#anti-Democratic

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Michael de Adder, Halifax Chronicle Herald

* * * *

Trump promises to eliminate future elections

July 29, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Last Friday, Trump told Christian rally-goers that “You won’t have to vote any more” if they elect Trump in 2024.

Let that sink in. A presidential candidate promised to eliminate future elections.

The media yawned.

Actually, the media ignored the story (except for The Guardian) until commentators on social media and the Harris Campaign shamed journalists into acknowledging Trump's antidemocratic threat—which they did in a dismissive, begrudging manner.

It is tiresome to highlight the media’s failings, but this incident is so egregious that it is important on many levels. Most importantly, it underscores that Democrats cannot relent in their effort to warn the American people that Trump hopes to end fundamental democratic norms—like the peaceful, regular transfer of power as prescribed by the Constitution.

Among the issues that should drive voters to the polls in 2024, Trump’s repeated promises to end democracy should be the most alarming. But concepts like “democracy” and “tyranny” strike many voters as “abstract.” Taking away the right to vote is not abstract; doing so would render all other rights illusory.

Let’s turn this incident against Trump by convincing voters that Trump really, truly wants to eliminate the right to vote after 2024. And we must not let him (or his surrogates) weasel out of the plain meaning of his words.

What did Trump say?

 At a rally in Florida on Friday, Trump said,

Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians. I love you. Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.

See The Guardian, Trump tells supporters they won’t have to vote in the future: ‘It’ll be fixed!’.

Like most of Trump's statements, it is simultaneously inscrutable and blazingly obvious. He is promising the end of democracy if he is elected. “In four years, you won’t have to vote again.”

The same words uttered by most other politicians might be susceptible to innocent interpretations. But those words uttered by this president can mean only one thing: He wants to eliminate elections in America. He tried to override the will of the people in 2020 by canceling their votes through coup and insurrection. He says he will do so again if he is re-elected. We should believe him.

To repeat: A presidential candidate has promised that 2024 will be the last time that Americans will vote because “everything will be fixed.” That is the equivalent of a five-alarm fire for democracy.

How did the GOP, the media, and the Harris campaign respond? You can probably predict their responses, but let’s look for ourselves.

The GOP response

In typical GOP fashion, the GOP response was (a) he didn’t mean what he said, (b) he said the opposite of what you think you heard, and (c) Trump says weird things all the time, so chill out!

The typical Republican response was delivered by New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, who laughed off the statement by saying, (a) it was “hyperbolic,” (b) Trump was trying to make the point that “We want everyone to vote in all elections,” and (c) it was a classic “Trumpism.”

Saying that the statement was hyperbolic and “a Trumpism” are. not serious responses because they do not address the substance of what Trump actually said. Trump incited an insurrection by telling people to “Fight like hell” moments before the attack on the Capitol.” We are long past claiming that Trump's words should not be taken seriously and literally.

Claiming that Trump's statement means the exact opposite of what Trump said is depraved. Sununu’s interpretation of “We want everyone to vote in all elections” vs. Trump's “You’re not gonna have to vote again” is depraved. The depravity of Sununu’s perverse interpretation is not diminished because Sununu delivered the lie with a hearty laugh.

Other Trump apologists (on social media) argued that Trump was saying only that Republicans would not need Christian evangelical votes after 2024 because Trump would do such a great job of fixing all problems in America, “you’re not gonna have to vote.” That explanation makes no sense; even if Trump “fixed” all the problems in America in the next four years, the Constitution still requires an election in 2028.

There is simply no reasonable interpretation of Trump's words other than his declaration that in four years, he intends to eliminate elections (if he can).

The media’s response

As noted above, The Guardian gave serious coverage to Trump's statement. US media outlets, not so much. See, for example, Lucian K. Truscott IV’s description of the NYTimes’ pathetic response. As Truscott notes in his Substack, the Times relegated the statements to “a few lines in a wrap-up piece about what’s happening in the presidential campaign . . . and they buried it on the Times website.” The Times then breezily moved on to pedestrian coverage of the campaigns as if they were reporting the details of an itinerary rather than one of the most shocking statements ever by a major-party candidate for the presidency.

