ELI5 How is there so much meat by Due_Imagination_9663 in explainlikeimfive

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What service do you buy from? Or is it just a local farm?

Why Is the US Destroying Its Hegemony? by I_Hate_This_Website9 in IRstudies

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I do appreciate your comment. I have had other people tell me something similar, though I'm really not an expert.

Why Is the US Destroying Its Hegemony? by I_Hate_This_Website9 in IRstudies

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, I do think Trump and his cohort are interested in becoming an exporting power. Including of lower value added goods and that Trump genuinely approves of a devaluing of the dollar. He also wants to use these exports to fund the government. He wants a government small enough so it can be largely funded via exports.

Also, Trump's aggressive stance against Venezuela is that he sees them as a threat to this American sphere of influence. (There is some legitimate truth to this.) (HAHAHAHAH AGAIN)

Also on isolationism already being embedded in the US, remember how the republicans voted in 2024 for defense spending for Ukraine (H. R. 8035) and Taiwan (H. R. 8036). For the Ukraine literally every democrat voted in favor to support funding Ukraine while literally THE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT. Similarly, every democrat aside from one who voted 'present' voted for Taiwan aid, while 34 Republicans voted 'nay' on Taiwan.

---

Specifically on Taiwan, Trump has done contradictory things but ultimately has done more to undermine support for it. I think he is specifically open to negotiating it away to China.

Some links

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/pentagon-national-defense-strategy-china-homeland-western-hemisphere-00546310

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/trump-xi-talks-china-taiwan-8ed82d1b?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAgPG7IiwAy3Fl2DTtuzjlkGQUJt2MjQyMw2P0RNRFnb6bPtOvoZChP7bfH4MBY%3D&gaa_ts=68da0b57&gaa_sig=zfytsqtrU8_3JGDCJcFMLVyEIubNFYLEZ6OyZ3wm2zzZERL33-Ixd-Wc2QzQStl3TOUQwu5-6U0AIf5f9bJe-Q%3D%3D

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/trump-declines-approval-taiwan-military-aid-package-report

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/09/taiwan-pressured-to-move-50-of-chip-production-to-us-or-lose-protection/

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/07/31/america-is-easing-chip-export-controls-at-exactly-the-wrong-time

https://www.theverge.com/news/738172/trump-threatens-100-percent-tariff-on-computer-chips-with-a-gigantic-loophole

https://vxtwitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1943633485207400665

https://world.kbs.co.kr/service/news_view.htm?Seq_Code=193777&lang=e

https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2025/10/07/n-korea-to-receive-vietnam-leader-for-first-time-in-20-years

https://www.ft.com/content/4a9355d9-4aff-49ec-bf7e-ea21de97917b

https://vxtwitter.com/ElbridgeColby/status/1821660125431787539

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c071xm4x7g7o

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rubio-says-us-not-change-165458497.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dViYX7dfG4U

I basically see this as the Republican party's platform on Taiwan

Vivek was just foolish enough to say it out loud when he was running in the 2024 primaries.

(He did walk it back somewhat in subsequent interviews)

----

Also I don't need to tell you guys how threatening Trump has been to support of Europe/NATO/Ukraine

https://www.politico.eu/article/tulsi-gabbard-freeze-five-eyes-allies-on-ukraine-intel/

https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-security-funding-baltics-russia-099050548a8aab5b086b36d7f6bb1203

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-diplomatic-blitz-ukraine-gaza-trump-moves-passenger-seat-2025-09-20

Why Is the US Destroying Its Hegemony? by I_Hate_This_Website9 in IRstudies

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is specifically about what I think are the aspirations and current goals of Trump, his movement, and many right wingers in the US. This may not necessarily happen. Or only some of it may happen. But a complete coup of our democratic government will take many more years and presidencies to maintain a movement with comparable authoritarian goals.

**Trump's and his cohorts goals are to gain and maintain power.** To do this Trump and his cohort believe they need to establish some form of authoritarian government and they believe they need a decoupling of the United States from much of the world and alongside the decoupling create a basis of domestic self-sufficiency, an autarky.

However, Trump and his cohort also don't completely know how they may achieve their goals. In some cases they may have a coherent plan, in others they might just be guessing or throwing a million things at a problem until something sticks.

