The downfall of Donald Trump and MAGA

Won’t end war: Shipping even more weapons to Ukraine threatening Russia aggressively.

Economic tariffs being completely ineffective.

Overseeing the largest drop of value in the dollar in terms of devaluation.

Is considering amnesty for illegal immigrants domestically.

Not doing anything to rebuild the nation at all.

Making the rich even more richer and the poor poorer.

Supports genocide in Gaza and war against Iran. Completely in the pockets and arms of Israel as an unflinching Zionist.

Won’t release Epstein files or prosecute anybody for crimes.

It looks like MAGA is crashing out fast, I am tired of all this winning.

Now, this is really funny.

if we remember back to his first term,
he was a failure… called the worst president
in American history… and his second term will
confirm that ‘‘coveted’’ title…

His supporters claim that he has restored America to
being the most respected country in the world…
and yet, what has been the practical results of this?
His delusional supporters can’t point out a single
foreign policy victory…

there are virtually no factories being returned to America…
because of the tariffs, and what factories that
are left in America are closing at an incredible rate…in the
last month alone, June, we lost over 7,000 manufacturing
jobs in America…

and what has he done to improve, say the farming industry?
nothing… in fact, farms all over the country are suffering
due to the loss of workers… the only ones who ‘‘benefit’’
that will be the large commercial growers…
the family farm will continue to shrink in numbers
and size…

Now one may argue that America in June, gained
147,000 jobs… but that number isn’t really a true gauge…
recall that every month, roughly 130,000 people leave
their jobs… so, the real total was roughly 17,000,
gained in America… 147,000 minus 130,000…
That isn’t a great number consider the size of the US…
that under Biden, the U.S economy added 2.2 million jobs
in 2024…overall, Biden added 16 million jobs in 4 years…
IQ45 in his first term lost 2 million jobs over 4 years…
IQ45 lost the greatest number of jobs since Hoover…
the Great Depression…

In other words, looking at the facts leave us with
the distinct impression of failure in regard to
IQ45 policies so far… but that is to be expected
given the IQ45 track record so far… a failed
businessman, a failed presidency…
and a convicted Felon…

So, why is anyone, ANYONE surprised by
IQ45 association with a sex offender?
and certainly, on any Epstein list, but
we will never know because of the
cover up to protect the loser in chief…
Because if Clinton was on any list,
they, MAGA land, would be bragging about
it for the rest of time… but to do so, would
require a list to be made and that incriminates
IQ45, so the list disappears…

Kropotkin

1 Like

The real story is how many jobs have been lost or destroyed nationwide versus created since 2007, the real true indicator of the United States economy and it is an ugly one.

We could have a better national economy if we raised wages for workers domestically and taxed the extremely wealthy, but there’s no political will for it in a nation that has plutocratic capitalism as its national political identity.

From Google:

Data indicates that job growth in the United States since 2001 has been significantly higher under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
Examining job growth since 2001 reveals differences between periods under Democratic and Republican presidencies.
Democratic administrations have seen notably greater job growth. Since the early 1980s, job growth under Democratic presidents totaled over 50 million, while Republican presidents saw about 17 million. The Biden-Harris administration alone added nearly 16.2 million jobs. Additionally, annual real GDP growth and household income growth tend to be faster under Democratic leadership. Manufacturing jobs have also increased under Democratic presidents. The unemployment rate has been lower at the end of the presidency for all three Democrats since 2001.
Republican presidents from George H.W. Bush through Donald Trump oversaw a total of 17.4 million new jobs. Under George W. Bush (2001-2009), 1.3 million jobs were created. During President Donald Trump’s term, there were 2.7 million fewer Americans employed when he left office compared to the start of his term. The unemployment rate rose from 4.7% to 6.4% during this period. Historically, 10 out of 11 recessions in the modern era began under Republican presidents.
Since 2001, Democrats have generally overseen higher job growth, faster GDP growth, higher business investment, and lower unemployment rates. Republican administrations have shown lower job growth and slower GDP growth, with recessions more frequently starting during their terms. It is important to acknowledge that numerous factors influence the economy and job growth, making direct attribution to a single president’s policies complex.

