Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

Simply put. Ask the progressive Democrat bastions of sanctuary how they feel about wide-open illegal immigrant freedom of movement now that their sanctuaries are being overwhelmingly inundated to the point of them saying don't come here. They are perfectly fine with open borders as long as it doesn't directly affect them. Now it has and they don't like it.

The people are saying don't come here. The Democrat politicians want the votes. Mayor of Chicago wants them, for example. He's pleading to Biden to grant work permits, saying Chicago could handle 400-700 thousand illegal immigrants.

For what purpose? Because he's kind? Because he believes in "free movement?" Ordinary people, even the NPC's (non-playable characters) don't want them. They want to be able to virtue signal, but the cost of that unearned virtue is too high. The Mayor of Chicago is a mayor of ClownWorld™.

 

[KG1]

The people are saying don't come here. The Democrat politicians want the votes. Mayor of Chicago wants them, for example. He's pleading to Biden to grant work permits, saying Chicago could handle 400-700 thousand illegal immigrants.

For what purpose? Because he's kind? Because he believes in "free movement?" Ordinary people, even the NPC's (non-playable characters) don't want them. They want to be able to virtue signal, but the cost of that unearned virtue is too high. The Mayor of Chicago is a mayor of ClownWorld™.

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul flat out said don't come here anymore.

 

[jamil]

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul flat out said don't come here anymore.

Did she run out of handouts? Maybe the crime is becoming embarrassing?

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul flat out said don't come here anymore.

Send more.

 

[BugI02]

@LeftyGunner, I think I want to address "MAGA" more. I mean, it was a campaign slogan that became an identity. As an individualist, I'm disinterested in group identity. But Just throwing MAGA at people as if that's a valid argument against what they believe is lazy. Putting Trump aside, which we can do, because I think the ideas are bigger than him, I think what it means is two things: A movement that is both populist and America-first. Both ideas are intertwined. America-first is nationalist, in that our politicians should put American citizens first. It's what we elect them to do. I don't vote for people who want to make Israeli lives better, for example.

Populism and nationalism have been villainized as Nazism, but primarily by elitists who think they should run the show, because they're elite. Populism is simply the idea that ordinary people should have no less say about polices that affect them, than elites. It is rather the establishment of democricy, not the distruction of it.

Nationalism is the idea that people, espeically elected leaders, should put their nation first. Americans should put America first before other nations. Brits should put GB ahead of other nations. French should put--wait, not sure we can go that far. Sacre bleu, after all. Anyway, you get the idea.

There is a part of MAGA that's inextricable from Trump. That's the identity part that I mentioned. The part that will last, at least I hope will last is the idea that nations exist for a reason, and will continue to exist as long as human nature is what it is. And nations should serve it's own citizens interests rather than other nations. The idea of globalism is a falure that will result in tyranny. And in serving a nation's best interest, every citizen should have an equal say in the policies that affect them. So yes, that means the Citizens United ruling is retarded.

So the parts of MAGA that I'm saying are legit, are concepts we're not going to find in the Left wing establishment. You'll only find it in the populist Left movement (people like Jimmy Dore, Russel Brand, etcetera. But the Left wing media is so stupid, they think those guys are right wing. MAGA isn't really right wing. It's just that the left is incapable of the intellectual honesty to say what it really is.

Dude, society floats on a sea of hypocrisy and sarcasm. When I **** on leftism and the spittle LG flings when he foams at the mouth about MAGA are just our respective contributions to that sea

 

[LeftyGunner]

@LeftyGunner, I think I want to address "MAGA" more.

Cool, I think this is a conversation worth having.

I mean, it was a campaign slogan that became an identity.

Yeah, I agree…and this fact is one of the things that makes discussing MAGA sincerely from differing perspectives so tricky.

Its all too easy to fall into a sort of “motte and bailey” fallacy due to the ambiguity in terms, and the diversity of imagery associated with them.

I think It might be important to make it clear when we are referring to MAGA the (rather unlikely) identity group vs MAGA the (rather vacant) ideology vs MAGA the (rather genius) marketing brand.

The same words can have a much different meaning if the base assumption in an idea is mistaken.

As an individualist, I'm disinterested in group identity.

Me too. I have spent much of my life trying to escape stereotypes attached to my defacto group identity.

But Just throwing MAGA at people as if that's a valid argument against what they believe is lazy.

I agree, but I don’t think that’s what I am doing…it certainly isn’t what I’m trying to do.