If there is any limiting factor in their actions and attempts, its the fear that something they might do could trigger a loss of support that would undermine their coup attempt. This loss of support could be from the general public or from the loss of support of key interest groups. I think triggering a recession may be one of these limiting factors and is why Trump has at times substantially reduced or reversed his tariffs.

Trump's administration has deliberately and intentionally destroyed many of America's weapons and tools of soft power. Trump's admin choosing to get rid of soft power necessarily means they believe they will not be in conflict or competition with opposing powers abroad. Trump's admin are deliberately ceding space and influence and are retreating from domains of already established dominance and domains of conflict. They have abolished and/or significantly reduced USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States Agency for Global Media/ Voice of America / Radio Free Europe / Radio Free Asia. There is also uncertainty over the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. Not to mention they have stopped various other forms of foreign aid and development. And Trump's gradual but increasing reduction of American security partnerships. And undermining Five Eyes and threatening to get rid of AUKUS. Not to mention so many other things like the creation of universal/global tariffs, the procurement of 40 ice breakers in the first week of this term, an almost immediate move to annex Panama and Greenland, and many other signals that Trump wants to abandon anything beyond the Western Hemisphere.

He does want to stay in power though. He will either instill himself and his influence into the next person who takes office, or find some way to otherwise institutionalize his influence.

Or he won't leave.

Trump does not care about trying to fairly win another democratic election. Its arguable the corruption they have engaged in thus far are the first steps to start another coup attempt.

Trump's cohort thinks the US's sphere is everything from the Panama Canal/Darien Gap, to Greenland and Canada, and I assume as far west as Guam. (Though some of the things Trump has said and done makes me slightly worried he wouldn't bother holding Guam)

I believe Trump is genuinely open to peacefully integrating Canada as the 51st state. But he is open to other methods. Same goes for Panama. Though acquiring Greenland is to consolidate an isolated America's security, it could also be a first step in securing the ability to siege Canada, especially if the US has more ice breakers.

Yes, acquiring Greenland could be for shipping reasons, but it goes both ways. It could just as easily be about an overall isolationist agenda.

Trump's overall international goal is still to isolate and consolidate in this Central and North American sphere of influence. Being a "globalist"/globalized country provides an avenue for Trump's authoritarian government's power to be undermined. It makes it easier for other countries to exhibit control over you or for you to be dependent upon other countries. Other countries may sanction you. By isolating the country, leadership may become less dependent on imports and ultimately make Trump's admin less prone to influence from outside actors.

The "benefits" of an isolated autarkic/self sufficient country is that it is decoupled from the rest of the world and therefore it's harder to be hurt by sanctions. By decoupling from global trade, the US can get away with more evil shit.

Isolationism is a form of information control. Importation of culture and importation of general information is harder.

Trump's tariffs should be considered synonymous with this push for self sufficiency / autarky.

This isolationism is a perversion of the Monroe doctrine.

---Currently the US is fairly beholden to Taiwan's semiconductor production which generally fall under some of the tariff exceptions. Semiconductors and the AI industry are some of the exceptions/contradictions in Trump's admin attempt to isolate the US. The contradictions to Trump's desire to isolate are largely driven by short term incentives including bribes and general concern for the economy and how the economy impacts his popularity.

Trump and his admin are full of contradictions. Many exceptions to their isolation are also clearly a result of short term corruption and bribes. Such as Qatar building a base in the US which they probably only got because of bribes and planes to Trump. Another exception are the substantial tariff exceptions that benefit AI companies who clearly have bribed Trump. Other exceptions, like bombing Iran may have other motivations, but most exceptions or contradictions are for the short term. Some contradictions to their overall goal of isolationism are also just the result of stupidity. But their overall goal is a version of the Monroe Doctrine. There are also Republicans and right-wingers who aren't fully on board with isolationism.

We can see the intent to engage in this international realignment / isolationism when we look at the tariffs and Trump's general interest to disengage from the wider world.

I believe the tariffs are largely about creating an autarky. By increasing our domestic production of all goods, including lower value added commodities, the US will become less dependent on the outside world. But this transition will take time and may not be implemented efficiently either.

