#trump vs the press | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 4 months ago

Text

A long trip on an American highway in the summer of 2024 leaves the impression that two kinds of billboards now have near-monopoly rule over our roads. On one side, the billboards, gravely black-and-white and soberly reassuring, advertise cancer centers. (“We treat every type of cancer, including the most important one: yours”; “Beat 3 Brain Tumors. At 57, I gave birth, again.”) On the other side, brightly colored and deliberately clownish billboards advertise malpractice and personal-injury lawyers, with phone numbers emblazoned in giant type and the lawyers wearing superhero costumes or intimidating glares, staring down at the highway as they promise to do to juries.

A new Tocqueville considering the landscape would be certain that all Americans do is get sick and sue each other. We ask doctors to cure us of incurable illnesses, and we ask lawyers to take on the doctors who haven’t. We are frightened and we are angry; we look to expert intervention for the fears, and to comic but effective-seeming figures for retaliation against the experts who disappoint us.

Much of this is distinctly American—the idea that cancer-treatment centers would be in competitive relationships with one another, and so need to advertise, would be as unimaginable in any other industrialized country as the idea that the best way to adjudicate responsibility for a car accident is through aggressive lawsuits. Both reflect national beliefs: in competition, however unreal, and in the assignment of blame, however misplaced. We want to think that, if we haven’t fully enjoyed our birthright of plenty and prosperity, a nameable villain is at fault.

To grasp what is at stake in this strangest of political seasons, it helps to define the space in which the contest is taking place. We may be standing on the edge of an abyss, and yet nothing is wrong, in the expected way of countries on the brink of apocalypse. The country is not convulsed with riots, hyperinflation, or mass immiseration. What we have is a sort of phony war—a drôle de guerre, a sitzkrieg—with the vehemence of conflict mainly confined to what we might call the cultural space.

These days, everybody talks about spaces: the “gastronomic space,” the “podcast space,” even, on N.F.L. podcasts, the “analytic space.” Derived from some combination of sociology and interior design, the word has elbowed aside terms like “field” or “conversation,” perhaps because it’s even more expansive. The “space” of a national election is, for that reason, never self-evident; we’ve always searched for clues.

And so William Dean Howells began his 1860 campaign biography of Abraham Lincoln by mocking the search for a Revolutionary pedigree for Presidential candidates and situating Lincoln in the antislavery West, in contrast to the resigned and too-knowing East. North vs. South may have defined the frame of the approaching war, but Howells was prescient in identifying East vs. West as another critical electoral space. This opposition would prove crucial—first, to the war, with the triumph of the Westerner Ulysses S. Grant over the well-bred Eastern generals, and then to the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party, drawing on free-silver populism and an appeal to the values of the resource-extracting, expansionist West above those of the industrialized, centralized East.

A century later, the press thought that the big issues in the race between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy were Quemoy and Matsu (two tiny Taiwan Strait islands, claimed by both China and Taiwan), the downed U-2, the missile gap, and other much debated Cold War obsessions. But Norman Mailer, in what may be the best thing he ever wrote, saw the space as marked by the rise of movie-star politics—the image-based contests that, from J.F.K. to Ronald Reagan, would dominate American life. In “Superman Comes to the Supermarket,” published in Esquire, Mailer revealed that a campaign that looked at first glance like the usual black-and-white wire-service photography of the first half of the twentieth century was really the beginning of our Day-Glo-colored Pop-art turn.

And our own electoral space? We hear about the overlooked vs. the élite, the rural vs. the urban, the coastal vs. the flyover, the aged vs. the young—about the dispossessed vs. the beneficiaries of global neoliberalism. Upon closer examination, however, these binaries blur. Support for populist nativism doesn’t track neatly with economic disadvantage. Some of Donald Trump’s keenest supporters have boats as well as cars and are typically the wealthier citizens of poorer rural areas. His stock among billionaires remains high, and his surprising support among Gen Z males is something his campaign exploits with visits to podcasts that no non-Zoomer has ever heard of.

But polarized nations don’t actually polarize around fixed poles. Civil confrontations invariably cross classes and castes, bringing together people from radically different social cohorts while separating seemingly natural allies. The English Revolution of the seventeenth century, like the French one of the eighteenth, did not array worn-out aristocrats against an ascendant bourgeoisie or fierce-eyed sansculottes. There were, one might say, good people on both sides. Or, rather, there were individual aristocrats, merchants, and laborers choosing different sides in these prerevolutionary moments. No civil war takes place between classes; coalitions of many kinds square off against one another.

In part, that’s because there’s no straightforward way of defining our “interests.” It’s in the interest of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to have big tax cuts; in the longer term, it’s also in their interest to have honest rule-of-law government that isn’t in thrall to guilds or patrons—to be able to float new ideas without paying baksheesh to politicians or having to worry about falling out of sixth-floor windows. “Interests” fail as an explanatory principle.

Does talk of values and ideas get us closer? A central story of American public life during the past three or four decades is (as this writer has noted) that liberals have wanted political victories while reliably securing only cultural victories, even as conservatives, wanting cultural victories, get only political ones. Right-wing Presidents and legislatures are elected, even as one barrier after another has fallen on the traditionalist front of manners and mores. Consider the widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage. A social transformation once so seemingly untenable that even Barack Obama said he was against it, in his first campaign for President, became an uncontroversial rite within scarcely more than a decade.

Right-wing political power has, over the past half century, turned out to have almost no ability to stave off progressive social change: Nixon took the White House in a landslide while Norman Lear took the airwaves in a ratings sweep. And so a kind of permanent paralysis has set in. The right has kept electing politicians who’ve said, “Enough! No more ‘Anything goes’!”—and anything has kept going. No matter how many right-wing politicians came to power, no matter how many right-wing judges were appointed, conservatives decided that the entire culture was rigged against them.

On the left, the failure of cultural power to produce political change tends to lead to a doubling down on the cultural side, so that wholesome college campuses can seem the last redoubt of Red Guard attitudes, though not, to be sure, of Red Guard authority. On the right, the failure of political power to produce cultural change tends to lead to a doubling down on the political side in a way that turns politics into cultural theatre. Having lost the actual stages, conservatives yearn to enact a show in which their adversaries are rendered humiliated and powerless, just as they have felt humiliated and powerless. When an intolerable contradiction is allowed to exist for long enough, it produces a Trump.

As much as television was the essential medium of a dozen bygone Presidential campaigns (not to mention the medium that made Trump a star), the podcast has become the essential medium of this one. For people under forty, the form—typically long-winded and shapeless—is as tangibly present as Walter Cronkite’s tightly scripted half-hour news show was fifty years ago, though the D.I.Y. nature of most podcasts, and the premium on host-read advertisements, makes for abrupt tonal changes as startling as those of the highway billboards.

On the enormously popular, liberal-minded “Pod Save America,” for instance, the hosts make no secret of their belief that the election is a test, as severe as any since the Civil War, of whether a government so conceived can long endure. Then they switch cheerfully to reading ads for Tommy John underwear (“with the supportive pouch”), for herbal hangover remedies, and for an app that promises to cancel all your excess streaming subscriptions, a peculiarly niche obsession (“I accidentally paid for Showtime twice!” “That’s bad!”). George Conway, the former Republican (and White House husband) turned leading anti-Trumper, states bleakly on his podcast for the Bulwark, the news-and-opinion site, that Trump’s whole purpose is to avoid imprisonment, a motivation that would disgrace the leader of any Third World country. Then he immediately leaps into offering—like an old-fashioned a.m.-radio host pushing Chock Full o’Nuts—testimonials for HexClad cookware, with charming self-deprecation about his own kitchen skills. How serious can the crisis be if cookware and boxers cohabit so cozily with the apocalypse?

And then there’s the galvanic space of social media. In the nineteen-seventies and eighties, we were told, by everyone from Jean Baudrillard to Daniel Boorstin, that television had reduced us to numbed observers of events no longer within our control. We had become spectators instead of citizens. In contrast, the arena of social media is that of action and engagement—and not merely engagement but enragement, with algorithms acting out addictively on tiny tablets. The aura of the Internet age is energized, passionate, and, above all, angry. The algorithms dictate regular mortar rounds of text messages that seem to come not from an eager politician but from an infuriated lover, in the manner of Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction”: “Are you ignoring us?” “We’ve reached out to you PERSONALLY!” “This is the sixth time we’ve asked you!” At one level, we know they’re entirely impersonal, while, at another, we know that politicians wouldn’t do this unless it worked, and it works because, at still another level, we are incapable of knowing what we know; it doesn’t feel entirely impersonal. You can doomscroll your way to your doom. The democratic theorists of old longed for an activated citizenry; somehow they failed to recognize how easily citizens could be activated to oppose deliberative democracy.

