A truly invaluable resource.

American Autocracy Threat Tracker

A Comprehensive Catalog Based on Donald Trump and His Associates’ Plans, Promises, and Propositions

American Autocracy Threat Tracker
A comprehensive catalog of the autocratic threat to democracy based on former President Donald Trump and his associates’ autocratic plans and promises.
www.justsecurity.org

It has links to all kinds of information concerning Trump's authoritarian bent. Like testimony from Norm Eisen, Republican, and former ethics monitor for the Bush admin.

"So I agree there can be no more important topic than the weaponization of government. I urge the Committee to focus on the most imminent threat of that weaponization now facing us as a nation: Donald Trump’s record of weaponizing the government and his promises to double down should he return to power. Given my family history, I would be remiss if I did not sound the alarm before you today about the ominous historical echoes of statements like this by former President Trump: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections.”1 That is not all. The former president has raised the prospect that his former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley should be executed for his efforts to mitigate U.S.-China tensions.2 He has also proudly promised that, if he wins the presidency, media outlets that featured any negative coverage of him “will be thoroughly scrutinized because they “should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great country!”3 And he has issued a blanket threat to his opponents: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!” 4
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116793/witnesses/HHRG-118-FD00-Wstate-EisenN-20240206.pdf

I'm not sure what Don means when he says media outlets critical of him "will be thoroughly scrutinized" but it has an ominous sound to it. As though he is prepared to infringe on the free speech rights of news outlets he doesn't like. It isn't the first time he's explored ways to silence his critics.

Trump Renews Pledge to ‘Take a Strong Look’ at Libel Laws

Trump Renews Pledge to ‘Take a Strong Look’ at Libel Laws (Published 201
At a cabinet meeting, the return of the president as press critic, after his legal maneuvers against BuzzFeed and the publisher of Michael Wolff’s book.
www.nytimes.com

Obama was critical of Faux during his time as prez. But..............

“I complained plenty about Fox News, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people.”

Obama, Fox News and the Free Press - FactCheck.org
Former President Barack Obama stood up for a free press in his first political speech of the 2018 campaign season, but he engaged in a bit of revisionist history when it came to his administration's dealings with Fox News.
www.factcheck.org

Personally, I think the threats Donald Trump, felon, has made against the media are empty bluster just like the notion of locking up Hillary was. Cuz their real goal is to get a message across. Namely the media...“should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great country!”

The reality is media outlets he doesn't like have reported on what HE has "done to our once great country." They are also reporting on what he plans to do to our once great country.


About Project 2025 | Project 2025
The actions of liberal politicians in Washington have created a desperate need and unique opportunity for conservatives to start undoing the damage the Left has wrought and build a better country for all Americans in 2025. It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to...
www.project2025.org

In America, the tax cheating, adulterous, rapist knows he can't silence the media like he wants to. The alternative he is left with is to de-legitimize it. What better way to do than accuse it of being the enemy of the people when in fact it is his enemy for reporting the truth about him.

 

A truly invaluable source of propaganda. No doubt.

 

Would we see the apocalypse of democracy:

 

Surely you jest.......

 

Yeah, you won't get an honest discussion of Project 2025 among our PF righties.

This is a blatant threat to our democracy. It is the blueprint to turn us into a weird pseudo-theocracy based on white male Christian grievances.

 

I have read a fair portion of Project 2025 an have found no instances of what you complain about.

 

Really? You don't think that their desire to break down the wall of separation between church and state is a threat?

You think that getting rid of abortion, contraception, and even outlawing pornography is NOT a problem?

 

There is no constitutional wall of separation between church and state.

Project 2025 does not suggest a federal ban on abortions. That could not be done anyway as SCOTUS has ruled that unconstitutional. It does want to remove the emphasis on abortion in USAID. It in no way suggests outlawing contraception. It does suggest the idiotic free contraception called for in Obamacare be eliminated and that medical providers with a religious basis not be forced to provide contraception. Although it emphasized child porn it does state that porn should be outlawed. I don't agree with that. Besides it'll never happen.

