They can do that. But it would also be difficult for the Navy to provide logistical support for its operations if the entire region, plus Europe, decided to shut down the U.S. bases. It would be possible, of course, but it would involve significantly more effort and cost… After all, the ability to supply troops around the globe is precisely the reason for the U.S. bases all over the world, if I understand correctly.

It means you’re out of your element.

I am. Absolutely. But since I don’t know anything about it, I have to take what the press tells me at face value for now (that’s the crux of the matter with the media and their power). My impression, based on press reports, is that the data has become less reliable and, in particular, runs counter to Trump’s promises. As I said, I don’t know anything about the subject and, like everyone else, form my opinion based on the information I receive. It’s true that we’re in a political bubble here, and that probably leads to a bias on my part. Since you seem to know more about this: Please take a look at the figures from recent years and see if there’s a trend in the magnitude of the difference between preliminary and final figures, if you’d like. That would provide a better answer to the question than my opinion alone.

I’d like to disagree with part of the rest of your comment: It’s true that bureaucratic systems are, and should be, somewhat resilient to direct political influence from the current administration. But here’s the thing: At the start of Trump II, Trump fired a lot of federal officials and replaced them with loyalists (again, this is just my opinion based on the news I’ve been following). If you systematically fill key positions in the system with your own people, you can influence the results (this is once again very evident in my country right now, as the current Ministry of Economic Affairs is now publishing “scientifically sound” reports that in some cases directly contradict the previous ones). Statistical analyses can be unambiguous, but as soon as interpretation comes into play, there’s room for maneuver. Second, leadership can directly influence the methods used. The results are still statistically sound, but, for example, a modified data set or method creates room for maneuver (whether this constitutes manipulation actually depends on the research question and, if applicable, the political stance). If I’m not mistaken, for example, the agency that calculates the inflation rate in the U.S. changed its methodology during Trump’s second term and now uses fewer actual price data and more modeling (please correct me if I’m wrong). The selection of the consumer basket is another factor that can be adjusted. I therefore cannot agree with your statement (as I understand it) that bureaucratic agencies and institutions are, by their very structure, fundamentally resilient and immune to manipulation.

Let’s hope you’re right about that. I’m not so much worried about the U.S. itself as I am about the possibility that Bolsonaro Jr. might attempt a coup, just like his father… if about 50% of voters supported the autocrats, even a small amount of U.S. interference would be enough.

I have no idea what the situation is like on the ground, but since we’re talking about South America and the U.S. has Trump as president: A recount, no… but maybe a military coup.

Three Thoughts:

1. In the long run, things have steadily improved for the majority of the world’s population. That doesn’t mean there can’t be setbacks along the way in the form of dictatorship and mass murder… but viewed over the long term, we’ve all become wealthier, healthier, and lived longer. Of course, this isn’t a sure thing, but it gives us hope that things will eventually be even better than they are now.
2. Billionaires aren’t superhumans, even if they think they are. The fact is, capital doesn’t create anything. WE create value through the work of our hands and minds. Without us, these people are nothing, and even with the stochastic parrot currently being hailed as “AI,” they’re just fooling themselves. It follows that even the biggest narcissists don’t stand a chance when we work together… and if there’s one thing humans are good at, it’s that.
3. People are much better than their reputation. If someone falls in a pedestrian zone, someone helps them up. If a traffic jam forms on the road, a rescue lane opens up. If you ask a stranger for help, you’re usually not let down. Far too many people believe that humans are “just animals with a thin veneer of civilization,” yet the vast majority are clearly more social and altruistic than is generally assumed. The narrative that “all people are bad” is, in my opinion, merely a self-serving narrative propagated by the ruling egoists to justify their own authority, and it’s passed on based on the assumption that we’re all just as selfish as our leaders.

Are these points open to criticism? Sure. Still, there’s at least a spark of truth in them, and that gives me hope.

It was actually clear right then and there that the numbers were no longer reliable, when Trump fired the head of the statistics agency because he didn’t like the job market figures, right?

I hope you’re right.

However I’m also pretty sure they’ve been planning for years how to rig this election. And evern if they lose Trump might just as well ignore it like any all the laws he’s breaking. Since he controls the cops and the biggest military on earth… who’d be able to hold him accountable?