Perhaps even worse was the pathetic interview of Chris Sununu by Martha Raddatz on ABC. Raddatz asked Sununu, “What the heck did he [Trump] mean there [in the statement]?” As noted above, Sununu responded,

(a)  The statement was hyperbolic; (b)  Trump meant that everyone should vote in every election; and (c)  That statement is a Trumpism.

Sununu’s pathetic response was enough to satisfy Radattz, whose follow-up question was, “Ok. Let's turn to President Biden and Kamala Harris.”

I won’t pick on Raddatz (much). Almost every journalist on mainstream media is as pathetic as Raddatz. The inability to ask follow-up questions to ludicrous rationalizations of attacks on democracy is staggering. Most are entertainers, not journalists. Their presence on “news” shows is insulting to their viewers.

Raddatz’s failure to challenge Sununu’s answer and her immediate transition to a question about President Biden and Kamala Harris demonstrates the media’s dangerous addiction to mindless “balance” and false equivalency. Nothing Kamala Harris did over the weekend deserves to be in the same news block as a story about a presidential candidate promising to end the need for elections. Nothing.

Having watched the media fail miserably for seven years with Trump, nothing should surprise us. But the guy tried to overturn one election already and is saying he will do it again. What will it take for the media to realize that Trump is a unique threat to democracy who deserves coverage that applies only to aspiring dictators?

Even if the Times and Raddatz believed that Trump's remarks had a benign explanation, they failed to acknowledge the more plausible, malign interpretation. Instead, they were willing to assume that Trump's remarks were harmless “Trumpisms.” They are not. We saw what happened after Trump told his followers on January 6, 2021: “We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”

So, continue writing those letters to the editor and comments to stories highlighting the media’s failings. And become a messenger for Harris by amplifying her campaign’s messaging. Read on!

The Harris Campaign’s response

Kamala Harris’s campaign organization has been reacting to Trump's missteps and threats like a rapid response force to each. Early Saturday morning, the Harris campaign posted a clip of Trump's comments and attached the following statement:

Statement on Trump's Promise to End Democracy When Vice President Harris says this election is about freedom she means it. Our democracy is under assault by criminal Donald Trump: After the last election Trump lost, he sent a mob to overturn the results. This campaign, he has promised violence if he loses, the end of our elections if he wins, and the termination of the Constitution to empower him to be a dictator to enact his dangerous Project 2025 agenda on America. Donald Trump wants to take America backward, to a politics of hate, chaos, and fear —this November America will unite around Vice President Kamala Harris to stop him.

The Harris campaign’s statement is spot-on for several reasons. First, the campaign issued the statement just after noon on Saturday morning, showing a willingness and ability to rebut Trump quickly. By responding within the same news cycle, the Harris campaign shaped the social media response, which ultimately prodded the major media to acknowledge Trump's threat.

Second, the Harris campaign identified Trump's threats in plain language, including

“Trump's Promise to End Democracy.” “Last election Trump sent a mob to overturn the results.” “He has promised violence if he loses” “He has promised the end of elections if he wins” “He has promised to terminate the Constitution” “To become a dictator” “To enact dangerous project 2025”

Dangerous threats demand plain language. The Harris campaign rose to the challenge.

The campaign’s statement was strong in another respect: In identifying Trump as a threat to democracy, it identified Kamala Harris as the point of unity to stop Trump. A very smart move! Kamala Harris is giving Democrats the antidote to Trump's cult of personality. The campaign is fashioning Kamala Harris as a champion of democracy. And it is working!

Concluding Thoughts

Trump's threats present a dilemma. Should we take them seriously? Or does our attention give them credence and heft they do not carry on their own? As with most things in life, there is tension in truth. We must take Trump's threats literally and seriously. But we must not ascribe superpowers to Trump or self-executing inevitability to his threats. By taking his threats seriously, we can prevent them from coming to fruition. So, do not despair or cower in fear. Raise the alarm as we work to defeat Trump and stop his dark plans.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to rally around Kamala Harris. She held her first fundraiser in Pittsfield, MA at the Colonial Theatre. The event was sold out, with an overflow crowd in front of the theater. Kamala Harris spoke after an all-star warm-up that included former Governor Deval Patrick, Senators Warren and Markey, Rep. Neal, and Heather Cox Richardson.