In any case your examples are light years away from "a blatant threat to our democracy and the blueprint to turn us into a weird pseudo-theocracy based on white male Christian grievances."

 

Dude, are you effing serious?

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ​

You should look at because it is clear you haven't. Project 2025

 

This says the federal government cannot establish a religion as the official religion in the country for all. (and presumably neither can any state.) It also says the government cannot interfere with anybody freely practicing whatever religion they choose. It say nothing about a wall separating any religion from the government​

 

It is an established precedent for over 200 years. I'm sure the MAGA crowd is all excited to overturn it, but it is only one piece of the fascist takeover Trump wants to establish.

 

Nonsense.

 

Oh yeah, Trump turned us into a fascist state when he was president for 4 years but then along came Biden and freed us -- LOL

 

I'm not sure what Don means when he says media outlets critical of him "will be thoroughly scrutinized" but it has an ominous sound to it. As though he is prepared to infringe on the free speech rights of news outlets he doesn't like. It isn't the first time he's explored ways to silence his critics.

Maybe make them more honest in reporting what Trump has done?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2402122609884100

 

1. www.washingtonexaminer.com › news › washingtonTV coverage of Trump 89% negative — and it’s getting worse
   Feb 21, 2024 · Facing TV news coverage that is 89% negative, Trump is now getting hit with critical media reports on his dozens of policy victories as president, from immigration to the economy, that many...
   
   
2. www.investors.com › media-trump-hatred-coverageMedia Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His ...
   A new survey shows that not only is coverage of Trump overwhelmingly negative, but the president's biggest accomplishment — the roaring economy — gets almost no attention. For its
   

 

There is no wall of separation of church and state. Never has been sense this country was born. A previous Liberal USSC ruled it. That isn't what Jefferson meant when he said it. He wanted no interference of church and state and visa/versa. like there was with the church of England. It was interference he was talking about.

www.reuters.com › legal › us-supreme-court-will-notUS Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill ...
Jun 13, 2024 · June 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid by anti-abortion groups and doctors to restrict access to the abortion pill, handing a victory on Thursday to President Joe

The court also ruled earlier that the states themselves can rule on aborrtion.

They want to outlaw porn books in school libraries.

 

That's right, except he wasn't very good at it, but now he knows how to go full Hitler with Project 2025.

 

Tired of composing this, so I'll let Copilot explain:

The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly use the phrase “separation of church and state,” but it lays the foundation for this concept. Specifically, it states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Over time, this clause has been interpreted to require a separation between religious institutions and government. The metaphor of a “wall of separation” was famously used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, emphasizing the need to keep government and religion distinct. While the exact phrase isn’t in the Constitution, the principle is deeply ingrained in our legal and cultural history.​

 

Again what he was telling the Danbury Church is there would be a wall of separation of interference. We have never had separation of church and state since our creation, even up to now. We pay the clergy to give Congress the morning prayer. Have sense day one. The Capital for over 40 years was used for church services. Jefferson had a front row seat. President declared a day of Mourning and Prayer in 1812. Lincoln set aside a day of worship for our troops. In God We Trust was put on both our coins and later our bills. Thanksgiving and Christmas was declared National Holidays. We have never had separation of church and state. As a matter of fact, Jefferson may have never used those words if he hadn't got the letter from the church worrying about the government putting restrictions on them. He wanted to assure them he wouldn't and didn't want churcjh interference with government

 

This is where they mis interpret it. They didn't want Congress to establish a National Church like England had. The church had as much or more power than the government had. You couldn't even run for office in England unless you belonged to the Church of England and you still had to pay ties to the church if you didn't belong. They wanted none of that here. They wanted complete interference by both sides eliminated. Like a Wall Of Separation.

 

Except we pretty much have that here.

 

The left and their soaps

 

First I've heard of it.

 

There it is, history the lefts Achilles health

 

Nope, our politicians pretend to be religious, lots of church goers be Christians, worth the mascerade..