I do think that significant amounts of money are being spent to make people believe that the admin has wide support and is legitimate in a general democratic sense.

Ultimately, in a democracy, legitimacy really boils down to how much people are willing to tolerate, and that’s a very malleable metric, adjusted through fear, greed, hope, and all of the deceptions as well as legitimate plans that contribute to those motivations.

The people that I know that support him have simplistic worldviews, and largely see him as a wrecking ball destroying what they were previously dissatisfied with. I suppose that’s not too far off, actually. It’s kind of like “giant meteorite for 2028” vibes, except they mean it.

Notably, the only people who wish for a political devolution are ones who haven’t lived through one. This doesn’t end well.

I would say that despite whatever pardons (which I believe can only be federal, not state?), he pro-actively gives himself and colleagues, family etc when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.

In that regard, having massive personal wealth makes some kind of sense.

However - they're all at it to some degree across both sides of the aisle - Pelosi, Crenshaw etc etc.

Couldn't even follow the ask in your first sentence.

It also came with a request for no-downvotes... What's next? A request for only responses that agree with me?

Here's my request: Upvotes only. Please don't respond.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's "nonsensical and incoherent"

Examples?

> when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.

Uhm...have you mixed Trump up with someone else. It is Trump who loves to bring spurious lawsuits. When Trump is on the receiving end it is almost always not a spurious lawsuit.

> Examples?

I don't think there is much point debating with someone who doesn't actually follow the news.

None of these are "lawfare". The only one that could even remotely maybe be called that was the retention of classified documents, because other Presidents have also retained documents they were not allowed to, as have others such as Vice Presidents, so it might give the initial appearance of Trump being singled out for something that ex-officials are usually not punished for.

However, in those cases either the ex-official or their staff discovered that they had documents they were not allowed to have and immediately notified the government and arranged to securely return the documents, or if it was the government that discovered it and as soon as notified the ex-official immediately returned the documents.

Only Trump refused to return the documents, despite many requests and warnings that it could result in criminal charges.

This was widely reported. When you said "follow the news" did you only mean Fox or Newsmax or whatever shows up on your social media feeds?

Ah yes, boxes upon boxes of national secrets retained to discredit John Bolton who is, coincidentally, going to be convicted for doing the same.

Well, for that and possibly to share with certain guests.

A God that murders people because his feelings got hurt while demanding no one murder, a husband beats his wife and kids because he wasn't respected - these are valid in their moral framework, cruel asymmetrical power structures.

There is a dominant race, a dominant gender, and a dominant country in their view. Laws exist only to control the weak.

These people love Trump because he represents the slave owning, male-dominated, terrorist rebels that form the myth of who we are as a nation. His corruption and enrichment is why they love him.

The most important point for every political faction however is to realize that the problems aren't solved when the current president steps down. The real power that pushes the agenda rest in the hands of a loosely connected network of 'think tanks', religious organizations, tech billionaires and media moguls. They are hidden from the public discourse, simply because they are able to manage it, and as such are a formidable opponent.

Integrity not to burn down the system and/or enrich themselves? All of them: Biden, Obama, Bush43, Clinton, Bush41, etc (maybe Nixon the least). If Hillary Clinton or Harris would were elected they would have been as well.

You may be disagree with their policies, and think perhaps they're helping certain special interest groups, but has anyone tried to enrich themselves while in office (versus book deals and speaking fees once they're out)?

How would you know and why would you have such a strong opinion?

Do you also happen to astroturf rightoid politics on Twitter by any chance? I heard it's a common pastime.

Also your framing of "I read you argue in favour of far-right German anti-immigration politics a few days ago" intended to discredit my question, like would it be valid only the questions came from far-left antifa supporters?

You seem to be using the "they're all as bad as eachother" argument. But previous US presidents haven't used their office for enrichment on this scale - and so it seems likely that there are alternative potential presidents who would behave with integrity and dignity.

But isn't that the case? They are all as bad and corrupt in their own merit. Coming back to the original question, do you have anyone concrete in mind that can be the alternative to Trump?

