SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2024
We can't quite answer that question: "It can't happen here," Sinclar Lewis once said.
He didn't exactly mean it! Actually, that was the title of a famous book:
It Can't Happen Here
It Can't Happen Here is a 1935 dystopian political novel by American author Sinclair Lewis. Set in a fictionalized version of the 1930s United States, it follows an American politician, Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, who quickly rises to power to become the country's first outright dictator (in allusion to Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany), and Doremus Jessup, a newspaper editor who sees Windrip's fascist policies for what they are ahead of time and who becomes Windrip's most ardent critic. The novel was adapted into a play by Lewis and John C. Moffitt in 1936.
The novel was published during the heyday of fascism in Europe, which was reported on by Dorothy Thompson, Lewis's wife.
[..]
Since its publication, It Can't Happen Here has been seen as a cautionary tale, starting with the 1936 presidential election and potential candidate Huey Long.
Can (something resembling) it happen here? We'll suppose that the answer is yes.
For ourselves, we'll guess that liberal / progressive name-calling has long since run its course as an antidote to that possibility—as an effective electoral tool. That includes the more simple-minded attempts to say whether one of the current candidates actually is, or actually isn't, "a fascist."
By now, it's way too late for any of this to matter. But for the record, this:
Yesterday, one candidate was, once again, extending his talk about our nation's various "enemies of the people"—a group which is sometimes known as "the enemy from withjn."
He did this yesterday during a boisterous rally in Novi, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. You can see him doing so on the C-Span videotape, starting at minute 38.
What will you see at that point? This is what you'll witness:
You'll see the candidate talking about the reporters who were present to report on his rally, but also to videotape and televise it. This is part of what you'll see this particular candidate say:
UNNAMED CANDIDATE (10/26/24): See now—the camera didn't show that. For all of you at home, you're going to have to come in and watch in person.
Can you imagine? It's so nasty. They're so nasty. They're so evil. They are actually the enemy of the people, they really are. It's so evil.
This time, the candidate was saying that the members of the mainstream press were the people who are "so evil"—who are "the enemy of the people." He was complaining because a (presumably) stationary camera positioned to broadcast his rally hadn't been shifted to show the material on a video screen to which he'd been referring.
You can see him offering the background for this declaration starting at the 23-minute mark of the C-Span videotape. At that point, he shades his eyes as he looks to the back of the room, saying this, as he endlessly does, about the journalists huddled there:
UNNAMED CANDIDATE: You didn't know that because the fake news [shades eyes]—
Whoooaaa! You got a lot of fake news! You got a lot of bad ones back there! Whoa! That's a lot of fakers!
You know, you'd think they'd want their credibility back...
This continues for a while after that. At this point in the day's presentation, the journalists were simply "a lot of bad ones." At the 38-minute mark, it became official again:
The reporters were now described as "the enemy of the people," a bit like Lewis once said.
All across the face of the globe, it's part of the way our imperfect species is wired. We've always been wired to respond, not just to kings and queens, but also to the allure of "the strongman."
Sometimes those strongmen even turn out to be madmen. It has happened all over the globe, and of course it could happen here.
In this case, the enemy of the people in the back of the venue are working for owners who have agreed, in the immediate American context, that this possibility mustn't be discussed.
So it has gone in the current circumstance—including now, as Election Day draws near. Over here in Blue America, we have responded with our unimpressive journalistic leadership and with their pathetic pop guns.
We'll guess that this candidate is going to win, though there's no way to know at this point. With that in mind, a question arises:
How did we ever get to this place? How did we Blues ever get here?
Through what lack of skill—through what lack of self-awareness—have we finally reached this place? How have we finally reached the place where this outcome is thoroughly possible?
We'll be exploring that question in the coming week. For now, let's return to yesterday's question:
Did Marc Thiessen perhaps or possibly get it partially right?
Did he get it right in his column for the Washington Post? We apologize for the aggressive headline atop his piece. But concerning Blue America's latest pop gun, here's what the columnist Thiessen has said:
Harris’s closing argument is dishonest, desperate and hypocritical
[...]
Trump also did not say, as Harris claims, that he would use the American military to go after his political opponents. At her rallies, Harris plays a selectively edited clip of Trump saying in an interview with Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo: “We have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and I think they’re the—and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or if really necessary by the military.” She then tells voters: “So, you heard his words. … He’s talking about that he considers anyone who doesn’t support him or who will not bend to his will an enemy of our country. … He is saying that he would use the military to go after them.”
No, he’s not. The words “in terms of Election Day” are omitted from the clip she plays, to mask the fact that Trump was answering a question about possible Election Day unrest—which he said could be “easily handled” by National Guard. She takes his quote out of context to make it seem he is saying something different than he is.
That’s not just dishonest, it’s hypocritical. As I recall, it was Democrats who accused Trump of violating his oath of office for failing to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Let’s be clear: I’d prefer Trump didn’t talk this way. In addition to being bad for the country, it’s bad politics: Such rhetoric is like fingernails on the chalk board to swing voters. But misrepresenting his words to suggest Trump would use the military to target ordinary Americans who oppose him is far more offensive.
That's how the column ended.
Question! Has Donald J. Trump ever actually said "that he would use the American military to go after his political opponents?" (We're quoting Thiessen's paraphrase.)
We will guess that he probably has! By now, there are very few things this badly disordered person hasn't said. We'll guess that there are things he has said which can be correctly paraphrased that way.
We'll assume he has said such things! But is that what he said to Bartiromo in the interview in question? As readers surely know, this interview has been widely cited all through our Blue American warrens, as our flailing corporate tribunes have fired their pop guns in the latest way.
Is that what he said to Bartiromo? In all honesty, no it isn't! Quite explicitly, he was asked a question about possible "chaos" on Election Day. Quite explicitly, he referred to "Election Day" as he replied to the question.
In that exchange with Bartiromo, he neither said nor suggested that he would "use the military to go after anyone who doesn't support him." In that exchange with Bartiromo, he neither said nor suggested that he would use the military to go after Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, he didn't name any political opponents at all. All in all, it was a nothingburger Q-and-A—a Q-and-A which has been transformed into the latest ineffective attack.
Tina Turner always said she liked it nice and rough. Our corporate multimillionaire tribunes—people like Joe and Mika, but even now Jake Tapper—tend to like it nice and easy.
In the matter of this Q-and-A, they pulled out their pop guns and began to embellish—began to engage in the time-honored practice of creative paraphrase.
Warning! By now, corporate tribunes in Red America are fully aware of this practice! When our tribunes behave this way, the tribunes at the Fox News Channel will in fact swing into action.