If the cultural advantages of liberalism have given it a more pointed politics in places where politics lacks worldly consequences, its real-world politics can seem curiously blunted. Kamala Harris, like Joe Biden before her, is an utterly normal workaday politician of the kind we used to find in any functioning democracy—bending right, bending left, placating here and postponing confrontation there, glaring here and, yes, laughing there. Demographics aside, there is nothing exceptional about Harris, which is her virtue. Yet we live in exceptional times, and liberal proceduralists and institutionalists are so committed to procedures and institutions—to laws and their reasonable interpretation, to norms and their continuation—that they can be slow to grasp that the world around them has changed.

One can only imagine the fulminations that would have ensued in 2020 had the anti-democratic injustice of the Electoral College—which effectively amplifies the political power of rural areas at the expense of the country’s richest and most productive areas—tilted in the other direction. Indeed, before the 2000 election, when it appeared as if it might, Karl Rove and the George W. Bush campaign had a plan in place to challenge the results with a “grassroots” movement designed to short-circuit the Electoral College and make the popular-vote winner prevail. No Democrat even suggests such a thing now.

It’s almost as painful to see the impunity with which Supreme Court Justices have torched their institution’s legitimacy. One Justice has the upside-down flag of the insurrectionists flying on his property; another, married to a professional election denialist, enjoys undeclared largesse from a plutocrat. There is, apparently, little to be done, nor even any familiar language of protest to draw on. Prepared by experience to believe in institutions, mainstream liberals believe in their belief even as the institutions are degraded in front of their eyes.

In one respect, the space of politics in 2024 is transoceanic. The forms of Trumpism are mirrored in other countries. In the U.K., a similar wave engendered the catastrophe of Brexit; in France, it has brought an equally extreme right-wing party to the brink, though not to the seat, of power; in Italy, it elevated Matteo Salvini to national prominence and made Giorgia Meloni Prime Minister. In Sweden, an extreme-right group is claiming voters in numbers no one would ever have thought possible, while Canadian conservatives have taken a sharp turn toward the far right.

What all these currents have in common is an obsessive fear of immigration. Fear of the other still seems to be the primary mover of collective emotion. Even when it is utterly self-destructive—as in Britain, where the xenophobia of Brexit cut the U.K. off from traditional allies while increasing immigration from the Global South—the apprehension that “we” are being flooded by frightening foreigners works its malign magic.

It’s an old but persistent delusion that far-right nationalism is not rooted in the emotional needs of far-right nationalists but arises, instead, from the injustices of neoliberalism. And so many on the left insist that all those Trump voters are really Bernie Sanders voters who just haven’t had their consciousness raised yet. In fact, a similar constellation of populist figures has emerged, sharing platforms, plans, and ideologies, in countries where neoliberalism made little impact, and where a strong system of social welfare remains in place. If a broadened welfare state—national health insurance, stronger unions, higher minimum wages, and the rest—would cure the plague in the U.S., one would expect that countries with resilient welfare states would be immune from it. They are not.

Though Trump can be situated in a transoceanic space of populism, he isn’t a mere symptom of global trends: he is a singularly dangerous character, and the product of a specific cultural milieu. To be sure, much of New York has always been hostile to him, and eager to disown him; in a 1984 profile of him in GQ, Graydon Carter made the point that Trump was the only New Yorker who ever referred to Sixth Avenue as the “Avenue of the Americas.” Yet we’re part of Trump’s identity, as was made clear by his recent rally on Long Island—pointless as a matter of swing-state campaigning, but central to his self-definition. His belligerence could come directly from the two New York tabloid heroes of his formative years in the city: John Gotti, the gangster who led the Gambino crime family, and George Steinbrenner, the owner of the Yankees. When Trump came of age, Gotti was all over the front page of the tabloids, as “the Teflon Don,” and Steinbrenner was all over the back sports pages, as “the Boss.”

Steinbrenner was legendary for his middle-of-the-night phone calls, for his temper and combativeness. Like Trump, who theatricalized the activity, he had a reputation for ruthlessly firing people. (Gotti had his own way of doing that.) Steinbrenner was famous for having no loyalty to anyone. He mocked the very players he had acquired and created an atmosphere of absolute chaos. It used to be said that Steinbrenner reduced the once proud Yankees baseball culture to that of professional wrestling, and that arena is another Trumpian space. Pro wrestling is all about having contests that aren’t really contested—that are known to be “rigged,” to use a Trumpian word—and yet evoke genuine emotion in their audience.

At the same time, Trump has mastered the gangster’s technique of accusing others of crimes he has committed. The agents listening to the Gotti wiretap were mystified when he claimed innocence of the just-committed murder of Big Paul Castellano, conjecturing, in apparent seclusion with his soldiers, about who else might have done it: “Whoever killed this cocksucker, probably the cops killed this Paul.” Denying having someone whacked even in the presence of those who were with you when you whacked him was a capo’s signature move.

Marrying the American paranoid style to the more recent cult of the image, Trump can draw on the manner of the tabloid star and show that his is a game, a show, not to be taken quite seriously while still being serious in actually inciting violent insurrections and planning to expel millions of helpless immigrants. Self-defined as a showman, he can say anything and simultaneously drain it of content, just as Gotti, knowing that he had killed Castellano, thought it credible to deny it—not within his conscience, which did not exist, but within an imaginary courtroom. Trump evidently learned that, in the realm of national politics, you could push the boundaries of publicity and tabloid invective far further than they had ever been pushed.

Trump’s ability to be both joking and severe at the same time is what gives him his power and his immunity. This power extends even to something as unprecedented as the assault on the U.S. Capitol. Trump demanded violence (“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”) but stuck in three words, “peacefully and patriotically,” that, however hollow, were meant to immunize him, Gotti-style. They were, so to speak, meant for the cops on the wiretap. Trump’s resilience is not, as we would like to tell our children about resilience, a function of his character. It’s a function of his not having one.

Just as Trump’s support cuts across the usual divisions, so, too, does a divide among his opponents—between the maximizers, who think that Trump is a unique threat to liberal democracy, and the minimizers, who think that he is merely the kind of clown a democracy is bound to throw up from time to time. The minimizers (who can be found among both Marxist Jacobin contributors and Never Trump National Review conservatives) will say that Trump has crossed the wires of culture and politics in a way that opportunistically responds to the previous paralysis, but that this merely places him in an American tradition. Democracy depends on the idea that the socially unacceptable might become acceptable. Andrew Jackson campaigned on similar themes with a similar manner—and was every bit as ignorant and every bit as unaware as Trump. (And his campaigns of slaughter against Indigenous people really were genocidal.) Trump’s politics may be ugly, foolish, and vain, but ours is often an ugly, undereducated, and vain country. Democracy is meant to be a mirror; it shows what it shows.

Indeed, America’s recent history has shown that politics is a trailing indicator of cultural change, and that one generation’s most vulgar entertainment becomes the next generation’s accepted style of political argument. David S. Reynolds, in his biography of Lincoln, reflects on how the new urban love of weird spectacle in the mid-nineteenth century was something Lincoln welcomed. P. T. Barnum’s genius lay in taking circus grotesques and making them exemplary Americans: the tiny General Tom Thumb was a hero, not a freak. Lincoln saw that it cost him nothing to be an American spectacle in a climate of sensation; he even hosted a reception at the White House for Tom Thumb and his wife—as much a violation of the decorum of the Founding Fathers as Trump’s investment in Hulk Hogan at the Republican Convention. Lincoln understood the Barnum side of American life, just as Trump understands its W.W.E. side.

And so, the minimizers say, taking Trump seriously as a threat to democracy in America is like taking Roman Reigns seriously as a threat to fair play in sports. Trump is an entertainer. The only thing he really wants are ratings. When opposing abortion was necessary to his electoral coalition, he opposed it—but then, when that was creating ratings trouble in other households, he sent signals that he wasn’t exactly opposed to it. When Project 2025, which he vaguely set in motion and claims never to have read, threatened his ratings, he repudiated it. The one continuity is his thirst for popularity, which is, in a sense, our own. He rows furiously away from any threatening waterfall back to the center of the river—including on Obamacare. And, the minimizers say, in the end, he did leave the White House peacefully, if gracelessly.

In any case, the panic is hardly unique to Trump. Reagan, too, was vilified and feared in his day, seen as the reductio ad absurdum of the culture of the image, an automaton projecting his controllers’ authoritarian impulses. Nixon was the subject of a savage satire by Philip Roth that ended with him running against the Devil for the Presidency of Hell. The minimizers tell us that liberals overreact in real time, write revisionist history when it’s over, and never see the difference between their stories.

The maximizers regard the minimizers’ case as wishful thinking buoyed up by surreptitious resentments, a refusal to concede anything to those we hate even if it means accepting someone we despise. Maximizers who call Trump a fascist are dismissed by the minimizers as either engaging in name-calling or forcing a facile parallel. Yet the parallel isn’t meant to be historically absolute; it is meant to be, as it were, oncologically acute. A freckle is not the same as a melanoma; nor is a Stage I melanoma the same as the Stage IV kind. But a skilled reader of lesions can sense which is which and predict the potential course if untreated. Trumpism is a cancerous phenomenon. Treated with surgery once, it now threatens to come back in a more aggressive form, subject neither to the radiation of “guardrails” nor to the chemo of “constraints.” It may well rage out of control and kill its host.

