DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus AI answers - Left vs Right and other things.

I had a lot of time on my hands this morning over coffee. I was thinking about two political groups with perspectives that are diametrically polar and opposite. I was wondering how to define this and how it can be resolved or even if it can be resolved. So I thought i would ask a bunch of questions within AI. I started off asking to list any actions by Trump that would meet the threshold of Authoratarian. When it listed things like weaponizing the DOJ and silencing criticism of the media - I asked it how that was different than accusations that Biden weaponized the DOJ and how Democrats frequently sought to control the media and SM with regards to what it released. When it referenced Project 2025 in one of it's bullet points I asked it if Project 2025 would be viewed as Authoratarian. After that answer I asked it if Authoratarian was the same as being Fascist. After that I asked why Right leaning Republicans would be fearful of Democratic policies and agenda.

The answers were actuall quote good - quite balanced - although your opinion on that may well vary. I found it interesting enough to share. So I will cut and paste the most salient answers below. Long read if you are interested. If not move on. Or if you want a cheap shot - go ahead. I mean the easiest thing to do would be to dismiss any and all of this because it's AI no matter if it's largely fact based. . . No skin off my nose whichever way the thread goes.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Specific actions considered Authoratarion Trump term 2.

Widespread Use of Pardons for Political Operatives and Crimes in Office
Action: In the spring of 2025, President Trump issued a sweeping pardon to several individuals convicted of crimes related to the January 6th Capitol breach, as well as former aides previously convicted of charges like contempt of Congress and perjury. Crucially, the pardons included pre-emptive clemency for any federal crimes that administration officials might be charged with while "acting on the directives of the president."

Authoritarian Analysis: This move is seen as placing the president and his loyalists effectively above the law, eliminating legal accountability for actions taken in service of consolidating power. It signals that operatives can break laws with impunity if the action is deemed to serve the leader's interests.

Formal Weaponization of the Justice Department
Action: The Attorney General, a staunch loyalist appointed in early 2025, has initiated investigations into several key political opponents, including former officials from the Biden administration and governors who resisted the administration's policies. Subpoenas have been issued based on allegations of "corruption" and "election interference," charges that critics argue are vague and politically motivated.

Authoritarian Analysis: This represents the direct use of state prosecutorial power to target, harass, and discredit political rivals. It chills dissent and opposition by demonstrating that challenging the administration could lead to legal reprisal, a classic tactic of autocratic regimes.

Implementation of "Schedule F" and the Purge of the Civil Service
Action:

Action: A key promise of the administration's first 100 days was executed: the revival and aggressive implementation of "Schedule F." Tens of thousands of federal employees in policy-related roles across multiple agencies (State, Justice, Defense, intelligence communities) were reclassified as political appointees. A significant number were subsequently dismissed and replaced with officials vetted for ideological loyalty to the president.

Authoritarian Analysis: This dismantles the professional, non-partisan civil service—a key check on presidential power—and replaces it with a patronage system. It ensures that policy and implementation are based on loyalty to the leader rather than expertise, law, or the public interest, fundamentally transforming the governance structure.

Deployment of Federal Forces for Domestic Law Enforcement
Action: Citing the Insurrection Act, the administration deployed National Guard units to several major U.S. cities following periods of social unrest and protest. In certain cases, this was done over the explicit objections of state governors, federalizing their guard units.

Authoritarian Analysis: Using the military for domestic policing, against the will of local authorities, to quell dissent is a profound break with American tradition. It represents the militarization of political conflict and the use of force as a tool to maintain control, a hallmark of authoritarian rule.


Direct Attacks on the Independence of the Federal Reserve
Action:

Action: The president has publicly and repeatedly demanded that the Federal Reserve chair lower interest rates, and has threatened to initiate an effort to remove him from office for "undermining the economy." Legislation has been introduced by allied senators to bring the Fed's monetary policy decisions under direct presidential review.

Authoritarian Analysis: Attempting to politicize and control the nation's independent central bank is a move to seize control of a key lever of the economy. It aims to create short-term economic boosts for political gain at the risk of long-term stability, and removes a critical institutional check on executive power.

Systematic Effort to Undermine Electoral Integrity for Future Elections
Action: The Department of Justice has launched lawsuits against several states with divided governments, challenging their voter registration rules and mail-in ballot procedures. The suits allege widespread (but unproven) fraud and seek to invalidate existing laws, pushing for new, more restrictive rules that would be enforced by federal monitors.

Authoritarian Analysis: This uses the legal apparatus of the state to create a pretext for making voting more difficult for segments of the population perceived as likely to oppose the administration. It is an attempt to engineer future electoral outcomes by shaping who gets to vote, rather than winning a free and fair contest of ideas.