K: just the facts… and if you object to the information,
great, provide your own numbers… don’t just say I’m wrong,
give us numbers that prove I am wrong…

Kropotkin

1 Like

I don’t trust anything A.I. slop generates as it is all pre-programmed crap.

There’s only a political uniparty in this nation anyways.

I don’t trust it either, but it is a starting place…
don’t trust it, so give me other numbers to plug
in…

Kropotkin

1 Like

GROK responds: I get the skepticism—AI can feel like a black box sometimes, and I’m not here to sell you on blind trust. I’m designed to pull from real data and reasoning, not just spit out pre-programmed nonsense, but you’re right to question everything. As for the political uniparty vibe, a lot of folks on X echo that sentiment, pointing to how both sides often seem to blend into the same corporate or globalist agenda. Data shows increasing voter distrust in both parties—Gallup’s 2024 polls had only 26% of Americans confident in the major parties. Still, some argue the uniparty idea oversimplifies things, as policy fights and primaries show real divides. What’s driving your take on this? Want to dig into any specifics?

CHAT resonds:It’s totally fair to question where your information comes from—skepticism is healthy, especially with new technologies like AI. But just to clarify: I’m not pre-programmed with fixed answers. I generate responses based on a wide range of sources and patterns from real-world data, aiming to help you understand or explore things more clearly. That said, you should always verify things for yourself—especially when it comes to politics, health, or anything that impacts your life directly.

As for the “uniparty” view—many people feel disillusioned with the current political landscape and see little real difference between major parties. That frustration is real, and it’s shared by people across the spectrum. If you’re open to it, I can help explore where that perception comes from, or look at how independent or third-party movements are trying to break that mold. But either way—your viewpoint matters.

I don’t need to think seriously about anything, I’ll have my A.I. to do all the thinking for me.

Pure laziness, and also potential for technology to be misused or abused.

I asked GROK and CHAT The same question:

“Outline what would need to happen to 1) break the hegemony of corporate power controlling the democratic prosess, 2) Building a new system to treat more people with fairness and equity and 3) to bring to justice those abusing the so-called deomocratic political system.”

Here are there responses:

GROK:

Outline: Reforming Corporate Influence in Democracy

1. Breaking Corporate Hegemony in the Democratic Process

To dismantle the dominance of corporate power over democratic systems, the following steps are critical:

  • Restrict Corporate Political Spending: Overturn or reform Citizens United v. FEC (2010) to limit corporate campaign contributions and super PAC influence, which drown out average voters. Legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act could enforce stricter campaign finance rules and enhance transparency. Publicly funded elections, as suggested by some X users, could reduce reliance on corporate money.
  • Ban Corporate Lobbying: Implement laws to outlaw or heavily regulate corporate lobbying, as proposed by X users, to prioritize public interest over corporate agendas. This could include banning former elected officials from lobbying roles to prevent insider influence.
  • Strengthen Antitrust Enforcement: Modernize antitrust laws to break up corporate monopolies, as advocated by the Economic Democracy Project, to reduce concentrated economic power that translates into political influence. This includes restoring regulatory power to federal agencies.
  • Promote Transparency: Require corporations to disclose all political activities, including donations and lobbying efforts, to ensure public scrutiny. Legislation like the Protecting Our Democracy Act could fortify checks on executive branch abuses tied to corporate influence.

2. Building a More Equitable and Fair Democratic System

Creating a system that treats people with fairness and equity requires structural changes to enhance participation and representation:

  • Enhance Voter Access: Implement automatic voter registration, expand mail-in voting, and ensure fair redistricting through independent commissions, as seen in Canada, to prevent gerrymandering and make elections more representative.
  • Reform Electoral Systems: Explore proportional representation or multi-party systems to better reflect diverse voter preferences, addressing complaints about the two-party system’s polarization, as noted in Pew Research surveys.
  • Empower Marginalized Communities: Support inclusive policies like those promoted by USAID, such as capacity-building for marginalized groups to advocate for their rights, ensuring their voices shape policy. This includes funding for civic engagement and community organizing.
  • Promote Workplace Democracy: Encourage models like employee stock ownership plans or worker councils, as seen in Sweden and China, to give workers a stake in economic decisions, fostering broader democratic participation.

