Yesterday he posted an ignorant tweet calling Stormy daniels "Horseface." Today he tweeted this:
College educated women want safety, security and healthcare protections – very much along with financial and economic health for themselves and our Country. I supply all of this far better than any Democrat (for decades, actually). That’s why they will be voting for me!
The reason college-educated women hate him with the heat of a thousands suns is because he's a pig and an ignoramus. And his condescension is overwhelmingly offensive. "I supply all this" --- no you don't, you orange piece of work, we "supply" our own financial and economic health.
He gave away that he knows he's a liar about having the support of women in his interview with Trish Regan on Fox News the other night. Trump had said that the economy was going to bring people together and restore civility (which basically means that he can keep calling women "Horseface" and they will all say "thank you sir, may I have another") and Regan pointed out that while women want financial security the polls all say "they are not liking" him.
Here was his response:
I had worse poll numbers when I went into the last election and you saw how well I did with women. If you looked at my poll numbers going into 2016, you would have said, 'There's not a woman in the country that's going to vote for me.' And I did phenomenal with women. In fact, that was one of the reasons — probably, the reason I won, in a true sense.
Now, I also did better with Hispanics than they predicted. I did better with African-Americans than they predicted. I guess they did better with -- the men stay with me, I don't know why. But with the women, with the women, they want security and they want financial security too."
He did not do phenomenally well with women. He did worse than any other candidate in history, even white Republican women. He is poison to a majority of women now.He's got a 35% approval rating with women over all which now includes a majority of white women. A whopping 72% of white college educated women (many of whom used to be Republicans) disaprove of him.
And he knows this. He slipped said, "I guess they did better than ---the men stay with me, I don't know why" which means he's aware that women don't. He's just lying, hyping himself like a table of rancid Trump steaks with the full knowledge that he's loathed by the vast majority of women in this country.
I guess he thinks that more men vote. They don't. Women vote more than men. And they are energized. Because they hate him.
This is how they do it. And if Democrats take the House, they will undoubtedly start to hold hearings on these sorts of maneuvers. I don't know if it will make a difference.
At last count, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke was the subject of 14 separate government investigations. (A new record!) But that number could soon be zero. That’s because Zinke just fired the Department of the Interior’s acting inspector general.
The news doesn’t stop there. Not only did Mary Kendall, the acting inspector general, not learn she was being replaced until The Hill broke the news this morning, but her replacement will likely be able to fill the role without needing to go through Senate confirmation.
Kendall—who’s served as acting inspector general at the DOI for ten years, and previously spent a decade as deputy inspector general—is being replaced by Suzanne Israel Tufts, a Republican lawyer who worked on the Trump campaign, and then was appointed to the role of assistant secretary of administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Tufts will not need to undergo Senate confirmation to fill the new role, as she was already approved by Congress for her job at HUD.
Tufts, who will now handle oversight of the investigations into Zinke, was appointed to HUD to replace an official who blew the whistle on Ben Carson’s taxpayer-funded $31,000 dining set.
If you think that sounds unethical, you’re not alone. “We are particularly worried that she’s a political appointee without any obvious government oversight experience,” Danielle Brian, the executive director of the non-partisan Project on Government Oversight, told NBC. “And they are sliding her in under the radar of any Senate confirmation process to take over charged investigations into the behavior of the cabinet secretary.”
“This reeks of retaliation for the shocking number of investigations into Secretary Zinke’s unethical conduct,” Chris Saeger, the executive director of the Western Values Project, said in a release. “He should immediately explain the reasons why the current inspector general is leaving and if he fails to, Congress should demand answers.”
This is a primary reason why the Democrats need to take back the house. We have seen what happens when you have corrupt extremists in the executive branch with enablers and accomplices running the congress.
Ron DeSantis is a right-wing extremist? Say it ain't so...
Oh look, Trump's greatest fan in the congress and now GOP candidate for Governor of Florida is a right wing extremist:
Beyond his embrace of the president, DeSantis has made a name for himself by promoting conspiracy theories that are trumpeted by the radical right and play into racial stereotypes. On four occasions, he has spoken at conferences organized by a conservative activist who has touted white Americans’ role in freeing black people from slavery and said that “the country’s only serious race war” is against white people.