They've reported this sort of thing a million times by now. Also, the never tell viewers about the million-and-one disordered things this candidate really has said.
In this way, Red America's minds remain spotless, a little bit like ours.
No one is going to tell you what this candidate said in Novi. No one is going to tell you that he extended his "enemy from within" demonology in the way he did.
The children are lazing around today, happily spending their very large salaries. For ourselves, we'll guess that the Novi nutcase is going to win this year's election, though it's entirely possible that he won't.
How did we ever get to this place? We'll start with that tomorrow. For today, we'll close with embarrassment concerning a point about that one particular Q-and-A which we ourselves haven't cited:
Bartiromo asked the candidate about possible "chaos" on Election Day. The candidate said that, if necessary in the event of such chaos, the National Guard, or even the military, could respond.
This has been presented as a threat about what the candidate might do. That said, he won't be in office on Election Day! If someone decides to call out the military, it of course won't be him!
Is it about to happen here? We can't answer that question.
We can tell you what he said in Novi. As part of the way we've earned our way out, you'll hear it nowhere else!
Starting tomorrow: How we Blues managed to get here
Since this nightmare started, Bob Somerby has derided all the people who got this right, as he does here. If Trump were a tobacco company, he would give him every break because of the tiny writing on the side of the pack. Because some of his Republican friends are at least outward kind and decent people, he behaves with great indignation at
ReplyDeletethe suggestion that they are the root problem here (sadly, they are). From boarder crossing rapists to Hunter, he has given them every break.
Citizens like Bob who have done all they can to look the other way at Trump’s violent attempt to overthrow the government have been stupid and irresponsible. If the worst happens next month these
people should be at the top of
list of people to blame. I know of
no other writer more consistent
In their refusal to admit they got
something wrong than Bob
Somerby. And no one has gotten
more wrong in all of this than
Bob.
Bob's been right much more often than he's been wrong. There is nothing inaccurate or misleading in what he wrote today. His point today, as it often is, is that when Democrats make misleading presentations (as they've done with the Bartiromo interview), not only are they being sloppy at best, dishonest at worst, they're potentially shooting themselves in the foot.
DeleteIn case there was any doubt, yes, Trump is lying:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVPkY8W7WwQ
Democrats were not discussing Bartiromo's interview but Trump's fascism. The many examples beyond Bartiromo's question, which elicited an undeniably fascist response, no matter whether the election example was used or not, illustrate that Trump has generalized and is willing to go far beyond defending polling places with his use of the military to achieve his political goals. No one here yapping about Bartiromo has acknowledged that Trump has said this stuff on many occasions, explicitly identifying who he would target as enemies.
DeleteThe most important Democrat in the country at the moment gave a misleading account of the Bartiromo interview.
Delete"many examples beyond Bartiromo's question." Exactly right, which makes it all the more dumb/ unnecessary to resort to a misleading account of the Bartiromo interview.
Oh, my bad. Used the wrong example of Trump’s fascism.
DeleteNo denial of his fascism here.
But using the “wrong” example, wow, that’s worse than anything.
John Kelly described Trump as fascist. That’s gotten a lot of press. But hey, according to BS and trolls, the bartiromo interview didn’t show that. Yeah, sure.
"Can (something resembling) it happen here? We'll suppose that the answer is yes.
ReplyDeleteFor ourselves, we'll guess that liberal / progressive name-calling has long since run its course as an antidote to that possibility—as an effective electoral tool. That includes the more simple-minded attempts to say whether one of the current candidates actually is, or actually isn't, "a fascist."
Normally when Somerby poses a question to which he doesn't know the answer, he doesn't make an assumption. He says "we don't know" and "anything is possible." Today he makes a supposition and accepts that it could happen here, after quoting a famous book that warned American that fascism could arise in our country, as it was doing in Europe. So, it is possible for Somerby to agree that something could happen, when it suits his rhetorical needs.
But then Somerby goes on to chide the left/progressive writers who are trying, like Sinclair Lewis, to warn the American voters that fascism is a danger, even in our Democracy. But instead of recognizing that these cries on the left are warnings, Somerby dismisses them as name-calling and returns to his old complaint that the left is causing the very thing it warns against, the very thing that it decries -- the rise of fascism by objecting to, exposing and warning against that very same fascism.
That makes no sense, but it puts Somerby once again on the wrong side, warning the left not to mock or criticize right wing fascists because, why exactly? They won't like it? It makes them mad and then they get more fascist? And then comes the defense of Trump and others against criticism by the left. And that fights fascism, how? Somerby doesn't really say.
I don't think you can fight fascism without alerting the people to the danger and warning them about how it happens elsewhere. I think Harris and others are right to point out that what Trump has been saying out loud that he will do, if elected, if dangerous, has a precedent in Hitler and others in fascist Europe, and is wrong and must be opposed. I am glad that Harris is telling the truth using the most descriptive terms. And I am unsurprised that Somerby is back to defending Trump and his ratty asshole minions. He shows today that he knows better, and yet he does it anyway.
For years, various ones of us have pushed back against the two annoying Somerby haters' deliberate misreadings of his posts. And yet they just keep pumping the shit out, day after day after day, multiple shit comments under every post. So it's obviously a waste of time and effort to reply. Nonetheless, let's.
Delete"warning the left not to mock or criticize right wing fascists" No where does Somerby say or imply this. He disagrees with the specific WAY in which the left is going about it -- for example, via a misleading presentation of the Bartiromo interview.
"And then comes the defense of Trump and others against criticism by the left." Somerby is not defending Trump. He is criticizing the misleading presentation of the Bartiromo interview. Not only is it misleading, but it could ultimately end up backfiring.
"I don't think you can fight fascism without alerting the people to the danger and warning them about how it happens elsewhere." No where does Somerby say or imply that we shouldn't be alerting people about the danger Trump poses. Once again, he disagrees with the way the Dems and the media have been going about it in the last few days. Instead of the misleading representation of that interview, Bob thinks there is plenty of material to work with, one example of which he points out -- i.e., Trump's "enemy of the people" remarks.
""warning the left not to mock or criticize right wing fascists" No where does Somerby say or imply this. He disagrees with the specific WAY in which the left is going about it"
DeleteSince when is "disagreeing with the specific way in which something is done" not criticism? Somerby is clearly criticizing the left for calling Trump a fascist. Trump is clearly a fascist, no matter how Bartiromo phrased her question. Somerby is not the one pointing that out -- his many commenters here have listed the other times and places where Trump called for using the military to deal with his political opponents -- the people he cals "enemies of the people," including the press. When Somerby pretends that Trump did say these things, he is defending Trump from accusations of fascism.