Putting Trump aside, which we can do, because I think the ideas are bigger than him,

I just realized I am chiming in after every sentence, and that type of thing is going to make for an unnecessarily drawn-out response, so I’ll try to keep it to a minimum…after this one (lol)…

Okay…I think we have reached our first fundamental disagreement in this branch of our discussion: I don’t think Trump can be put aside from MAGA…in any of its facets.

I offer the DeSantis campaign as evidence: being “America-First” (borrowing what I believe to be your core definitions the term) is less appealing to
MAGA voters than being Donald Trump.

One of my primary concerns with the MAGA movement is that it walks, quacks, and swims more like a cult of personality than a political ideology.

With that said, I still want to engage with your arguments at face value because I think you make some solid points in the following paragraphs:

I think what it means is two things: A movement that is both populist and America-first. Both ideas are intertwined. America-first is nationalist, in that our politicians should put American citizens first. It's what we elect them to do. I don't vote for people who want to make Israeli lives better, for example.

Populism and nationalism have been villainized as Nazism, but primarily by elitists who think they should run the show, because they're elite. Populism is simply the idea that ordinary people should have no less say about polices that affect them, than elites. It is rather the establishment of democricy, not the distruction of it.

Nationalism is the idea that people, espeically elected leaders, should put their nation first. Americans should put America first before other nations. Brits should put GB ahead of other nations. French should put--wait, not sure we can go that far. Sacre bleu, after all. Anyway, you get the idea.

I think this is a good place to break in and respond.

First, I agree that the MAGA movement is primarily a populist movement, and that grants a certain, IDK the correct term…maybe gravitas…to any group regardless of the ideology attached to the group.

I also agree that MAGA has a strong current of nationalism associated with it…and I don’t automatically assign a negative connotation to that term.

I don’t have a problem with populism, and I don’t have a problem with nationalism…until they are used as a Trojan horse for authoritarianism.

There is a part of MAGA that's inextricable from Trump. That's the identity part that I mentioned. The part that will last, at least I hope will last is the idea that nations exist for a reason, and will continue to exist as long as human nature is what it is. And nations should serve it's own citizens interests rather than other nations. The idea of globalism is a falure that will result in tyranny. And in serving a nation's best interest, every citizen should have an equal say in the policies that affect them. So yes, that means the Citizens United ruling is retarded.

So the parts of MAGA that I'm saying are legit, are concepts we're not going to find in the Left wing establishment. You'll only find it in the populist Left movement (people like Jimmy Dore, Russel Brand, etcetera. But the Left wing media is so stupid, they think those guys are right wing. MAGA isn't really right wing. It's just that the left is incapable of the intellectual honesty to say what it really is.

Populists want what (they think) is best for their population. Nationalists want what (they think) is best for their nation.

MAGA is inextricable from Trump, in my opinion, because when faced with a choice of what is better for their own population, better for their own nation, better for their own stated interests, or better for Trump…well, over and over again MAGA chooses Trump.

I have already written (at considerable length, lol) about my discomfort with both Trump’s abilities and his intentions as chief executive, and I don’t think this is the place to rehash those thoughts, so I’ll close with this:

Personally, I think America-first voters would be better served by aligning behind a leader of greater character and intellect than Trump, and I think the America-first ideology would be better served by a figure who appeals more broadly to populists of all ideological stripes.

I don’t have a problem with a policy set that takes an America-First approach…I have a problem with labeling everything Trump does as “America First”

 

[Ingomike]

What is the source of “Journalism” you gain IQ?

Hint: it isn’t political punditry.

 

[LeftyGunner]

View attachment 345315

Mike, I get what you are saying here, and I actually agree more than I disagree…the media is a public servant trying desperately to become our master.

Offering political spin as a rebuttal to political spin creates satisfying sound bites, but doesn’t really change minds or move the conversation forward and, ultimately pushes the participants further back into their own separate groups.

I don’t post many of my own links for the same reason I reject so many of yours…the underlying articles I find are of poor journalistic quality, a problem plaguing seemingly all of modern media and, more outwardly, much of broader public discourse.

Until we (all of us) can find…and agree on…reliable sources for relatively unbiased information…and are willing to do the hard work of critical thinking required to parse that information ourselves…I think the ideological divide between Americans will be both more difficult for ”us” to bridge, and easier for “them” to exploit against us.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Dude, society floats on a sea of hypocrisy and sarcasm. When I **** on leftism and the spittle LG flings when he foams at the mouth about MAGA are just our respective contributions to that sea

Aww…bug…common ground and a distantly respectful tone…in a post mentioning me?