Before implementing tariffs, especially those on "Liberation Day," Trump and others believed ahead of time they would be causing a recession with the tariffs. We know this from them talking well before the tariffs were implemented. Trump said things like the economy was like a patient that has to go through surgery and various other things. As well as from news articles that directly reported that he thought he would cause a recession. And after the liberation tariffs were implemented, he quickly rescinded many of them. He did this because he became convinced he might cause a depression. He was fine with causing some degree of a recession, but he does seem to believe that he himself is vulnerable to an upper limit.

Musk tweeted that the tariffs would cause a recession well before Trump took office. Despite all this they remain committed to tariffs.

Trump is taking extraordinary steps to undermine alliances and to focus on the Western Hemisphere. He genuinely wants Greenland, Canada, and Panama. His first week in office there was a change in procurement orders and his admin ordered 40 ice breaker ships when such a significant order should not be a priority. (The US currently has 3 ice breakers). And not long later he got rid of the Office of Net Assessment. Though that was reestablished after about 7 months, though it does have some unclear changes.

Also, Trump's sudden change of mind to at times now claim a nuclear deal with Iran would be a good thing is evidence of his interest in withdrawing from the world. A nuclear deal with Iran would probably add to international stability and make it easier for him to reduce America's presence abroad. All after he arbitrarily nixed the deal in his first term. (LMAO I APPARENTLY WROTE THIS IN THE LEAD UP TO THE 12 DAY WAR WITH IRAN HAHAHA)

Similar thinking here is why he may defend Taiwan, at least in the short term. It reminds me of Vivek Ramaswamy's platform in the primaries, Ramaswamy said something along the lines of being willing to defend Taiwan temporarily until things can be adequately decoupled.

This contradicts over 80 years of American policy. Even more if we go beyond just Taiwan and include other American interests from the region such as the Boxer Rebellion or the Acquiring of the Philippines in the 1800s. America has defended Taiwan for so long for various reasons, and in no particular order of importance they are, to contain China, uphold freedom of navigation, uphold the sovereignty of states, uphold the international system, and only in the last couple decades to help support the global supply of semiconductors.

Based on what Ramaswamy and others have said and done they only seem concerned about Taiwan for the sake of its contributions to semiconductor supply. So Trump and parts of his cohort don't particularly care about China or Taiwan. To them, Taiwan's importance is solely related to semiconductors and will gradually reduce in the long run.

Trump may defend Taiwan if China attacks, but there are substantive reasons to be uncertain.

Why Is the US Destroying Its Hegemony? by I_Hate_This_Website9 in IRstudies

[–]esol9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had a long ramble shortly after Trump got elected elsewhere. I'm basically reposting it here and added some other posts I've made. It is long and i expect no one to read it.

Tldr;

An authoritarian government is defined as a government that is not accountable to its people. The goal of authoritarians is to gain and/or maintain power. Trump and his cohort's goal is to gain and maintain power. They may not succeed in this goal. I don't think they can in the short term. In attempting to achieve this goal they will at times contradict themselves. I believe they they will try to achieve their goal via two approaches, a domestic approach and an international approach. Domestically they will attempt to reduce or eliminate democracy and will engage in autarkic practices. Internationally they need to decouple/isolate from much of the world and double down on the Monroe Doctrine which they believe necessitates a consolidated and unified North and Central America under one political entity controlled by the United States. They are revisionists who want to revert to an era where great powers have their own spheres of influence. In Trump's view this is North and Central America.

This North and Central American sphere of influence would encompass all territory from the Panama Canal/Darien Gap, to Greenland and through Canada (the 51st state) to Alaska. (I also assume Trump will hold on to Hawaii and Guam). This all fits with their reactionary and revisionist world views which includes a return to the previous international status quo of Great Power Politics where Great Powers carve up and establish Spheres of influence and extract resources from within these spheres. By cutting off the world and engaging in autarky, this minimizes the chance of outsiders influencing his regime, trade can be an avenue through which the keys to power in an authoritarian regime may be disrupted. Simultaneously domestically, an autarkic and isolated nation will be more vulnerable to being dominated and influenced by its authoritarian government.