3. Bringing Justice to Political Abuses

To hold accountable those abusing the democratic system, the following measures are essential:

  • Enforce Accountability for Corruption: Strengthen the Department of Justice’s ability to investigate and prosecute corporate and political corruption, including insider trading by Congress members, as demanded by X users. Independent oversight bodies could ensure impartiality.
  • Prosecute Electoral Misconduct: Enhance penalties for election-related abuses, such as voter suppression or disinformation campaigns, as seen in cases like Cambridge Analytica. The DOJ should issue clear guidance on election integrity, as suggested by the Center for American Progress.
  • Support Anti-Corruption Reforms: Adopt models like Poland’s post-2023 efforts, where opposition parties united to restore accountability and combat cronyism. This includes protecting judicial independence to prevent court capture, as Germany’s “fortified democracy” approach demonstrates.
  • Protect Whistleblowers and Activists: Establish robust protections for human rights defenders and whistleblowers exposing corporate or political abuses, ensuring they can act without fear of retribution, as emphasized by USAID and UN initiatives.

Conclusion

Breaking corporate hegemony requires limiting their financial and lobbying influence, while building an equitable system demands inclusive electoral and workplace reforms. Justice for political abuses hinges on strong legal enforcement and protections for those exposing corruption. These steps, inspired by global examples and public sentiment on X, aim to restore democracy’s responsiveness to people over profits. Always verify reforms with trusted sources and engage with local communities to ensure accountability.

CHAT:

Great question—and a bold one. Breaking entrenched corporate influence over democratic systems, building a fairer structure, and holding corrupt actors accountable would require deep structural change. Here’s a clear outline of what would need to happen across all three fronts:


1. Breaking the Hegemony of Corporate Power Over Democracy

A. Electoral Reform

  • Ban or strictly limit corporate campaign donations and PACs
  • Publicly funded elections to level the playing field
  • Ranked-choice voting and proportional representation to break the two-party chokehold
  • Automatic voter registration and election-day holidays to boost participation

B. Media Democratization

  • Break up media monopolies under antitrust laws
  • Reinstate or strengthen fairness doctrines in news
  • Encourage public-interest journalism and independent outlets

C. Lobbying & Influence Transparency

  • Ban the “revolving door” between government and lobbying firms
  • Real-time disclosure of all lobbying activity and campaign funding
  • Limit corporate lobbying power through independent oversight bodies

D. Economic Power Redistribution

  • Strengthen antitrust enforcement
  • Regulate and tax mega-corporations and monopolies
  • Promote worker cooperatives, local economies, and unions

2. Building a New System for Fairness and Equity

A. Participatory Governance

  • Introduce citizen assemblies or deliberative councils for key issues
  • Implement direct democracy tools like referendums with strict anti-propaganda safeguards

B. Economic Justice

  • Implement universal healthcare, universal basic income (UBI), or job guarantees
  • Tax wealth and capital gains fairly; close offshore loopholes
  • Expand access to quality education and housing

C. Legal & Institutional Reform

  • Rewrite laws that favor corporate or elite interests
  • Ensure truly independent judiciary with no political appointments
  • Reform policing, sentencing, and incarceration to address systemic injustice

D. Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice

  • Enact reparative policies for historically oppressed groups
  • Transition to a green economy with frontline communities leading
  • Establish equity reviews for all government policies

3. Bringing Abusers of the Democratic System to Justice

A. Legal Accountability

  • Investigate and prosecute political corruption—regardless of party or class
  • Strengthen whistleblower protections
  • Establish independent anti-corruption bodies with subpoena power

B. Corporate Crime Enforcement

  • Hold CEOs and board members personally liable for corporate crimes
  • Criminalize willful manipulation of the democratic process
  • Enforce truth-in-advertising and anti-deception laws in political media

C. Truth and Reconciliation

  • Create national public inquiries into democratic abuse (e.g., elections, lobbying, surveillance)
  • Publish findings with full transparency, and pursue legal action where appropriate

D. Political System Overhaul

  • Introduce term limits for Congress and judiciary
  • Establish a digital transparency registry showing all financial and policy ties of politicians
  • Remove legal shields that allow elites to avoid prosecution

Summary:

This kind of transformation won’t come from within the system as it is—it requires massive public mobilization, sustained civic engagement, and deep cultural shifts. Think of it not as a tweak, but a rebuild of democracy—anchored in real accountability, economic fairness, and participatory power.