You are welcome to believe and say whatever you want, but commenters are also welcome to disagree with you, and with Somerby.
"Since when is 'disagreeing with the specific way in which something is done' not criticism?" You're either confused or dishonest. Judging from your original post, I'm guessing it's the latter. No one said that disagreeing with the way in which something is done isn't criticism. If you're confused, I would recommend reading more carefully.
Delete"Somerby is clearly criticizing the left for calling Trump a fascist." No one said otherwise.
"Trump is clearly a fascist, no matter how Bartiromo phrased her question." If he's CLEARLY a fascist (which I think he is), this just bolsters Somerby's point even further: we don't need to rely on a misleading account of an interview to make the case, since there are so many other damning things we can point to.
"Somerby is not the one pointing that out." What? Did someone claim he was?
"his many commenters here have listed the other times and places where Trump called for using the military to deal with his political opponents -- the people he calls "enemies of the people," including the press.
"When Somerby pretends that Trump did [not] say these things, he is defending Trump from accusations of fascism." No where does Somerby pretend that Trump didn't say these things. And no where does he defend Trump.
"Did he get it right in his column for the Washington Post?"
ReplyDeleteNo, Thiessen got it wrong.
He gets it wrong when he says that Trump never said he would use American troops against the American people. That is a lie. I believe Kelly when he describes the various times Trump had to be persuaded not to use troops against protesters and explained why he couldn't shoot border crossers using the National Guard. Trump's plan to use such Troops to deport people living in the US is illegal too, fascist and wrong. And yes, he has said that one too. I've heard him say it.
Thiessen makes a big deal about omitting the words "in terms of election day" from a clip, but that makes no difference. It is not OK to use those troops against American people "in terms of election day" or on Christmas or on his birthday. It is not permitted, period. And it is certainly not allowed to use American troops to shore up a victory in an election Trump thinks he may lose, as Thiessen seems to think makes a difference, judging by his complaint against an omitted phrase. There is no context where it is OK.
And now Somerby is back to complaining about that Bartiromo interview, ignoring the other times and places where Trump has said the same thing, where there was no omitted phrase and his intent and meaning were clear about who he considers to be the enemy within, his political opponents, and what he would do to them.
It is unclear whether Thiessen got this argument from Somerby, or whether they both got the same argument from right wing sources as a talking point. Somerby is marching along with Thiessen on this one, and it is a right wing argument. This is far from the first time Somerby has echoed some esoteric point being made by the right, while claiming to be a liberal. Nor is it the first time the NY Times has touted Republican views and given a platform to right wing perspectives, and Somerby will be along later to call them the blue media, Blue America's voice and such nonsense (this is an editorial). If it aids and supports Trump's election, it is red, right wing, Republican, MAGA and not anything blue, whether Somerby offers convoluted nonsense about how Harris is electing Trump with her attacks on him, or not.
Unlike @11:40, I think it IS OK to use American troops against Americans, in certain dire circumstances. E.g., I would have been happy to see the National Guard used to quell the riots on Jan 6. I would have been happy to see the National Guard used to quell some of the riots related to the murder of George Floyd before a number of black neighborhoods were burned to the ground and destroyed. YMMV
DeleteTo quell the riots on Jan 6? You mean the ones incited by Trump? Why didn’t he, our Dear Leader, call out the guard, David?
DeleteAlso, the national guard were deployed in many locations, by governors, in the wake of the George Floyd protests.
The riots of Jan 6? You mean the ones Trump said were full of love, never happened, and executed by patriot victims?
DeleteWe're not talking about the National Guard right now, David. We're talking about the active duty Army.
Delete
ReplyDelete"The reporters were now described as "the enemy of the people," a bit like Lewis once said."
If the reporters -- the reporters -- were described as "the enemy of the people", it certainly didn't happen in any of the quotes you provided. Sadly, you're acting deranged, Bob. TDS is a serious mental illness.
???
DeleteAs quoted by Bob in today's post:
Delete"See now—the camera didn't show that. For all of you at home, you're going to have to come in and watch in person.
Can you imagine? It's so nasty. They're so nasty. They're so evil. They are actually the enemy of the people, they really are. It's so evil."
After invoking the 'camera' he is thereafter referring to the press in attendance.
Are you implying that "the press in attendance" are "the reporters"?
Delete"Tina Turner always said she liked it nice and rough."
ReplyDeleteThis is a line from Tina's stage intro to the song Proud Mary. It does not refer to sex and it is certainly taken out of context when Somerby quotes it here. He perhaps likes the irony of quoting something out of context while complaining about a Trump quote supposed taken out of context itself. But taking a song intro and applying it to sex (switching the context in which the sentence was said), is not the same as leaving out a phrase that does nothing to change the wrongness of Trump's statement.
Here Somerby is also baiting women and especially feminists, as he has done before. For those who may not remember, Tina Turner was being physically abused by her husband, Ike Turner. That abuse was described in a book she wrote and was part of a biopic made about her life. This sentence lifted by Somerby from a song, is sometimes raised by abusive husbands accused of beating their wives. And Somerby loves to blame the victim when women accuse men of wrongdoing.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/tina-turner-ike-domestic-abuse-survivors-1234741396/
Why quote this here in this context? Perhaps it is Somerby's way of reminding us that bitches be lyin', even when it is Harris telling us that Trump is a danger to our democracy. Ike Turner also abused cocaine most of his life and he was not a nice guy. But he's a bro and Somerby will defend anyone in pants, obviously, since he has climbed way out on this limb in support of Trump.
U trippin?
DeleteDemocrats are evil, immoral, hateful, racist fascists who have tried as hard as they can to imprison and murder their political opponent and censor the people, identifying speech they don't like as "misinformation" and "hate."
ReplyDeleteFortunately Elon Musk bought X.
This is what trolls write when they have nothing better to say.
Delete"Bartiromo asked the candidate about possible "chaos" on Election Day. The candidate said that, if necessary in the event of such chaos, the National Guard, or even the military, could respond."
ReplyDeleteSomerby pretends that this is the only situation where Trump has tried to use Troops against political enemies (protesters for example) when Kelly described several occasions while Trump was in office. There have also been repeated threats to use the military against his so-called enemy within, who Trump has defined a political opponents, the press, voters and election officials (if he thinks they cheated). He has also discussed using the military to round up suspected immigrants (legal and otherwise) for deportation, even going door-to-door to find them. Somerby ignores all of those other occasions and situations where Trump has promised to use the military against the people of this country.