Now I’m worried…Should I call an ambulance for you?

 

[sapper83]

Cool, I think this is a conversation worth having.




Yeah, I agree…and this fact is one of the things that makes discussing MAGA sincerely from differing perspectives so tricky.

Its all too easy to fall into a sort of “motte and bailey” fallacy due to the ambiguity in terms, and the diversity of imagery associated with them.

I think It might be important to make it clear when we are referring to MAGA the (rather unlikely) identity group vs MAGA the (rather vacant) ideology vs MAGA the (rather genius) marketing brand.

The same words can have a much different meaning if the base assumption in an idea is mistaken.



Me too. I have spent much of my life trying to escape stereotypes attached to my defacto group identity.



I agree, but I don’t think that’s what I am doing…it certainly isn’t what I’m trying to do.



I just realized I am chiming in after every sentence, and that type of thing is going to make for an unnecessarily drawn-out response, so I’ll try to keep it to a minimum…after this one (lol)…

Okay…I think we have reached our first fundamental disagreement in this branch of our discussion: I don’t think Trump can be put aside from MAGA…in any of its facets.

I offer the DeSantis campaign as evidence: being “America-First” (borrowing what I believe to be your core definitions the term) is less appealing to
MAGA voters than being Donald Trump.

One of my primary concerns with the MAGA movement is that it walks, quacks, and swims more like a cult of personality than a political ideology.

With that said, I still want to engage with your arguments at face value because I think you make some solid points in the following paragraphs:



I think this is a good place to break in and respond.

First, I agree that the MAGA movement is primarily a populist movement, and that grants a certain, IDK the correct term…maybe gravitas…to any group regardless of the ideology attached to the group.

I also agree that MAGA has a strong current of nationalism associated with it…and I don’t automatically assign a negative connotation to that term.

I don’t have a problem with populism, and I don’t have a problem with nationalism…until they are used as a Trojan horse for authoritarianism.




Populists want what (they think) is best for their population. Nationalists want what (they think) is best for their nation.

MAGA is inextricable from Trump, in my opinion, because when faced with a choice of what is better for their own population, better for their own nation, better for their own stated interests, or better for Trump…well, over and over again MAGA chooses Trump.

I have already written (at considerable length, lol) about my discomfort with both Trump’s abilities and his intentions as chief executive, and I don’t think this is the place to rehash those thoughts, so I’ll close with this:

Personally, I think America-first voters would be better served by aligning behind a leader of greater character and intellect than Trump, and I think the America-first ideology would be better served by a figure who appeals more broadly to populists of all ideological stripes.

I don’t have a problem with a policy set that takes an America-First approach…I have a problem with labeling everything Trump does as “America First”

Craming 5 dollar words into sentences doesn't make your point more valid, just saying.

Thats what lefties do though, to try to sound more articulate and educated then the opposition.

 

[sapper83]

Mike, I get what you are saying here, and I actually agree more than I disagree…the media is a public servant trying desperately to become our master.

Offering political spin as a rebuttal to political spin creates satisfying sound bites, but doesn’t really change minds or move the conversation forward and, ultimately pushes the participants further back into their own separate groups.

I don’t post many of my own links for the same reason I reject so many of yours…the underlying articles I find are of poor journalistic quality, a problem plaguing seemingly all of modern media and, more outwardly, much of broader public discourse.

Until we (all of us) can find…and agree on…reliable sources for relatively unbiased information…and are willing to do the hard work of critical thinking required to parse that information ourselves…I think the ideological divide between Americans will be both more difficult for ”us” to bridge, and easier for “them” to exploit against us.

Try rumble, you might like it.

 

[jamil]

Cool, I think this is a conversation worth having.




Yeah, I agree…and this fact is one of the things that makes discussing MAGA sincerely from differing perspectives so tricky.

Its all too easy to fall into a sort of “motte and bailey” fallacy due to the ambiguity in terms, and the diversity of imagery associated with them.

I think It might be important to make it clear when we are referring to MAGA the (rather unlikely) identity group vs MAGA the (rather vacant) ideology vs MAGA the (rather genius) marketing brand.

The same words can have a much different meaning if the base assumption in an idea is mistaken.