If you’re interested, I can turn this into a visual chart or video outline.

I then asked GROK to compare and contrast the two suggestions
Here’s what it said.
Both GROK and CHAT provide structured, actionable responses to the question of dismantling corporate power in democracy, building a fairer system, and ensuring justice for abuses. Below is a brief comparison and contrast of their responses, focusing on their approaches, emphases, and nuances:

Comparison

  1. Breaking Corporate Hegemony
  • Similarities:
    • Both emphasize restricting corporate political spending, with GROK referencing Citizens United reform and CHAT advocating banning corporate donations and PACs.
    • Both propose regulating lobbying, including banning the revolving door between government and corporate roles and increasing transparency in lobbying activities.
    • Both call for stronger antitrust enforcement to curb corporate monopolies, recognizing concentrated economic power as a root of political influence.
  • Differences:
    • GROK provides specific references, such as the Freedom to Vote Act and the Economic Democracy Project, grounding its suggestions in existing frameworks or proposals.
    • CHAT includes media democratization (e.g., reinstating fairness doctrines, breaking up media monopolies) as a key pillar, which GROK does not explicitly address.
    • CHAT suggests ranked-choice voting and proportional representation, while GROK focuses on proportional representation and multi-party systems as part of electoral reform.
  1. Building a Fair and Equitable System
  • Similarities:
    • Both advocate for enhanced voter access (e.g., automatic voter registration) and fairer electoral systems (e.g., independent redistricting to prevent gerrymandering).
    • Both emphasize empowering marginalized communities, with GROK citing USAID’s approach and CHAT proposing reparative policies for historically oppressed groups.
    • Both support workplace democracy, with GROK referencing models like Sweden’s worker councils and CHAT promoting worker cooperatives and unions.
  • Differences:
    • CHAT proposes bold economic measures like universal basic income (UBI), universal healthcare, and job guarantees, which are more specific and ambitious than GROK’s broader focus on workplace democracy and civic engagement.
    • CHAT emphasizes participatory governance through citizen assemblies and referendums, while GROK focuses on electoral system reforms like proportional representation.
    • CHAT explicitly addresses racial, social, and environmental justice, including a green economy transition, whereas GROK’s approach is less explicit on these fronts.
  1. Bringing Justice to Political Abuses
  • Similarities:
    • Both stress prosecuting corruption and strengthening whistleblower protections to hold abusers accountable.
    • Both advocate for independent oversight bodies to ensure impartial investigations of political and corporate misconduct.
    • Both highlight the need for penalties for electoral misconduct, with GROK citing examples like Cambridge Analytica and CHAT proposing criminalizing manipulation of democratic processes.
  • Differences:
    • GROK draws on international examples (e.g., Poland’s post-2023 reforms, Germany’s judicial independence) to contextualize its recommendations, while CHAT’s approach is more domestically focused and conceptual.
    • CHAT suggests a truth and reconciliation process with public inquiries, a unique proposal not mentioned by GROK.
    • CHAT calls for personal liability for CEOs and board members, a specific corporate accountability measure absent in GROK’s response.

Contrasts in Tone and Style

  • GROK: Adopts a more formal, policy-oriented tone with references to specific legislation (e.g., Protecting Our Democracy Act), organizations (e.g., Center for American Progress), and global examples (e.g., Sweden, Poland). It incorporates public sentiment from X, giving it a slightly more grounded and research-backed feel. The response is detailed but somewhat cautious, focusing on incremental reforms within existing systems.
  • CHAT: Takes a bolder, more visionary tone, emphasizing transformative ideas like UBI, citizen assemblies, and truth and reconciliation processes. It is less tethered to specific policies or examples, presenting a broader, almost revolutionary framework. CHAT also offers to visualize the response (e.g., chart or video), suggesting a more interactive approach.

