[LeThanhPhong]

MAGA chạy theo một tên LÁO KHOÉT, thô bỉ, dốt nát, không có đạo đức, coi thường phụ nữ như Trump .

Hôm qua, tình cờ, LTP được đọc một phrase "nhảy bàn độc" diễn tả hiện tượng Trump vớ được chức TT vào năm 2016.  Cơ hội này khó có thể xảy ra vào năm 2024, nhất là giấc mơ độc tài của TT đã phơi rõ .

Các cử tri Mỹ nói chuyện rất khôi hài .  Họ cương quyết bỏ phiếu cho đảng Dân Chủ bằng mọi giá để cứu nước Mỹ khỏi tay của Trump vì Trump quá nguy hiểm cho nền dân chủ của Hoa Kỳ .


"Even if Biden is pooping in his pants, breathing with a respirator, I still vote for Biden.  VOTE BLUE." 

[LeThanhPhong]

Gian dối:  cái thread mod Xí Xọn đăng "Người Mỹ cần biết ‘Dự án 2025’ của Trump là gì trước khi bỏ phiếu" là xạo xược, khinh người ta không có đầu óc để tìm ra là cái project 2025 không phải "của Trump"

Rủa xả Trump nói dối, còn hành động đăng những cái tít tính lừa đảo thiên hạ là gì??? Không biết thì tôi làm ơn nói cho nghe nè, là gian trá, dối trá, bất lương, gian dối, vân vân... và vân vân... ok salem...

https://vietbestforum.com/thread-25050.html

1/ Trump xạo không chớp mắt .  Cái gọi là Project 2025 là tác phẩm của Trump và MAGA.  Trump nắm đầu đảng MAGA rất chặt, ở đó mà không biết .  

MAGA chịu khó dùng đầu óc một chút đi .

2/ Chẳng qua, Trump sợ thất cử nên tuyên bố mình không biết gì, ném đàn em của mình "under the bus" .  Thật là bẽ mặt cho đám tôi tớ của Trump !


3/ Toàn thế giới biết Project 2025, đến nỗi còn được dịch sang Việt ngữ, nhưng Trump (một tên nói dối như Cuội) nói mình không biết gì .  Ha ha ha ...

4/ Cái gọi là Project 2025 nên đổi tên là Dictatorship 2025 mới đúng .  Chẳng phải being a dictator là giấc mơ của Trump hay sao ?

[Ech]

Sờ ân sân 😛😂

[LeThanhPhong]

Heritage Foundation president raises alarm with cryptic threat

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show...rcna160188

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts raised new concerns with a cryptic threat about a "second American Revolution.”

July 3, 2024, 11:58 AM CDT
By Steve Benen

For the last half-century, the Heritage Foundation has presented itself as the right’s premier think tank, but that only tells part of the story. The organization has also been a key piece of the right’s broader political infrastructure, providing countless staffers for Republican administrations, and helping craft policy proposals adopted by GOP officials at multiple levels of government.

All the while, the Heritage Foundation enjoyed an air of respectability. Those looking for conservative cranks and conspiracy theorists were told to look elsewhere — because Heritage, the story went, was serious. These conservatives cared about substance and governing. This think tank, above all others, expected to serve as the flagship of the conservative movement, home to the right’s preeminent scholarship and academic research.

In time, however, as Republican politics grew more radical, the Heritage Foundation shifted, too. In 2013, then-Sen. Orrin Hatch told MSNBC, “Heritage used to be the conservative organization helping Republicans and helping conservatives and helping us to be able to have the best intellectual conservative ideas. There’s a real question in the minds of many Republicans right now, and I’m not just speaking for myself: Is Heritage going to go so political that it really doesn’t amount to anything anymore?”

Eleven years later, the idea that the Heritage Foundation is producing “the best intellectual conservative ideas” is plainly laughable, as its president reminded the public again yesterday. HuffPost noted:

The head of an organization behind an influential policy document expected to guide a potential second Donald Trump administration declared that there’s a revolution taking place right now. And he appeared to deliver an ominous warning to “the radical left” as he spoke.

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless ― if the left allows it to be,” Kevin Roberts, president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, said on a conservative media outlet called Real America’s Voice.

Pointing to Republican Supreme Court justices elevating the American presidency above the law, Roberts said in the same interview, “We’re in the process of taking this country back.”

Not surprisingly, more than a few observers interpreted his “bloodless — if the left allows it to be” comments as a not-so-subtle threat.

And while those concerns are warranted, they’re made worse by the broader significance of Heritage’s ongoing political efforts.

Who’s responsible for the radical Project 2025 agenda? The Heritage Foundation.