Somerby is being dishonest today (as he was on the previous days when he has advanced this specious argument). We liberals are not fooled because we read the news and know about Trump's other statements. When Harris talks about this, she is not referring to Bartiromo's show and the clip presented is not misleading but merely shortened, because Trump has not limited his fantasy about using the military to election chaos on voting day. Nor is he allowed to use the troops that way during an election either, as when he ran in 2020 and tried to stay in office using force.
Trump did not offer that hypothetical but instead just blathered on about using troops on Bartiromo's show. Trying to insert that context back into Trump's answer, when he didn't say it, is Somerby's chore, a form of sane-washing Trump's mistakes that has been deplored when the NY Times does it. Today Thiessen and Somerby are doing that same sane-washing and it doesn't work because they can't take back everything he has said on the subject, statements that make his fascist intent clear.
ReplyDeleteYou sound conspicuously like Adolf Hitler, Bob. Are you Adolf Hitler?
More gibberish.
DeleteHere's some more:
Delete"Our corporate multimillionaire tribunes—people like Joe and Mika, but even now Jake Tapper—tend to like it nice and easy."
What is wrong with "nice and easy"? I don't get Somerby's references here. Not everyone has to be a rough sex freak, as an analogy that doesn't really work applied to whatever Somerby is saying here. Now nice (generally a positive word) is suddenly bad and easy is wrong? Are we supposed to think that because it is so obvious that Trump is a fascist bully who wants to use violence for political purposes, that this must not be true? Is there any complexity to Trump's unsubtle self-presentation as a fly-weight Mussolini wannabe? If there is no complexity in Trump's behavior, there is no need for any in the press analysis of who and what Trump is.
DeleteTrump is a horrible person, a petty tyrant, a criminal, liar, cheat, rapist, convicted felon, and a thief. He cheats at golf, he cheats on his wives, he is mean to his children, he dislikes pets, he is so self-involved he isn't aware other people are real, including his wife. There is nothing whatsoever to recommend Trump as a presidential candidate, given the unnecessary deaths he caused during covid, his inability to manage the country effectively, and the way he made the US a laughing stock in the world. He set us back in dealing with climate change and he sold out our country to Putin. And he created an atmosphere of hate and deep discord among our own people. We don't need Trump. And we don't need MAGA bullies imiting his violence at the polls.
Vote early, vote Harris. You don't need Jake Tapper or Elon Musk to make this decision. It is so incredibly obvious, that choosing Harris should be as nice and easy as it gets. And that is not a bad thing.
Bob sounds like Hitler.
ReplyDeleteWe can't be sure if he's just like Hitler until he tries to hold a rally at Madison Square Garden and we see that many people come to the rally.
Then we'll know he's really and truly just like Hitler, because a well-attended event at Madison Square Garden is unmistakably sign that someone is literally Hitler.
I will desperately scream this fact to these people who resist the truth about Hitler and Madison Square Garden, and it will be very effective.
The question you have to ask is why Democratic government officials like Senator Holyman-Sigal were not successful in their effort to get this event shut down.
DeleteWhere are our strong leaders who will prevent people like Trump from speaking to large crowds. What right does he have to do it?
DeleteYes. And why is Adolf Hitler pretending to be "Bob Somerby" is allowed to poison the minds of innocent Americans?
You can't run a country where Adolf Hitler pretending to be "Bob Somerby" is allowed to poison the minds. The center won't hold. This is why we can't have nice things. Think of the children.
This nonsense doesn't change a thing about Somerby touting Trump today.
DeleteNo surprise: Democrat Nazis immediately jump in defense of their fuhrer.
DeleteSomerby is not a nazi or fuhrer. Trump is a fascist and so are the Russian oligarchs funding his campaign and subverting Musk.
DeleteThere is nothing as ironic and delightful as Democrats worrying that Trump is going to go after all of his enemies in order to put them in jail.
DeleteThe only thing that could make it more fabulous is if they truly believed it for one minute.
Lord, just for one minute.
Clearly, following Cecelia’s logic, we should regard Trump as a virtue signaling liar. Great. Vote for that.
DeleteA lot of Jews never believed Hitler would do what he did. It didn’t stop Hitler. I think it is better to prevent and protect ourselves than to rely on Trump’s impulse control.
DeleteCan you believe these people? We have a presidential candidate whipping up hatred of minority groups, especially undocumented immigrants, explicitly talking about rounding them up into camps, in one interview talking about how the process will likely have to get "bloody," using Hitlerian language like "they're poisoning the blood" of the country. This same candidate has said bizarrely positive things about Hitler and his generals, and about many other brutal autocrats (Putin, Orban, Xi). He has called for the termination of the constitution to address his outrageous lie that the election was stolen. Senior members of his administration have issued warnings about the danger he poses to the country. He has broken national security laws. He's a convicted felon. He has undermined the rule of law in multiple ways. He engaged in various schemes to overturn the results of a fair election, culminating in his inciting a mob to attack the capitol, while he did nothing for three hours. And people like the original commenter above and Cecelia make jokes about people who are concerned about all of this? Are you serious? Who's being delusional here?
DeleteIn 2016, Trump ran in large part on "lock her up." It wasn't just campaign rhetoric.
Delete"The cascade of election coverage, commentary and speculation about how Donald Trump might use the power of the presidency to retaliate against his perceived political enemies has overlooked important context: Trump has done just that, while he was president, at least a dozen times.
What follows is a chronological list of specific instances in which the former president in fact used the Department of Justice and other levers of government power — including by directly, publicly or privately, pressuring officials — to target his chosen political adversaries. The record includes several cases in which he apparently succeeded more than might be imagined or remembered [...]
1. Trump asks then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse” himself to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton [...]
2. Trump publicly scolds Justice Department for not investigating Clinton.
Date: November 2017 [...]
3. Sessions directs US Attorney for Utah John W. Huber to investigate Hillary Clinton and Uranium One conspiracy
Date: November 2017 to January 2020 [...]
4. Criminal investigation of the Clinton Foundation
Date: On or before January 2018 to January 2021 [...]
5. Criminal investigation and near-prosecution of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe
Date: March 16, 2018-February 14, 2020 [...]
6. Trump demands investigation into his debunked “Spygate” conspiracy theory
Date: May 20, 2018 [...]
7. Trump privately told White House Counsel he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute James Comey and Hillary Clinton
Date: Spring 2018 [...]
8. Trump publicly urges Sessions to investigate a long list of perceived political enemies
Date: Aug. 23, 2018 [...]
9. The Durham investigation: Directed at law enforcement and intelligence officials, as well as Hillary Clinton
Date: April 18, 2019 to May 2023 [...]