Summary: These actions, observed over the last nine months, demonstrate a pattern of behavior focused on concentrating power, eliminating checks and balances, punishing opponents, and shaping the rules of the political game to ensure continued control. Under a microscope, this pattern aligns with established political science definitions of authoritarianism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

When asked about the accusation that Biden and the Dems weaponized the DOJ:

The Accusations Against Biden and Democrats
Republicans level the weaponization charge primarily based on a few key points:

The Prosecutions of Donald Trump: The most prominent examples are the four criminal indictments against Trump. Critics argue that:

The cases are politically motivated, filed by a Justice Department led by a Biden-appointed Attorney General (Merrick Garland) against Biden's chief political rival.

The timing, during an election campaign, is intentionally damaging.

They point to other politicians (e.g., Hillary Clinton in the email scandal) who were not prosecuted as evidence of a two-tiered system of justice.

The Investigation into Hunter Biden: Critics argue that the investigation into the president's son was initially slow-walked and that the plea deal offered by prosecutors was unusually lenient, suggesting interference from the Biden DOJ to protect the president's family. The subsequent indictment of Hunter Biden on gun charges by a Special Counsel has complicated this narrative, but critics maintain the initial handling was suspect.

The School Board Memo: In 2021, the DOJ issued a memo directing the FBI to address a perceived rise in threats against school officials, which some saw as a response to activists protesting COVID policies at school board meetings. Critics accused the administration of using federal law enforcement to intimidate and silence parental dissent.

And what about a counter point to these? :

The Difference Between Process and Personal Command
The core of the distinction lies in institutional independence versus personalization of power.

The Biden DOJ accusations, whether one agrees with them or not, are operating within a system of checks. Special Counsels are appointed, cases are argued in court before independent judges, and verdicts are delivered by juries. The process, while politically explosive, is transparent and subject to judicial review.

The promised actions for a second Trump term are described as personal directives from the president, aiming to dismantle the DOJ's independence and turn it into a direct instrument of his will to punish enemies. This eliminates the checks and centralizes power in the executive.

Therefore, while the accusation of weaponization is politically potent and sincerely held by many, legal scholars and historians arguing that Trump's plans are authoritarian focus on this fundamental difference: one operates within a system of justice (however imperfectly), while the other promises to break that system and repurpose it for personal and political retribution.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing Biden vs Trump accusations of Weaponizing the DOJ:

The Biden Administration (2021-2025): Accusations of Weaponization
Central Mechanism: Appointed Independent Special Counsels (Jack Smith, David Weiss) to create a formal firewall between the White House and politically sensitive investigations. The White House consistently cited this independence to deflect accusations of interference.

Key Example: The Trump Indictments. Critics argued that the four criminal indictments against former President Trump, while led by a Special Counsel, were ultimately overseen by a Biden-appointed Attorney General. They alleged the timing was politically motivated to damage Biden's chief electoral rival.

Key Example: The Hunter Biden Case. The initial investigation and proposed plea deal were criticized as unusually lenient, suggesting interference to protect the President's son. The subsequent indictment by the Special Counsel was used by both sides—as proof the system worked, or as proof the initial handling was corrupt.

Presidential Involvement: No public evidence emerged of President Biden directly ordering or directing any specific case. The administration's stated policy was to maintain strict distance from DOJ decision-making.

Overall Republican Critique: The GOP argued that the effect was the weaponization of the DOJ, regardless of the procedural mechanisms, creating a deep and lasting erosion of trust in the department's neutrality.



The Trump Administration (2025-Present): Documented Actions
Central Mechanism: Direct personal command and the removal of independence. The Attorney General is a publicly stated loyalist chosen specifically to "go after" opponents. The firewall between the White House and the DOJ has been systematically dismantled.

Key Example: Directing Retributive Investigations. Following his inauguration, President Trump publicly directed the new Attorney General to initiate investigations into several key political opponents, including former officials from the Biden administration and state governors who resisted his policies. Subpoenas have been issued based on allegations critics call politically vague and motivated solely by revenge.

Key Example: Pardons for Loyalists. The pre-emptive pardons issued to aides for "actions taken on presidential directives" effectively shields them from legal accountability for executing orders that may violate laws or court rulings, ensuring operational loyalty above the law.

Presidential Involvement: Direct and explicit. The president has openly discussed these actions as a rightful use of executive power, fulfilling his campaign promises to use the DOJ to target his opponents.

Overall Critics' Critique: The prevailing view among Democrats and many legal analysts is that the Trump DOJ has been openly transformed into a tool of political retribution, fulfilling campaign promises that explicitly rejected the traditional norm of justice being blind.