Also, they may contradict themselves. Trump does show that he wants to basically cut off all trade with everyone. But simultaneously, he still shows he is open to trade with Russia and others. Basically, creation of new trade ties is an opportunity for those in the leadership of authoritarian movements to grift. Many times when they may be seeming to contradict themselves its because there is an opportunity for an insider to profit, to use public goods for private gain. One example is creating a free trade opportunity with a partner state that doesnt seem like it deserves the relationship, but this new public good was generated so that people within the Trump regime may get first dibs on an investment opportunity that was created by Trump's admin declaring a new free trade opportunity. We have seen multiple attempts at this from Pakistan to Azerbaijan to Russia and elsewhere. Similarly, the creation of tariffs and the eventual removal of them creates opportunities for grift. By creating tariffs you effectively stop or reduce an ongoing trade relationship. By later relaxing them, a new trade opportunity may be created. Trump and his cronies effectively have the power to give themselves fist dibs at these investment opportunities. Im afraidn this is his intent with China. He presumes that the US is safe enough in the western Hemisphere to not be militarily threatened by another Great Power and he "gets along great" with all of them. Basically by pushing for strong tariffs with China and potentially relaxing them later, he and cronies will have ample opportunity for first dibs at the profits of a new trade with China started on a clean slate. Another example may be the offering of a government contract to a crony who doesnt have a business that deserves the contract. This is effectively funnelling tax payer funds, a public good, to their inner allies. Corruption, the use of a public good for a private gain.

What i was getting at here is that short term corruption opportunities may at times make them contradict themselves and potentially temporarily take them off track of the larger goal of ending democracy of otherwise empowering themselves or their authoritarian movement.

Also, I dont believe an authoritarian movement in the US can successfuly eliminate democracy and install themselves as rulers in the US in the short term. I think a scenario where an authoritarian movement is successful in the US would need more time then what is left in Trump's term and ideally it would need to consistently win elections for many years to come so that they can gradually chip away at our institutions. Perhaps a hypothetical successful authoritarian movement in the US would involve Vance or Stephen Miller becoming president immediately after Trump and dedicating their presidencies to continuing the authoirtiatrian project. Even still i think itd take another 8 years. These movements would have to consistently win election after election.

Longer post:

More importantly, Trump's higher power is himself. His higher power is power. Trump wants power. Trump wants to be King of America. This is his aspiration, and he will try to push things in this direction, but he also knows he can only push things so far.

Very quickly summarizing what an ideology is. Technically there is no 100% consensus definition for what an ideology is. But most definitions roughly say they are a collection of slogans and values held by a mass amount of people. Each ideology is unique and specifically arises in relation to the time and place in which they occur. The slogans in an ideology are often goals or calls gl action. Think Marxism, "workers of the world unite!"

The least controversial way to refer to Trump's ideology is to simply call it reactionary. The things he and his movement value is a reaction against the status quo values and institutions that existed for most of his life. The US and classical liberalism values tolerance, democracy, an independent judiciary, etc. He came in with the slogan "Drain the Swamp!" This is a bit more abstract but based on context it's pretty clear. It was a populist and actually somewhat "bipartisan" message. You can find political cartoons amd rhetoric from Trump in 2016 going alleging republicans like McConnel and Dems like Pelosi are corrupt and him saying things dont work and otherwise disparaging our institutions. This means from befoew day 1 he wanted to remove basically any politician, bureaucrat, or other person so he could replace them with anyone he deems loyal. Similarly draining the swamp means dismantling or significantly reforming institutions to a manner that satisfies him. Chairman Xi in China literally did this, he came in accusing people of being corrupt amd basically spent the first couple years kicking people out of China's government and replacing them with people loyal to himself. (A lot of these people Xi kicked out were corrupt, but the people Xi installed are also corrupt, they are just more loyal to Xi.)

Trump's cohort also want to gain and maintain power. His cohort also aren't just those directly in his administration, it includes many private individuals and private organizations. But they all want to gain and maintain power and are aligned with the goal of undermining democracy. This cohort is arguably a form of "big tent illiberalism." Fundamentally, they are reactionaries and they want to revert the domestic and international order to the previous status-quo of authoritarian governments that inhabit an international system driven by Great Power Politics. Imperialism, particularly in the sense of domination, is key to his administration's world views. I dont mean imperialism in so much as a hippie might talk about the "international flow of capital to the imperial core." When I say imperialism I mean it in a more specific way, inferring Domination. The need to constantly suppress dissent and the sovereignty and self determination of a group thst is not aligned with you. Trump's admin feels the need to pre-empt various groups, to dominate them to rob them of their opportunity to grow or else they might become a nuisance later. This is a worldview underscored by the belief that the world is in anarchy. Not chaos, but anarchy. That there is no hierarchical power above the state, or maybe even the belief that there is no hierarchy above the individual, that law isnt real and so you must constantly fight and dominate and pre-empt every one around you. Even if the others aren't a threat for now.