“Liberal media are doing everything that can to help Andrew Gillum win this race and that includes writing stories that elicit racially charged fears and emotions. We not only reject your storyline, we condemn your entire narrative,” said Stephen Lawson, DeSantis’ communications director.
Here are some other conspiracies DeSantis has embraced:
ISIS may recruit from Black Lives Matter protests.
In 2016, DeSantis agreed with Fox Business host Neil Cavuto that he was worried the terrorist group ISIS could be recruiting from Black Lives Matter protests.
“I do worry about it, in the sense that reaching out to them doesn’t even have to involve brokering a meeting between some terrorist recruiter and somebody who’s disaffected,” DeSantis said on Sept. 22, 2016. “It could simply be exposing people to different propaganda that you see on the internet, on social media sites. ... So it’s definitely a problem, and ISIS I think has proven themselves to be pretty sophisticated at capitalizing on some people who have some underlying issues.”
The Founding Fathers weren’t racist.
In 2011, DeSantis wrote a book called Dreams From Our Founding Fathers: First Principles in the Age of Obama. In it, he excuses the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted a black person as only three-fifths of a whole person to determine congressional representation.
DeSantis defends the Founding Fathers for agreeing to the compromise because “counting slaves as less than a full person for purposes of representation benefitted anti-slavery states.”
Over the years, DeSantis has promoted himself with the help of figures who peddle Islamophobic rhetoric and policies. In 2014, he did an interview on Frank Gaffney’s radio program. Gaffney founded the Center for Security Policy, which the Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes as “a conspiracy-oriented mouthpiece for the growing anti-Muslim movement in the United States.” In 2017, DeSantis spoke at the annual conference of ACT for America, another group that pushes anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.
DeSantis has also pushed to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, an idea the Trump administration supports and people like Gaffney champion.
As Shadi Hamid at the Brookings Institution has noted, “There is quite literally not a single American expert on the Muslim Brotherhood who supports designation. Moreover, there is no plausible argument to be made for labeling the group a terrorist organization, at least according to the relevant legal criteria, as Will McCants and Benjamin Wittes lay out. They sum it up quite well: designation ‘would be illegal.’”
American values are declining in the “age of Obama.”
In 2008, conservatives seized on a clip of a black woman named Peggy Joseph saying that if then-presidential candidate Barack Obama won, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he’s going to help me.”
There’s nothing remarkable about Joseph’s comments. People always vote for politicians because they believe they will make the country ― and often, their own personal lives ― better. Certain candidates may have policies that could put more money in their pockets or lead to better representation.
But DeSantis talked about Joseph ― and Obama’s campaign ― as if they were radical departures from “the principles that the country was founded on.”
In a 2011 speech, he said that with the Founding Fathers, “you think of things like, ‘Give me liberty or give me death’” and “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
But, he added, in the “age of Obama ... you have people like that woman who voted for Obama, who said since Obama was president, she wouldn’t have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage.”
Obama is a secret communist.
The right wing has long tried to claim that Obama secretly supports communism ― an un-American value, of course. In his 2011 book, DeSantis gives credence to some of these theories. He writes that Obama had a “mentorship” with “Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American communist writer with bitterly anti-American views.”
“He certainly would not have discussed Davis in Dreams From My Father had Davis’ council failed to make an impact on him,” DeSantis wrote.
The Washington Post looked at Davis and his relationship with Obama, and wrote that Davis “was indeed associated with the Communist Party” but was not a “hard-core Communist who spied for Soviet leaders. He was critical of American society, but not America as a country.”
DeSantis, in his book, also implied that Obama’s mother was a communist. He notes that one of her high school teachers said she would ask questions around the Cold War like “What’s so good about capitalism? What’s wrong with communism? What’s good about communism?” He also cited the fact that one of her classmates referred to her as a “fellow traveler,” which is sometimes used to describe someone who is communist. There’s no proof Obama’s mother was a communist either.
The New York Times reports on another issue that's got the White House nervous about the Saudi killing of a journalist. To be clear, it's likely that Trump truly is concerned about his vaunted arms deal and doesn't want to disrupt his romance with MBS because they have been so nice to him (and paid him millions of dollars.) This is what he cares about. But apparently, they have been planning to try to topple the Iran government by cutting off their ability to sell their oil --- with the help of the Saudi government --- next month.