According to those in attendance, the evening was “electric.” The crowd was so enthusiastic, Kamala Harris had difficulty quieting the cheers so she could say “Thank you.” She gave a great speech and pumped up the crowd even further.

In eight short days, Kamala Harris has unified and inspired Democrats in a way that has defied expectations of pundits and career politicians. She is doing so at the precise moment that Trump's veneer of invincibility is cracking. We need to sustain the wave of enthusiasm for Kamala Harris and spread it to others—so that we can push Trump’s downward trajectory past the tipping point of no return. We can do that!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[eaglesnick]

“He is fiddling while Rome is burning, and, unlike the enormous majority of people who do this, fiddling with his face toward the flames.”― George Orwell

Two days ago many media outlets posted similar headlines to this in the Washington Post

“Sunday was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth, scientists say. The historic day comes on the heels of 13 straight months of unprecedented temperatures and the hottest year scientists have ever seen.”  (23/07/24)

The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service said:

“… it will not be the last record-breaker, as planet-warming fossil fuel pollution drives temperatures to shocking new highs.”

Paradoxically, record heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and flooding go together. For every 1 c rise in temperature the atmosphere holds 7% more moisture. This causes heavier raindrops, often falling over a shorter space of time, leading to localised flash flooding. At the same time, small differences in average temperatures leads to big differences in heat extremes. The change in weather patterns also leads to longer droughts, not least because as the soil dries out greater demands are put on existing water supplies, which are often themselves depleted, and the drier the conditions the more likelihood there is of wildfires.

In January this year “hundreds of (UK) homes were evacuated after heavy rain.” (BBC News: 05/01/24) In July 2024 the Government paper  “ Water situations: May 2024” informed us that England received 141% of the long-term average rainfall for the time of year. In other words we were close to having nearly 50% more rain as was historically usual. At the same time groundwater levels “had decreased at almost all the sites" used as measuring points.

We have more rainfall but less ground water because the increased intensity of the rainfall means much of it runs off the land into rivers and out to sea before it has time to soak into the soil.

Many scientists and naturalist believe climate change is the “biggest threat modern humans have ever faced". Yet what do we do about it? In this country we lock up those who try to bring the enormity of the situation to our attention.

Priti Patel and the last Conservative government wanted members of environmentally concerned groups to be put on a terrorist list and sent to jail if they dared raise awareness to the threat we face. The Tory government  under Sunak passed the  ‘The Police. Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, whereby anyone “conspiring to cause a public nuisance" can be jailed for up to 10 years.

Last week 5 peaceful environmentalist protestors were jailed for a total of 21 years.  Yesterday, one day after we were told that last Sunday was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth, six more environmental protesters were arrested by the police under the new “conspiring to cause a public disorder" offence”.

The world record for the hottest day on Sunday was broken the very next day.  April saw “significant flooding” in the UK, with 44 flood warnings  being issued together with 201 flood alerts. A new heatwave map shows a 224-mile heat dome about to hit Britain, and we decide to lock up environmental protestors who are trying to alert us to the dangers we face if we do not drastically decrease our reliance on fossil fuels

Some might expect Starmer - once described as "a green activist to his core"- to amend or even repeal the draconian anti-democratic ‘Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act’ but that is highly unlikely. Starmer’s emphasis on “growing the economy” means he cannot do without the oil and gas companies. The oil and gas sector is worth £20bn to the UK economy and supports 200,000 jobs across its supply chain.

So even though Starmer knows the existential threat climate change and fossil fuel consumption means for our planet, he isn’t going to do anything to upset the fossil fuel industry. Couple this to Starmer’s authoritarianism and his total abhorrence of dissent, and you can expect many more peaceful protesters to be sent to our already overflowing prisons. 

[davidaugust]

[particularj]

Despite 14+ hours of comments, huge community backlash, and already fascist practices by police including the murder of a protestor, Atlanta approved Cop City.

They have blood on their hands.

Stop Cop City.

Recall these council members.

And then cancel the contract.

One of the most disgusting pieces of this act?