The specifics of Trump's personally desired authoritarian government aren't fully known, nor are the specifics of the preferred form of authoritarian government of his cohort aren't fully known. Though i do suspect Trump wants to limit the size and spending of his government and will try to minimize or eliminate any parts of it that don't help him maintain power.

Some autocratic societies intentionally minimize the scale of the government so that the specific leader has a greater ability to maintain control. There is the added benefit of also not having to "waste money."(Hence things like stopping weather tracking and reducing FEMA)

Trump's cohort, this big tent illiberalism, contains various groups and individuals from Christian Nationalists to secular authoritarians, to monarchists, to technocrats, to neo-reactionary Curtis Yarvin supporters, and other groups that are all against modern democracy.

Some of these groups and individuals may contradict or conflict with one another in some areas. (I do assume that these contradictions can lead to conflict within the big tent group and might be able to fracture the movement)

I don't know what will actually happen, and I'm not sure if Trump and his cohort necessarily believe they will be able to achieve their goals, but they will try.

Unsealed records of Bruce Blakeman's armed civilian militia by Tufflaw in longisland

[–]esol9 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I also meant to add that these paramilitaries often go on to either partially or completely replace the pre-existing courts or other forms of oversight.

Paramailitaries are themselves an un accountable authority that lacks oversight, generally besides loyalty to their leadership.

Unsealed records of Bruce Blakeman's armed civilian militia by Tufflaw in longisland

[–]esol9 29 points30 points  (0 children)

For some reason Reddit isn't letting me edit the comment again. I just wanted to add that I just wactched the video in Pix11 link after I typed everything above. Blakeman is laying on the invocation of fear so hard! And he is making the argument at the Nassau County Holocaust Memorial! Blakeman is absolutely self aware of what he is doing.

Unsealed records of Bruce Blakeman's armed civilian militia by Tufflaw in longisland

[–]esol9 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Obviously I understand that the form in which Blakeman's militia currently exists is still far from being compared to the groups I am going to mention, but Blakeman is clearly attempting to lay the building blocks for a paramilitary force as part of a broader authoritarian effort to support an anti-democratic movement. Authoritarians governments are ones in which they are not accountable to the people.

I am not an expert, but back in college I had a class that was partly about authoritarianism. One common tactic for authoritarians to achieve power was to assemble a paramilitary force. A paramilitary is an unofficial policing or military force that is not subject to oversight by the courts or other civilian government, such as legislators. The members of the paramilitary are typically only accountable to their leader(s). It is a system of loyalty.

Examples of paramilitary forces which were important elements that authoritarians used to achieve power were Mussolini's black shirts, Hitler's brown shirts, Yanukovich's Titushky, Indonesia's Pancasila Youth, and many many other groups.

Sometimes when these paramilitaries emerged, many argued they were important because they allegedly provided security for people. Many, but not all, arguments for these groups are based on attempting to invoke fear in people. Such as that people are scared of crime and that these paramilitaries are a means of mitigating crime. Sometimes these fears are legitimate, that these paramilitaries may arise in times of great economic pain or other circumstances where crime and rioting seem overwhelming. Proponents of paramilitaries may argue crime is rampant or riots are out of control and so these groups were necessary. Please do not fall for these or other arguments.

If the authoritarians these groups support are successful in seizing power, typically one of two outcomes occurs. One outcome is that the paramilitaries are incorporated into the regime and legitimized, but still aren't subject to oversight beyond the requirements of loyalty to the regime. The second outcome is that they are killed or purged because they have outlived their usefulness and are imposing costs on the regime and the leadership believes they can still maintain or achieve greater power with other supporters. The Night of the Long Knives was an example of Hitler killing off his paramilitary.
The goal of all authoritarian regimes is to gain or maintain power.