I don't usually use the term MAGA no matter how I mean. Different people mean it different ways in different contexts. Most people on the left I've seen on social media use it as a term of disgust, as if it were a synonym of "Nazi". Or cooties. Those people loathe MAGA. And they don't even understand it. They use it the way you seemed to be using it.

I'd rather just say, when I'm talking about Trump supporters, just Trumpers. Which I define as ardent Trump supporters. When I talk about America-first I usually say that.

Me too. I have spent much of my life trying to escape stereotypes attached to my defacto group identity.

Which is ironic given the name LeftyGunner.

I agree, but I don’t think that’s what I am doing…it certainly isn’t what I’m trying to do.

Yeah, it did seem to me that this was exactly what you were doing.

I just realized I am chiming in after every sentence, and that type of thing is going to make for an unnecessarily drawn-out response, so I’ll try to keep it to a minimum…after this one (lol)…

Okay…I think we have reached our first fundamental disagreement in this branch of our discussion: I don’t think Trump can be put aside from MAGA…in any of its facets.

In the America-first facit, sure you can. America first will hopefully live far past Trump.

I offer the DeSantis campaign as evidence: being “America-First” (borrowing what I believe to be your core definitions the term) is less appealing to
MAGA voters than being Donald Trump.

One of my primary concerns with the MAGA movement is that it walks, quacks, and swims more like a cult of personality than a political ideology.

I've made similar points before the primary season when Trumpers discovered a skepticism for DeSantis after singing his praises before he announced he was running. And as I said, that's the part where Trump is inextricable from MAGA. The part of MAGA that is populist/nationalist can easily be thought of separately from Trump. Will these ideas die when Trump dies? Depends how communist America becomes.

With that said, I still want to engage with your arguments at face value because I think you make some solid points in the following paragraphs:



I think this is a good place to break in and respond.

First, I agree that the MAGA movement is primarily a populist movement, and that grants a certain, IDK the correct term…maybe gravitas…to any group regardless of the ideology attached to the group.

I also agree that MAGA has a strong current of nationalism associated with it…and I don’t automatically assign a negative connotation to that term.

I don’t have a problem with populism, and I don’t have a problem with nationalism…until they are used as a Trojan horse for authoritarianism.

When Trump won the nomination I said I was going to write in...hell I don't even remember. The way Trump was talking about law and order, he sounded very authoritarian. But his policies were not all that authoritarian. He wasn't any more authoritarian than Bush. With some notable exceptions. The bump stock ban for example. The lockdowns, though I don't fault him for going along with it. It would take an extraordnary president to say no when the expert was saying lock it down.

But, if you're worried about authoritarianism, why aren't you worried about Biden. At least Trump did not force people to be vaccinated like Biden did. Also, Biden is using the DOJ as a weapon against his opposition. When Biden derides Trump voters, he's villainizing a lot of people dishonestly. They don't deserve it. Yeah, there are some people who get kinda culty over Trump. The left has its cultiness too. I'm not even sure it's a wash. I mean they ****ing worship George Floyd, for **** sake. He was a drug addict who swallowed fentanol when he made contact with the police, so he wouldn't get busted. They made a statue of him.

Populists want what (they think) is best for their population. Nationalists want what (they think) is best for their nation.

I think that these are simplistic definitions. But sure.

MAGA is inextricable from Trump, in my opinion, because when faced with a choice of what is better for their own population, better for their own nation, better for their own stated interests, or better for Trump…well, over and over again MAGA chooses Trump.

This is a good point. You can just read through the DeSantis thread and parts of this thread and see that all played out. But in terms of inextricability, you can't take Trump out of the Trumper. The loyalty is very high. And there are some good reasons for that. They're not bad reasons.

Trump helped give people who think in these terms, the language to think it. I think a lot of people had these feelings, but Trump filled staduims and for all his colloquial language, he got the points across. Regardless how well he adheres to AF/populism himself, he changed some minds. Not for the bad. You talked about corporate personhood brought about by the Citizens United ruling. Well, the only Republicans now who orgasm at the thought of corporate personhood are tradcons. Like Mitch McConnell.

I have already written (at considerable length, lol) about my discomfort with both Trump’s abilities and his intentions as chief executive, and I don’t think this is the place to rehash those thoughts, so I’ll close with this:

Personally, I think America-first voters would be better served by aligning behind a leader of greater character and intellect than Trump, and I think the America-first ideology would be better served by a figure who appeals more broadly to populists of all ideological stripes.

