News Blog

11/04/2025

The Invisible Empire: How Global Power Networks Control Wealth and Democracy

By GQ

For decades, the average citizen has been told that inequality is an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of growth, that the rich get richer so that prosperity might somehow trickle down. That myth has expired. The truth is far more intricate, far more global, and far less accidental.

Wealth inequality is not the result of a few rogue billionaires hoarding their fortunes in secret. It is the natural outcome of an interlocking network of financial, political, and corporate power that now spans every continent. This network does not merely influence economies; it shapes the rules that govern them.

At its centre are the global financial titans, the quiet custodians of capitalism. Firms such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street collectively manage more wealth than most governments could ever dream of. With ownership stakes in nearly every major corporation on Earth, they do not compete so much as coordinate the direction of global markets. Their shareholder power determines who gets paid, what gets built, and whether the environment is treated as an asset or an afterthought.

Then there are the banking giants, led by figures such as Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, the architects of the debt-driven economy. Their influence extends far beyond Wall Street, shaping IMF and World Bank policies that demand austerity, privatisation, and deregulation in exchange for loans. In the process, they keep entire nations on a leash of permanent dependency while calling it fiscal discipline.

The tech oligarchs, Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, and Pichai, have built empires not only of commerce but of information. Their platforms function as the new public square, yet they operate without democratic oversight. Their lobbying power bends regulation, their algorithms bend perception, and their tax avoidance schemes bend national budgets. In effect, Big Tech now serves as both infrastructure and ideology, a digital feudalism with data as the new currency.

Energy magnates and resource oligarchs play their part too. The Koch network, Saudi Aramco, and others have spent decades delaying climate policy while profiting from the crisis they helped create. Their political donations and media influence ensure that fossil fuel dependency remains the status quo, even as the planet warms and the social fabric frays.

But this is not only a story of corporations. It is also about the transnational policy networks, gatherings such as the World Economic Forum, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission, where corporate executives, political leaders, and financiers meet behind closed doors to coordinate global priorities. These are not secret cabals, but consensus factories, where democracy is politely sidelined in favour of market stability and investor confidence.

None of this would function without the political intermediaries, the lobbyists, donors, and think tanks who translate wealth into influence. From the Mercers and Adelsons in the United States to the corporate lobbies shaping policy in Ottawa, these intermediaries serve as the transmission belts of elite power. They write the legislation, fund the campaigns, and define the boundaries of what is politically realistic.

Finally, the machinery runs on tax havens and legal enablers, the Big Four accounting firms and offshore law specialists who ensure that trillions in profits vanish into secrecy. Every dollar hidden in the Cayman Islands or Luxembourg is a dollar not spent on hospitals, schools, or infrastructure. In effect, the rich live in a parallel economy, where laws are optional and accountability is negotiable.

What ties all of this together is not conspiracy but ideology, the doctrine of neoliberalism, which sanctifies the market and demonizes the public sphere. It teaches that profit equals virtue and that government is inherently incompetent. This belief system has been so deeply internalised that it now defines the political imagination itself.

Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent of the economic ladder have reached a frustration point. A large portion of those who used to be middle class, or lower, now effectively work for free because stagnant wages, rising costs, precarious hours, and crushing housing expenses make saving impossible. Many are actually sliding backwards while the wealthy and multinational corporations reap record profits not seen in the last 150 years. This gap between lived reality and paper prosperity is combustible. If governments continue to ignore it, the result will be escalating social unrest, destabilising protests, and the real possibility of violent clashes. That risk is avoidable, but only if urgent, large-scale policy responses are mounted to restore economic security and rebuild democratic accountability.

The result is a global order where the few design the rules and the many live by them. The elite no longer need smoke-filled rooms or secret handshakes; they have institutionalised their dominance through ownership, data, and debt.

We live not in a democracy of citizens but in an economy of shareholders. Unless that structure is confronted, not just with outrage but with organised political resistance and concrete reforms, inequality will not only persist, it will calcify.

Because the truth is, they do not need to conspire when the system already conspires for them

11/03/2025

The Great Divide wasn’t Left vs Right

It was Wealth vs Work

They built the Far-Right to guard their gold

When the 90% awaken

The pyramid flips

Follow the money

GQ

In the mid-2020s, political discourse across North America no longer maps cleanly onto the old idea of left versus right.