White House officials are worried that the apparent killing of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and Saudi Arabia’s changing account of his fate, could derail a showdown with Iran and jeopardize plans to enlist Saudi help to avoid disrupting the oil market.
Officials said the dilemma comes at a fraught moment for the Trump administration, which is expected to reimpose harsh sanctions against Iran on Nov. 5, with the intent of cutting off all Iranian oil exports.
But to make the strategy work, the administration is counting on its relationship with the Saudis to keep global oil flowing without spiking prices, and to work together on a new policy to contain Iran in the Persian Gulf.
If that carefully coordinated plan moves forward, the Saudis would likely see a significant increase in oil revenue at exactly the moment Congress is talking about penalizing the kingdom over the Khashoggi case. It is one reason that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was sent, with a few hours’ notice, to see King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday.
Part of the problem is optics, officials said: Saudi Arabia looks like a brutal ally, including by leading a deadly military campaign in Yemen, just as President Trump and Mr. Pompeo have been casting Iran as the region’s bully.
“It’s a neat trick if you can both sanction a country and partner with them at the same time,” said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who worked for several Republican presidents. “And it’s not easy to keep the focus on Iran’s behavior when the Saudis are doing terrible things to journalists and dissidents, and bombing children in Yemen.”
After a phone call with Prince Mohammed on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said the kingdom’s rulers had again “totally denied any knowledge” of Mr. Khashoggi’s fate. He said the crown prince, who was with Mr. Pompeo during the call, would expand an investigation into Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance and suspected killing two weeks ago.
Mr. Khashoggi, a columnist for The Washington Post, has not been seen since he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2. Turkish officials have asserted that Mr. Khashoggi was murdered and his body dismembered; Saudi officials denied any wrongdoing.
While Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance has heightened tensions between Saudi Arabia and both Turkey and the United States, the White House has been measuring the damage to its Iran strategy.
In interviews this week, Trump administration officials and outside experts said that possible repercussions on an elaborate plan to squeeze the Iranians have dominated internal discussions about the fallout over what happened to Mr. Khashoggi.
By comparison, they said, the issue of limiting American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which Mr. Trump has said would threaten American jobs, pales in importance. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to publicly discuss internal conversations.
On Nov. 5, the administration is expected to announce that any company that does business with Iran — buying oil, financing projects or investing in the country — will be prohibited from doing business in the United States, including clearing transactions in dollars. It would present a common front with the Saudis, and cast Iran as the source of almost all instability in the Middle East.
That argument, officials have acknowledged, is now in jeopardy.
Guess what? This Iran plan is fraught with danger. The consequences of this confrontation could be catastrophic:
Much indicates that the likely murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi will be transformative for Saudi-U.S. relations. But whether it will affect the one issue where Saudi pressure on the United States was the greatest—Iran—is unclear. The Iran strategy favored by Saudi Arabia and the Netanyahu government in Israel, and eagerly adopted by the White House, will likely lead to a military confrontation regardless of whether its assumptions about the status of Iran’s economy and political survivability are true or not.
The Trump administration’s pressure strategy on Iran assumes that the Islamic Republic is standing on its last leg. The White House believes a gentle nudge will cause its collapse in the next few months. This is a shaky assumption—one which makes the policy immensely risky for a simple reason: what if President Donald Trump and the Saudi Crown Prince are wrong? What if the Iranian theocracy survives, albeit far angrier and hostile than it was before? And what if the assumption is correct? Will the clerical rulers sit quietly as the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel orchestrate their demise? History is riddled with examples where pressure has triggered confrontation rather than capitulation—even when the underlying assumption has been correct.
If Trump’s bet proves wrong and the theocracy in Tehran shows itself too resilient, the United States will find itself in a vulnerable position. Trump’s complete isolation at the UN General Assembly last month was nothing short of astounding—yet, that may become the new normal. In the process, the United States will incentivize other countries to develop alternative financial transaction systems in order to protect themselves from what increasingly will be viewed as illegal U.S. financial sanctions. This will likely weaken the dollar and diminish America’s ability to use the existing financial system as an instrument of its own national power.