Who’s “pre-screening the ideologies” of thousands of people in the hopes of installing “a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists” across the federal government? The Heritage Foundation.

Who’s funding an apparent blacklist of federal government workers who might stand in the way of a MAGA agenda? The Heritage Foundation.

Who put up billboards in Alabama in support of Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville while he undermined his own country’s military? The Heritage Foundation.

Which group’s former staffers have complained about their former employers prioritizing political messaging over policy formation? The Heritage Foundation.

Whose president might be in contention for White House chief of staff in a second Trump term? The Heritage Foundation.

It was against this backdrop that Heritage’s chief told a national television audience, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless ― if the left allows it to be,” which was every bit as unsettling as it seemed.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

[Bán Hạ]

Chủ tịch Quỹ Di sản đưa ra cảnh báo với mối đe dọa khó hiểu

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show...rcna160188

Chủ tịch Tổ chức Di sản Kevin Roberts nêu lên mối lo ngại mới với lời đe dọa khó hiểu về “Cuộc cách mạng Mỹ lần thứ hai”.

11:58 sáng CDT, ngày 3 tháng 7 năm 2024
Bởi Steve Benen

Trong nửa thế kỷ qua, Quỹ Di sản đã tự thể hiện mình là tổ chức tư vấn hàng đầu của phe cánh hữu, nhưng điều đó chỉ nói lên một phần câu chuyện. Tổ chức này cũng là một phần quan trọng trong cơ sở hạ tầng chính trị rộng lớn hơn của cánh hữu, cung cấp vô số nhân viên cho các chính quyền của Đảng Cộng hòa và giúp soạn thảo các đề xuất chính sách được các quan chức Đảng Cộng hòa ở nhiều cấp chính quyền thông qua.

Trong suốt thời gian đó, Quỹ Di sản luôn có được bầu không khí đáng kính trọng. Những người đang tìm kiếm những kẻ lập dị bảo thủ và những người theo thuyết âm mưu được khuyên nên tìm nơi khác - bởi vì câu chuyện kể rằng Heritage rất nghiêm túc. Những người bảo thủ này quan tâm đến nội dung và quản lý. Viện nghiên cứu này, trên hết, được kỳ vọng sẽ đóng vai trò là lá cờ đầu của phong trào bảo thủ, nơi có học bổng ưu việt và nghiên cứu học thuật của cánh hữu.

Tuy nhiên, theo thời gian, khi nền chính trị của Đảng Cộng hòa ngày càng cấp tiến hơn, Quỹ Di sản cũng thay đổi. Vào năm 2013, Sen. Orrin Hatch nói với MSNBC, “Di sản từng là tổ chức bảo thủ giúp đỡ những người theo Đảng Cộng hòa và giúp đỡ những người bảo thủ và giúp chúng tôi có thể có những ý tưởng bảo thủ trí tuệ tốt nhất. Hiện tại, có một câu hỏi thực sự xuất hiện trong đầu nhiều đảng viên Đảng Cộng hòa và tôi không chỉ nói cho chính mình: Liệu Heritage có trở nên chính trị đến mức nó thực sự không còn ý nghĩa gì nữa không?

Mười một năm sau, ý tưởng rằng Quỹ Di sản đang tạo ra “những ý tưởng bảo thủ trí tuệ tốt nhất” rõ ràng là buồn cười, như chủ tịch của tổ chức này đã nhắc nhở công chúng một lần nữa vào ngày hôm qua. HuffPost lưu ý:

Người đứng đầu tổ chức đằng sau một tài liệu chính sách có ảnh hưởng được kỳ vọng sẽ hướng dẫn chính quyền Donald Trump thứ hai đã tuyên bố rằng ngay lúc này đang có một cuộc cách mạng đang diễn ra. Và dường như ông đã đưa ra một lời cảnh báo đáng lo ngại cho “cánh tả cực đoan” khi phát biểu.

Kevin Roberts, chủ tịch Tổ chức Di sản cánh hữu, cho biết trên một cơ quan truyền thông bảo thủ có tên Real America's Voice: “Chúng ta đang trong quá trình Cách mạng Mỹ lần thứ hai, cuộc cách mạng này sẽ không đổ máu - nếu cánh tả cho phép điều đó xảy ra”.

Chỉ ra việc các thẩm phán Tòa án Tối cao của Đảng Cộng hòa nâng cao chức vụ tổng thống Mỹ lên trên luật pháp, Roberts nói trong cùng một cuộc phỏng vấn, “Chúng tôi đang trong quá trình lấy lại đất nước này”.

Không có gì ngạc nhiên khi nhiều nhà quan sát giải thích những nhận xét “không đổ máu - nếu cánh tả cho phép” của ông là một lời đe dọa không mấy tinh tế.