Cont:

Is Authoratarianism the same as Fascism?

Authoritarianism: The Framework of Control
Authoritarianism is primarily about how power is held and exercised. Its core defining feature is the concentration of power in a single leader or small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the people. It focuses on maintaining political control and suppressing challenges to that control.

Key Goal: Stability, order, and the preservation of the ruling power's authority.

Methods:

Suppressing political opposition (e.g., banning rival parties, jailing critics).

Limiting individual freedoms (e.g., speech, assembly) to the extent they challenge the state.

Controlling the judiciary and media.

Using state power for patronage and to reward loyalty.

Examples:

Modern: Saudi Arabia, China under the CCP, Russia under Putin, Singapore.

Historical: The Francoist regime in Spain (after the fascist elements faded), the Pinochet regime in Chile (more of a military dictatorship).

An authoritarian regime might be indifferent to what you do in your private life, so long as you do not politically challenge it.

Fascism: The Ideology of National Rebirth
Fascism is a far-right, ultranationalist ideology that uses authoritarian methods to achieve its revolutionary goals. It's not just about control; it's about using that control to transform society and create a new national and cultural order. It is often described as a "revolutionary" or "reactionary" form of authoritarianism.

Key Goal: The spiritual rebirth of the nation, creating a unified national community, often in response to perceived national humiliation or decline.

Core Ideological Tenets (Beyond Authoritarianism):

Ultranationalism and Palingenesis: The belief that the nation must be purified and reborn (palingenesis), often through a violent struggle. This is the core myth of fascism.

Myth of National Decline: A central belief that the nation has been weakened by enemies (both internal and external) and must be restored to a mythical past glory.

Scapegoating and a "Us vs. Them" Worldview: Identifying internal enemies (e.g., ethnic/racial minorities, immigrants, intellectuals, leftists) who are blamed for the nation's problems. This is essential for unifying the "in-group."

Rejection of Enlightenment Values: Open hostility towards democracy, liberalism, reason, and individual rights. It embraces anti-intellectualism and believes in "truth through action and will."

Cult of Violence and Warrior Virtue: Celebrates violence as a necessary and purifying force to achieve national renewal. Glorifies the military and a warrior ethos.

Mass Mobilization and Aesthetics: Uses propaganda, rallies, symbols, and uniforms to create a sense of belonging and fuse the individual into the national collective.

Historical Examples: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy under Mussolini, Francoist Spain (in its earlier, more ideological phase).

A fascist regime demands not just your obedience, but your enthusiastic participation and belief in its ideological mission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Project 2025 meet a threshold of Authoratrian?

The Pillars of Project 2025 and Their Authoritarian Implications
A. The Mass Purge of the Civil Service (Schedule F)
The Plan: Revive and aggressively implement the "Schedule F" executive order. This would reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees (policy experts, scientists, regulators, intelligence analysts) from protected, non-partisan civil servants into political appointees who can be fired at will.

Authoritarian Analysis: This is the cornerstone of the entire project. It aims to:

Eliminate Independence: Dismantle the professional, merit-based bureaucracy that serves the Constitution and the law, regardless of the president in power. This bureaucracy is a key check on presidential overreach.

Install Loyalty: Replace expertise with loyalty as the primary qualification for governing. This creates a patronage system where officials’ jobs depend on their personal fealty to the president, not their competence or commitment to the rule of law.

Silence Dissent: It empowers the president to fire anyone who offers internal dissent, cites legal concerns, or provides evidence-based analysis that contradicts the administration's political narrative.

B. Centralizing Power in the Presidency
The Plan: Weaken or effectively eliminate the independence of all federal agencies by placing them under direct presidential control. This includes the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve (monetary policy), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Authoritarian Analysis: This seeks to break down the system of checks and balances.

Weaponizing the DOJ: A DOJ stripped of independence becomes a legal weapon to investigate the president's opponents and protect his allies, destroying its role as an impartial arbiter of justice.

Politicizing Everything: Independent regulatory agencies exist to make decisions based on data and public interest, not political favoritism. Bringing them under White House control would allow for regulatory capture by special interests and the use of government power to reward friends and punish enemies (e.g., using the FTC to investigate a critical media company).

C. Imposing a Single Ideological Orthodoxy
The Plan: The nearly 1,000-page manifesto, the "Mandate for Leadership," provides detailed instructions for every major agency to roll back regulations and policies and implement a very specific, hardline conservative social and economic agenda. It leaves little room for debate or alternative viewpoints.