And so the maximalist case is made up not of alarmist fantasies, then, but of dulled diagnostic fact, duly registered. Think hard about the probable consequences of a second Trump Administration—about the things he has promised to do and can do, the things that the hard-core group of rancidly discontented figures (as usual with authoritarians, more committed than he is to an ideology) who surround him wants him to do and can do. Having lost the popular vote, as he surely will, he will not speak up to reconcile “all Americans.” He will insist that he won the popular vote, and by a landslide. He will pardon and then celebrate the January 6th insurrectionists, and thereby guarantee the existence of a paramilitary organization that’s capable of committing violence on his behalf without fear of consequences. He will, with an obedient Attorney General, begin prosecuting his political opponents; he was largely unsuccessful in his previous attempt only because the heads of two U.S. Attorneys’ offices, who are no longer there, refused to coöperate. When he begins to pressure CNN and ABC, and they, with all the vulnerabilities of large corporations, bend to his will, telling themselves that his is now the will of the people, what will we do to fend off the slow degradation of open debate?

Trump will certainly abandon Ukraine to Vladimir Putin and realign this country with dictatorships and against NATO and the democratic alliance of Europe. Above all, the spirit of vengeful reprisal is the totality of his beliefs—very much like the fascists of the twentieth century in being a man and a movement without any positive doctrine except revenge against his imagined enemies. And against this: What? Who? The spirit of resistance may prove too frail, and too exhausted, to rise again to the contest. Who can have confidence that a democracy could endure such a figure in absolute control and survive? An oncologist who, in the face of this much evidence, shrugged and proposed watchful waiting as the best therapy would not be an optimist. He would be guilty of gross malpractice. One of those personal-injury lawyers on the billboards would sue him, and win.

What any plausible explanation must confront is the fact that Trump is a distinctively vile human being and a spectacularly malignant political actor. In fables and fiction, in every Disney cartoon and Batman movie, we have no trouble recognizing and understanding the villains. They are embittered, canny, ludicrous in some ways and shrewd in others, their lives governed by envy and resentment, often rooted in the acts of people who’ve slighted them. (“They’ll never laugh at me again!”) They nonetheless have considerable charm and the ability to attract a cult following. This is Ursula, Hades, Scar—to go no further than the Disney canon. Extend it, if that seems too childlike, to the realms of Edmund in “King Lear” and Richard III: smart people, all, almost lovable in their self-recognition of their deviousness, but not people we ever want to see in power, for in power their imaginations become unimaginably deadly. Villains in fables are rarely grounded in any cause larger than their own grievances—they hate Snow White for being beautiful, resent Hercules for being strong and virtuous. Bane is blowing up Gotham because he feels misused, not because he truly has a better city in mind.

Trump is a villain. He would be a cartoon villain, if only this were a cartoon. Every time you try to give him a break—to grasp his charisma, historicize his ascent, sympathize with his admirers—the sinister truth asserts itself and can’t be squashed down. He will tell another lie so preposterous, or malign another shared decency so absolutely, or threaten violence so plausibly, or just engage in behavior so unhinged and hate-filled that you’ll recoil and rebound to your original terror at his return to power. One outrage succeeds another until we become exhausted and have to work hard even to remember the outrages of a few weeks past: the helicopter ride that never happened (but whose storytelling purpose was to demean Kamala Harris as a woman), or the cemetery visit that ended in a grotesque thumbs-up by a graveside (and whose symbolic purpose was to cynically enlist grieving parents on behalf of his contempt). No matter how deranged his behavior is, though, it does not seem to alter his good fortune.

Villainy inheres in individuals. There is certainly a far-right political space alive in the developed world, but none of its inhabitants—not Marine Le Pen or Giorgia Meloni or even Viktor Orbán—are remotely as reckless or as crazy as Trump. Our self-soothing habit of imagining that what has not yet happened cannot happen is the space in which Trump lives, just as comically deranged as he seems and still more dangerous than we know.

Nothing is ever entirely new, and the space between actual events and their disassociated representation is part of modernity. We live in that disassociated space. Generations of cultural critics have warned that we are lost in a labyrinth and cannot tell real things from illusion. Yet the familiar passage from peril to parody now happens almost simultaneously. Events remain piercingly actual and threatening in their effects on real people, while also being duplicated in a fictive system that shows and spoofs them at the same time. One side of the highway is all cancer; the other side all crazy. Their confoundment is our confusion.

It is telling that the most successful entertainments of our age are the dark comic-book movies—the Batman films and the X-Men and the Avengers and the rest of those cinematic universes. This cultural leviathan was launched by the discovery that these ridiculous comic-book figures, generations old, could now land only if treated seriously, with sombre backstories and true stakes. Our heroes tend to dullness; our villains, garishly painted monsters from the id, are the ones who fuel the franchise.

During the debate last month in Philadelphia, as Trump’s madness rose to a peak of raging lunacy—“They’re eating the dogs”; “He hates her!”—ABC, in its commercial breaks, cut to ads for “Joker: Folie à Deux,” the new Joaquin Phoenix movie, in which the crazed villain swirls and grins. It is a Gotham gone mad, and a Gotham, against all the settled rules of fable-making, without a Batman to come to the rescue. Shuttling between the comic-book villain and the grimacing, red-faced, and unhinged man who may be reëlected President in a few weeks, one struggled to distinguish our culture’s most extravagant imagination of derangement from the real thing. The space is that strange, and the stakes that high. ♦

63 notes · View notes

astarless-fights · 1 month ago

Text

We all watched it. This isn’t a FAFO couple of years. He has real potential to fucking us all over for years later and real people will be affected for years to come.

It is not unknown that facsism runs rampant in this country. I was going to counter protests all throughout my 20s in New England. We all know they got louder when they had a voice in the system. In my opinion, they have gotten louder than before in the last year. It’s incredibly dire that we reach out to one another. This is not a left vs right issue. This will always be a US citizen issue and we need to put up the blockades or we will end up repeating history in some fashion that we shouldn’t be.

Reach out across lines. Don’t let agendas or the news segregate us. This is a battle that we need to do together.

Sources: a few. The opinion article was good. I happened to like Melania’s outfit last night but everything else was on the mark. Does include video. I watched the whole thing though, you should too.

Added a Fox News article to show massive marketing clean up being done. The bit at the end to discredit AOC is normal but the writing style is very much a press clean up job. Things like this you can’t take verbatim.

There is a massive need to clean this up. Trump cannot be running around with another extremist (like what happened in 2022 with Nick Fuentes). The marketing team and press clean up crew will fight hard to blame this on Elon just being awkward or telling people on the right that Liberals are all accepting until you are rich and are on the spectrum. What they won’t tell you though is that Elon has been sending money to the extremist party in Germany that has similar views. They won’t tell you that Elon has been meeting with famous extremists and buddying up to them on X. They won’t tell you that he’s been sharing Icons from extremists like Pepe the Frog for years. They won’t tell you what his likes and retweets look like. Elon isn’t just suddenly showing this. This has been quite a few years worth of issues. And don’t get me started on his view of having kids. His reasoning to have so many, as he has been quoted straight from the mouth to say, is that he believes the world will crumble without his kids. Pro-Natalist. He’s not having kids because he loves them- in fact he disowned one and doesn’t talk to the rest. The baby got lucky this year for marketing to help him look more fatherly in an age against healthcare CEO’s.

We are all being marketed too. Don’t let them sway your gut judgement on this. And don’t let them come between us. We are the greatest army. They want us separated.

#elon musk #washington dc #politics #trump #president trump #christianity #trump 47 #maga #trending #Democrats #liberal #republicans #conservatives #biden #kamala harris

32 notes · View notes

pudding-parade · 9 months ago

Text

Sorry, but I have to get political on all your asses, at least those of you who live in the US. It will be a one-time thing on this subject, the only thing that I will say here about the election before it happens. And yeah, I'm going to say this on a blog devoted to a stupid video game. Why? Because I know that I have younger American people who follow me here, and if y'all are like some of the younger people I've talked to in real life and online in other venues, I have concerns. So I'm going to say all this as an old-ass, progressive American. Because if I can wake up one apathetic mind out there, it will be worth it. And if you're pissed at me for making a single political post at this important juncture, then fuck off and unfollow me or send me nasty messages or whatever you want to do. I don't care. And I'm not cutting this, either.

My dear followers: Donald Trump cannot -- CANNOT -- become president again.

Late last night, Trump posted on his Truth Social account a video containing language and images reminiscent of the World War era. It was about his fantasies of what America would be like, should he win the general election in about five months. It contained suspicious imagery and phrases like "creating a unified Reich." Does that sort of language sound familiar? Especially when combined with his rhetoric about immigrants being "vermin" that "poison the blood of our country?" Ring any bells? I'm sure it does for any German folks who might read this.