Council also decided to allow [Mayor] Dickens to enter into a lease-back agreement with the APF [Atlanta Police Foundation] for the center. That’s another $36 million over the next 30 years — though the city says it would be saving money by not having to rent a different facility.

This state sponsored violence training center, built in forest just outside historically Black and Brown communities, on land worked by slaves year ago, is getting $30 million from tax payers. The APF, the “non-profit” Atlanta Police Foundation is footing the rest of the bill, but the city is then paying to lease it back! So these fuckers are giving the APF the people’s tax money, free and clear to build, then they agreed to pay the APF on top of that to lease the space!

They claim it will be cheaper because they can stop paying for the leases of current training facilities, but you know damn well they won’t. They’ll turned into some other pro-cop garbage and still be paying leases on that.

I’m hoping agencies file lawsuits galore to slow this shit down until a new council can be voted in to cancel this.

[usindistress]

Schwarzenegger might not be the best person ever. But this is some excellent gloating over the defeat of the undemocratic "independent state legislature" theory.

[mugiwara-lucy]

With Kamala/Walz going up DAILY, I've seen more people talking about voting third party/Jill Stein (EW) and I believe the above screencaps from @three--rings can explain WHY Third Party votes NEVER work NOR is this the election to screw around in.

Everyone....like she says above.....PLEASE LEARN FROM HISTORY!!!

(Because if Trump gets in, he's NEVER LEAVING).

[gurutrends]

Kremlin slams ‘anti-democratic’ elections in Moldova

The Kremlin has questioned Maia Sandu’s victory in the second round of Moldova’s presidential election. The incumbent president defeated her pro-Russian rival, Alexandr Stoianoglo, winning over 54% of the vote. However, Moscow claims that the election was unfair and that the Moldovan people did not genuinely support her. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov sharply criticized the election process…

[mysharona1987]

[thoughtlessarse]

Georgia should repeal the "foreign influence" law that has sparked mass protests, the Council of Europe's top constitutional law body said on Tuesday. Georgia should repeal its divisive "foreign influence" law, according to the Council of Europe's Venice Commission. The law, which the Georgian parliament approved in the final reading last week, would require media and NGOs to register as "foreign agents" if they receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad. It has sparked mass protests amid fears the law could curb press freedom and opposition voices. The Kremlin used similar legislation to stifle opposition voices, leading critics in Georgia to dub it "the Russian law." The Venice Commission said on Tuesday the government's adopting of the law "left no space for genuine discussion and meaningful consultation, in open disregard for the concerns of large parts of the Georgian people." "This manner of proceeding does not meet the European requirements of democratic law-making," it added.

continue reading

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

I don't have it in me to read it, right now. But I do not doubt it.

Reblogging so I can find it later.

This thread is incredibly important to read.

It is also extremely difficult to read. I don't know if I need to point this out, but the document itself is obviously full of bigotry so please take care of yourself if you choose to read it. Antisemitic phrases like "cultural marxism" and "global elites" appear before the document even really gets rolling, and are mixed in with transphobia, racism, and more.

If you want a taste of how this document starts in the first main section about "The Family", here is a taste:

"This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists."

It is all bad. ALL of this document is bad, and dangerous, and threatens the lives and the safety of everyone living in this country.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 1, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 02, 2024

Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law. 

It decided that the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person on earth, has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for crimes committed as part of the official acts at the core of presidential powers. The court also said it should be presumed that the president also has immunity for other official acts as well, unless that prosecution would not intrude on the authority of the executive branch.

This is a profound change to our fundamental law—an amendment to the Constitution, as historian David Blight noted. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that a president needs such immunity to make sure the president is willing to take “bold and unhesitating action” and make unpopular decisions, although no previous president has ever asserted that he is above the law or that he needed such immunity to fulfill his role. Roberts’s decision didn’t focus at all on the interest of the American people in guaranteeing that presidents carry out their duties within the guardrails of the law. 

But this extraordinary power grab does not mean President Joe Biden can do as he wishes. As legal commentator Asha Rangappa pointed out, the court gave itself the power to determine which actions can be prosecuted and which cannot by making itself the final arbiter of what is “official” and what is not. Thus any action a president takes is subject to review by the Supreme Court, and it is reasonable to assume that this particular court would not give a Democrat the same leeway it would give Trump. 