Và mặc dù những lo ngại đó là có cơ sở, nhưng chúng lại trở nên tồi tệ hơn bởi tầm quan trọng rộng lớn hơn của những nỗ lực chính trị đang diễn ra của Heritage.

Ai chịu trách nhiệm về chương trình nghị sự cấp tiến của Dự án 2025? Quỹ Di sản.

Ai đang “sàng lọc trước các hệ tư tưởng” của hàng nghìn người với hy vọng thành lập “một đội quân ủng hộ Trump đã được kiểm duyệt trước lên tới 54.000 người trung thành” trên toàn chính phủ liên bang? Quỹ Di sản.

Ai đang tài trợ cho danh sách đen rõ ràng gồm các nhân viên chính phủ liên bang, những người có thể cản trở chương trình nghị sự MAGA? Quỹ Di sản.

Ai đã dựng các bảng quảng cáo ở Alabama để ủng hộ Thượng nghị sĩ đảng Cộng hòa Tommy Tuberville trong khi ông ta phá hoại quân đội của đất nước mình? Quỹ Di sản.

Nhân viên cũ của nhóm nào đã phàn nàn về việc người chủ cũ của họ ưu tiên thông điệp chính trị hơn là hoạch định chính sách? Quỹ Di sản.

Tổng thống nào có thể tranh chức Chánh văn phòng Nhà Trắng trong nhiệm kỳ thứ hai của Trump? Quỹ Di sản.

Trong bối cảnh đó, người đứng đầu Heritage đã nói với khán giả truyền hình quốc gia, “Chúng ta đang trong quá trình diễn ra Cách mạng Mỹ lần thứ hai, sẽ không đổ máu ― nếu cánh tả cho phép điều đó xảy ra,” điều này có vẻ hơi đáng lo ngại.

Steve Benen là nhà sản xuất của "The Rachel Maddow Show", biên tập viên của MaddowBlog và là cộng tác viên chính trị của MSNBC. Ông cũng là tác giả cuốn sách bán chạy nhất "Những kẻ mạo danh: Đảng Cộng hòa từ bỏ việc cai trị và nắm bắt nền chính trị Mỹ như thế nào".

[LeThanhPhong]

Cám ơn bạn Bán Hạ đã dịch sang Việt Ngữ bài đe doạ của MAGA.

Chúng ta cần ghi nhận 2 điều sau đây về cuộc bầu cử 2024:

1/ Nếu Trump đắc cử, Trump sẽ là một nhà độc tài .  Trump tha hồ làm gì thì làm với sự hỗ trợ của Tối Cao Pháp Viện và cái gọi là Project 2025 .  Dân chúng lặng im thì sẽ được yên thân; nếu phản đối, sẽ đổ máu .

2/ Nếu Trump thất cử, theo lời Trump, "có thể" sẽ có đổ máu nếu Trump và MAGA cho rằng bầu cử gian lận .  Dĩ nhiên, với Trump và MAGA, họ sẽ kết luận bầu cử gian lận cho dù không có bằng chứng .  

Như vậy, Trump và MAGA không hề coi pháp luật ra gì .

Càng ngày, Trump càng cho chúng ta thấy rõ con người Trump ra sao .  Vì thế, LTP tiên đoán kỳ này, Trump sẽ thất bại nặng nề; và Trump và MAGA sẽ đi vào dĩ vãng .

[Lục Tuyết Kỳ]

   Kỳ muội 

Con lừa trong hình phải là cái con rất là bất hiếu với cha mẹ, đúng không muội? 

 

Dạ, chúng giống vậy nè sư huynh.   

[RungHoang]

Tôi nghĩ kỳ này Trump đắc cử mà.

Kỳ này tôi sẽ bầu cho Kennedy. Nhưng Kennedy cũng không có hy vọng đâu

[LeThanhPhong]

Tôi bỏ phiếu cho người nào tốt nhất với nước Mỹ và thế giới .  

Trong cuộc tranh cử Tổng Thống năm nay, đó là vị đại diện cho đảng Dân Chủ, không nhất thiết phải là Biden .

Tôi không thể bầu cho Trump vì Trump vẫn chưa nhận biết vai trò (job description) của một vị Tổng Thống nước Mỹ phải làm gì đối nội và đối ngoại . Mọi việc xoay quanh cá nhân Trump mà thôi .  Trump đòi hỏi Nội Các phải trung thành với mình, trong khi Trump và Nội Các cần trung thành với quốc gia và Hiến Pháp .