11. Criminal investigations of Comey
First Date: uncertain — August 2019
Second Date: From at least January 2020 – December 2020/January 2021
12. Trump threatens to prosecute Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger if he doesn’t overturn his election defeat in Georgia
Date: Jan. 2, 2021
"Conclusion: “Weaponization,” Real and Imagined
DeleteWhen Trump’s allies accuse the Justice Department of “weaponization,” they generally are not referring to the examples during his presidency. Our list does not even include Trump’s pressure on the Justice Department to stop criminal investigations into himself or his associates, nor does it include pressure on U.S. attorneys that led to at least three ousters: two in the Southern District of New York and one in the Northern District of Georgia.
This deeper understanding of the past events is not simply about Trump himself. It is also a lesson in how political leaders then and now choose to overlook or excuse it. How some of the best fact checkers don’t account for it. And how American institutions have not fully reckoned with it."
h/t Quaker. https://www.justsecurity.org/98703/chronology-trump-justice-department/
"Legal experts said that there are few guardrails preventing Trump from pursuing his plans to prosecute opponents and noted that Trump pressured the Department of Justice to investigate rivals during his first term. In about a dozen cases, the Justice Department followed through and initiated investigations, according to one analysis."
ReplyDelete“START ARRESTING THE POLL WORKERS AND WATCH HOW FAST THEY TELL YOU WHO TOLD THEM TO CHEAT,” reads a message Trump reposted on social media in 2023.
ReplyDeleteChronology of a Dozen Times Trump Pushed to Prosecute His Perceived Enemies
ReplyDeleteThe cascade of election coverage, commentary and speculation about how Donald Trump might use the power of the presidency to retaliate against his perceived political enemies has overlooked important context: Trump has done just that, while he was president, at least a dozen times.
Read the rest here.
But, Oh! We Blues!
ReplyDeleteSomerby is now throwing around that reference to the film "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" after explaining that the film was about brainwashing. That isn't strictly true, and when Somerby uses this reference as a shortcut to meaning, he is misleading his readers.
ReplyDeleteIn the film, a procedure was done voluntarily to erase memories. That is perhaps akin to what happened in The Manchurian Candidate, except that the erasure was to cover up hypnotic meddling that would affect behavior and cause a soldier to shoot a candidate for president on command.
What happened in the Spotless Mind movie was that two people voluntarily asked for a procedure to remove unpleasant memories. The procedure was science fiction and doesn't exist in real life, but the result was akin to what happens in therapeutic treatment for PTSD, where traumatic flashbacks are interfering with someone's life.
Here, Somerby talks about it as if anyone were brainwashed (without knowledge or consent) and thus had their minds stolen and could not make their own decisions and choose their own behavior. And then Somerby extends that reference to excluding or omitting information from an essay, where the author always has the ability to decide what to write and what to leave out, in every single written piece ever. There is no gaslighting and no brainwashing when an author chooses what to write and what not to write -- that is editorial choice and discretion, judgment, not Spotless Mindlessness.
It is annoying when Trump's makes oblique stream-of-consciousness allusions to things personal to himself, where no one else can follow what he means, even if they do try to fill-in-the-blanks. It is just as annoying when Somerby does the same thing. Nothing about the film is relevant to this quibble over how much was left out of Bartiromo's questioning, on one occasion. Tossing in these off-target references does not bolster Somerby's argument. It makes him seem as demented as Trump, or any other unfortunate street-person walking and mumbling words that make no sense to anyone else.
Was Hannibal Lecter an illegal immigrant? How could he be, when he didn't exist outside the film, where he was definitely not an illegal immigrant, although he did other illegal things. So why does Trump keep bringing him up? For the pleasure of talking about a fellow-sociopath? Why did Somerby bring up Tina Turner? For the pleasure of recalling another woman who was beaten up regularly and could do nothing about it until she wrote a memoir? But Somerby wants us to remember Tina's suffering, to grind our noses in it, just as Trump wants us to know that there were other men, like himself, who could commit murder on 5th Avenue and no one would mind.
Are you doing some kind of performance art? You can't be serious.
DeleteSimple applause will suffice.
DeleteOk, so it IS performance art. I can't applaud, I think it sucks.
DeleteToday's NYTimes Review section today has a big, main headline saying that Trump threatens to prosecute his political opponents. This is misleading, because he threatened to prosecute his political opponents if they cheat in the election.
ReplyDeleteMisleading political coverage makes me sad, but particularly when it's the NYTimes. I've been reading the Times for 70 years. Their decline into misleading partisanship is a tragedy.
To a Democrat, Trump's political opponents who cheat in the election are heroes.
ReplyDeleteDon’t be stupid.
ReplyDeleteTrump lies about the cheating and he knows there is no evidence — that means wants to persecute people just for opposing him. The cheating is a big lie.
ReplyDeleteDavid, Trump has said many times that the members of the January 6 Select Committee should be prosecuted and jailed. Did they "cheat in an election"?
ReplyDeleteTrump has labeled many, many actions "illegal campaign interference," and I'll wager that the work of the committee would fit under that very large tent.
"A memo circulating among at least half a dozen advisers to former President Donald J. Trump recommends that if he is elected, he bypass traditional background checks by law enforcement officials and immediately grant security clearances to a large number of his appointees after being sworn in, according to three people briefed on the matter," the report says. "The proposal is being promoted by a small group including Boris Epshteyn, a top legal adviser to Mr. Trump who was influential in its development, according to the three people."
ReplyDeleteFrom Quaker's link above:
ReplyDelete“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Trump wrote on May 20, 2018.
The same guy who directed his DOJ to investigate his predecessor, President Obama, subsequently ran to the corrupt SC6 claiming as an ex president he had complete and total immunity from criminal prosecution.
"he (Trump) threatened to prosecute his political opponents (only) if they cheat in the election."
ReplyDeleteThis is a meaningless distinction.
DIC has scrubbed his mind clean of these facts:
Trump accused Cruz of cheating when he lost to him in the Iowa primary in 2016;
Trump said he lost the popular vote to Hillary only because of illegal immigrants' voting;
and of course he said Biden cheated in 2020.
If he loses, it's from cheating. If he doesn't win by enough, it's from cheating. And even if the margin is big enough, he'll say they cheated but he overcame it.
In addition to death and taxes, we can be sure of one other thing: Trump will be cheated in an election.
This Trump rally is electric. Astonishing energy.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder Democrats tried to shut it down.
No one tried to shut it down, but it was a massive shit show, so maybe the Republicans should have shut it down. Here’s some if the energy coming from that Kundgebung:
Delete“There’s a lot going on. I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico”
Great stuff. Chef’s kiss.