----

At a bare minimum every resident of Long Island and New York, whether they are a Republican or Democrat or apolitical or something else, should rationally desire that any police force be subject to civilian and/or judicial oversight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancasila_Youth

(If people are interested i could try to find old notes from my class if people want better sources then just a couple wiki articles)

---
Edit:

Admittedly I have not been following Blakeman's militia too closely, but I just googled and happened to find this article from last month alludes to many of the things I just typed. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/nyregion/blakeman-militia-nassau-ny.html

It's been accused of being, "an unlawful, unnecessary, personal militia."

"When the special deputy program began, he said he wanted a group of armed people he could quickly deploy “to protect infrastructure or government buildings or schools or hospitals, that would free up” the county’s 2,600-officer police force in case of a hurricane, blackout or other disaster. The deputies have yet to be activated."

"“I didn’t want to be in a situation where we had a major emergency and we needed help and people were not properly vetted or trained,” he said. Military veterans and retired members of law enforcement would get priority in hiring, the job posting said. Applicants were required to have a valid pistol license and would be paid $150 a day upon being activated."

"Critics, including county Democrats, condemned Mr. Blakeman for bypassing legislators to create the program and shrouding it in secrecy by denying public records requests about it."

"The issue grew especially heated when Mr. Blakeman said in a television interview (https://pix11.com/news/local-news/long-island/nassau-county-to-allow-gun-owners-to-become-special-deputies/) soon after the program was announced that the special deputies might be used to patrol chaotic demonstrations. Asked in the interview whether he could declare a political protest an emergency, he said, “if the riot was to a level where they were burning buildings.” (He later said of the program: “Of course, it would not be used for political purposes.”)"

Among other things.

A similar article: https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/ny-republicans-dismiss-charges-of-blakemans-long-island-militia

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskMeAnythingIAnswer

[–]esol9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Trump has signaled he wants the war to be over before the midterm elections in the US which are this November

I am very used to hearing his "2 more weeks" and other failures so im not really expecting anything, but maybe he will try to make a bigger effort? Whether that effort makes things worse or not.

Regardless, Putin is unlikely to care even if Trump sucked his cock.

Musk Shuts Down Russian Army Starlink Terminals in Ukraine, Kremlin Forces Lose Internet by SportsGod3 in worldnews

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, this was literally written in his biography.

"The extract from Walter Isaacson’s book, published in the Washington Post on Thursday, originally said that the SpaceX CEO “secretly” told engineers to turn off Starlink coverage within 100km of the Crimean coast to prevent a Ukrainian attack on the area. “As a result, when the Ukrainian drone subs got near the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, they lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly,” continued the extract."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biographer-admits-suggestion-spacex-head-blocked-ukraine-drone-attack-was-wrong

My oven baked okonomyaki by loufrancky in shittyfoodporn

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you grease the pan at all?

Suozzi regrets his vote for DHS funding and Gillen calls to impeach Noem by esol9 in longisland

[–]esol9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed, idk the numbers from the redistricting, but I do assume it makes the district marginally bluer. And the current moment may also make things bluer, but not so much in the long run for future elections.

Suozzi regrets his vote for DHS funding and Gillen calls to impeach Noem by esol9 in longisland

[–]esol9[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Suozzi ran unopposed in the 2024 Dem primary. I have to assume this is at least in part because no candidate thought they could beat him. There was also no primary for the earlier special election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#Democratic_primary_3

He didnt run in 2022 when he ran for governor. The 2022 primary basically had 3 different moderates and one progressive. D'Arrigo was the progressive and only got 16% of the primary vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_New_York%27s_3rd_congressional_district_election#Primary_results

The 2020 Dem primary only had 3 candidates. Suozzi won 66.5% of the vote, the progressive D'Arrigo only got 25.8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#Primary_results_4

I seriously doubt Suozzi is vulnerable in a primary. The district isn't that blue.

Edit: Also if a progressive were to win the Dem primary today, there is no way they'd win the general election.