Tuy sẽ thất vọng nếu Trump đắc cử, tôi chấp nhận kết quả bầu cử vì đó là nghiệp quả của nước Mỹ và của thế giới .  Mình là cái gì mà bất mãn với nghiệp quả xoay vần ?

[duke]

Dạ, chúng giống vậy nè sư huynh.   

@Kỳ muội,




Cái hình trên có thể giải thích theo thứ tự như sau:

-Do bởi không xử dụng bộ não thông minh Trời cho mình, không mở óc / open-minded ra để tìm hiểu đâu là Chân vs giả,  nên 2 "cái gương" tâm hồn đã bị che không thể nhìn thấy Sự Thật ===> ngố bền vững

-Tiêu tốn thời gian để xem, đọc, nghe & tin lời ong tiếng ve của ban tuyên láo MSM ===> não bị tẩy rửa / brainwash bền vững vì mất khả năng nâng cấp tư duy.

-Với cái sự ngố + tự nguyện trung thành một cách bền vững khi làm cái loa tuyên truyền cho MSM fake news, đi gieo rắc tin giả mà cứ nghĩ là mình đang gieo nhân tốt ===> tạo ra nghiệp quả cho chính bản thân mình

Ai dè đâu mạng ảo là giả, nhưng nghiệp quả lại là thật! 

Thật tội nghiệp cho những chú cừu non ngây thơ, bởi vì nhân, quả là có thật, thế cho nên nghiệp quả của đàn cừu ngố bền vững này là sẽ bị bền vững mắc kẹt lại trong Ma trận 3D / không gian 3 chiều, và họ không thể thăng thiên lên 4D, 5D +... nếu họ không chịu thức tỉnh TRONG TRẬN CHIẾN TRANH TÂM LINH: CHÍNH vs tà này!!!



Thôi thì chúng ta cần phải cầu nguyện, hầu ước mong sao cho có thêm nhiều những chú cừu non ngây thơ sẽ sớm ngày thức tỉnh, mở ra cặp mắt tâm linh để tiếp nhận, tin tưởng, và ủng hộ cho Sự Thật, để họ cũng được cùng nâng cấp tư duy, nhờ vậy mà sẽ góp phần gia tăng sự rung động cộng hưởng cho không gian 4D, 5D +... sẽ tốt hơn cho đại thể 

[Thuctinh]

Tôi nghĩ kỳ này Trump đắc cử mà.

Kỳ này tôi sẽ bầu cho Kennedy. Nhưng Kennedy cũng không có hy vọng đâu

Ai lên em cũng chào mừng, đảng nào lên cũng hổng sao, đều muốn tốt cho người dân và nước Mỹ cả.  Cẩu Trời khẩn Đất đừng cho ông Trump đắc cử là được, ông khiến cho nhiều người sân si quá, không ngại dùng từ dơ bẩn, lời lẻ khó nghe, lòng dân chia rẽ, chiến tranh trong lòng dân trong nước còn nguy hiểm hơn là lo giặc ngoại ban….  Có thể ông ăn gian phiếu vừa rồi mà vẫn bị thua cơ nên mới gieo điều sai trái vào lòng dân, để người dân mất tin tưởng vào hệ thống bầu cử và không còn tôn trọng luật pháp nước của ông, ông quả thật là người trung thành với đất nước.

Cuồng quá hay bị đánh mất lý trí.

[duke]

[LeThanhPhong]

Ai lên em cũng chào mừng, đảng nào lên cũng hổng sao, đều muốn tốt cho người dân và nước Mỹ cả.  

Cẩu Trời khẩn Đất đừng cho ông Trump đắc cử là được, ông khiến cho nhiều người sân si quá, không ngại dùng từ dơ bẩn, lời lẻ khó nghe, lòng dân chia rẽ, chiến tranh trong lòng dân trong nước còn nguy hiểm hơn là lo giặc ngoại ban….  Có thể ông ăn gian phiếu vừa rồi mà vẫn bị thua cơ nên mới gieo điều sai trái vào lòng dân, để người dân mất tin tưởng vào hệ thống bầu cử và không còn tôn trọng luật pháp nước của ông, ông quả thật là người trung thành với đất nước.

Cuồng quá hay bị đánh mất lý trí.

Xưa kia, ai đắc cử cũng không sao, đảng nào lên cũng OK vì các vị Tổng Thống đều yêu nước và hết lòng phục vụ dân . 

Riêng Trump, ông ta cho rằng Hoa Kỳ phải phục vụ ông ta mà thôi .

New York Times Editorial Board: "Donald Trump Is Unfit To Lead" as "The Rule of Law Matters.":

"The New York Times Editorial Board just published a 5000-word piece detailing why Donald Trump is unfit to retake the reigns of federal power, and why he poses an extreme danger to American Democracy."