Oh no, not a humorless scolding Democrat woman whose weekend was ruined by a comic.
DeleteThis is why Trump is winning.
I tend to agree that Trump will be elected because the Democrats often don’t come across as genuine. This blog post shows a good example. Trump's statement was about election day. But Democrats tried to turn into something bigger. Same with the bloodbath quote, the fine people quote, the dictator quote and on and on. They misrepresent that Barr lied, that Russiagate found collusion and on and on. It's disingenuous. They think things are true of they just say them. That tactic has really caught up to them. If Trump was the threat they claim, why would they have to be repeatedly disingenuous and feigning moral outrage at their misrepresentations? Feigning moral outrage and repeated disingenuous paraphrasing is a tell. People can smell it. Harris's loss will have a hundred fathers of course but I do think this aspect is one of the bigger ones. Democrats can seek to refrain from using it again in future campaigns if the party itself survives this loss, which I doubt it will.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/7ocpoFOy8cI?t=540
More lies in a comment that is unresponsive to what anyone else here has written, the evidence of Trump's other statements posted here in comments.
DeleteWhy would someone have so many ugly quotes that they have to disavow in the first place? Better candidates don't have this constant cleanup operation because they don't say things that need explaining, where a couple of words make a difference between being a fascist or not. Trump has too many of these "misunderstandings" to be worth electing to office again. As Kelly has explained, he was constantly having to talk Trump out of misusing his power and abusing the rights of the people.
For example, what does this mean: "Democrats can seek to refrain from using it again in future campaigns if the party itself survives this loss"?
I can understand a candidate losing an election, but in what circumstance with an entire political party not survive a loss? Is this yahoo suggesting that the Democrats will be wiped out as a party if Harris loses? The only way that can happen is if Trump and his cronies seize power and destroy their enemies, using the military if needed. And that is exactly what Somerby and his fanboys have been arguing is all a big misunderstanding -- Trump would never do that.
Are you perhaps saying the quiet part out loud?
Democrats haven't shut anything down in Madison Square Garden, but I have heard (and seen video) showing Trump's fans leaving early, as usual.
DeleteWhen people leave an event early like that, it is because they want to say they were there, but they don't like actually being there. Is there some MAGA status or supervisor or attendance taker who they have to please by proving they attended? Who are these people trying to please. This is weirdly like the way the Nazis monitored the behavior of everyday people to make sure they were worshipping Hitler properly and not speaking (or organizing) against him.
DeleteI read a fascinating biography of the experiences of a Vichy French woman who was sent to a work camp because she named her family pig "Hitler" as a joke. Are we coming to the time when failure to show up for Der Trump's rallies will be a crime punishable in some unpleasant way (such as by loss of a job or one's MAGA friends, or fine or tarriff)?
@9:39 exactly right. This race could have been won. Kamala Harris is a terrible candidate but there was no other choice given that she was VP. The campaign should have kept her under wraps as much as possible and coached her to be less abrasive and insulting on the occasions she did appear which should have been limited to rallies.
DeleteThe Trump rage is stale and people are immune to the insults and cry wolf outrage. "Literally Hitler" was never going to work and neither was "old" or "decline" because he was out there every day for people to see and evaluate.
Whoever gave Kamala the advice to conduct a Hillary 2.0 campaign should be fired. It was even worse because it added in phony performances of "normal" that people saw right through. She should have been calm, friendly, and palatable and let that contrast work for her. Mocking, gloating over the prosecutions, and attacks especially after he was shot all helped him.
7:10 Go ahead and try to convince yourself that democrats aren't hoping for a lot more of the shit show that occurred in MSG tonight.
DeletePolitical parties don't last forever. I think the loss coming in 9 days may be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. Democrats gave up on the working class as is well documented and have always taken blacks for granted. But by now, they have lost the working class, lost blacks, lost Hispanics, lost the youth, and gained Dick Cheney, David Frum, Robert Kagan, and the entire right wing, neocon establishment. These new "Democrats" are the party of established elites, the party of moral scolds, pro censorship, pro CIA, pro empire, pro business etc. They became Republicans. Republicans of a certain type are not going back to Trump's party. And they are not going to stand for elites of the Democratic Party, the DNC etc fumbling these elections and running such hapless candidates and campaigns. These Republican cast offs are going to want more power and will take control over this new pro-business, pro-war, anti-worker party, rebrand it and kick the DNC idiots to the curb. These idiots who spent all of their time trying to brand Trump a racist for something he said that people can check on Youtube and see is a blatantly disingenuous paraphrase.
DeleteYou think Dick Cheney is just going to sit there and let the people who ran the 2024 campaign sort out the loss and try again? Fucking no way.
Trump will rebrand his party and the right wing neo-con faction will take over the what is now called the Democratic Party and call it something else. Maybe the Republican Party.
What is a pussy like you going to do about it when they do? Where the fuck are you going to go? The neocons know you have no balls and no backbone. They will push this Democratic Party out. And you can go with them or go with Trump.
It's very natural and has happened over and over again throughout history.
Liberal Man meets Conservative Man
Conservative Man wears his myth on his skin
Liberal Man has to explain his and keeps his shirt all buttoned up
Conservative Man greets Liberal Man with a well-rehearsed cold stare
Liberal Man replies by issuing forth horseshit
Conservative Man retaliates by taking the concrete reality of the
situation and lodging it, like a wedge, right between both sides of
Liberal Man's brain
Liberal Man is caught off gaurd by this apparent non-abstraction
There is one full minute of confusion
Liberal Man becomes Conservative Man
Conservative Man becomes Liberal Man
War is declared
Liberal Man cheats by calling in reinforcements
Conservative Man is set upon by a mob and murdered
Said mob then turns on Liberal Man and he dies a broken man
You keep saying Harris is a terrible candidate but she is so much better than Trump and the consensus is her campaign has been flawless in the 100 days she had available to run. I did forget to mention Trump’s age and dementia. That alone should disqualify him. I am beginning to wonder if MAGAs know how to read.
DeleteA for imagination, F for realism. Written by someone who has never met a liberal or conservative, perhaps in Eastern Europe. Where do the women fit in your fantasy? Conservatism will surely die out because no woman will ever touch those guys.
DeleteThey've already turned you into a Republican without you even knowing it! You are supporting a candidate that is anti-worker, pro censorship, pro military-industrial complex, pro corporate, pro elite.
DeleteReally, the Democratic party is already over. It ended in the last 16 years. When the current set of elites at the top, the DNC etc are pushed out after this forthcoming loss, we'll see if a rebranding takes place. Maybe they'll keep the name to make rubes like yourself happy. We'll see.