I don’t have a problem with a policy set that takes an America-First approach…I have a problem with labeling everything Trump does as “America First”

No disagreement there. But, to me, Trump is far less dangerous than Biden. I don't see him being any more authoritarian than he was in his first term. And certainly not even as authoritarian as Biden is. Trump was president of all of united states. Biden is the president of the people who agree with him. He puts great effort into marginalizing those who don't.

 

[jamil]

Mike, I get what you are saying here, and I actually agree more than I disagree…the media is a public servant trying desperately to become our master.

Offering political spin as a rebuttal to political spin creates satisfying sound bites, but doesn’t really change minds or move the conversation forward and, ultimately pushes the participants further back into their own separate groups.

I don’t post many of my own links for the same reason I reject so many of yours…the underlying articles I find are of poor journalistic quality, a problem plaguing seemingly all of modern media and, more outwardly, much of broader public discourse.

Until we (all of us) can find…and agree on…reliable sources for relatively unbiased information…and are willing to do the hard work of critical thinking required to parse that information ourselves…I think the ideological divide between Americans will be both more difficult for ”us” to bridge, and easier for “them” to exploit against us.

I don't know if you've participated in the "is the right/left divide bridgeable" thread, or have even seen it. It's not reliable sources that make the divide. That sure contributes, but, it's worldview that has created the divide, and it's not the right wing doing it. Conservatives, have had pretty much the same worldview for a very long time. It's the Left that has changed and has left even some of its own behind.

I think today's Left is incompatible with American values. You've tried to answer that claim with something like "American values" are diverse. Well, no they're not. The Left thinks American values are racist/fascist. I don't think there is any common ground to be had with ClownWorld™.

People on the left keep saying MAGA is trying to ruin our democracy, but I'd bet the people saying that don't define democracy the same way.

 

[jamil]

Craming 5 dollar words into sentences doesn't make your point more valid, just saying.

Thats what lefties do though, to try to sound more articulate and educated then the opposition.

Now c'mon man. Bidenomics induced Inflation makes them at least worth $7.99.

 

[Tombs]

Cool, I think this is a conversation worth having.




Yeah, I agree…and this fact is one of the things that makes discussing MAGA sincerely from differing perspectives so tricky.

Its all too easy to fall into a sort of “motte and bailey” fallacy due to the ambiguity in terms, and the diversity of imagery associated with them.

I think It might be important to make it clear when we are referring to MAGA the (rather unlikely) identity group vs MAGA the (rather vacant) ideology vs MAGA the (rather genius) marketing brand.

The same words can have a much different meaning if the base assumption in an idea is mistaken.



Me too. I have spent much of my life trying to escape stereotypes attached to my defacto group identity.



I agree, but I don’t think that’s what I am doing…it certainly isn’t what I’m trying to do.



I just realized I am chiming in after every sentence, and that type of thing is going to make for an unnecessarily drawn-out response, so I’ll try to keep it to a minimum…after this one (lol)…

Okay…I think we have reached our first fundamental disagreement in this branch of our discussion: I don’t think Trump can be put aside from MAGA…in any of its facets.

I offer the DeSantis campaign as evidence: being “America-First” (borrowing what I believe to be your core definitions the term) is less appealing to
MAGA voters than being Donald Trump.

One of my primary concerns with the MAGA movement is that it walks, quacks, and swims more like a cult of personality than a political ideology.

With that said, I still want to engage with your arguments at face value because I think you make some solid points in the following paragraphs:



I think this is a good place to break in and respond.

First, I agree that the MAGA movement is primarily a populist movement, and that grants a certain, IDK the correct term…maybe gravitas…to any group regardless of the ideology attached to the group.

I also agree that MAGA has a strong current of nationalism associated with it…and I don’t automatically assign a negative connotation to that term.

I don’t have a problem with populism, and I don’t have a problem with nationalism…until they are used as a Trojan horse for authoritarianism.




Populists want what (they think) is best for their population. Nationalists want what (they think) is best for their nation.

MAGA is inextricable from Trump, in my opinion, because when faced with a choice of what is better for their own population, better for their own nation, better for their own stated interests, or better for Trump…well, over and over again MAGA chooses Trump.

I have already written (at considerable length, lol) about my discomfort with both Trump’s abilities and his intentions as chief executive, and I don’t think this is the place to rehash those thoughts, so I’ll close with this:

Personally, I think America-first voters would be better served by aligning behind a leader of greater character and intellect than Trump, and I think the America-first ideology would be better served by a figure who appeals more broadly to populists of all ideological stripes.