[LeThanhPhong]

Following is the original 5000 word piece published by the New York Times Editorial Board that Mr. Glenn Kirschner talked about why Donald Trump is unfit.

=============

HE IS DANGEROUS IN WORD, DEED AND ACTION 

HE PUTS SELF OVER COUNTRY

HE LOATHES THE LAWS

OPINION

DONALD TRUMP IS UNFIT TO LEAD

BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists

whose views are informed by expertise,

research, debate and certain longstanding values.

It is separate from the newsroom.

Next week, for the third time in eight years, Donald Trump will be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States. A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great.

It is a chilling choice against this national moment. For more than two decades, large majorities of Americans have said they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and the post-Covid era of stubborn inflation, high interest rates, social division and political stagnation has left many voters even more frustrated and despondent.



The Republican Party once pursued electoral power in service to solutions for such problems, to building “the shining city on a hill,” as Ronald Reagan liked to say. Its vision of the United States — embodied in principled public servants like George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — was rooted in the values of freedom, sacrifice, individual responsibility and the common good. The party’s conception of those values was reflected in its longstanding conservative policy agenda, and today many Republicans set aside their concerns about Mr. Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade and taxes. But the stakes of this election are not fundamentally about policy disagreements. The stakes are more foundational: what qualities matter most in America’s president and commander in chief.

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

He is, quite simply, unfit to lead.

The Democrats are rightly engaged in their own debate about whether President Biden is the right person to carry the party’s nomination into the election, given widespread concerns among voters about his age-related fitness. This debate is so intense because of legitimate concerns that Mr. Trump may present a danger to the country, its strength, security and national character — and that a compelling Democratic alternative is the only thing that would prevent his return to power. It is a national tragedy that the Republicans have failed to have a similar debate about the manifest moral and temperamental unfitness of their standard-bearer, instead setting aside their longstanding values, closing ranks and choosing to overlook what those who worked most closely with the former president have described as his systematic dishonesty, corruption, cruelty and incompetence.

That task now falls to the American people. We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term clearly and to reject it. The stakes and significance of the presidency demand a person who has essential qualities and values to earn our trust, and on each one, Donald Trump fails.
 
I. MORAL FITNESS
II. PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP
III. CHARACTER
IV. A PRESIDENT’S WORDS
V. RULE OF LAW

--ooOoo--

I. MORAL FITNESS MATTERS



Presidents are confronted daily with challenges that require not just strength and conviction but also honesty, humility, selflessness, fortitude and the perspective that comes from sound moral judgment.

If Mr. Trump has these qualities, Americans have never seen them in action on behalf of the nation’s interests. His words and actions demonstrate a disregard for basic right and wrong and a clear lack of moral fitness for the responsibilities of the presidency.

He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racists, abuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage. His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty.

This record shows what can happen to a country led by such a person: America’s image, credibility and cohesion were relentlessly undermined by Mr. Trump during his term.

None of his wrongful actions are so obviously discrediting as his determined and systematic attempts to undermine the integrity of elections — the most basic element of any democracy — an effort that culminated in an insurrection at the Capitol to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump incited a mob to violence with hateful lies, then stood by for hours as hundreds of his supporters took his word and stormed the Capitol with the aim of terrorizing members of Congress into keeping him in office. 

He praised these insurrectionists and called them patriots; today he gives them a starring role at campaign rallies, playing a rendition of the national anthem sung by inmates involved with Jan. 6., and he has promised to consider pardoning the rioters if re-elected. He continues to wrong the country and its voters by lying about the 2020 election, branding it stolen, despite the courts, the Justice Department and Republican state officials disputing him. No man fit for the presidency would flog such pernicious and destructive lies about democratic norms and values, but the Trumpian hunger for vindication and retribution has no moral center.

To vest such a person with the vast powers of the presidency is to endanger American interests and security at home as well as abroad. The nation’s commander in chief must uphold the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” It is the closest thing that this secular nation has to a sacred trust. The president has several duties and powers that are his alone: He has the sole authority to launch a nuclear weapon. He has the authority to send American troops into harm’s way and to authorize the use of lethal force against individuals and other nations. Americans who serve in the military also take an oath to defend the Constitution, and they rely on their commander in chief to take that oath as seriously as they do.

Mr. Trump has shown, repeatedly, that he does not. On numerous occasions, he asked his defense secretary and commanders in the American armed forces to violate that oath. On other occasions, he demanded that members of the military violate norms that preserve the dignity of the armed services and protect the military from being used for political purposes. They largely refused these illegal and immoral orders, as the oath requires.