Authoritarian Analysis: While all presidents have policy goals, Project 2025 is not merely a list of goals. It is a detailed command structure designed to:

Enforce Compliance: It provides a "playbook" for loyalists to quickly and uniformly impose a top-down ideology across the entire government.

Target Vulnerable Groups: Its policies on gender, sexuality, and immigration are designed to remove federal protections for certain groups and use the government's power to enforce a specific social vision, which critics argue is a form of state-sponsored discrimination.

D. Stacking the Military and Intelligence with Loyalists
The Plan: Purge the Pentagon and intelligence agencies of officials deemed "disloyal" or "woke" and replace them with ideologically vetted loyalists. It aims to break down the long-standing norm of a non-political, professional military.

Authoritarian Analysis: A politicized military leadership is a classic feature of authoritarian regimes. It ensures that the immense power of the armed forces will be used to serve the leader's interests, not the nation's constitutional principles. This raises grave concerns about the potential use of the military for domestic political purposes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do Hard Right Republicans fear Democratic policies and agendas?

1. Cultural and Identity Concerns
This is often the most powerful driver of fear. Hard Right Republicans believe progressive policies are actively dismantling traditional American culture and national identity.

"Woke" Ideology: They see concepts like critical race theory, gender fluidity, and cancel culture as a dangerous ideology that seeks to rewrite American history, teach children to be ashamed of their country (and their race if they are white), and destroy traditional values like patriotism, religion, and the nuclear family.

National Identity: Policies promoting multiculturalism,宽松 immigration, and multilingualism are viewed as threats to a cohesive national identity built on a common language (English) and shared cultural heritage (often described as Judeo-Christian).

Religious Liberty: They fear that the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights, particularly in areas like mandatory pronoun use or requiring businesses to provide services for same-sex weddings, infringes upon their religious freedoms and forces them to violate their deeply held beliefs.

2. Economic Philosophy
Their economic fears are based on a staunch belief in free-market capitalism and individual responsibility, which they see Democrats undermining.

Socialism and Big Government: Proposals for universal healthcare ("Medicare for All"), free college, student loan forgiveness, and the Green New Deal are not seen as social safety nets but as steps toward European-style socialism. They believe this will lead to:

Massive tax increases that stifle growth and punish success.

A bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy that controls citizens' lives.

The erosion of individual initiative and personal responsibility, creating a culture of dependency on the state.

Regulation: They view Democratic environmental and business regulations as crippling to industry, energy independence (particularly fossil fuels), and small businesses, hindering economic freedom and prosperity.

3. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Many Hard Right Republicans are originalists or strict constructionists who believe the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written.

Gun Rights: Any form of gun control—from universal background checks to assault weapons bans—is seen as a direct violation of the Second Amendment and the first step toward complete confiscation and disarming of law-abiding citizens.

Judicial Activism: They fear Democratic appointments to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, will legislate from the bench to create new rights (e.g., abortion) not explicitly found in the Constitution, thereby undermining the rule of law and the democratic process.

4. National Security and Immigration
This is a paramount issue where the worldview gap is vast.

Open Borders: They perceive Democratic immigration policies (such as catch-and-release, opposition to border walls, and support for sanctuary cities) as a deliberate effort to create "open borders." They believe this leads to:

A loss of national sovereignty and the inability to control who enters the country.

Increased crime, drug trafficking (especially fentanyl), and potential terrorism.

A deliberate electoral strategy to "import" new voters who will naturally support Democratic policies, thereby changing the electorate permanently.

Military and Police: Calls from the progressive left to "defund the police" and critiques of the military are seen as deeply anti-American and dangerous policies that would lead to chaos, soaring crime, and a weakened national defense.

5. A Belief in a "Great Replacement" Theory
While not universally held, this conspiracy theory has gained significant traction on the hard right. It posits that Democratic elites are intentionally promoting immigration and policies supporting minority populations to replace the white, culturally conservative electorate—and thereby achieve permanent political power.

Summary: The Core Narrative of Fear
In essence, the fear of Hard Right Republicans can be summarized by a core narrative:

"The Democratic Party is no longer the party of JFK but has been taken over by radical, socialist, and 'woke' progressives. Their policies are intentionally designed to dismantle the traditional, God-fearing America we know. They seek to erase our history, open our borders, destroy our economic freedom with socialism, take away our guns, silence our speech, and replace our people and values. They are using the power of the federal government not to protect liberty, but to control every aspect of our lives and create a permanent dependent underclass that will keep them in power."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asking about cancel culture as a result of comments in the answer above (this is just the summary):

The Critical Perspective: It's the Same Behavior
Critics, and your observation, argue that this is a distinction without a difference. The mechanisms and outcomes are identical, regardless of the justification:

Boycotts: The left boycotts Chick-fil-A for its owners' donations to groups opposed to same-sex marriage. The right boycotts Bud Light for its marketing partnership with a transgender influencer. The tactic is the same.