No, it isn't. There are people of good will and integrity in US politics. As there are is almost all countries.

"They're all as bad as eachother" is just a lazy excuse for cynicism and inaction.

Yep, and over the last year I’ve watched them get slaughtered in primaries.

No.

Has any other president fired the the FBI directory because he wouldn't swear personal loyalty to him (like Trump did Comey)? Did any other president try to do a (self) coup?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...

Did any other president receive hundreds of millions of dollars in value as a gift?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25B_Bridge

> Coming back to the original question, do you have anyone concrete in mind that can be the alternative to Trump?

Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presiden...

You may disagree with their policies (and even values), but would have anyone else tried to do an end-run around the Constitution? Pence went through with the 2020 election certification even when people were literally calling him for to be lynched.

The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.

> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.

So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.

Further, wikipedia is not a credible source link in-case you didn't know. Anyone can edit the pages there and somethings are verified and sometime once could even make up facts and link to fake articles.

Also stated in a news report[1] linked by Wikipedia,

In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar -- a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.

[1] https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-administration-poised-acc...

@grok what is a credible source?

/s of course

Some of us went to school before Wikipedia was invented. And even if Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source directly, going to the references cited in a Wikipedia article and citing those I'm guess is another matter.

>The aircraft is slated to be transferred to Trump's presidential library foundation shortly before the end of his second term, though critics argue that such a transfer may be unconstitutional.

So it will go to Trump, but only after getting the government to pay billions to upgrade it.

>> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.

> So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.

What have those people done, particularly Harris, Clinton, Kasich, and Pence that would qualify them for the "crook" title? And have any of them done such things within an order of magnitude or two of the rate and intensity that Trump has done them?

* Nixon is not an example that helps your case

* Truman fired MacArther for insubordination (and nearing starting WW3): generals do not get to set policy

* essential workers are not allowed to strike: police and firefighters would be fired too

* Ford (Nixon's VP in case you didn't know) isn't helping your case either

* firing a personal chief of staff different compared to a Senate-appointed position, especially one that's supposed to be work independent (like the AG is also supposed to be)

* again, a general that does not get to set policy over a President

Comey was fired for no other reason that he would not cow-tow to Trump. Compare-contrast with another FBI Director's firing:

> However, Sessions’ ethics came into question just before then-President-elect Bill Clinton was inaugurated. Sessions was accused of improperly using an FBI plane to visit his family as well as reportedly installing a security fence around his home on the government’s dime. A Justice Department report found that Sessions had avoided paying taxes on the use of his FBI limousine for his daily commute.

* https://abcnews.com/Politics/president-clinton-fired-fbi-dir...

> So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.

Yes, all those are crooks…

> Further, wikipedia is not a credible source link in-case you didn't know. Anyone can edit the pages there and somethings are verified and sometime once could even make up facts and link to fake articles.

Feel free to click "edit" yourself to remove the made "up facts and link to fake articles."

But anyone with a decent amount of dignity, humility, empathy and confidence will do.

Is that enough though? That's more like saying running a country based on vibes. One could argue that a person needs strong leadership, someone putting national interest above else and work for the interest of the people that elected the person.

If you think about it the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies. In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing

> […] the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies.

I don’t see how you can say that, and then:

> In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing

Like, those are the traits required to unselfishly serve others. See literally any religion or framework of ethics.

They will try to resist until last breath to not disclose them.

Why more Gov people and not Billionaires: While a few Bilns maybe amongst there, the thing is as Billionaire you can already affort anything everybody wants, but a Gov person cant do that, even if the person is rich/wealthy

These people have enablers everywhere. It’s exactly like the abuse in the catholic church. The people in power can’t do without the enablers that make excuses for them.

Not a Trump supporter but from the ones I've spoken to it's mostly this. Something like, "They all do it, he's just honest about it."

I'd argue that actively trying to make enemies out of friends is in no way going to make America stronger. Quite the opposite.