I don’t have a problem with a policy set that takes an America-First approach…I have a problem with labeling everything Trump does as “America First”

So you use all of these sentences to claim Trump is an authoritarian, without presenting any evidence he is. Much less considering that it's all relative whether you like it or not, and your current cheer leader is one of the most authoritarian presidents since Lincoln.

Vivek was a good continuation of Trump's vision, but DeSantis is not. After all he just signed off on legislation outlawing criticism of Israel. Now that could be argued as an authoritarian act, and also very Anti-AmericaFirst.

Trump provided some great times, some of the best times in my life economically. He represented a fair portion of my views faithfully and loudly. He stayed between the lanes, even at the expense of implementing some of his policies, to respect the constitution.

I see no evidence of authoritarianism, in fact, I see significant physical evidence to the contrary. To me that sounds as ridiculous as someone claiming we didn't land on the moon, and citing their favorite conspiracy rag.

Was Hillary put in prison?
Was the wall fully completed in leu of congress refusing to provide funding?
Were all immigrants denied entry to the US?
Was the 2020 election canceled?
Did Trump leave the white house?
Did Trump label half of the country a terrorist organization?

 

[Ingomike]

Until we (all of us) can find…and agree on…reliable sources for relatively unbiased information…and are willing to do the hard work of critical thinking required to parse that information ourselves…I think the ideological divide between Americans will be both more difficult for ”us” to bridge, and easier for “them” to exploit against us.

Waiting for the current administration to finish their ministry of truth?

I hope you are not implying that we can go back to the vaunted era of Walter Cronkite was “news”? It was as bad as today, maybe worse, because few had the ability to check what was broadcast and no reasonable way to disseminate the information if they found it. The gates have been broken and we are better off for it.

They never were the neutral objective news they tried to make the viewers believe. Huntley-Brinkley, Cronkite and all the others were just as biased as they thought they could get by with. Want proof? Look no farther than the involvement in operation mockingbird.

We don’t even have mainstream independent media today. Look at who owns them. They are all entangled in a globalist/government corporate ball of twine. What you describe is not possible because it does not exist.

The fact is much of the real news breaks from places you find unsavory because the aforementioned cabal will not report it, even if they have it on a silver platter and that is not new. Many outlets had the Clinton story but it did not break until Drudge broke it thirty years ago.

What actually needs to happen is Americans need to get used to not trusting any sources by default and making up their own minds instead of watching the View and Colbert for their instructions…

 

[Ingomike]

I get what you are saying here, and I actually agree more than I disagree…the media is a public servant trying desperately to become our master.

The media is a corporate pawn.

 

[Ingomike]

Also, if you're referring to citizens united decision, I think if you listen to the America-first Republicans, they'll agree with you that corporations don't have a "personhood". It was a horrible decision.

I find few actually know the history on Citizens United, but they love to rail on the case and decision. Are you saying you believe it constitutional the government can restrict the speech of corporations?

 

[Magyars]

 

[LeftyGunner]

So you use all of these sentences to claim Trump is an authoritarian, without presenting any evidence he is.

Read it again. I don’t make the claim that Trump is an authoritarian. I argue that populism and nationalism make good cover for authoritarianism.

You spend the rest of your post railing against points I never made.

Much less considering that it's all relative whether you like it or not, and your current cheer leader is one of the most authoritarian presidents since Lincoln.

Vivek was a good continuation of Trump's vision, but DeSantis is not. After all he just signed off on legislation outlawing criticism of Israel. Now that could be argued as an authoritarian act, and also very Anti-AmericaFirst.

Trump provided some great times, some of the best times in my life economically.

This is conformation bias. You attribute everything good to Trump, and everything bad to democrats…regardless of the underlying truth.

He represented a fair portion of my views faithfully and loudly. He stayed between the lanes, even at the expense of implementing some of his policies, to respect the constitution.

I see no evidence of authoritarianism, in fact, I see significant physical evidence to the contrary. To me that sounds as ridiculous as someone claiming we didn't land on the moon, and citing their favorite conspiracy rag.

Was Hillary put in prison?
Was the wall fully completed in leu of congress refusing to provide funding?
Were all immigrants denied entry to the US?
Was the 2020 election canceled?
Did Trump leave the white house?
Did Trump label half of the country a terrorist organization?