You're supporting a candidate that runs around the country with Liz Cheney. That tells you everything you need to know. You're supporting a right wing neo conservative party. And you don't even realize it. That's How good they are at fooling gullible people like yourself.
Delete“ruined by a comic. “
DeleteTell that to Rick Scott, aka senator Medicare fraud. He felt the need to push back against the Puerto Rico “jokes”. Lots of Puerto Ricans in Florida.
@10:44 - Yes Kamala is a weak candidate. Bob sometimes gives her the excuse that she had an abbreviated campaign. I think Bob has it backwards. It some time for the public to see how weak she is. if she had been nominated in the middle of October, she'd be way ahead.
DeleteThere is a voter type that will join forces with the anti-union, anti-free speech, pro-war, pro-corporate party as long as we keep the abortions flowing and agree to surgically maim teenagers. It controls the dying Democratic Party.
DeleteYou're right DinCA. Too much forced joy. Unsustainable fraudulence. The "joyful warrior" and "weird" contrivances were easily noticed and rejected by an electorate that is smarter than her campaign strategists.
Delete"What is a pussy like you going to do about it when they do?"
DeleteIt takes a real tough hombre to call someone a pussy with an anonymous online comment.
"Kamala is a weak candidate."
DeleteYou know who else was a weak candidate? Biden. Luckily, his opponent was a lot weaker.
"after he was shot"
DeleteI've cut myself shaving way worse than his 'shot' wound.
“ Kamala is a weak candidate. ”
DeleteThat’s why Trump is so far ahead in the polls, um, … never mind.
@Anon 12:40
DeleteYou were shaving and nicked your ear?
UR doin it rong!
10:45 makes a good point
DeleteAll the things Democrats accuse Trump of doing, have nothing at all to do with the bigotry that Republican voters crave, like children crave ice cream.
Call out the troops. Not call out the troops. Slurp Putin's taint. None of these things matter in the big picture. What does matter is that Republican voters only care about bigotry and white supremacy, obviously.
"They've already turned you into a Republican without you even knowing it! You are supporting a candidate that is anti-worker, pro censorship, pro military-industrial complex, pro corporate, pro elite."
DeleteThat seems like a mirror of Republican ideology, but without the open bigotry, so running as a Republican wouldn't get them any votes.
Cryptocurrency prices have suddenly surged. People ask if now is the best time to invest? before jumping into conclusion i think you should take a look at things first. BTC price is gearing for a massive move upwards, even though the crypto market has been recording many downturns this 2024, the instrument seems to hold its ground. Investors who bought early are still in profit despite the recent price crash and they also earn by trading. There has been a lot of interest in BTC trading, many investors and newbies are actively engaging in the trade on platforms where they can accumulate more profit. We should follow the way of earning more regardless of the current market (bulls or bears), which is trading. Buy the dip now and trade, I have been able to recover all my lost crypto/funds and made $10,000-$20,000 profits not just by buying the dip but implementing trades with signals supplied by my broker Mr Bernie Doran, his trading signals and strategies are 100% accurate . He can be reached on Gmail : Berniedoransignals@gmail.com or WhatsApp : +1(424)285-0682
ReplyDeleteWhy is every news network carrying a Trump event in a state he has no chance of winning?
ReplyDeleteHate turns people off, including in NYC:
ReplyDelete"Donald Trump held a controversial rally on Sunday at Madison Square Garden in New York, and his own fans were reportedly "streaming for the exists" while he was still speaking.
Trump spurred outrage among historians by holding his rally at the same location as an infamous 1930s Nazi gathering amid allegations from those who worked closely with him that he is a fascist who wanted his own generals to be more like Adolf Hitler's loyal military leaders. The rally itself featured a speaker who made a comment that was disavowed by Trump's campaign and his closest allies.
The event was so steeped with rhetoric perceived as racist that Trump-supporting Meghan McCain said it could "backfire" and cost him the election.
Some of Trump's own supporters may have been fed up with the rhetoric, as well, because many of them were leaving while he was still speaking, according to CNN politics reporter D.J. Judd.
"We’re about an hour into former President Donald Trump’s much-ballyhooed Madison Square Garden remarks— but Trump took the stage about two hours late," Judd reported. "Perhaps mindful of how late it’s getting, supporters have begun streaming for the exits, even though he’s still speaking."
Vice President Kamala Harris' director of rapid response, Ammar Moussa, responded to that report, saying, "Oof."
"Even Trump supporters are tired of his long rambling performances focused entirely on himself," Moussa said Sunday.
Artist Art Candee also weighed in on the reported development, saying, "People left Donald Trump's sad hate rally early at Madison Square Garden."
"Kamala Harris, she just she got 85 million votes because she’s just so impressive as the first Samoan, Malaysian, low IQ, former California prosecutor ever to be elected president, it was just a groundswell of popular support, nd anyone who thinks otherwise is just a freak or a criminal,” Carlson mocked. "
ReplyDeleteSomeone buy that man an atlas. South Asian refers to India. South Pacific refers to Samoa (which is an American territory with citizens who have the vote).
I do not understand why Trump would allow these surrogates at his rally to toss away the votes of Puerto Rican and Samoan citizens like that. If he thinks he can win a national election without any brown-skinned voters, he can't do math. He tossed away the women's vote, and the golfers' vote and that isn't going to leave him enough white male bigots to win, even in the just the electoral college. Is he planning to steal the election with only the 6 votes on the Supreme Court? It seems like it.
Kamala Harris was first a prosecutor in San Francisco, then she was elected District Attorney of San Francisco, then she was elected Attorney General of the State of California, then she was elected to congress as Senator of the State of California (serving on the Judiciary Committee), then she was elected Vice President on the ticket with Joe Biden and has served three years in that capacity. Notice how much of this Tucker Carlson left out. He has to cook the books to disparage her, because she is that impressive.
DeleteNo one is impressed by her and they should have taken that into account for the strategy. She still could have won if perceived as a benign puppet but she made herself an object of ridicule because she tried to fill in the blanks of her vapidity with fake performances of "tough prosecutor" and "mom" even though her step kids were grown by the time she married. They should have also hidden away her husband who hits women.
DeleteIf only the Democrats would nominate a self pitying whining bully who gropes and rapes women, a la Donald Trump, how much easier it would have been for them.