10/28/2025

Who Created QAnon – and Who Carried It?

By G.C.

The Genesis of QAnon

The QAnon conspiracy theory traces its public origin to October 2017, when an anonymous user known as “Q” posted cryptic messages on a fringe message board claiming to be a high-level U.S. government insider with “Q-clearance.” The messages, or “drops,” promised an imminent mass awakening and a “Storm” against a cabal of elite criminals embedded in politics, Hollywood, and finance.

It soon evolved beyond a fringe idea into a sprawling digital movement. QAnon blended older conspiracies, apocalyptic mythologies, and interactive online culture into a participatory belief system. It offered followers a sense of purpose: decode the messages, reveal hidden truths, and become a soldier in a digital war for civilization itself.

Who Might Be Behind “Q”?

Despite years of speculation, the identity of “Q” has never been definitively confirmed. However, independent linguistic and digital-forensics studies have narrowed the field to two main suspects—both men connected to the infrastructure of the message boards where QAnon was born.

Paul Furber, a South African-born programmer and early board moderator, is widely considered the most likely originator of the initial “Q” posts in late 2017. His writing style and phrasing strongly match those early communications.

Ron Watkins, administrator of 8kun and son of site owner Jim Watkins, is believed to have taken over the persona from early 2018 onward. Around that time, the writing style changed markedly, the technical structure of posts evolved, and Q’s communications became tied exclusively to the Watkins-controlled platforms.

The prevailing hypothesis holds that Furber initiated “Q” as an internet hoax or social experiment, which the Watkins family later weaponised for influence, traffic, and political manipulation. The myth of an insider “patriot” fighting a secret war became a self-propelling engine of belief.

The Model and Structure: An Information-Psychological Operation

QAnon’s design mirrored that of an alternate-reality game. Each “drop” was a puzzle; each clue a reward for engagement. This ARG-like architecture gamified disinformation, turning passive readers into active participants. The act of decoding became a ritual of awakening.

The psychological mechanism was elegant: once individuals believed they were uncovering hidden truths on their own, they became immune to outside correction. The language of military camaraderie—“digital soldiers,” “patriots,” and “the Storm”—further reinforced identity, loyalty, and mission. It was, in effect, a decentralised psychological operation powered by faith and dopamine.

Political and Military Figures Linked to QAnon

Over time, QAnon’s narratives seeped into mainstream political discourse, finding resonance among several American political and military figures.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, now one of the most recognizable members of Congress, publicly praised Q in its early days and echoed its slogans during her campaign. Her electoral success helped normalise the movement within the Republican Party.

Michael T. Flynn, retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former national security advisor, became an icon within Q circles after publicly taking an oath that echoed QAnon’s slogans in 2020. His reputation as a military intelligence insider lent the movement credibility it could never have achieved on its own.

Sidney Powell, the attorney who championed election conspiracy theories, also echoed QAnon themes, sharing content and language drawn directly from the movement.

While most senior U.S. officers have avoided any open association, studies show that veterans and service members have been disproportionately drawn into QAnon. The rhetoric of duty, loyalty, and secret warfare resonated deeply with that demographic, providing a familiar moral framework for otherwise fringe beliefs.

Why QAnon Still Matters

QAnon is more than a conspiracy; it’s a model for modern disinformation. It demonstrated how an anonymous digital persona could create a movement capable of real-world political influence. It blurred the line between entertainment, religion, and activism, transforming citizens into believers and believers into propagators.

The movement’s ideas have outlived their creators, adapting and mutating long after the original “drops” ended. Its language now permeates global populist movements, including in Canada, where Q-style narratives have infiltrated anti-establishment and protest circles.

QAnon’s importance lies not in its specific claims, which have been repeatedly disproven, but in its methodology: cryptic communication, participatory decoding, and self-radicalisation through discovery. It is the prototype of a 21st-century psy-op—one that may have begun as a troll but evolved into a movement.

In Conclusion

QAnon’s birth and spread reveal a collision of technology, ideology, and vulnerability. Whether initiated by Furber, Watkins, or others, its true power lay in the collective delusion of meaning—an echo chamber so convincing it reshaped real-world politics.