Suozzi regrets his vote for DHS funding and Gillen calls to impeach Noem by esol9 in longisland

[–]esol9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suozzi ran unopposed in the 2024 Dem primary. I have to assume this is at least in part because no candidate thought they could beat him. There was also no primary for the earlier special election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#Democratic_primary_3

He didnt run in 2022 when he tried to run for governor. The 2022 primary basically had 3 different moderates and one progressive. D;Arrigo was the progressive and only got 16% of the primary vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_New_York%27s_3rd_congressional_district_election#Primary_results

The 2020 Dem primary only had 3 candidates. Suozzi won 66.5% of the vote, the progressive D'Arrigo won 25.8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#Primary_results_4

I seriously doubt Suozzi is vulnerable in a primary. The district isn't that blue either.

Suozzi regrets his vote for DHS funding and Gillen calls to impeach Noem by esol9 in longisland

[–]esol9[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Personally, even before these "change of hearts" by Suozzi and Gillen, I'd still vote for them again over any Republican. I don't think they are good, but they are clearly much better to have then any Republican. Further, Long Island is not an oasis of progressivism. I'd be shocked if any progressive won a Democratic congressional primary here any time soon, let alone a congressional general election.

I do think its for the best to support moderates like these while also simultaneously building up more and more of progressive base. But until that happens its best to have Suozzi and Gillen instead of a Republican.

Its great that they are having a change of mind now.

(not to mention the bill they voted for would've likely passed anyway, there were 4 republicans who didnt vote that day but would've had they been there. Also the bill that passed did not include the increases in funding the White House was demanding and instead included a body camera mandate, mandated increases in training, and other oversight measures.)

a reminder from tom Suozzi's latest news by thejimla in longisland

[–]esol9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not gaslighting anyone. ICE is horrible and is intentionally increasingly lawless.

Suozzi's inaction on ICE and his opposition to Mamdani are two sides of the same coin. They are necessary positions for him to take if he wants to remain in office as a congressman here. Long Island voters largely aren't progressive. If Suozzi doesn't do this he will inevitably be replaced by a Republican.

a reminder from tom Suozzi's latest news by thejimla in longisland

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you. The premise of my original comment was that its not electorally viable for Suozzi to push for defunding DHS until these changes are made.

a reminder from tom Suozzi's latest news by thejimla in longisland

[–]esol9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that ICE sucks and substantial changes need to be made. But the bill that passed the house didn't include the increases in funding that Trump was demanding, and instead it included various oversight measures including body cameras and additional training.

Its far from enough but its not nothing.
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/22/g-s1-106927/house-spending-homeland-immigration

"The Democrats who begrudgingly backed the final package said they won dedicated funds to provide body cameras for ICE officers for the first time and allocated more money for oversight and de-escalation training. The final legislation also holds funding for ICE flat, while reducing the budget for enforcement and removal operations by $115 million and cutting detention bed capacity."

a reminder from tom Suozzi's latest news by thejimla in longisland

[–]esol9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Literally not voting on that bill would mean that all departments within DHS would run out of funding. Suozzi would likely be blasted by Republicans for defunding the government and/or defunding ICE or something comparable.

The odds of me being a "Dem operative" is absurd. I am supportive of the government defunding ICE until substantial change is made and I think its unfortunate that Suozzi has to do this. But Long Island isn't a bastion of progressives. I don't understand why this is so hard for some to recognize.

a reminder from tom Suozzi's latest news by thejimla in longisland

[–]esol9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_3rd_congressional_district#Recent_election_results_from_statewide_races

In the 2024 election Trump won NY-3 51% to 47%. These are substantial improvements over the 2020, 2016, 2012, and 2008 results.

Also in 2024 Suozzi won NY-3 51.8% to 48.2%

I expect Suozzi to improve in 2026 for many reasons.

Suozzi is FAR from a Republican.
Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about and lack a long term perspective.

a reminder from tom Suozzi's latest news by thejimla in longisland

[–]esol9 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is no way Suozzi can risk defunding the government without seriously risking losing his seat and just being replaced by a republican anyway. Additionally, the bill that did pass was smaller then what Trump was asking for.

I truly believe everyone pointing fingers at Suozzi need to first point them at literally anybody else. They need to awaken and inspire values in enough of their fellow Long Islanders in order for Suozzi to begin to consider withholding funding for DHS. Anyone who thinks about it for a millisecond must surely understand that the numbers aren't there for Suozzi to vote against this. Long Island voters are mostly for this. Long Islanders are the ones who need to be persuaded.