Trump's post was only taken down about 12 hours later, after backlash over it, and then Trump claimed that a "low level staffer" posted it, not him. Which is either a lie OR he was lying when he said previously that only he and his campaign's communications director have or will ever have access to that account. If you want more info about this, here's a short video from Jesse Dollemore, an independent commentator:

youtube

This election isn't about liberal/progressive vs. conservative. It truly doesn't matter what your personal ideology is because this election is about saving democracy. This is about preserving your freedoms, because we won't be able to do anything about any other issue, whatever our individual ideologies and pet issues are, if our basic freedoms upon which this country was founded -- freedom of speech and to protest, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of the press -- are chipped away until they are gone. Because that's what autocrats do. They want freedom only for themselves, and Donald Trump and his cronies and hangers-on are all autocrat wannabes.

And if you -- Yes, you, even if you're sitting in the middle of blood-red state -- don't vote for Joe Biden, you will be doing your part to hand the autocrats what they want, because a non-vote or a vote for anyone other than Biden is in fact a vote for Trump and autocracy. Similarly, you must also vote for Democrats for all other positions, local, state, and federal so that America's overt flirtation with autocracy that's been going on since at least the 1990s might finally end once and for all.

Yes, yes, I know: "But Genocide Joe!" Think about it: Do you seriously think that Trump, who licks Netanyahu's asshole because he sees him as the kind of "strong man" that Trump wants to be, is going to help Gaza? Or that he'll go against Putin and continue aid to Ukraine? Because if you think that he will do either of those things, I have several bridges I'd like to sell you. No, Trump is going to "put America first." He says it all the time, and what he means by that is that he will do nothing except whatever it takes to keep himself and his cronies in power while also isolating America by severing ties to our allies. Gaza will be given to Netanyahu just as Ukraine will be given to Putin, should Trump win, and he won't give a shit. In the end, Biden (and Harris, should she have to take over) will listen and help Gaza, maybe not as much as we'd like because the Middle East situation is complicated and there are no simple solutions, but a Biden-led government will certainly help more than another Trumpian government would. And Biden will definitely continue to aid Ukraine, because that situation isn't complicated at all.

And in the end, it's not really about Ukraine and Gaza, though they are of course important. It's about us. Should Trump get into the White House again, he will surround himself with people who want America to be a plutocratic and authoritarian autocracy, very similar to Putin's Russia. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. A vote for Trump -- either actual or de facto by fucking around with not voting or voting for a third party because you think it's a "protest" -- is a vote to end democracy, plain and simple, which might very well mean that you'll never be able to protest again another day.

How bad could Trump be, you ask? Who cares who is president? Well, have a look at Project 2025. It's a 900-page "playbook" for the next "conservative" administration. (In quotes because there is nothing "conservative" about these people, including Trump and his cronies; they are radicals.) It is nothing less than a plan to destroy the federal government, the Constitution, and the freedoms that it enshrines and protects, which means the end of democracy. They published a similar tome before Reagan was elected, and once he was in, Reagan followed through with a lot of it. I have no doubt that Trump would, too, given that his "Agenda 47" platform is basically the same. Here is an article that summarizes Project 2025 and details some of its directives. And here is an article from Time Magazine, of all things, where the writer of it interviewed Trump about his vision for America, should he win. The first line of the article is, "Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice." You can read the transcripts of the interviews, too, so you can rest assured that the interviewer isn't being hyperbolic.

It ain't good, folks. Part of this extreme-right agenda is ridiculously expanding the power of the executive branch so that it would no longer be checked and balanced by Congress and the Supreme Court, which effectively turns the presidency into a dictatorship. And if Biden does not win, at least some of this bullshit will come to pass, especially because Trump already has the Supreme Court in his pocket. And he'll be able to appoint more young, far-right lunatics to that, too, should he win.

I'll repeat that Trump CANNOT win. I'll be the first to say that, as a pretty extreme (but also pragmatic) progressive, I'm not Biden's biggest fan, for various reasons. He is way farther right than I am, though he has been far more progressive-friendly than I expected and he has gotten some very good things done. But even if he wasn't and hadn't, he will preserve democracy and because of that, I will be voting for him without hesitation. I won't even have to hold my nose. Trump and his cronies in Congress and the Supreme Court will destroy democracy if you -- Yes, YOU! -- let them. And if you let them by deciding not to vote or doing some sort of lame "protest" vote, especially if you live in that handful of states where every presidential vote matters, you will have no one to blame but yourself and others like you. People being apathetic or doing "protest" votes is what got us Trump the first time around.

For fuck's sake, do the right thing.

#non sims #us politics #sorry not sorry #Youtube

79 notes · View notes

othersystems · 2 months ago

Text

wasnt going to do it this year but someone requested so here it is

(my biggest out is probably cultural shift/trend explanation/obsessed with the current "moment" which includes in and out lists lol)

Side bangs

Photography/collage will be back in a big way

Warm lighting in photos/digital SLR style ( think night time street lights)

^A “Going home to the suburbs from college during winter break” nostalgia vibe

Houndstooth print

Chunky knit sweaters

Wool, cotton, etc, real fibers

“Classic” style, pea coats, long skirts, Basque waist dresses. petticoats, silk robes

Clothes that are about fit and movement of fabric/“timeless”

Velvet and metallics

Deep colors

“late 2000s/early 2010s does French new wave” style also back

Cotton leggings (french new wave-NON athleisure)

Long and not boxy shirts

Wedge shoes

Big sunglasses

The pre-trump 2010s

Collecting things/trinkets/ stoneware plates etc

Horseshoes/pressed tin ornaments/cozy eclectic decoration

Antique stores

interesting noses/roman noses

Frizz/wild hair

Striped and plaid high back couches

Striped linens

Delicate wallpaper patterns

tile

Early 1900s bohemian poet or painter interiors

A bit of moroccan/“global” eclectic mom style

Reading middlemarch

reading letters/diaries

golden age of Hollywood interest

Vermouth spritz

collecting/watching DVDs and CDs

programmed TV vs streaming

uyghur food

Out

Painting is on the decline as a trendy art

Cropped shirts

Polyester/synthetics/mesh/smocked back dresses

Gaudy prints

White kitchen cabinets with gold or black hardware

Mid century modern furniture

Luxury / “Clean”

Martini/going out to a fancy restaurant to take pictures culture (now cringe)

Edgelord ,as the "edgy" part no longer applies under a second trump presidency

Essays

Cultural shift/trend explanation essays and videos

pop psychology

poptimism

Tik tok voice

bright/garish clothes colors and garish prints

gothy/"grunge"

Instagram face/nose

lip fillers/lip overlining seen as gauche

Athleisure

This is the year where Y2k is truly OUT in place of the Obama years

“Bitchyness” also out, that was a reflection of bush years nostalgia

Too much skin care/make up. now seen as damaging to skin

Twitter

23 notes · View notes

eugenedebs1920 · 4 months ago

Text

How did we get here? How did we get to a place where everything is a conspiracy theory? A place where experts are discredited. A place where the press is seen by many as the enemy of the people. A place where science is disputed. A place where women aren’t trusted with their own bodily autonomy. A place where the labor force is every day having safety protocols removed. A place where it isn’t safe to love who you love without fear of reprimand. Is this our country? Does the Constitution still stand? Are we the United States of America?

The results of the 2020 election gave rise to the fact that almost 8 million more

People voted for Biden over Trump. The 2016 election showed that 3.5 million more people voted for Hilary over Trump. In 2012 Obama got 5 million more votes than Romney, and 10 million more than McCain in 2008!

What does this tell us? It tells us, by and large the population is more liberal, more open minded, more inclusive, more willing to listen to ideas and opinions different from their own. Thats damn near the definition! Liberal: inclined to be open to ideas and ways of behaving that are not conventional or traditional : BROAD-MINDED, TOLERANT That’s Webster definition.

So why then are we at a place where women’s rights are taken from them? Why are we eliminating the scientists and experts who’ve worked at their agencies for years? Why are we stripping regulations away and allowing industries to pollute as much as they want? Why are labor rights being gutted? Why are lgbtq rights being denied? Why are banks allowed to prey on consumers? Why do corporations not have to pay their share in taxes into our nation?

It’s complicated. Yet it comes down to a few things. Greed, slavery, and Republicans.

Greed is an addiction. Studies have shown the same reward centers in your brain release dopamine and serotonin in the same fashion when you use cocaine as when you receive money. So these oligarchs, these CEO’s, these Wall Street billionaires, they’re all looking for the same fix as the guy on the corner asking you for change. They’re junkies. The big difference between the guy in the corner and Elon Musk is, that the guy on the corner doesn’t have government contracts, the guy on the corner isn’t in constant contact with Putin, the guy on the corner isn’t trying to buy an election. He just wants a hit.

When our nation was founded it was a time of upheaval and uncertainty for the 13 colonies. We were embattled with the most powerful military in the world of that time, England. The Spanish were in Florida, the French in Louisiana, and we had the natives whose land we were actively taking. Thats a whole lot of conflict for an emerging nation to endure. The survival of our country depended upon our ability to be a unified front against the aggression coming at us. If it was thirteen different countries fighting their own little wars, there was no way we could have defended against such perilous forces.