Moreover, Iran will likely be far more hostile and determined to counter U.S. influence in the Middle East as a result of the Trump administration’s escalation of tensions and its efforts to unseat the theocracy in Tehran. Already, a senior Iranian official told us this past week, Trump’s pressure has undermined moderates in Tehran who advocate for diplomacy between Iran and the West and a reduction of tensions. On the other hand, hardliners in charge of Iran’s policies in Syria and Yemen have benefitted from Trump’s belligerence. “The sense is that engagement has not paid off for Iran [as a result of Trump’s sabotage of the Iran nuclear deal],” the Iranian official explained, “Iran’s military engagement in the region, however, has paid dividends to Iran’s security.”
But here’s the real problem with America’s all-out pressure approach: Even if Trump’s assumption is correct and the Iranian regime is close to collapse, history suggests it will not play out as neatly as the Trump team appears to believe. Rather than Iranian capitulation, Trump should be expecting confrontation. Which is exactly what the Saudis want.
Maybe we'll get "lucky" and this murder of a Saudi journalist in Turkey will make this move impossible. Or maybe not. Trump shows no sign of causing anything to disrupt his cozy relationship with the Saudis.
If you're wondering why Turkey is behaving the way it is, it may just be to help disrupt this plot to confront Iran. Turkey and Iran's relations have been complicated but since the 2017 Qatar crisis, they allied against the Saudis and the US. And Turkey was against the US withdrawing from the Iran deal. It's a web of shifting alliances that makes it likely Trump and Jared, being dopes, and Bolton and company being extreme ideologues, are subject to manipulation by the Saudis.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is fascinated by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged ability to target former spies in the UK "and get away with it", a leading member of the Saudi opposition and friend of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi has told Middle East Eye.
“Putin is a role model. MbS once asked in a gathering: ‘How does Putin manage to kidnap his opposition figures and assassinate them in London, and it does not have consequences?’” the opposition figure revealed, referring to the crown prince by his initials.
Bin Salman’s interest in Putin was stirred by the suspected poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former double agent, and his daughter Yulia with Novichok, a nerve agent, in the city of Salisbury in southern England on 4 March this year by suspected Russian intelligence officers.
The British government has said it is highly likely that Russia was responsible, and the UK and many of its western allies have expelled Russian diplomats as a consequence of the case. Putin has denied that the Kremlin ordered Skripal’s poisoning.
The case stirred memories of the notorious fatal poisoning of another Russian defector, Alexander Litvinenko, in a London restaurant in 2006, in what a British government report concluded was a Russian intelligence operation “probably approved” by Putin.
Trump has made it clear that he doesn't care about any of this, basically giving a green light to assassinations of dissidents and journalists. Why wouldn't MBS go for it?
Yesterday President Trump called Stormy Daniels "Horseface" in a tweet and it wasn't the dumbest thing he said all day. In fact, it wasn't even the dumbest thing he wrote in that tweet. He closed it with "she knows nothing about me, a total con." In truth, she certainly does know he's a total con, as do most of the people in this country. Nonetheless, for all of Trump's hustles and scams, he is an amateur compared to the Republican Party, which has been committing a massive fraud on the United States for more than 30 years.
It's a simple scheme, really. Whenever they control the government they immediately pass massive tax cuts and massive increases in military spending, always promising that the wealthy and the corporations will pour all that money back into the economy and it will end up increasing revenues because of all the growth it will stimulate. But it never does.
It's actually quite brilliant because the real goal isn't just to give tax cuts to the rich and spend huge sums of money on the military. It's also to run up the debt so Republicans can turn around and wring their hands over the need to be "fiscally responsible" and force the government to cut spending on programs they don't like. They are specifically hostile to what they call "entitlements": the big-ticket items of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
They have wanted to end those programs ever since they were enacted, but this debt scam was cooked up in the 1980s when all the smart young Reaganites came to Washington. They tagged the Democrats as "tax-and-spend liberals" (now it's "socialists") so that whenever the Democrats finally come back into power, anxious to be seen as responsible stewards of the economy, they are immediately on the defensive. Republicans screech in unison that the entitlements are all going to break the bank and they must be cut or the sky will fall. Unfortunately, the political media join the chorus, beating their chests about how the people must "take their medicine" and "face up to the truth" that the country simply cannot afford to take care of the old and sick anymore. Pundits and journalists seem to take particular pleasure in lecturing their audience about how they'll have to "sacrifice" for the greater good and tut-tut all the supposedly irresponsible liberal politicians who are unwilling to tell them the "truth."