The lack of moral grounding undermines Mr. Trump even in areas where voters view him as stronger and trust him more than Mr. Biden, like immigration and crime. Veering into a kind of brutal excess that is, at best, immoral and, at worst, unconstitutional, he has said that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” and his advisers say he would aim to round them up in mass detention camps and end birthright citizenship. He has indicated that, if faced with episodes of rioting or crime surges, he would unilaterally send troops into American cities. He has asked aides if the United States could shoot migrants below the waist to slow them down, and he has said that he would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against protesters.
During his time in office, none of those things happened because there were enough people in military leadership with the moral fitness to say “no” to such illegal orders. But there are good reasons to worry about whether that would happen again, as Mr. Trump works harder to surround himself with people who enable rather than check his most insidious impulses.

The Supreme Court, with its ruling on July 1 granting presidents “absolute immunity” for official acts, has removed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s worst impulses: the threat of legal consequences. What remains is his own sense of right and wrong. Our country’s future is too precious to rely on such a broken moral compass.

II. PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP MATTERS



Republican presidents and presidential candidates have used their leadership at critical moments to set a tone for society to live up to. Mr. Reagan faced down totalitarianism in the 1980s, appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court and worked with Democrats on bipartisan tax and immigration reforms. George H.W. Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act and decisively defended an ally, Kuwait, against Iraqi aggression. George W. Bush, for all his failures after Sept. 11, did not stoke hate against or demonize Muslims or Islam.
As a candidate during the 2008 race, Mr. McCain spoke out when his fellow conservatives spread lies about his opponent, Barack Obama. Mr. Romney was willing to sacrifice his standing and influence in the party he once represented as a presidential nominee, by boldly calling out Mr. Trump’s failings and voting for his removal from office.

These acts of leadership are what it means to put country first, to think beyond oneself.
Mr. Trump has demonstrated contempt for these American ideals. He admires autocrats, from Viktor Orban to Vladimir Putin to Kim Jong-un. He believes in the strongman model of power — a leader who makes things happen by demanding it, compelling agreement through force of will or personality. In reality, a strongman rules through fear and the unprincipled use of political might for self-serving ends, imposing poorly conceived policies that smother innovation, entrepreneurship, ideas and hope.

During his four years in office, Mr. Trump tried to govern the United States as a strongman would, issuing orders or making decrees on Twitter. He announced sudden changes in policy — on who can serve in the military, on trade policy, on how the United States deals with North Koreaor Russia — without consulting experts on his staff about how these changes would affect America. Indeed, nowhere did he put his political or personal interests above the national interest more tragically than during the pandemic, when he faked his way through a crisis by touting conspiracy theories and pseudoscience while ignoring the advice of his own experts and resisting basic safety measures that would have saved lives.

He took a similar approach to America’s strategic relationships abroad. Mr. Trump lost the trust of America’s longstanding allies, especially in NATO, leaving Europe less secure and emboldening the far right and authoritarian leaders in Europe, Latin America and Asia. He pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, leaving that country, already a threat to the world, more dangerous, thanks to a revived program that has achieved near-weapons-grade uranium.

In a second term, his willingness to appease Mr. Putin would leave Ukraine’s future as a democratic and independent country in doubt. Mr. Trump implies that he could single-handedly end the catastrophic war in Gaza but has no real plan. He has suggested that in a second term he’d increase tariffs on Chinese goods to 60 percent or higher and that he would put a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods, moves that would raise prices for American consumers and reduce innovation by allowing U.S. industries to rely on protectionism instead.

The worst of the Trump administration’s policies were often blocked by Congress, by court challenges and by the objections of honorable public servants who stepped in to thwart his demands when they were irresponsible or did not follow the law. When Mr. Trump wanted an end to Obamacare, a single Republican senator, Mr. McCain, saved it, preserving health care for millions of Americans. Mr. Trump demanded that James Comey, his F.B.I. director, pledge loyalty to him and end an investigation into a political ally; Mr. Comey refused. Scientists and public health officials called out and corrected his misinformation about climate science and Covid. The Supreme Court sided against the Trump administration more times than any other president since at least Franklin D. Roosevelt.

A second Trump administration would be different. He intends to fill his administration with sycophants, those who have shown themselves willing to obey Mr. Trump’s demands or those who lack the strength to stand up to him. He wants to remove those who would be obstacles to his agenda, by enacting an order to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with those more loyal to him.

This means not only that Americans would lose the benefit of their expertise but also that America would be governed in a climate of fear, in which government employees must serve the interests of the president rather than the public. All cabinet secretaries follow a president’s lead, but Mr. Trump envisions a nation in which public service as Americans understand it would cease to exist — where individual civil servants and departments could no longer make independent decisions and where research by scientists and public health experts and investigations by the Justice Department and others in federal law enforcement would be more malleable to the demands of the White House.