There was one little problem though. Although the north did have slaves the numbers paled in comparison to that of the south. The whole labor force of the south was a slave labor force. There were many who saw the unethical concept of slavery and wanted it abolished in the new world. Alas this was not the time for battles of morality.

Due to the smaller population sizes of the south, due in large part to the slave labor force vs the plantation owners, a compromise was made. An electoral process that would eventually be known as the electoral college.

What does this have to do with Republicans? Weren’t they the party of Lincoln? Yes. I’m getting to that. Fast forward a couple hundred years ish to the early 1960’s. All those people who were brought here as slaves, freed but never given freedom. It was time to end the segregation and oppression. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1964 by Lindon Johnson. There was a mass exodus of the Democratic Party from those in the southern states. The CRA was an affront on their entire belief structure. Now, black Americans, whose loyalty had lied with the Republican Party, due to Lincoln’s affiliation, now sided with the Democrats. All the white southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) jumped ship and went Republican.

As this country progresses the diversity goes along with it. The ideas of old, the highly religious, dogmatic principles have had their margins slimmed. Instead of adapting with the culture, instead of representing that in which their constituency evolved to, they devised a plan. A plan of obstruction and cheating, of making it so that the minority could rule over the majority.

There have been more calls to abolish the electoral college (article II of the U.S. Constitution) than any other ratifications to the constitution, 700 times it has been proposed. In the later part of the twentieth century (1969-1970 congress) was the closest it’s gotten to abolishment. Those who oppose its removal claim the “one person one vote” concept leaves smaller state populations less represented. Yea. Your point?! Why are we lessening the voice of millions to appease a couple hundred thousand?! Because Republicans would lose their power to control even without the numbers.

I could go on and on, showing statistics and giving examples but the election is near and I can’t write a novel right now. I can post a link to my Substack where I dive deeper into the subject. Let’s move on.

The representation in the senate, population wise, is a joke! There’s senators from states whose population isn’t a third of others who stand in the way of progress. Who obstruct the changing of the times. The House of Representatives has had their districts so gerrymandered that they can disenfranchise tens of thousands to retain their seats (this is not only Republicans who do this, just for transparency, but it’s a much higher percentage than Democrats). Think about Kentucky. Kentucky’s 4.5 million residents stole two Supreme Court appointments through Mitch (the turtle) McConnell. California has over 39.5 million residents, New York has almost 21 million, Illinois nearly 12 million all Democratic senators. Yet the Republican state of f*ckin Kentucky, with its 4.5 million residents was able to dictate laws in the whole of our country for the next 30 years!!! That’s not how democracy works!!

Now it’s gotten to the point where there are 7-9 states that dictate the future for the nation at large. This minoritarian rule is not democracy. This is reaching a tipping points towards authoritarianism.

I thought Obama did some great things, got us out of the Republican made Great Recession, and the housing crisis Bush’ deregulation caused. The thing that he did that irritates me, is he left roughly 200 open federal judge appointments unfilled. I don’t know if it was arrogance, thinking Hillary would win or why he didn’t fill them.

Trumps not a smart man. He’s an actor. Not a good one at that, but let’s call him a showman. The religious right, in the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society had, for decades been waiting for the proper stooge to do their bidding. Harlan Crow and others got the most ideologically backward, extreme right wing judges on the courts. Mind you these are lifetime appointments. Now the high courts will take up absurd cases to throw them up to the Supreme Court and it’s 6-3 MAGA super majority (thanks Kentucky!) and have those partisan hacks work it out to be the least favorable decision for a majority of the population.

It is 70% of representation is controlled by 30% of the population. This is absurd. That means that every Republican vote is worth nearly 2 Democratic votes. Republicans are well aware of this (maybe not the voters but the leadership). This is a beginning step towards autocratic rule. When a minority dictates law for the majority. Unacceptable.

What can we do? Nothing right now. Yet we put pressure on our senators and representatives, the governors of our state and contact the White House. I write my senators to bitch about one thing or the other monthly and about quarterly I contact the White House. Hey! They work for us! Tell your employees what you want from them. Vote! Vote early, vote often. Vote in your local elections, they mean more than you may think. Get your friends and family, neighbors and acquaintances out to vote, offer riders to the polls. Stay informed and educate yourself. The future is yours. Who do you want making the decisions?

27 notes · View notes

brain-works · 7 months ago

Note

um he literally said you have to have respect for trump… in many ways even…

ooh I love this one! and to be clear, whatever I say here, this is no hate to you anon, assuming you're saying this in good faith. and also thank you for actually answering my last post with an ask, I love a good excuse to write an essay.

ALSO before I start: if anyone dares to come into my replies saying that I'm biased - yes I am. I've never denied that. if you haven't picked up on that by now I really don't know what you're doing on my blog. that being said, I also try to look at full contexts to these situations, especially since I watched this specific press conference live.

ALSO ALSO I AM IN NO WAY A TRUMP FAN. LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR. I AM NOT DEFENDING TRUMP OR ANY OF HIS ACTIONS, PAST OR PRESENT. now, to my argument:

the first thing I need to make very clear is the environment in which he was asked this question. it might seem inconsequential that it was a press conference, but it's actually a very important context. for one, the drivers are not allowed to simply not answer a question. that's not an option that's available to them (despite some people thinking that's the case). they must answer any questions posed by the press, whether they like it or not. they're allowed to dodge questions, sure, but the only guaranteed way to get a journalist off your back is to just give them an answer they can publish. we've seen this time and time again with different drivers. they're also not allowed to make outwardly political statements without being given a hefty fine by the FIA. saying, for example, that you don't like a former president of a country that F1 wants to continue racing in is an easy way to have this fine (and potentially worse) levied against you.

secondly, with any interview, there is a massive difference between the words presented vs. how they were said. what does this mean? well, to put it simply, sometimes intent does not come across the same in text vs. in speaking. this happens a lot with Lando's interviews, where he says something jokingly or in an unserious tone, but when his words are written down, they seem much more malicious than they actually were. I'd go hunt down examples, but I want to stay on topic.

now, exactly what he said was:

and here’s a link to the video of the interview

I'm not going to say that he didn't say, in some manner, that you have to have a lot of respect for trump. however, the way in which he said it is what matters to me.

for one, spelling out that someone, regardless of who they are, is a former president of a country and should be respected for that accomplishment is a textbook diplomatic answer. again, this is regardless of who they are. I guarantee you he would've said the same thing about any other political figure in any other context, because this is a safe answer. he's not definitively praising anyone, and he's not bringing anyone down. this is not the response of someone who is a big fan of trump. this is the generic, PR-guided response of someone who can't say anything negative, but doesn't want to say anything too outwardly positive.

notice, for example, how he says that trump said that he was Lando's lucky charm. it would've been easy for him to state that he thought that trump was his lucky charm, but he did not. he could've even said that he hopes that trump comes to future races. again, he did not. this is an important distinction, if a small one. anyways, his body language and facial expressions also make his stance clear. he's not happy to be asked this question, he clearly does not want to answer it. in fact, as soon as he starts answering, you can see him slip into that PR mode as his face drops and he starts giving his response. this is not how someone answers a question about someone they like! and this response, once again, is very generic. he literally only mentions trump by name once throughout his actual response, and without that you could assume he was talking about literally anyone else.

for two, idk about you, but when I'm forced to publicly interact with people I don't like, regardless of the context, I don't usually insult them to their face, because that makes me look bad. and I don't usually have half the amount of cameras on me that Lando does. generally speaking, it's also not a good idea to get on the bad side of someone with as much political power as trump. we all know who he is, and we know that the people that support him can resort to dangerous actions when someone says anything remotely negative about him. so, if remaining neutral is the most negative you can be, then that's the way to go. he had no way to avoid trump - he was literally brought directly to him to shake hands - and was asked a question directly connected to trump.

saying that you have to have respect for someone in a lot of ways is not an inherently positive statement. in fact, something I say a lot of the time when I don't like a celebrity is that I respect their accomplishments, but I don't like their personality. I'm not saying this justifies Lando's response, but I am saying that if you were put in a similar situation, where you're asked a question that demands you speak positively about someone regardless of what you think about them personally (especially if your opinion is negative), you'd have a harder time answering than you think you would.

and finally, Lando is not a US citizen. he does not know the political turmoil happening in this country personally, and I wouldn't be surprised if he only knew the bare minimum of why trump is a bad person, rather than the full itemized list that Americans are very familiar with. at the end of the day, even if he was a trump fan (he's not), he does not vote in the US, nor does he have any sway over actual US voters. we all know the rhetoric of people who like trump, and nothing Lando said personally sets off any alarm bells. I'll admit that I don't love the way he phrased it, but if I could go on another whole tangent about how I hate the way that Lando's (sometimes awkward) phrasing gets misrepresented in text vs. in speech.

bonus round: if you wanted to get upset at drivers interacting with controversial figures, might I direct you to the time that Lewis Hamilton (allegedly) sprayed putin with champagne. obviously this article is tabloid-esque, but you get what I'm saying. this isn't a dig at Lewis, btw, it's just my way of pointing out that it's not new for drivers to be faced with impossible situations regarding political figures.

tl;dr if Lando wanted to say something outwardly positive about trump, he would've had the space to, but he purposefully kept it vague and generic, and that means something. these drivers cannot speak as freely as we often (mistakenly) think they can, and it's important to understand the full context of a situation rather than assume bad intentions.