In recent years the con has been complicated by the fact that the GOP constituency is aging rapidly, making it necessary to blame Democrats for any possible cuts. That makes it a bit of a challenge, although not as much as you might think. Bill Clinton seriously considered a privatization scheme and Barack Obama famously put Social Security cuts on the table as part of his "Grand Bargain" with then-House Speaker John Boehner, which only failed because the Tea Party refused to take yes for an answer.
Still, for the most part, Democrats have held the line. When George W. Bush began his second term with a plan to use his "political capital" to privatize Social Security with the help of a massive grassroots campaign, Democrats beat it back. Furthermore, the concept of privatizing the Social Security system by investing in the stock market was thoroughly discredited just a few years later when the financial crisis hit and half of Wall Street went out of business.
But now Republicans are right back at the same game. The latest deficit projections are stunning. According to the New York Times:
The deficit rose nearly 17 percent year over year, from $666 billion in 2017. It is now on pace to top $1 trillion a year before the next presidential election, according to forecasts from the Trump administration and outside analysts. The deficit for the 2018 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, was the largest since 2012, when the economy and federal revenues were still recovering from the depths of the recession.
The federal government should run a large deficit when the economy is in that kind of crisis. But when it's humming as it is now, not so much. That's how it's supposed to work anyway, at least according to standard Keynesian economic principles.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked about this massive deficit on Tuesday and said, “It’s disappointing, but it’s not a Republican problem. It’s a bipartisan problem: unwillingness to address the real drivers of the debt by doing anything to adjust those programs to the demographics of America in the future.”
It's as if those tax cuts and hikes in military spending never happened. In fact, that's exactly how they're going to frame it.
McConnell said at the time the GOP tax bill was enacted, “I not only don’t think it will increase the deficit, I think it will be beyond revenue-neutral. In other words, I think it will produce more than enough to fill that gap.” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin claimed the tax plan would "pay for itself with economic growth." They were wrong of course. Everyone knew that at the time because they've recited these same lines before and it never happens. We've had several real-life experiments to prove it.
Republicans will of course just lie and cover up their role in this huge expansion of the deficit, which shouldn't happen in a time of full employment and major corporate profits. From the way many commentators jumped into their old lines about "sacrifice" and "debt" like they were a pair of comfortable old slippers they forgot were under the bed, conservatives won't have much trouble getting that meme back into circulation.
When asked about McConnell's comments, President Trump told the Associated Press that he knew nothing about cutting Social Security and didn't plan to do it explaining that the increase in the deficit was due to natural disasters:
We also have tremendous numbers with regard to hurricanes and fires and the tremendous forest fires all over. We had very big numbers, unexpectedly big numbers. California does a horrible job maintaining their forests. They’re going to have to start doing a better job or we’re not going to be paying them. They are doing a horrible job of maintaining what they have. And we had big numbers on tremendous numbers with the forest fires and obviously the hurricanes. We got hit in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, Georgia. Georgia was hit very hard this time. Nobody even, you know, treats that one fairly. The farmers got hit very, very hard.
So at least for the moment, the "entitlement" programs are probably safe. Somehow that isn't particularly comforting.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is preparing to release findings from his probe into Russian 2016 election interference soon after the November 6 mid-term elections, Bloomberg reports, citing an two unnamed officials:
That doesn’t necessarily mean Mueller’s findings would be made public if he doesn’t secure unsealed indictments. The regulations governing Mueller’s probe stipulate that he can present his findings only to his boss, who is currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The regulations give a special counsel’s supervisor some discretion in deciding what is relayed to Congress and what is publicly released.
With rumors the sitting president could fire Rosenstein in a bid to shut down the investigation Trump considers a witch hunt never far below the fold, the timing of the release could determine if, when, and how those findings reach the public. Rosenstein could resign or face firing after the election, one reason, officials said, he is eager for Mueller to wrap up the investigation.
Despite ridiculing the investigation since it began and after countless "NO COLLUSION" tweets, Trump again on Sunday claimed he had "no intention" of shutting it down. “I think it’s a very unfair investigation because there was no collusion of any kind.”
There’s no indication, though, that Mueller is ready to close up shop, even if he does make some findings, according to former federal prosecutors. Several matters could keep the probe going, such as another significant prosecution or new lines of inquiry. And because Mueller’s investigation has been proceeding quietly, out of the public eye, it’s possible there have been other major developments behind the scenes.