It weaponised trust, gamified loyalty, and digitalised faith. Its followers were not simply deceived—they were enlisted. And in that enlistment lies the modern face of psychological warfare: decentralised, anonymous, and disturbingly effective.

Sources

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica – “QAnon”

2. The New York Times – “The Secret Identity of Q: Linguistic Analysis Reveals the Poster”

3. Independent – “Forensic Linguists Identify QAnon Founder”

4. PBS NewsHour – “What Is QAnon and How Did It Gain Traction in 2020?”

5. Human Rights First – “Digital Soldiers: QAnon’s Infiltration of Veteran Communities”

6. War on the Rocks – “Conspiracy Stand Down: How Extremist Theories Threaten the Military”

7. ABC News – “The Men of QAnon: 2020’s Conspiracy Candidates”

8. The Guardian – “How QAnon Moved from Fringe to the Heart of U.S. Politics”

9. Vanity Fair – “The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Austin Steinbart’s QAnon Commune”

10. Washington Post – “QAnon’s Global Reach and the Export of American Disinformation”

10/23/2025

The Long Decay: How the Next Ten Years Will Test the Working Class

By Grant Coleman — October 22, 2025

I’ve spent most of my life around regular working people — in warehouses, depots, and on picket lines. I’ve seen what happens when a company, and in some cases. your country forgets who built it. You start to see it in the workers' paycheques, rent, rights, and finally, your dignity.

Right now, both Canada and the United States are heading into a decade that’ll test what’s left of democracy, fairness, and basic human decency. For years, journalists and analysts have been warning that the systems we live under aren’t just broken; they’re being replaced by something much more controlled, unequal, and dangerous.

What’s coming isn’t sudden collapse; it’s a slow, steady tightening. The rules will keep changing — always in favour of the rich, always against the rest of us.

The Divide That’s Splitting Us Apart

You don’t need a PhD to see it — the system’s rigged. The rich have taken everything that isn’t nailed down. The rest of us are left juggling higher costs, smaller paycheques, and fewer protections.

Politicians talk about “the middle class,” but the truth is, that class is disappearing. It’s now the billionaire class and everyone else. You can’t buy a home, can’t retire, and can’t keep up no matter how hard you work. People are angry, and rightfully so. But instead of fixing the system, those in power keep us fighting each other — left versus right, neighbour versus neighbour — while they cash in from both sides.

Unless there’s a real shift — stronger unions, fair taxes on corporate profits, and actual public control over basic needs like housing and health care — the divide will grow until it breaks something we can’t fix.

The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism

Over the past few years, reporters have exposed how governments, banks, and big tech companies are merging their interests. The same corporations that sell us phones, apps, and “smart” gadgets are quietly feeding our data to intelligence agencies and financial institutions.

They say it’s for safety or convenience, but it’s really about control. Every click, every purchase, every movement — tracked and stored. Over the next decade, this digital net will tighten. “Trust scores,” facial recognition, and AI hiring systems will be used to decide who gets a job, a loan, or even access to public services.

If we don’t draw a line now, we’ll wake up one day and realize freedom wasn’t stolen — it was traded away, one app update at a time.

The Wars Nobody Wins

While the media jumps from one crisis to the next, the bigger picture stays the same: endless war and profit for a few.

The Russia–Ukraine war won’t truly end; it’ll just change form. China and Taiwan will keep playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship. Across the Middle East, new and old conflicts will keep fueling the global arms trade. In Africa, private armies and foreign governments will keep battling for control of gold, oil, and rare minerals.

Even closer to home, Mexico’s cartels and South America’s instability will keep spilling north through migration, corruption, and violence. None of this is random. War, debt, and disaster are the three most profitable industries in the modern world — and business is booming.

The Epstein Files: Power Without Consequence

The ongoing release of documents from the Epstein investigation continues to show how deep corruption runs among the global elite. These files don’t just reveal crimes; they expose how politicians, CEOs, and intelligence figures protect one another, even when caught.

It’s not just about one man’s actions. It’s about a system built to keep powerful people untouchable. As more names and evidence emerge, the illusion of justice weakens, and public faith in institutions continues to crumble. The lesson is simple: when the rich commit crimes, they hire lawyers; when the poor do, they get prison.