#ask #lando norris #f1 #brain post #anyways hope this answers your question #long post

40 notes · View notes

patriottruth · 4 months ago

Text

2024 U.S. Presidential Election: Ronald Reagan's Informed Patriotism: donald j. trump Is Not the President Elect Because No Sworn Official Can Count Even One Vote For An Insurrectionist. The Immediate Disbarring of All 6 MAGA SCOTUS Injustices, Denying donald j. trump Even One American/Electoral Vote, Denying donald j. trump and all of his allies Access to Their MAGA Insurrectionist SCOTUS Injustices For All 2024 Election Litigation, and Immediately Restoring National Roe vs. Wade Protections Via The Remaining Three SCOTUS Justices.

After Democratic nominee Joe Biden easily won the 2020 United States presidential election with a massive American mandate and landslide victory of 81 million votes, failed Republican nominee and then-incumbent president Donald Trump pursued an unprecedented effort to overturn the election, with support from his campaign, proxies, political allies, and many of his supporters. These efforts culminated in the January 6 Capitol attack by donald j. trump's deranged and vicious cult of supporters in an attempted self-coup d'état where a police officer died after being assaulted by deposed donald j. trump's insurrectionist rioters. Many people were injured, including 174 police officers, and donald j. trump's uncivilized and mindless MAGA cult members defecated and smeared their feces all over the U.S. Capitol complex. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by donald j. trump's and his MAGA cult's insurrection against the United States of America, We The People of the United States of America, and the U.S. Capitol complex exceeded $2.7 million.

A week after the attack, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached the failed and undeniably deposed U.S. President donald j. trump for incitement of insurrection, making him the only U.S. president to be impeached twice while also legally and constitutionally disqualifying him from running for reelection in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, or holding any public office anywhere in the United States of America ever again due to his betrayal of his Presidential Oath of Office, the United States of America, the U.S. government, and We The People of the United States of America.

Trump and his allies used the "big lie" propaganda technique to promote false claims and conspiracy theories asserting the election was stolen by means of rigged voting machines, electoral fraud and an international conspiracy. Trump pressed Department of Justice leaders to challenge the results and publicly state the election was corrupt. However, the attorney general, director of National Intelligence, and director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – as well as some Trump campaign staff – dismissed these claims. State and federal judges, election officials, and state governors also determined the claims were baseless. Trump's legal team sought to bring a case before the Supreme Court, but none of the 63 lawsuits they filed were successful. They pinned their hopes on Texas v. Pennsylvania, but on December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Afterward, Trump considered ways to remain in power, including military intervention, seizing voting machines, and another appeal to the Supreme Court.

In June 2022, the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack said it had enough evidence to recommend that the Department of Justice indict the failed and undeniably deposed former U.S. President donald j. trump, and on December 19, the committee formally made the criminal referral to the Justice Department. On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted by a D.C. grand jury for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Republicans in support of the indictment Mike Pence, who was Trump's vice president and, at the time, was also running for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election, issued a statement strongly condemning Trump, stating that this indictment was "an important reminder [that] anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States". In an interview with reporters at the Indiana State Fair the next day, he expanded on his comments, stating that he could not have overturned the election results as vice president.

Former U.S. attorney general William Barr said the case against Trump was legitimate and that he will testify if he is called.

Adam Kinzinger, a member of the January 6 Committee and a former Illinois representative, tweeted that "Today is the beginning of justice" and added that Trump is "a cancer on our democracy".

Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who was running for the 2024 presidential Republican nomination at the time, said Trump "swore an oath to the Constitution, violated his oath & brought shame to his presidency."

Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, who was running for the 2024 presidential Republican nomination at the time, said "Trump has disqualified himself from ever holding our nation's highest office again."

On August 14, 2023, nearly a dozen former judges and federal legal officials, all appointed by Republicans, submitted an amicus brief saying they agreed with Jack Smith's 1proposed trial date of January 2, 2024. The brief states "There is no more important issue facing America and the American people—and to the very functioning of democracy—than whether the former president is guilty of criminally undermining America's elections and American democracy in order to remain in power […]".

On August 14, Trump and 18 co-defendants, were indicted in Fulton County, Georgia for their efforts to overturn the election results in that state. Ten leaders of the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups have been convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Capitol attack. As of May 6, 2024, of the 1,424 people charged with federal crimes relating to the event, 820 have pleaded guilty (255 to felonies and 565 to misdemeanors), and 884 defendants have been sentenced, 541 of whom received a jail sentence. Failed and deposed U.S. President and insurrectionist presidential candidate donald j. trump hails and salutes his imprisoned insurrectionist supporters at his 2024 presidential election rallies while he plays their January 6 Insurrectionist Choir version of a completely corrupted and deranged anti-American version of the U.S. National Anthem, and then he repeatedly promises to pardon all of his caged animal, shit-smearing, anti-American MAGA Nazi cult traitors should he be elected back into the White House on November 5, 2024.

LAW AND ORDER!!! United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira is a federal criminal case against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, Walt Nauta, his personal aide and valet, and Mar-a-Lago maintenance chief Carlos De Oliveira. The grand jury indictment brought 40 felony counts against Trump related to his mishandling of classified documents after his presidency. The case marks the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president.

In May 2022, a grand jury issued a subpoena for any remaining documents in Trump's possession. Trump certified that he was returning all the remaining documents on June 3, 2022, but the FBI later obtained evidence that he had intentionally moved documents to hide them from his lawyers and the FBI and thus had not fulfilled the subpoena.

This led to the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, in which the FBI recovered over 13,000 government documents, over 300 of which were classified, with some relating to national defense secrets covered under the Espionage Act.

On June 8, 2023, the original indictment with 37 felony counts against Trump was filed in the federal district court in Miami by the office of the Smith special counsel investigation. On July 27, a superseding indictment charged an additional three felonies against Trump. Trump was charged separately for each of 32 documents under the Espionage Act. The other eight charges against him included making false statements and engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. The most serious charges against Trump and Nauta carried a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

LAW AND ORDER!!! The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Section 3: Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The President of the United States of America is the Chief Executive and Judicial Officer over ALL U.S. states and territories both individually and as a whole. Therefore, there was never a question for the Supreme Court to decide regarding impeached insurrectionist donald j. trump appearing on any U.S. presidential election ballot on any U.S. state or territory. The Supreme Court of the United States is one of two checks and balances for the President of the United States; and the individual states, and all U.S. residents and citizens, can and do attempt to have matters settled at a local and state level by the Supreme Court of the United States. The "Take Care" clause of the United States Constitution firmly places the responsibility of ensuring the SCOTUS doesn't go rogue or overstep their authority upon the President of the United States as the Chief Executive and Judicial Officer over the entire United States as a whole, and each state and territory individually, via Presidential Executive Orders and the U.S. Department of Justice. Congress then serves as the other check and balance for both the President of the United States and the SCOTUS.

On December 19, 2023, in the case Anderson v. Griswold, the Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the court held it would be a "wrongful act" under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. This decision was stayed until January 4, 2024, in the expectation that Trump would seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. The Colorado Republican Party appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Colorado Secretary of State announced that Trump will be included on the primary ballot "unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling."

On December 28, 2023, Maine announced that Trump would not appear on the ballot when the Secretary of State decided that Trump had committed insurrection, although the ruling was stayed for judicial review. Trump appealed to Kennebec County Superior Court. On January 17, the case was remanded back to the Maine Secretary of State for reconsideration after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Colorado case.

On January 3, 2024, Trump appealed to the US Supreme Court on the Colorado matter. His attorneys argued that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply to the presidency because the president is not an Officer of the United States. The Supreme Court announced on January 5, 2024, that it would hear the Colorado case, scheduling oral arguments for February 8.

"As President, I was never an 'officer of the United States' and I did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States'. Therefore, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to me, can't be applied to me, and can't prevent me from running for or holding office for my actions on January 6, 2021."- donald j. trump (November 27, 2023)

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested that President Joe Biden could be removed from the ballot via Section 3 due to his immigration policy having permitted "invasion". Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft threatened to take such action in retaliation. Three Republican members of state Houses of Representatives announced intent to parody the Colorado decision via introducing legislation towards removing Biden as an insurrectionist from their states' ballots.

On January 30, 2024, a challenge that cited Section 3 to argue against inclusion of Biden on the Illinois Democratic primary ballot was dismissed by the Illinois State Board of Elections.

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson reversed the Colorado Supreme Court decision, holding that Congress determines eligibility under Section 3 for federal officeholders and states may only bar candidates from state office.

