No distractions, the second answer is not correct, he wants another glided age. The glided age is another term for the second industrial revolution that turned america into the superpower we know today, but It also was an awful era for your average american.They would work 12 hours or more for a whole week, some may have sunday off due to church but a lot did work that day with all your family working. The standard of living was so crap, many would become alcoholics due to the awful conditions, which would lead to prohibition movement. Your average american did not live long, many people would die due to work place accidents but due to no worker protection, nothing would change.

The era was also known for the monopolies, starting with rockfeller standard oil, carnegie steel company and morgans banking with many others. All the major monopolies worked together to prevent competition by buying out, they would ask nicely to sell your company to them, if not they would play the waiting game by lowering the product your selling to be unprofitable and then buy you out. Regulations did not exist yet so, this was all legal and if it wasn’t, no one gave a shit as they were that powerful. The government was no help to them either, as most of them were bathing in the money of the 1%. The 1% lived in amazing conditions, and hoarded a ton of money, with some becoming important philanthropist.

Here is an article of proof of what trump wants, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-gilded-age-mckinley-grover-cleveland-1592dab80ad7159266db51b5baa774b6.

No, your violating the advocating violence rule. We do not want anyone to advocate violence, and that line is always linked to terrorists.

I don’t know yet because I’m still waiting for a response from him about the context for behind why he sent that video to him it But I really do need more moderators for the team so we can have better community input

Why is no one mentioning, that under the 14th amendment, there is literally no statement on whether or not its state or congress power. All it says is they just become ineligible when they committed the insurrection. The only power given to congress is, you can override it and allow them to run again. Supreme Court seems to ignore the entire wording, if they agree that trump committed the insurrection is factual, than he should be ineligible per the wording.

The wording is similar to criminal law rather than amendment, be a politician who decides to rebel or commit an insurrection than no more politics for you. This was also written to make sure no one in the confederacy to run in politics, and if that’s the case than its also the case that trump cannot run, as its automatically applied.