There’s Still a Way Out

None of this is inevitable. History shows that when working people organize — in unions, communities, and on the streets — real change happens.

We can fight back through boycotts, strikes, and solidarity. We can demand stronger privacy laws, tax fairness, and public ownership of essential services. We can rebuild local economies, fund independent media, and protect the right to speak freely without being monitored or censored.

Change won’t come from the top. It never has. It comes from ordinary people who decide they’ve had enough.

A Final Word

The next decade will decide whether freedom becomes a memory or a movement. If we keep trading liberty for comfort, or truth for convenience, we’ll lose both.

But if we stand together — not as partisans, but as workers, neighbours, and citizens — we might still rebuild something real: a country where people matter more than profit, and where fairness isn’t just a word politicians use at election time.

Sources

1. Whitney Webb — Unlimited Hangout and One Nation Under Blackmail (2022–2024).

2. Chris Hedges — The Death of the Liberal Class, America: The Farewell Tour, and Our Class.

3. U.S. House Oversight Committee releases on the Epstein investigation (2024–2025).

4. Public investigations into Palantir Technologies, predictive policing, and AI surveillance (2023–2025).

5. Global conflict monitoring reports from the UN, OSCE, and independent journalists on Ukraine, China–Taiwan, and Middle East conflicts (2024–2025).

10/23/2025

The whispers turn to thunder:

Mamdani rises from Queens to the Capitol

The 1% tremble—old empires fall when truth walks upright

Watch the tides



GC

10/16/2025

2+2=5 Movie Review by myself for

My wife and I just watched “Orwell 2+2=5”, and to call it brilliant almost feels inadequate.

10/14/2025

Trump’s 1993 Casino Rant

10/14/2025

Stand Up America: The Line Has Been Crossed

To every American who still believes in freedom, this is your moment. What we’re witnessing across your cities isn’t leadership — it’s occupation. The militarization of American streets, the rounding up of peaceful citizens, migrants, and even lawful dissenters — these are not acts of democracy. They are the first steps of fascism, happening in plain sight.

On October 18, 2025, the world will be watching. This National Protest is not just another march — it’s a line in history. What you do on that day will tell your children and grandchildren whether you stood silent or stood strong when your country needed you most.

Bring your signs, your courage, and your conscience. Make it impossible for this administration to ignore the truth: the people of the United States will not be ruled by fear, lies, or force. Make it clear that every citizen — regardless of race, faith, or birthplace — has the right to live without the threat of being targeted by their own government.

Trump’s vision for America isn’t “law and order.” It’s control through intimidation. It’s the playbook of every authoritarian regime in history. And every time good people stayed home, tyranny advanced another step.

But not this time.
Not this generation.
Not this America.

On October 18, fill the streets with a message that cannot be silenced: You do not stand for fascism. You do not stand for a government that arrests its own citizens for speaking out. You stand for liberty. You stand for justice. You stand for America.

Because when freedom is under attack, neutrality is betrayal.

— GC

10/05/2025

The Lockwood–Trump Convergence: A Multidisciplinary Theory of Cultural Echo and Political Recurrence

1. Introduction

Ingersoll Lockwood’s The Last President (1896) occupies an uncanny intersection between fiction, prophecy, and social psychology. What began as a Gilded Age parable of populist upheaval has, in the twenty-first century, been reinterpreted as a mirror of the Trump era — not because it predicts Donald J. Trump, but because it reflects the archetypal cycle of democratic destabilization: when truth fragments, elites falter, and populism seizes symbolic legitimacy through spectacle rather than governance.

This theory contends that Lockwood’s narrative operates as an archetypal political recursion — a mythic structure that reemerges whenever the contradictions of capitalism, communication technology, and populist identity converge into systemic crisis. Trumpism, and the political moment surrounding it in 2025, are not coincidences with Lockwood’s fiction; they are a historical recurrence of its structural logic.

2. Structural Parallels Between Lockwood’s World and Ours

Lockwood’s The Last President begins with chaos: an unexpected victory by a “popular candidate” from New York, despised by the establishment, triggers riots, fear, and an institutional crisis. His narrative mirrors three enduring political stress fractures that resurface today:

1. The Collapse of Institutional Legitimacy:

Lockwood’s society distrusts its own democratic machinery. The same pathology defines the present era — a public conditioned to perceive elections, courts, and media as extensions of elite conspiracy. The legitimacy of institutions, once anchored to law, is now mediated by emotion and belief.