Another term under Mr. Trump’s leadership would risk doing permanent damage to our government. As Mr. Comey, a longtime Republican, wrote in a 2019 guest essay for Times Opinion, “Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from.” Very few who serve under him can avoid this fate “because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites,” Mr. Comey wrote. “Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values. And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.” America will get nowhere with a strongman. It needs a strong leader.

III. CHARACTER MATTERS



Character is the quality that gives a leader credibility, authority and influence. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump’s petty attacks on his opponents and their families led many Republicans to conclude that he lacked such character. Other Republicans, including those who supported the former president’s policies in office, say they can no longer in good conscience back him for the presidency. “It’s a job that requires the kind of character he just doesn’t have,” Paul Ryan, a former Republican House speaker, said of Mr. Trump in May.

Those who know Mr. Trump’s character best — the people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House — have expressed grave doubts about his fitness for office.

His former chief of staff John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, described Mr. Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Bill Barr, whom Mr. Trump appointed as attorney general, said of him, “He will always put his own interest and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest.” James Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general who served as defense 
 secretary, said, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try.”
Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s vice president, has disavowed him. No other vice president in modern American history has done this. “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Mr. Pence has said. “And anyone who asked someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.”

These are hardly exceptions. In any other American administration, a single cabinet-level defection is rare. But an unprecedented number of Mr. Trump’s appointees have publicly criticized his leadership, opposed his 2024 presidential candidacy or ducked questions about his fitness for a second term. More than a dozen of his most senior appointees — those he chose to work alongside him and who saw his performance most closely — have spoken out against him, serving as witnesses about the kind of leader he is.

There are many ways to judge leaders’ character; one is to see whether they accept responsibility for their actions. As a general rule, Mr. Trump abhors accountability. If he loses, the election is rigged. If he is convicted, it’s because the judges are out to get him. If he doesn’t get his way in a deal, as happened multiple times with Congress in his term, he shuts down the government or threatens to.

Americans do not expect their presidents to be perfect; many of them have exhibited hubris, self-regard, arrogance and other character flaws. But the American system of government is more than just the president: It is a system of checks and balances, and it relies on everyone in government to intervene when a president’s personal failings might threaten the common good.
Mr. Trump tested those limits as president, and little has changed about him in the four years since he lost re-election. He tries to intimidate anyone with the temerity to testify as a witness against him. He attacks the integrity of judges who are doing their duty to hold him accountable to the law. He mocks those he dislikes and lies about those who oppose him and targets Republicans for defeat if they fail to bend the knee.

It may be tempting for Americans to believe that a second Trump presidency would be much like the first, with the rest of government steeled to protect the country and resist his worst impulses. But the strongman needs others to be weak, and Mr. Trump is surrounding himself with yes men.
The American public has a right to demand more from their president and those who would serve under him.

IV. A PRESIDENT’S WORDS MATTER



When America saw white nationalists and neo-Nazis march through the streets of Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 and activists were rallying against racism, Mr. Trump spoke of “very fine people on both sides.” When he was pressed about the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 debate, Mr. Trump told them to “stand back and stand by,” a request that, records show, they took literally in deciding to storm Congress. This winter, the former president urged Iowans to vote for him and score a victory over their fellow Americans — “all of the liars, cheaters, thugs, perverts, frauds, crooks, freaks, creeps.” And in a Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire, he used the word “vermin,” a term he has deployed to describe both immigrants and political opponents.

What a president says reflects on the United States and the kind of society we aspire to be.
In 2022 this board raised an urgent alarm about the rising threat of political violence in the United States and what Americans could do to stop it. At the time, Mr. Trump was preparing to declare his intention to run for president again, and the Republican Party was in the middle of a fight for control, between Trumpists and those who were ready to move on from his destructive leadership. This struggle within the party has consequences for all Americans. “A healthy democracy requires both political parties to be fully committed to the rule of law and not to entertain or even tacitly encourage violence or violent speech,” we wrote.

A large faction of one party in our country fails that test, and that faction, Mr. Trump’s MAGA extremists, now control the party and its levers of power. There are many reasons his conquest of the Republican Party is bad for American democracy, but one of the most significant is that those extremists have often embraced violent speech or the belief in using violence to achieve their political goals. This belief led to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and it has resulted in a rising number of threats against judges, elected officials and prosecutors.