There is no historical or legal precedent for this decision. The Declaration of Independence was a litany of complaints against King George III designed to explain why the colonists were declaring themselves free of kings; the Constitution did not provide immunity for the president, although it did for members of Congress in certain conditions, and it provided for the removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”—what would those be if a president is immune from prosecution for his official acts? The framers worried about politicians’ overreach and carefully provided for oversight of leaders; the Supreme Court today smashed through that key guardrail. 

Presidential immunity is a brand new doctrine. In February 2021, explaining away his vote to acquit Trump for inciting an insurrection, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who had also protected Trump in his first impeachment trial in 2019, said: “Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

But it was not just McConnell who thought that way. At his confirmation hearing in 2005, now–Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.” 

In his 2006 confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito said: “There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” 

And in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate: “No one’s above the law in the United States, that’s a foundational principle…. We’re all equal before the law…. The foundation of our Constitution was that…the presidency would not be a monarchy…. [T]he president is not above the law, no one is above the law.”

Now they have changed that foundational principle for a man who, according to White House officials during his term, called for the execution of people who upset him and who has vowed to exact vengeance on those he now thinks have wronged him. Over the past weekend, Trump shared an image on social media saying that former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who sat on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, was guilty of treason and calling for “televised military tribunals” to try her. 

Today, observers illustrated what Trump’s newly declared immunity could mean. Political scientist Norm Ornstein pointed out that Trump could “order his handpicked FBI Director to arrest and jail his political opponents. He can order the IRS to put liens on the property of media companies who criticize him and jail reporters and editors.” Legal analyst Joyce White Vance noted that a president with such broad immunity could order the assassination of Supreme Court justices, and retired military leader Mark Hertling wrote that he was “trying to figure out how a commander can refuse an illegal order from someone who is issuing it as an official act.” 

Asha Rangappa wrote: “According to the Court, a President could literally provide the leader of a hostile adversary with intelligence needed to win a conflict in which we are involved, or even attack or invade the U.S., and not be prosecuted for treason, because negotiating with heads of state is an exclusive Art. II function. In case you were wondering.” Trump is currently under indictment for retaining classified documents. “The Court has handed Trump, if he wins this November, carte blanche to be a ‘dictator on day one,’ and the ability to use every lever of official power at his disposal for his personal ends without any recourse,” Rangappa wrote. “This election is now a clear-cut decision between democracy and autocracy. Vote accordingly.”

Trump’s lawyers are already challenging Trump’s conviction in the election interference case in which a jury found him guilty on 34 counts. Over Trump’s name on social media, a post said the decision was “BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE, AND CLEARS THE STENCH FROM THE BIDEN TRIALS AND HOAXES, ALL OF THEM, THAT HAVE BEEN USED AS AN UNFAIR ATTACK ON CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME. MANY OF THESE FAKE CASES WILL NOW DISAPPEAR, OR WITHER INTO OBSCURITY. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife was deeply involved in the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, also took a shot at the appointment of special counsels to investigate such events. Thomas was not the only Justice whose participation in this decision was likely covered by a requirement that he recuse himself: Alito has publicly expressed support for the attempt to keep Trump in office against the will of voters. Trump appointed three of the other justices granting him immunity—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the court.

In a dissent in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that because of the majority’s decision, "[t]he relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy,” she wrote, “I dissent.” 

Today’s decision destroyed the principle on which this nation was founded, that all people in the United States of America should be equal before the law.

The name of the case is “Donald J. Trump v. United States.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[hillpoet-blog-blog]

Thar She Blows!

Letter to the Editor. 2 February 24. Dear Editor, The Saturday paper listed The Wager as the current #1 non-fiction bestseller non-fiction bestseller, and I’m enjoying the true story, a frightening account of life at sea in the 1700s.  Ironically, it mirrors current U.S. politics. Each sailor crewing an English man-of-war had a purpose; if that purpose went unfulfilled, people died. To become a…

[read-marx-and-lenin]

[msclaritea]