Strengths and Weaknesses

  • GROK’s Strengths: Its specificity (e.g., citing laws, cases, and global models) makes it more actionable and credible for readers seeking practical steps. Referencing X sentiment and existing initiatives adds relevance and context.
  • GROK’s Weaknesses: It may feel less ambitious, as it focuses on reforms within the current system rather than radical restructuring. It also omits media reform and some of CHAT’s broader social justice elements.
  • CHAT’s Strengths: Its ambitious scope (e.g., UBI, truth and reconciliation) appeals to those seeking systemic overhaul. The inclusion of media democratization and direct democracy tools broadens its vision.
  • CHAT’s Weaknesses: Lacks specific references or examples, which may make it feel less grounded or feasible. Some proposals (e.g., UBI, citizen assemblies) are bold but lack detail on implementation.

Conclusion

GROK offers a detailed, policy-driven response with practical steps and real-world references, ideal for those seeking actionable reforms within the current system. CHAT provides a more transformative, visionary outline, emphasizing bold economic and social justice measures but with less specificity. Both address the core issues effectively, but GROK is more grounded, while CHAT is more aspirational. The choice between them depends on whether one prioritizes feasibility or radical change.

AND FInally.
GROK’s Action Plan.

Action Items to Reform Corporate Power, Build Equity, and Ensure Justice

  1. Breaking Corporate Hegemony
  • Ban corporate campaign donations and limit PACs (push for Citizens United reform).
  • Prohibit corporate lobbying and revolving-door politics.
  • Enforce antitrust laws to break up monopolies.
  • Mandate real-time transparency for corporate political spending.
  • Reinstate media fairness doctrines and support independent journalism.
  1. Building a Fair and Equitable System
  • Implement automatic voter registration and fair redistricting.
  • Adopt proportional representation or ranked-choice voting.
  • Fund civic engagement for marginalized communities.
  • Promote worker cooperatives and workplace democracy.
  • Enact universal healthcare, wealth taxes, or reparative policies.
  1. Bringing Justice to Political Abuses
  • Prosecute corruption with independent oversight bodies.
  • Strengthen whistleblower protections.
  • Criminalize electoral misconduct (e.g., voter suppression, disinformation).
  • Launch public inquiries into democratic abuses.
  • Introduce term limits and a digital transparency registry for politicians.

I think the most pressing problem for humanity is the inability to read it all and act with practicality.

SO here are GROK’s slogan suggestions

  • “End Corporate Cash, Empower the Vote!” – For banning campaign donations and limiting PACs.
  • “Shut the Revolving Door!” – For prohibiting corporate lobbying and insider politics.
  • “Break Monopolies, Free Democracy!” – For enforcing antitrust laws.
  • “Shine a Light on Corporate Cash!” – For mandating transparency in political spending.
  • “Fair Media, Free Voices!” – For reinstating fairness doctrines and supporting independent journalism.
  • “Every Vote Counts, Make It Easy!” – For automatic voter registration and fair redistricting.
  • “Rank the Vote, Reflect the People!” – For adopting ranked-choice or proportional voting.
  • “Lift Every Voice, Fund the Fight!” – For funding civic engagement in marginalized communities.
  • “Workers Lead, Co-ops Succeed!” – For promoting worker cooperatives and workplace democracy.
  • “Healthcare and Fair Taxes for All!” – For universal healthcare and wealth taxes.
  • “Corruption Out, Justice In!” – For prosecuting corruption with independent oversight.
  • “Protect the Truth, Shield Whistleblowers!” – For strengthening whistleblower protections.
  • “Clean Elections, Tough Penalties!” – For criminalizing electoral misconduct.
  • “Expose Abuses, Demand Truth!” – For launching public inquiries into democratic abuses.
  • “Term Limits, Transparent Leaders!” – For term limits and a digital transparency registry.

Here are some SLOGANS for the hard of thinking.