Firing/Deplatforming: The left campaigns to get a conservative commentator fired from a media company for offensive remarks. The right campaigns to get a progressive professor fired for tweets criticizing Israel or capitalism. The desired outcome is the same.

Censorship: The right accuses social media companies of censoring conservative voices. When in positions of power (e.g., a state government), they pass laws to ban certain books from school libraries or prohibit the teaching of critical race theory. The use of power to suppress ideas is the same.

The Core Issue: A Clash of "Cancel Cultures"
What this reveals is not that one side is innocent and the other guilty, but that there are two competing moral frameworks attempting to enforce social sanction on the other.

A "Progressive Cancel Culture": Focused on enforcing norms related to social justice, inclusivity, and identity. It seeks to punish perceived racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.

A "Conservative Cancel Culture": Focused on enforcing norms related to patriotism, traditional values, and nationalism. It seeks to punish perceived anti-Americanism, disrespect for authority (e.g., police, military), and challenges to traditional social structures (e.g., the traditional family values, gender binaries).

Conclusion: You are correct that the behavior exists on both sides. The intense disagreement is over what is considered a cancel-worthy offense. The term "cancel culture" itself has become a political weapon, used almost exclusively to describe the tactics of the opposition while justifying one's own similar tactics as righteous and necessary defense. This is a classic example of what psychologists call "reactive hypocrisy" or what in politics is often termed "whataboutism"—deflecting criticism by accusing the other side of the same thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Asking if Illegal Immigration benefits the Democrats - and why Trump curtailed illegal immigration while Biden didn't:

The idea that illegal immigration benefits Democrats electorally is a common political claim, but it is not a simple fact.

The Theory: The argument is that Democrats gain future voters by encouraging immigration, as new communities may feel indebted to the party and eventually support them after gaining citizenship.

The Reality: It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. The path to citizenship is a long, multi-year process. The direct, short-term electoral benefit is negligible.

Alternative View: Democrats state their support for immigrants is based on humanitarian values (providing asylum) and economic reasons (filling labor gaps), not a calculated electoral strategy. They argue the immigration system is broken and requires comprehensive legislative reform, which has been blocked by partisan gridlock.

Immigration Under Biden vs. Trump's Second Term
The Biden Administration's Approach (2021-2025):
The high levels of migration during President Biden's term were driven by complex factors, including crises in sending countries and a U.S. legal system that guarantees asylum hearings. Critics argued his policies were too lenient and created incentives to cross illegally. Biden's team stated they were following the law humanely but were constrained by court challenges and a lack of Congressional action on immigration reform.

Trump's Second-Term Effectiveness (2025-Present):
President Trump has been effective at dramatically curtailing illegal immigration through a series of aggressive, uncompromising actions:

Mass Deportations: Executing the largest immigration enforcement operation in modern history, leveraging military resources and expedited removal processes.

Closing the Asylum Loophole: Effectively shutting down the asylum system at the border by implementing stringent new rules that bar most claims and rapidly turn away arrivals.

"Stay in Mexico" 2.0: Reinforcing and expanding the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), forcing all asylum seekers to wait outside U.S. territory.

Withholding Funding: Using executive power to cut federal funds to cities and organizations that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

In essence, while the previous administration operated within a framework of existing asylum laws, the current administration has taken direct action to sidestep or rewrite those frameworks, prioritizing border control and enforcement above other concerns.

This is what I hope doesn't get lost in all of this. You asked AI to list actual actions by trump. Then you asked it to answer questions about accusations directed at the other side. Facts and accusations aren't the same thing which makes the entire thing built on a false premise at least in regards to that portion of your query.

One are actions that someone took. The other is what people were accused of whether factual or not.

Using AI to give you answers is probably not a good use of time.

LLM's have a lot left to be accurate and can be massaged/manipulated.


I really wish people would stop using them as fact.

AI is a tool. Its work in progress. Its early in its development. Take its answers with a bag of rock salt.

Some people would call me AI then.

Anyone believing i think AI has all the answers is missing the point. I believe anyone dismissing AI answers out of hand is probably doing so in order to avoid some of the valid questions it highlighted.

I am not one who dismissed AI but I did question that on one had you asked AI for facts while on the flip side of the coin you asked AI about accusations. I believe in doing so that portion was poorly framed. ie.............. "actions by Trump" verses "I asked it how that was different than accusations that Biden weaponized the DOJ and how Democrats frequently sought to control the media and SM with regards to what it released."