While all nine justices agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants this power to the federal government, and not to the individual states, two separate opinions were issued. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the Court's decision that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal officials, but wrote that the court should not have addressed "the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced." Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion co-signed by all three Justices, concurred in the judgment, but said that the court went beyond what was needed for the case and should not have declared that Congress has the exclusive power to decide Section 3 eligibility questions, stating that the Court's opinion had decided "novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner [Trump] from future controversy."

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision, that failed and deposed insurrectionist 2020 election loser and former president donald j. trump had absolute immunity for acts he committed as president within his core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

The case was argued on December 9, 1920, and decided on January 31, 1921, with an opinion by Justice Joseph McKenna and dissents by Justices William R. Day, James Clark McReynolds, and Mahlon Pitney. The Supreme Court held that Judge Landis was properly disqualified as trial judge based on an affidavit filed by the German defendants asserting that Judge Landis' public anti-German statements should disqualify him from presiding over the trial of the defendants.

The House of Representatives twice denied Berger his seat in the House due to his original conviction for espionage using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding denying office to those who supported "insurrection or rebellion". The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 1921 in Berger v. U.S., and Berger won three successive terms in the House in the 1920s.

Per the United States Supreme Court's "Berger test" that states that to disqualify ANY judge in the United States of America: 1) a party files an affidavit claiming personal bias or prejudice demonstrating an "objectionable inclination or disposition of the judge" and 2) claim of bias is based on facts antedating the trial.

All 6 criminal MAGA insurrectionist and trump-loyalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices who've repeatedly and illegally ruled in donald j. trump's favor are as disqualified from issuing any rulings pertaining to donald j. trump (a German immigrant) as the United States Supreme Court ruled U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was when he attempted to deny Victor L. Berger (a German immigrant) from holding office for violating the Espionage Act and supporting or engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America.

Again, as the text of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly reads, and ONLY reads:

Section 3 clearly and ONLY gives Congress the power to remove a disability of an insurrectionist to "be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State".

Section 3 clearly DOESN'T give Congress the power to impose or enforce a disability of an insurrectionist to "be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State". That's what Impeachment is for, and donald j. trump was impeached for insurrection and referred to the Department of Justice by a Congressional committee for prosecution for his and his supporters acts of insurrection against the United States of America on January 6, 2021.

Section 3 clearly DOESN'T give the United States Supreme Court the authority to illegally and criminally engage in insurrection against the United States of America by MODIFYING the U.S. Constitution AND LEGISLATING from the bench to relieve their own political party and the former insurrectionist U.S. President who appointed them from needing a two-thirds vote of each House to remove the disability of an insurrectionist to run for President of the United States and hold the office of the President of the United States should they be legally elected in a free and fair election. The insurrectionist MAGA cult that's taken over the former Republican Party of the United States knows that there was no way they were getting a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to put impeached insurrectionist and convicted felon donald j. trump on the ballot, and so they had their six legally disqualified U.S. Supreme Court criminal MAGA insurrectionist injustices legislate from the bench AND ILLEGALLY and CRIMINALLY modify the U.S. Constitution to put Espionage Act traitor, convicted felon, and impeached insurrectionist donald j. trump on the 2024 U.S. presidential election ballot.

There are two steps in the amendment process of modifying the U.S. Constitution. Proposals to amend the Constitution must be properly adopted and ratified before they change the Constitution. First, there are two procedures for adopting the language of a proposed amendment, either by (a) Congress, by two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, or (b) national convention (which shall take place whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures collectively call for one). Second, there are two procedures for ratifying the proposed amendment, which requires three-fourths of the states' (presently 38 of 50) approval: (a) consent of the state legislatures, or (b) consent of state ratifying conventions. The ratification method is chosen by Congress for each amendment. (Wikipedia)

The necessary CONTEXT for the LEGAL UNMODIFIED ORIGINAL text of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is this: At the time of the drafting of the United States Constitution, the Americans known as "We The People" were fighting and dying to liberate themselves out from under a tyrannical king! Obviously, a President or Vice President who'd engage in insurrection against the United States of America DURING OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER the creation of the United States Constitution would be executed for TREASON; and because it'd be impossible for "a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any officeholder, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State" to BE IN A POSISTION TO IMMEDIATELY PROCLAIM THEMSELVES THE NEW TYRANNICAL DIVINE KING FOR LIFE OVER THE UNITED STATES AMERICA; and because all traitors were being actively and immediately executed for TREASON, it'd have been impossible for an insurrectionist traitor President or Vice President to run for any office again - because they'd be dead; therefore, it was unnecessary to include an executed treasonous President and/or Vice President in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. With full knowledge and understanding of these facts, the criminal insurrectionist MAGA extremist U.S. Supreme Court injustices ILLEGALLY and CRIMINALLY legislated from the bench to modify Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution so that, as far as the 6 MAGA extremist U.S. Supreme Court injustices are concerned, it now reads as such WITHOUT having been LEGALLY amended by a both two-thirds vote of both houses of the U.S. Congress AND the approval of 38 of 50 U.S. states:

Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. As of March 4, 2024, six partisan Justices on the United States Supreme Court bypassed the legal and proper constitutional amendment process, legislated from the bench, and added the following illegal and unenforceable legislation to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution without Congressional or States approval and ratification: "Only Congress determines eligibility of insurrectionist candidates under Section 3 for federal officeholders and states may only bar insurrectionist candidates from state office. Federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced upon insurrectionist candidates for federal office."

How many elected Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the House of Representatives and the Senate provided the necessary two-thirds vote to amend the U.S. Constitution in this manner? What are the names of all of these so-called elected officials and where are the official voting records? What dates did these voting sessions occur?

Which of the 38 U.S. states ratified this Congressional two-thirds-vote-approved constitutional amendment so that the Espionage Act traitor, convicted felon, and insurrectionist donald j. trump could appear on the 2024 U.S. presidential ballot?

This is where the presidential Take Care Clause is automatically activated and the U.S. president enforces the laws of the United States and upholds, protects, and defends the U.S. Constitution, and perpetuates American democracy.

This is where all six MAGA criminal insurrectionist SCOTUS injustices face both immediate and permanent disbarment from ever practicing law anywhere in the United States of America AND Congressional Impeachment and removal from the Supreme Court of the United States of America for giving aid, comfort, and support to criminal defendant donald j. trump's felonies involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to the American people, the United States, his oath of office, and the U.S. Constitution, drug abuse, thefts of taxpayer and U.S. government monies, thefts of at least 13,000 classified documents and other U.S. government property, and a pattern of violations of all professional codes of ethics.

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities.

Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law The president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the president to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause, also known as the Faithful Execution Clause or Faithfully Executed Clause. This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the president even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law. The Take Care Clause demands that the president obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution. In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court explained how the president executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the president, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2." In Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the president in the execution of the laws. In that case the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "[t]he Congress is the legislative department of the government; the president is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance." Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may later strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch. (Wikipedia)

The Take Care Clause is the constitutional checks and balances guardrail to counter judicial activism, legislating from the bench, and a rogue U.S. Supreme Court that's supporting and actively engaging in insurrection against the United States of America and We The People of the United States with the purpose of overthrowing the U.S. government, installing a dictator/King for life, ending American democracy, and engaging in tyranny against We The People of the United States of America. Due to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, President Joe Biden can simply overrule MAGA SCOTUS, remove donald j. trump from the 2024 U.S. presidential ballot, demand a new election with a new Republican or Independent candidate, and issue an Executive Order barring all six of the criminal insurrectionist MAGA extremist SCOTUS injustices from taking or ruling on any 2024 U.S. presidential election matters and/or any matters pertaining to donald j. trump, per the Berger Test that legally disqualifies them from doing so. President Biden can also simply issue an Executive Order proclaiming that no sworn election official or law enforcement official anywhere in the U.S. or its territories can attempt to cause even one vote for the Espionage Act traitor, convicted felon, and insurrectionist donald j. trump to be counted for the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

And all of that is EXACTLY why dumbass dumpster diaper cryin' lyin' anti-American MAGA Nazi and convicted felon, insurrectionist, serial sex offender, serial adulterer, serial rapist, lifetime incestuous pedophile groomer and lowlife sleazeball scum and failed, fraudulent and repeatedly bankrupted "businessman" and grifter/con artist donald j. trump and all of his supporters, enablers, donors, and voters want to destroy and abolish the U.S. Department of Education AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Anti-American MAGA School Book Bans:

What Would a Reagan Republican Do?

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the People.' 'We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.

Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the People' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-60s.

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important -- why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, 'we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.' Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the 'shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still." - Ronald Reagan (1989 Farewell Speech)

20 notes · View notes

girlactionfigure · 26 days ago

Text

🟠TORTURE, UNRWA, ANTI-ISRAEL COALITION - Real time from Israel

▪️HOSTAGE TORTURE - a topic we have avoided due to the sensitivity. The three hostages returned yesterday spoke of harsh conditions in captivity, a lack of food, and how they were constantly taken from place to place by Hamas terrorists - above and below ground, held in cages during their captivity, and experienced physical and mental abuse.