Delete100:49 Agreed, not the best candidate, but there is never going to be a better candidate for xenophobic and racist douchebags who would tan their balls if Tucker Carlson told them to. It's just in the baked in nature of Trump supporters that Trump calling their country a garbage can and an effeminate tool like Carlson extolling the Russian Military and Moscow grocery stores gets them nodding approvingly. They are some version of patriotic, the version that has no qualms about a demented narcissistic grifter spitting on the graves of fallen soldiers and calling out gold star families. They are the basket of deplorables that cannot imagine a better candidate than Trump, and in the event of one would laugh approvingly at misogynistic and racist commentary about her if she happened to be a biracial female. That likely being you, go fuck yourself.
DeleteHarris is such a bad candidate that she crushed Trump in their only debate and when he got up off the mat after face planting, it was nothing but no mas from that point on from him. One on one he could only muster up about 44 lies in the time allotted, enough to impress his cult following, no doubt, but even Trump's over inflated ego recognized that under no circumstances should it be denigrated in that manner again.
DeleteDonald Trump directed Rudy Giuliani to ask the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if it could seize voting machines in three key states, the New York Times reported.
ReplyDeleteCiting three anonymous sources, the paper said Giuliani made the call six weeks after Trump’s defeat by Joe Biden but before the January 6 Capitol riot, by supporters trying to stop the certification of electoral college results.
“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power. He could have overturned the election!”
ReplyDelete"Does the truth still count for anything? In 11 days, we’ll find out."
ReplyDelete"In storm-ravaged North Carolina, people see that Trump is not describing reality. What about the rest of the nation?"
HENDERSONVILLE, N.C. — Four weeks ago, a devastating storm here brought out the best in humanity. This week, Donald Trump came here to stoke the worst.
The flooding from Hurricane Helene wiped out entire swaths of their communities. But it also brought the people of western North Carolina together in their shared love of their mountain home. Neighbors helped neighbors. Political differences, for the moment, were forgotten. And an army of local volunteers pitched in to support a massive relief effort by federal, state and county governments and charities that has won almost uniform praise.
“This is the most community we’ve felt since moving here,” Zac Johnson, a Trump voter and Connecticut transplant, told me when I met him at the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster recovery center. “They got everything up and running quicker than I expected.”
But as I spoke with Johnson, Trump was about 30 miles up the road, in Swannanoa, dividing the community with lies and exploiting the disaster for his own benefit. He declared at a campaign event that the federal “rescue effort was almost nonexistent,” that FEMA “has done a very poor job,” that people were feeling “abandoned” by the federal government and (Democratic) governor. “They don’t have any money,” he said of FEMA, because “they’ve spent it on illegal migrants. Many of them are murderers.” All false — as were Trump’s previous claims that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris “didn’t send anything or anyone at all,” that they were “going out of their way to not help people in the Republican areas,” that survivors who lost everything would get no more than $750 from the government and that Democratic officials were “blocking people and money from coming into North Carolina to help.”
Trump called to the microphone a local businessman who offered a prayer — not for those who lost loved ones, homes or livelihoods but for Trump. “Father, I thank you for this man,” he preached, with a hand on Trump’s shoulder, adding, “And I pray that you would anoint him.”
Trump’s lies about the storm response may work for him elsewhere in the country, where people don’t know any better. But here in the mountains, people see with their own eyes that what he’s saying is bunk.
“Some people who aren’t here may think that,” Rich DeMatteo said of the claim that storm survivors have been “abandoned” by the government. But on the ground here, “you see all the stuff they’re doing. It’s just a huge effort.”
DeMatteo identified himself as a Trump supporter, and the design on his T-shirt was of AR-style rifles forming the stripes on an American flag. But he said that “this isn’t a time for partisan politics.” His home and cars were swept away in a mudslide. He was in an emergency shelter for two weeks, and now FEMA is putting his family up in a hotel."
"At the shelter, he helped unload trucks and helicopters full of relief supplies brought in hourly by the National Guard. “They’re doing the best they can do,” he said.
DeleteIt’s encouraging that, here in storm-ravaged North Carolina, people can separate reality from the things Trump is saying.
Can the rest of the nation? We’ll find out in 11 days. On Election Day, we’ll see whether, after nine years of Trump’s daily assaults on reality, the truth still has any relevance.
Americans can see in their own lives that the economy hasn’t collapsed; that the price of bacon hasn’t quintupled; that all of the 15 million jobs created during the Biden administration didn’t go to undocumented immigrants; that violent migrants aren’t taking over the country; that crime isn’t rising; that the military hasn’t become a soft, “woke” assemblage of drag queens; that those who sacked the Capitol in 2021 weren’t peaceful; and that the government hasn’t cruelly abandoned those whose lives were upended by natural disasters. Americans can hear the urgent warning from retired Marine Gen. John Kelly and other former Trump administration officials that their old boss threatens our democratic way of life. But will any of it matter?
Here in western North Carolina, I heard the usual quibbles about paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles to accessing government disaster aid. But mostly I heard awe about the scale of the recovery effort and pride in the community. “I’d give this an A-plus and then some,” an 83-year-old woman who identified herself as a Trump voter told me in Asheville. “It touches my heart so much. These are the kind of people you want to live around.”
At the Hendersonville recovery center, the parking lot was jammed, and hundreds of people were coming to meet with officials from FEMA, the Small Business Administration, the National Flood Insurance Program, North Carolina’s Emergency Management agency and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Outside, residents told me what they had seen. [...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/25/hurricane-helene-aftermath-fema-trump/
The appropriate response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfn4YUOtTR0
"Does the truth still count for anything?" could be the title of this post by Somerby as he points out how Kamala Harris's team and the Blue media unfairly manipulates Trump's quotes and how Trump recklessly misrepresents the press.
Delete"Does the truth still count for anything?" is really the main thesis for Somerby's broader argument: when truth is routinely bent or disregarded by both "Blue" and "Red" media, it becomes harder for society to answer foundational questions about political reality and integrity. As each political side crafts a version of events that supports its agenda rather than presenting objective truths, truth becomes a casualty in the pursuit of influence and power.
mh, don't you think our side has to recognize and be honest about how much Blue Media routinely bends the truth? Don't you think we need to be more self-policing about it? Don't you think its routine bending of the truth ultimately hurts us even though it can be effective in some ways and even though it feels good? We are about to lose to Trump again. It would be nice if we reconsidered our inability to self-access and self-criticize and to call out Blue media's sloppy and shocking retreat from objectivity.
Delete5:48, you mean like whenthe media pretended to believe republicans pretending to be worried about how Secretary Clinton archived her SoS emails. Yeah, I agree, I hated that.
Delete"It would be nice if we reconsidered our inability to self-access and self-criticize and to call out Blue media's sloppy and shocking retreat from objectivity."
DeleteHeretic.