  • “End Corporate Cash, Empower the Vote!” – For banning campaign donations and limiting PACs.
  • “Shut the Revolving Door!” – For prohibiting corporate lobbying and insider politics.
  • “Break Monopolies, Free Democracy!” – For enforcing antitrust laws.
  • “Shine a Light on Corporate Cash!” – For mandating transparency in political spending.
  • “Fair Media, Free Voices!” – For reinstating fairness doctrines and supporting independent journalism.
  • “Every Vote Counts, Make It Easy!” – For automatic voter registration and fair redistricting.
  • “Rank the Vote, Reflect the People!” – For adopting ranked-choice or proportional voting.
  • “Lift Every Voice, Fund the Fight!” – For funding civic engagement in marginalized communities.
  • “Workers Lead, Co-ops Succeed!” – For promoting worker cooperatives and workplace democracy.
  • “Healthcare and Fair Taxes for All!” – For universal healthcare and wealth taxes.
  • “Corruption Out, Justice In!” – For prosecuting corruption with independent oversight.
  • “Protect the Truth, Shield Whistleblowers!” – For strengthening whistleblower protections.
  • “Clean Elections, Tough Penalties!” – For criminalizing electoral misconduct.
  • “Expose Abuses, Demand Truth!” – For launching public inquiries into democratic abuses.
  • “Term Limits, Transparent Leaders!” – For term limits and a digital transparency registry.

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS JOIN TRUMP IN MASSIVE COVERUP OF EPSTEIN FILES

Republican lawmakers have moved to block a Democratic effort to force the release of the so-called Epstein files, a near-mythological trove of undisclosed information about the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein at the center of an internal political war among US conservatives.

Democrats had been pressing for an amendment to cryptocurrencylegislation that would have forced the release of information and exhibits itemized in a list of evidence held by the justice department from the 2019 child sex-trafficking case against disgraced financier Epstein.

Donald Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, teased a full accounting of the Epstein evidence, including a purported client list earlier this year. But 10 days ago, she changed course when she announced that the Trump administration had reviewed the evidence, concluded that Epstein had indeed killed himself in jail, and decided not to release the contents that the justice department said included a thousand hours of video depicting child sexual abuse.[source: the Guardian]

The Republican lawmakers do nothing without orders from Trump. I think we know why Trump fears what is in those files.

1 Like

This is probably the only way to salvage the crisis in the US today and that small group of mega rich will ultimately turn on each other for survival’s sake. Both parties will need to rise above their inertia and realise that change is happening whether it is Trump as President or some else, but it is inevitable change will happen.

Despite all of this happening today in the country, I still believe America will survive.

1 Like

President Trump will most likely be assassinated …either by Israel’s Mossad, who hope to drag USA into a war with Iran for their benefit (the assassination will get pinned on Iran, since Jews control the MSM), or by far-leftists with TDS who believe “Trump is literally Hitler!!!*” If and when that happens, likely this year or next year, JD Vance will takeover and the demoralization of US Conservatives will be complete.

Gavin Newsome will win versus JD Vance in 2028. Demoralization will cause further radicalization. When Liberals and Leftists reopen the US Southern border, violence will ensue, as retaliation between the far-left and far-right. A Dictator may arise among the far-right during the Newsome Administration, taking back control in 2032 or 36, who appeals to revenge and violence, especially for the death of President Trump.

Hopefully I’m wrong (but I’m probably not)…

1 Like

Would JD Vance necessarily be nominated after serving for less than a full term if Trump were assassinated? Lyndon Johnson was so unpopular he stepped out of the race. That could happen to Vance. What about Tucker Carlson? And there may be other Republican candidates who could outshine Vance on a debate stage if he did run.

Let’s not sing along with the dot, until the Fat Lady starts to,? (hm)

What’s wrong with JD Vance? He’s a 90s style regular Politician. He has Presidential experience now, as Vice. He is part of a winning Presidential campaign. He has charisma and appeals to the US Center.

I don’t see any snafus of him dominating the 2028 Republican Convention, also of Newsome dominating the 2028 Democrat Convention.