Those may arise from all the hours of testimony and cooperation provided by former Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, as well as Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Despite pressure to end the probe by deadlines set by the administration, it would not be unprecedented for such an investigation to go longer. The Starr investigation into President Bill Clinton took four years. The investigation into Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, took almost two, Bloomberg reminds.
Rosenstein is required by regulation to notify the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of the investigation and provide them with an explanation of any instance where he blocked a proposed action by Mueller’s team.
He could also release Mueller’s report to the public if he determines that the release “would be in the public interest,” according to the regulation, but considering Trump’s tumultuous relationship with the Justice Department and its leaders, Rosenstein might not be in a position to make those decisions when Mueller finishes his work.
Trump has never made his tax returns public. Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general during the Obama administration, helped draft the regulations. He recommends Rosenstein transmit “interim reports” to Congress to to preserve Mueller’s investigation against future interference by the Trump White House:
“Rosenstein could, right now, tell Congress (or even a small group of members, with appropriate safeguards, including secrecy) what has happened — what Mueller has learned so far, whether Rosenstein has ever said “no” to Mueller and where the investigation is headed now,” he wrote in the Washington Post. “Such a move would be unusual, to say the least. But it is a way for Rosenstein to safeguard his legacy. And it could also safeguard the very principle that no one is above the law. Not even the president — and not even this president.”
The final insult of this insult presidency will be if Trump's legacy proves the contrary.
In North Carolina this morning, polls are open for early voting.
* * * * * * * * *
For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.
The Saudis shifted their tone a bit late Monday, indicating that maybe they were in fact responsible for what happened to Khashoggi’s death. They might be willing to say there was an interrogation, but his death was accidental.
I'm not getting it. How's that an excuse?
Are they saying they merely intended to torture Khashoggi but someone just went a little too far? Like the plan was to cut off a just a single limb with that bone-cutter — sure, it's a tad unpleasant for everyone but, it's not murder, right? — and ooopsie, the guy had a heart attack or something?
Political scientists J. Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood have written a book called Enchanted America; How Intuition & Reason Divide Our Politics that looks to be a must read if you want to understand why our politics have gone batshit crazy. Jesse Singel's review in New York magazine explains that what these political scientists have found is that while all humans use intuition and heuristics, a large faction of voters is simply "magical thinkers" who reject reason (or are incapable of being rational) and make "causal attributions to unobservable forces." In other words, they would rather believe something absurd than what they can see with their own eyes.
The authors call them "intuitionists." And while there are some who exist on the left (anti-vaxxers for instance) They are mostly fundamentalist, conservative and Republican, and Trump's followers are more like this than any others. And they are also fearful pessimists. Singel writes:
But it’s the Trumpenvolk who are, relative to followers of other politicians, the most fearful and superstitious. It should come as no surprise that they were drawn to a man constantly raising fears of immigrant invasions, foreign terrorists, and globe-spanning conspiracies with anti-Semitic undertones.
Oliver and Wood make it clear that when it comes to the question of Rationalism versus Intuitionism, they are partisans. “The Intuitionist/Rationalist split is not like other political divisions in the United States,” they write. “Intuitionism poses an existential threat to democracy. It is neither benign nor temperate. It bristles against open inquiry, is intolerant of opposition, and chafes at the pluralism and compromise modern democracy requires. It is prone to conspiracy theory, drawn to simple generalizations, and quick to vilify the other.” But they acknowledge that this area of study is not far enough along for them to have all that many concrete suggestions.
Maybe the first step is for writers, pollsters, and all the other elites who remain confused about Trump’s appeal to better educate themselves about the Intuitionism scale, as well as other related constructs like conspiracism (what it sounds like) and need for cognitive closure (a preference for simple, straightforward thoughts without much ambiguity). Absent these insights from political psychology, it’s easy to get caught in an endless cycle of befuddlement: How could evangelical “values voters” be so unconcerned that Trump is a philanderer and former supporter of reproductive rights? How could down-on-their luck working-class whites have such enthusiasm for a brash mogul, born into a rich family, who has endlessly ripped off people like them, and who has openly stated he will cut the welfare benefits keeping many of them alive and housed? How could white, educated suburban women vote for a man who has been credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults?