The terrorists would beat them for no reason, and there were days when they deliberately put them in dark places, even when they were in above-ground shelters, to disrupt their sense of time.

One of the female hostages described how she was hung upside down and beaten, while the torturer laughed about how Israel had provided his daughter with medical treatment saving her life while beating.

▪️EGYPTIAN MILITARY BUILDUP - The Americans have begun investigating the violation of the agreement with Israel and demanded explanations from the Egyptians - at the same time, Israel is increasing intelligence gathering in the region and not waiting for the Americans. (News 14)

▪️PM IN WASHINGTON - The Prime Minister has landed in Washington. Tomorrow the meeting with Trump Middle East envoy Witkoff, the day after a meeting with Trump. Also on the schedule - a meeting with families of the hostages, and meetings with senior figures in Congress and the Senate.

▪️HAMAS COMPLAINS - A delegation of senior Hamas terrorist organization officials met with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan in Doha, Qatar. Hamas accused Israel: “the occupation's delay in implementing the provisions of the humanitarian protocol, especially on basic issues such as the introduction of tents, prefabricated houses (trailers), fuel and the reconstruction of hospitals, water wells and heavy equipment.”

▪️DRILL - UPPER GALILEE - A military exercise will begin today (Monday) from morning until noon in the Upper Galilee region. As part of the exercise, there will be a lot of movement of vehicles and security personnel in the area. IT’S A DRILL.

▪️SIREN TEST - HERZLIYA - 11:05 in Herzliya Central and at 11:10 in Herzliya West. IT’S A TEST.

▪️GAZA CITY MAYOR SAYS - “80% of the city's infrastructure was destroyed as a result of the war.”

▪️ANOTHER GUN SMUGGLER - after spotting police, a smuggler began throwing pistols out his car window. 13 Glock pistols recovered on Route 6 by the Yokneam tunnels, smuggler captured, a “resident of the south”.

▪️UNRWA - now illegal to operate in Israel or in contact with any Israeli govt. agency. Members of parliament from 14 different European countries appealed to the UN Secretary-General demanding that "UNRWA be removed from the UN agencies.

.. Foreign Ministers of Britain, France and Germany decried the cessation of UNRWA's activities in Israel and therefore lack of services in Jerusalem. The Min. Of Jerusalem Porush replied: "Your statement does not correspond to reality. The services we provide to the residents of East Jerusalem are much better than the poor services of UNRWA. The entire municipal territory of Jerusalem is under Israeli sovereignty, and as such all municipal services there are handled by the Jerusalem Municipality. I regret that you chose to publish a statement without real familiarity with the situation on the ground.”

▪️JUSTICE vs. ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES - The Attorney General in a message to PM Netanyahu: I will oppose the reappointment of Ben Gvir as minister. If you consider reappointing Ben Gvir as minister, you will be required to re-examine whether he is disqualified.

▪️VERSUS ISRAEL - First publication: 9 countries in S. America and Africa announced the establishment of a group that will fight Israel on the international stage, press for the arrest warrants for Israeli officials to be carried out, and declare the imposition of economic sanctions.

♦️SAMARIA - Al-Ain, Shechem: Arab reports, a fierce exchange of fire between the terrorists and IDF forces.

#Israel #October 7 #Hamas Massacre #Israel/HamasWar #Gaza #Palestinians #Realtime Israel #🎗️

19 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months ago

Text

[art: Allan McDonalds l quote: George Orwell "Animal Farm"]

Corruption vs. Democracy 2024

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." +

The aftermath.

December 23, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

The news cycle over the last 48 hours was driven by Trump's effort to deal with the aftermath of his defeat on Friday. Not only did he fail to secure debt limit relief, 176 Republicans defied his threats of primary challenges to vote in favor of a bill opposed by Trump. Worse, Speaker-in-Name-Only (SPINO) Mike Johnson spoke to the press after the continuing resolution was passed and described his conversations with Elon Musk about the bill—not Donald Trump.

The central (but unsuccessful) role played by Elon Musk in the effort to force a government shutdown overshadowed Trump's status as president-elect—much to Trump's displeasure. Trump's spokesperson issued a statement last week saying, “President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. Full stop.”

Then, in remarks on Sunday before a conservative conference, Trump said,

No, [Musk] is not gonna be president, that I can tell you. And I’m safe, you know why? He can’t be, he wasn’t born in this country.

Trump's statement oozes insecurity. Trump is so worried about Musk that he is comforting himself by referring to the constitutional prohibition against foreign-born citizens becoming president. Trump has thought through the defenses to an incipient Musk presidency.

Jen Psaki noted on Sunday that Trump's need to remind people that he is the head of the Republican Party is a bad sign. See Raw Story, 'Not exactly a statement you want to have to make': Jen Psaki points to Trump problem.

Per Psaki, Musk took to his vanity social media platform to claim that it was the media that was trying to drive a wedge between the two man-child egos.

To be clear, it is not the media that is trying to drive a wedge between Musk and Trump—it is members of the Republican and Democratic parties who are doing so.

On a Sunday talk-show, GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales said,

It's kind of interesting, we have a president, we have a vice president, we have a speaker. It feels like Elon Musk is our prime minister.

While some Republicans may view “Prime Minister Musk” as a positive development, Democrats are taunting Trump over Musk’s status. See Real Clear Politics, CNN Panel: Democrats Mock Trump, Joke About "President Musk" On Social Media.

Does any of this matter? And, if so, will it help Democrats?

I think the answers are “Yes,” and “Yes”—over time.

As Musk insinuates himself into the negative agenda of the Trump administration, he will become a soft target for the blame associated with the heartless, greedy, mean-spirited cuts that will be recommended by Musk and Ramaswamy.

Musk is already being blamed for removing two provisions from the bi-partisan continuing resolution negotiated between House Democrats and Republicans. Those provisions relate to (a) restrictions on investments in China and (b) compensation for victims of “deep-fake” pornography on social media sites, like Twitter. The elimination of both of those provisions will make conducting business easier for Musk and his companies.

While Musk probably did not base his opposition to the original CR on the two grounds noted above, his businesses will benefit from the absence of those restrictions, nonetheless. And it is difficult to think of two more opprobrious victories to inure to Musk’s benefit from the continuing resolution debacle.

Media commentators are portraying last week’s drama as a grand plan by Musk to allow Tesla to make unlimited investments in China and Twitter to avoid liability for deep-fake porn on its platform. See, e.g., NBC, House Democrats say GOP caved to Musk in funding bill, protecting his China interests, and NYTimes, The spending deal Musk helped kill included an X-backed bill to help victims of deepfake porn.

It does not matter why Musk opposed the bipartisan continuing resolution. The fact that his opposition makes it easier for Tesla to invest in China and Twitter to avoid liability to victims of deepfake porn are the only two talking points that matter.

And Democrats are making the most of those talking points—as they should. Weakening Musk weakens Trump which weakens the Project 2025 agenda.

Because he has not been elected, Musk is pathologically insensitive to the political blowback from his actions—which means he will continue to promote unpopular initiatives regardless of the political cost. That will hurt Trump and the GOP.

The American public is rightfully skeptical of Musk. See MSNBC, Maddow Blog | Poll: Much of the public disapproves of Elon Musk’s role on Trump’s team.

And, in a hellish feedback loop, Trump will be driven to ever greater heights of outrageousness to draw the spotlight away from Musk and back to Trump.

We may have seen a smidgen of that feedback loop this weekend—when Trump suggested that the US would seize the Panama Canal. See The Intelligencer, Trump Is Threatening to Invade Panama, Take Back Canal.

Trump's initial ridiculous post drew a reprimand from Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino who noted that every inch of Panama is part of a sovereign nation.

Trump then upped his lunacy by posting a photo of the Panama Canal under a US flag with the caption, “Welcome to the US Canal.”

It is difficult to describe the idiocy of Trump's proposal to invade Panama in order to take back control of the canal. The most rational explanation for Trump's ridiculous suggestion is that he is pulling a PR stunt to draw attention away from the fact that he is losing control of the GOP to Musk.

It is tricky to ascribe rational motivations to Trump's actions, so I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong. But we have seen similar behavior from Trump during his first term.

In short, if insecurity over Musk drives Trump to ever more ridiculous antics to regain the spotlight, that is a lose-lose proposition for Trump and a winning proposition for Democrats—if they are aggressive in their messaging.

If my view is correct, then the chaotic battle of egos that we are watching unfold in horror and disbelief contains the seeds of the GOP’s downfall.

But even when viewed through that lens of optimism, the path to victory will be dark, difficult, and painful. The good news is that we have been here before and prevailed. We can do so again.

In candor, our task today is more challenging than in 2017 because of the collapse of legacy media and the surrender of the billionaire class and business leaders. But we are also more organized and experienced than we were in 2017.

We are equal to the task, and we have no choice. Given those facts, there is little benefit to complaining and great advantage to acting.