2. The Rise of Charismatic Populism:
The “Last President” is not an intellectual but a performer — a vessel for grievance. Trump’s political persona follows the same archetype: power derived from transgression, truth redefined as loyalty, and spectacle weaponized as governance.

3. Urban Symbolism and Civil Tension:
Lockwood’s Manhattan riots anticipate today’s performative protests, state–federal confrontations, and the weaponization of cities as stages for political mythology. The urban landscape becomes theatre, not polity.

3. Theoretical Framework

a. Systems Theory

Lockwood’s America and the modern United States both display non-linear political feedback loops: social discontent → populist mobilization → elite reaction → institutional strain → further discontent. The system self-amplifies until one stabilizing variable — law, civic trust, or leadership restraint — fails.

b. Psychology and Semiotics

The Trump–Lockwood resonance endures because the human brain privileges narrative pattern over statistical probability. The Lockwood text thus functions as a memetic container: an interpretive myth that allows collective anxiety to express itself as prophecy rather than probability.

c. Political Economy

Lockwood wrote at the end of the nineteenth century’s first great wealth gap; we now inhabit its successor. Both eras share identical structural symptoms: inequality, media sensationalism, and distrust of elite governance. Populism becomes the emotional grammar of an economy that has lost moral legitimacy.

d. Cultural Evolution

Digital ecosystems have replaced newspapers as the narrative bloodstream. The Lockwood myth circulates online not as literature but as cognitive infrastructure — a myth that compresses complexity into destiny, permitting millions to perceive crisis through the reassuring clarity of a story already told.

4. The Present Landscape: October 2025

By late 2025, the United States stands within Lockwood’s architecture of crisis: judicial paralysis, mass protest, and creeping normalization of coercive power. The federal government’s sporadic deployment of force in domestic contexts, public threats toward media, and erosion of bureaucratic neutrality all mirror Lockwood’s vision of republican decay preceding a populist presidency’s implosion.

Yet the system has not collapsed — because modern America retains strong countervailing nodes: state sovereignty, an active judiciary, and institutional inertia within the military and bureaucracy. These forces resist full Lockwoodian unraveling, but their strain grows visible.

5. Scenarios for How Reality May Play Out

Scenario A — Institutional Resilience (Most Probable)

The republic survives by inertia and litigation. Courts, states, and civil society blunt the populist momentum. The Lockwood prophecy remains metaphor, not outcome. Polarization persists but the constitutional framework endures.
Result: Prolonged democratic fatigue, gradual reformation, no systemic rupture.

Scenario B — Managed Authoritarianism (Plausible)

The executive consolidates symbolic power under the guise of legality. Courts are delegitimized through narrative warfare; dissent becomes synonymous with disloyalty. Lockwood’s “Last President” archetype manifests not as chaos but as order without democracy.
Result: Hybrid regime — elections persist, but institutional autonomy evaporates.

Scenario C — Systemic Rupture (Low Probability but High Impact)

The constitutional order fractures. Multiple states defy federal directives; violence erupts; markets panic. Lockwood’s ending — an ungovernable republic devouring itself — becomes metaphor made flesh.
Result: Fragmented legitimacy, prolonged civil instability, international retraction of U.S. influence.

6. Interpretive Synthesis

Lockwood’s text was not prophetic — it was diagnostic. It identified a pathology of democracy that recurs when symbolic truth overtakes empirical truth, when citizens mistake charisma for competence, and when elites underestimate the emotional logic of populism. Trumpism, as of 2025, represents a stage in that pathology’s recurrence: a mass psychopolitical feedback loop fueled by technological amplification and cultural exhaustion.

In essence:

Lockwood’s “Last President” is not Trump; it is the structure of political entropy that produces Trump-like figures whenever a republic confuses theatrical sovereignty with moral legitimacy.

7. Projected Trajectory (2025–2030)

If the Lockwood structure continues to replicate, the near future will likely feature:

• Judicial Assertiveness: Courts will remain the final stabilizers, though increasingly politicized.

• Regional Autonomy: States will act as moral enclaves — blue-state confederations asserting independence from federal overreach.