This threat cannot be separated from Mr. Trump’s use of language to encourage violence, to dehumanize groups of people and to spread lies. A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, released in October 2022, came to the conclusion that MAGA Republicans (as opposed to those who identified themselves as traditional Republicans) “are more likely to hold extreme and racist beliefs, to endorse political violence, to see such violence as likely to occur and to predict that they will be armed under circumstances in which they consider political violence to be justified.”

The Republican Party had an opportunity to renounce Trumpism; it has submitted to it. Republican leaders have had many opportunities to repudiate his violent discourse and make clear that it should have no place in political life; they failed to. Sizable numbers of voters in Republican primaries abandoned Mr. Trump for other candidates, and independent and undecided voters have said that Mr. Trump’s language has alienated them from his candidacy.

But with his nomination by his party all but assured, Mr. Trump has become even more reckless in employing extreme and violent speech, such as his references to executing generals who raise questions about his actions. He has argued, before the Supreme Court, that he should have the right to assassinate a political rival and face no consequences.

V.THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS



The danger from these foundational failings — of morals and character, of principled leadership and rhetorical excess — is never clearer than in Mr. Trump’s disregard for rule of law, his willingness to do long-term damage to the integrity of America’s systems for short-term personal gain.

As we’ve noted, Mr. Trump’s disregard for democracy was most evident in his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to encourage violence to stop the peaceful transfer of power. What stood in his way were the many patriotic Americans, at every level of government, who rejected his efforts to bully them into complying with his demands to change election results. Instead, they followed the rules and followed the law. This respect for the rule of law, not the rule of men, is what has allowed American democracy to survive for more than 200 years.

In the four years since losing the election, Mr. Trump has become only more determined to subvert the rule of law, because his whole theory of Trumpism boils down to doing whatever he wants without consequence. Americans are seeing this unfold as Mr. Trump attempts to fight off numerous criminal charges. Not content to work within the law to defend himself, he is instead turning to sympathetic judges — including two Supreme Court justices with apparent conflicts over the 2020 election and Jan. 6-related litigation. The playbook: delay federal prosecution until he can win election and end those legal cases. His vision of government is one that does what he wants, rather than a government that operates according to the rule of law as prescribed by the Constitution, the courts and Congress.

As divided as America is, people across the political spectrum generally recoil from rigged rules, favoritism, self-dealing and abuse of power. Our country has been so stable for so long in part because most Americans and most American leaders follow the rules or face the consequences.

So much in the past two decades has tested these norms in our society — the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the failures that led to the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that followed, the pandemic and all the fractures and inequities that it revealed. We need a recommitment to the rule of law and the values of fair play. This election is a moment for Americans to decide whether we will keep striving for those ideals.

Mr. Trump rejects them. If he is re-elected, America will face a new and precarious future, one that it may not be prepared for. It is a future in which intelligence agencies would be judged not according to whether they preserved national security but by whether they served Mr. Trump’s political agenda. It means that prosecutors and law enforcement officials would be judged not according to whether they follow the law to keep Americans safe but by whether they obey his demands to “go after” political enemies. It means that public servants would be judged not according to their dedication or skill but by whether they show sufficient loyalty to him and his MAGA agenda.

Even if Mr. Trump’s vague policy agenda would not be fulfilled, he could rule by fear. The lesson of other countries shows that when a bureaucracy is politicized or pressured, the best public servants will run for the exits.

This is what has already happened in Mr. Trump’s Republican Party, with principled leaders and officials retiring, quitting or facing ouster. In a second term, he intends to do that to the whole of government.

Election Day is less than four months away. The case against Mr. Trump is extensive, and this board urges Americans to perform a simple act of civic duty in an election year: Listen to what Mr. Trump is saying, pay attention to what he did as president and allow yourself to truly inhabit what he has promised to do if returned to office.

Voters frustrated by inflation and immigration or attracted by the force of Mr. Trump’s personality should pause and take note of his words and promises. They have little to do with unity and healing and a lot to do with making the divisions and anger in our society wider and more intense than they already are.

The Republican Party is making its choice next week; soon all Americans will be able to make their own choice. What would Mr. Trump do in a second term? He has told Americans who he is and shown them what kind of leader he would be.

When someone fails so many foundational tests, you don’t give him the most important job in the world.

From top, photographs and video by Damon Winter/The New York Times (2) and Jay Turner Frey Seawell (5).

[LeThanhPhong]

GS. Nguyễn Đình Minh Quốc và bà Ái Vân phổ biến bài dịch sang Việt ngữ bản văn của ban biên tập tờ New York Times . (Bản văn Anh ngữ: post # 29 .)

Ngày mai, GS Quốc sẽ nói về Project 2025.

Trân trọng giới thiệu đến quý bạn .
==============

Ban biên tập New York Times: Khả năng để làm tổng thống của Trump