willing to do for power. To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? Is it just political theater?
  - 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
    > OK, let's assume that. No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! > To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? This isn't about "Top Republicans," it is about the administration. The same administration that is actively trying to nationalize elections to prevent that bloodbath. Secondly, is it conceivable that Republicans fearing an electoral bloodbath would make them more likely to support aggressive election interference (ICE a polling stations, new election laws, Federal takeover of elections, re-litigating 2020 Georgia results)?
    - andsoitis 8mo ago
      > > OK, let's assume that. > No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it! Really honest question... can you point us to that explicit statement? The Trump administration's official executive orders and fact sheets repeatedly state their goal is to have "free, fair, and honest elections". They have specific policy proposals around voter ID, citizenship verification, and election integrity measures. I will concede that what they think is free and fair, others might not, like legal ID requirement, so that's a requirement reasonable people can disagree on. But I do think, but am very open to be proven wrong, that they explicitly state that they want to do away with free elections. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres... https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-protects-the-integrity-of-american-elections/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
      - 5upplied_demand 8mo ago
        Other people have already shared the multiple statements Trump has made, I've added some below. > “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election...” > "You Won't Have to Vote Anymore" > "The Republicans should say: 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,"