• Civil Mobilization: Protests will intensify but remain largely non-lethal, acting as pressure valves rather than revolutions.

• Mythic Politics: Both left and right will continue using Lockwoodian metaphors — “the Last President,” “the Great Awakening,” “the Fall of Empire” — as rhetorical scaffolding to translate uncertainty into meaning.

Ultimately, the system will either reform toward technocratic pluralism or regress toward charismatic authoritarianism. The determining variable will be information integrity — whether citizens can still distinguish governance from performance.

8. Conclusion

The enduring fascination with The Last President stems from its transhistorical insight: democracies die not in coups but in narratives. When myth becomes governance, when perception replaces fact, when populist spectacle consumes institutional restraint — the republic decays in plain sight.

Donald Trump, in this schema, is not the anomaly but the symptom — the inevitable iteration of Lockwood’s archetype in a networked age. The real “last president” would not be a man but a condition: the presidency itself reduced from constitutional office to stagecraft.

How reality will play out depends on whether citizens can reclaim epistemic sovereignty — the right to reality itself — before spectacle finishes the republic Lockwood once imagined falling to the mob outside Fifth Avenue.

GC

10/03/2025

Title: “The Day the Generals Refused to Clap: Why Silence at Quantico Could Signal America’s Next Coup”

What if the most important sound in American history was the absence of one? When Trump and Hegseth stood before the nation’s top brass at Quantico, the script called for applause—an ovation that would legitimise the spectacle of power. Instead, there was silence. Not hesitation. Not polite restraint. Silence.

That silence is not emptiness. In political history, silence is a weapon. It is a withdrawal of deference, a refusal to bless authority with ritual approval. Armies don’t speak with press conferences—they speak with posture, gesture, and the choreography of allegiance. In that moment, hundreds of officers chose not to perform loyalty. And that choice matters.

Coups are never born in noise; they gestate in silence. Officers cannot shout dissent without consequence, but they can withhold the signals of enthusiasm that leaders crave. This is how factions recognise each other—who claps, who doesn’t, who looks straight ahead, who looks at the floor. Silence becomes a code, a cipher of resistance.

Trump and Hegseth thought they were staging a loyalty test. Instead, they may have revealed a fault line inside the chain of command. Military purges, loyalty oaths, and blurred lines between civilian politics and military duty are already in play. Add a contested legitimacy crisis, rising unrest, and rhetoric about deploying the army in American cities, and the architecture of a coup scenario begins to appear.

No one is claiming tanks will roll tomorrow. But history is clear: when a regime demands applause and receives silence, it is not strength on display—it is fragility. Quantico may be remembered not for what was said, but for what was withheld. And if the United States does stumble into a coup in the years ahead, historians may look back and say: it began with the day the generals refused to clap.

GC

09/30/2025

BLOOD IN PORTLAND? TRUMP GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO KILL AMERICANS

Donald Trump just authorised the unthinkable: deadly force against his own people. On Sept. 30, 2025, he told the world he is “authorising full force, if necessary” — a chilling phrase that means American soldiers and federal troops are now cleared to turn their guns on American citizens in Portland.

This isn’t “law and order.” It’s a president declaring war on dissent. Portlanders woke to armoured vehicles and camouflaged troops gathering like an invading army — only the “enemy” isn’t foreign. It’s citizens holding signs, chanting slogans, demanding to be heard. Trump has now put them in the crosshairs.

And why? Because fear makes him feel strong. Because outrage makes him feel alive. Trump is no leader. He’s a narcissist whose ego is so fragile he’d rather watch Americans bleed in the streets than watch Americans disagree with him. He is a sociopath with a flag in one hand and a clenched fist in the other — desperate for the spotlight, addicted to chaos, and ready to gamble with lives for his own applause.

Make no mistake: this is the match that could turn America’s Cold War into a domestic hot war. Not tomorrow. Not years from now. Tonight. A president authorising troops to kill his own people is how democracies die and dictatorships begin.

If you’re not afraid, you should be. If you’re not angry, you’re already under his spell. America’s enemies are laughing — they don’t need to fire a shot. Trump is doing their work for them.

The question is no longer whether Trump is dangerous. It’s whether Americans will stop him before his “full force” turns Portland into a bloodstained warning for the rest of the nation.

— GC