I've read her book "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man" and I have to say, the insight it gave into how Donald Trump came to be was astounding for such a short book. It's 250 pages, but well worth the read.

I don't think that's true. The "left" as I understand it, is a largely heterogenous, loosely united coalition of all kinds of different factions beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting. Some factions are united by choice, and others are there because they would have died out once the USA became consumed by the dominant two-party system we currently languish under.

The Right isn't like this, or at least it's not as bad. Despite having just as many if not more factions with just as many if not more differences and conflicting interests, they value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which keeps them coming together every 4 years to form a surprisingly unified front. It also helps that they all fucking hate anyone even slightly left of center and most will vote for a Republican they despise over a Democrat they kinda sorta like on a personal level.

Consider your average Democratic Senator/Representative. They lean left on many things and have the backing of party leadership. To win their election, they need two things, votes and funding. They know that there are many things their voter base is passionate about, such as healthcare reform, police reform, campaign finance reform, housing and income inequality, and so on. They know their voter base has no hope of ever getting these things from Republicans, but unfortunately they are things that the donor class tends to despise. When faced with the challenge of appealing to all the different factions of the left while staying within the good graces of the wealthy donor class, the Democrat will pivot away from "policy" and focus more on "process". Generally uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, and compromise. They don't really take stances on wedge issues unless they run in a solid blue district where they can take that stance and not break up the coalition or lose donor support.

Hell, the Chicago PD had a blacksite modeled after CIA blacksites, called Homan Square. More than 7,000 people were detained there, and only 68 of them were ever allowed access to an attorney.

And the part that is the most damning detail, it wasn't who the Republicans want it to be. The gunman was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania. Apparently the motivation was because Donald Trump disavowed Project2025.

Honestly if we could get space elevators figured out, the best place to put solar panels would be in the upper atmosphere. Tethered to the ground by massive columns that feed the energy they collect to massive capacitors on the ground?

This. Part of the reason we are in this mess now is that Obama won. The fact that we dare put a black man in the WHITE House, for not 4 but 8 years, broke their tiny little racist brains. They dogged him for every little thing they could, spent 8 years blocking, obstructing, bad faith arguing, and outright refusing to collaborate with a black man.

Like, who do they think they can replace him with, huh? They got a dark horse waiting in the wings? Or are they cooking up the perfect President in a secret cloning lab somewhere?

I want everything SiegedSec found. I intend to copy it and store it for safekeeping.

There were also icemen at one point. Then we invented refrigerators. Nobody seems to miss having a giant block of ice delivered to their house to keep the food we buy at the stores cold. But one thing I think a lot of people miss is appliances that didn't need to be thrown away.

Your point? The USA became the model for the western world in many respects after WW2, I would not be surprised if French billionaires make their money the same way American billionaires do.

People who make money by investing. In the USA, the top 1% earn their income through investments, usually the purchase and sale of stocks. These are not taxed the same as regular income because they made the argument that you can't really tax unrealized gains on investments that are sold, and it takes a while for the gains to actually materialize. Also, they tend to store their money, their liquid assets, in countries with looser tax laws, called tax havens. Much of their net worths are tied up in investments. Businesses, homes, art, classic vehicles, precious metals futures, oil futures, boats, etc.

Assessing the value of all of that is a chore, and they also pay lobbyists to keep the IRS defanged so that they don't have the resources needed to go after the 1%. And don't get me started on how much more speculative the stock market has become. Investors buy stocks, not on the expected dividends they'll receive as a share of the profits of the business, but on their ability to flip the stock and sell it at a higher price to another investor, who is only buying because they anticipate flipping the stock. It's like if a whole neighborhood of single family homes gets bought up buy a few house flippers, who make renovations, then put the houses up for sale, and sell to new flippers, who are only buying so they can make further renovations, increasing the value of the property again to sell to yet another flipper, ad nauseam.

You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35

Yep. Gotta figure someone who's 35 has been around the block, seen some things, knows some things, the office of POTUS doesn't seem like one you should be able to run for right out of high school. Oh, but imagine if we could. I'm sure it would be hilarious to put a high school graduate in office. Especially a Gen Z kid lmao.

That is true, I hadn't considered that. Project 2025 does indeed call for curtailing the sovereignty of the individual States. Perhaps not explicitly, but they will leverage the Supremacy Clause as well as the Commerce Clause to usurp the powers of States they don't like.

Which wouldn't be very "muh states rights" of them, but they don't care.

But how does Federalism line up with fascism? What the other user is talking about in the original setup where if you don't like the State you live in being stuck in the 1800's, you can leave if you want, the Federal Government guarantees your safe passage to a State living in modern times.

Ur ur ur ur ur

MUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDA

You're not wrong. The main issue is that the Democratic Party is more like 15-16 different smaller parties in a big trenchcoat. Some are in there by choice, others had to get in because they weren't strong enough to stand on their own, and didn't want to have their ideas not be heard by somebody.

So you've got all these different groups beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting, and you are a Democratic Party candidate for the House. Now, to win you need votes and funding. There's a lot of things that you know your base cares passionately about that you know they have no hope of ever getting from Republicans, but unfortunately they are also things the big ticket donors despise. So, this begins the delicate dance of appealing to all the different groups AND to wealthy donors. Faced with that challenge, what should you do? Well, in practice what happens is your average Democrat tends to pivot away from policy and focus more on process. Y'know, uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, compromise. And while the lack of these things in DC is something everyone left of center is sick of, they're not things Democrats can make happen all by themselves, and, moreover, none of them are results. They are means by which results are achieved. "A willingness to compromise" is not a position.

But see, most Democrats see that the fragile coalition that makes up the DNC rests upon their backs. Should the coalition survive, or should we let it die?

Personally, I think we should do away with it. Yes, we are the "Big Tent Party", willing to welcome all who do not identify as "conservatives", give them a home and a place for their ideas to grow and be heard. Once upon a time, I think the coalition served a genuine purpose. But now, we are a rudderless ship, at the mercy of the storm. One day, someone will take command and right the vessel. On that day, some of the crew may disagree with the captain, and either mutiny or jump ship, and that's on them if they do.

Well, if you want the history of the Heritage Foundation, look back to the 70's. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell penned a memo to the US Chamber of Commerce titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System" in 1970, and in this memo, he detailed his concern that America's best and brightest students were becoming anti-business because of our involvement in Vietnam. Powell’s agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. Three years later, the Heritage Foundation was founded.

This talk of people as corporations reminds me of Mike Merrill who divided himself into 100k shares and actually got investors. Now he lives at the behest of his 805 shareholders, who decide everything for him. What he wears, where he works, what he has for breakfast, and he pays them a portion of his income as shareholders. As of right now, his shares can be purchased on his website for $5.25 a share.

Free as in beer, I think. A phrase you never hear in the French Quarter is "Last Call!"