We could at least acknowledge that these people are not voting based on rational analysis. Economic determinists interpret decisions as relating to some variant of economic status or distress and there's no doubt that plays into it. But humans are complex and as this analysis shows, many people are driven by complex "intuition", evolving over millennia that doesn't have a rational application to the modern world.
President Donald Trump Tuesday criticized rapidly mounting global condemnation of Saudi Arabia over the mystery of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi, warning of a rush to judgment and echoing the Saudis’ request for patience.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Trump compared the case of Khashoggi, who Turkish officials have said was murdered in the Saudis’ Istanbul consulate, to the allegations of sexual assault leveled against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
“I think we have to find out what happened first,” Trump said. “Here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent. I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I’m concerned.”
Trump’s remarks were his most robust defense yet of the Saudis, a U.S. ally he has made central to his Mideast agenda. They put the president at odds with other key allies and with some leaders in his Republican Party who have condemned the Saudi leadership for what they say is an obvious role in the case. Trump appeared willing to resist the pressure to follow suit, accepting Saudi denials and their pledge to investigate.
The Oval Office interview came not long after Trump spoke Tuesday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He spoke by phone a day earlier with King Salman, and he said both deny any knowledge of what happened to Khashoggi. After speaking with the king, Trump floated the idea that “rogue killers” may have been responsible for the disappearance. The president told AP Tuesday that that description was informed by his “feeling” from his conversation with Salman, and that the King did not use the term.
In Turkey earlier Tuesday, a high-level Turkish official told the Associated Press that police investigators searching the Saudi Consulate had found evidence that Khashoggi was killed there.
Also Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with the king and crown prince in Riyadh and said the Saudis had already started a “serious and credible investigation” and seemed to suggest it could lead to people within the kingdom. The secretary of state noted that the Saudi leaders, while denying knowledge of anything that occurred inside the consulate, had committed to accountability “including for Saudi Arabia’s senior leaders or senior officials.”
Pompeo was there today grinning like a jack-o-lantern.
To Trump's good cop. The end result will be ... nothing.
On @foxandfriends, @LindseyGrahamSC describes Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as "a wrecking ball. He had [Khashoggi] murdered...the MBS figure is toxic. He can never be a world leader...This guy's got to go. Saudi Arabia if you're listening, MBS has tainted your country." pic.twitter.com/dGRDRVsztc
Realizing that he was causing some problems with the Iran-haters who have thrown their lot in with the Saudis he made sure they knew he hated them even more:
During an interview on Tuesday’s edition of Fox & Friends, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) responded to Elizabeth Warren’s announcement that she has Native American ancestry by announcing that he too is planning to take a DNA test.
Hosts concluded the interview by urging Graham to come back on the show soon to reveal the results of his test.
“I’ll be probably be Iranian. That’d be like, terrible,” Graham said, in an attempt to be humorous. (Note: Remarks begin at 6:19 in the video)
Graham’s stunningly casual bigotry was too much even for host Brian Kilmeade, who tried to help him out by saying, “They’re great people, just bad leaders.”
Graham, however, kept digging.
“Yeah, bad leaders,” Graham said. “I’m not in the ayatollah branch.”
Ain't he sweet?
He's first and foremost a nasty little snot. This is his time.
The Atlantic's McKay Coppins has written an excellent profile of Newt Gingrich which I recommend to anyone who wants to understand how we got here. This is an excerpt but it's well worth reading in full:
[W]ading through Gingrich’s various books, articles, and think-tank speeches about Trump, it is difficult to identify any coherent set of “ideas” animating his support for the president. He is not a natural booster for the economic nationalism espoused by people like Steve Bannon, nor does he seem particularly smitten with the isolationism Trump championed on the stump.
Instead, Gingrich seems drawn to Trump the larger-than-life leader—virile and masculine, dynamic and strong, brimming with “total energy” as he mows down every enemy in his path. “Donald Trump is the grizzly bear in The Revenant,” Gingrich gushed during a December 2016 speech on “The Principles of Trumpism” at the Heritage Foundation. “If you get his attention, he will get awake … He will walk over, bite your face off, and sit on you.”
In Trump, Gingrich has found the apotheosis of the primate politics he has been practicing his entire life—nasty, vicious, and unconcerned with those pesky “Boy Scout words” as he fights in the Darwinian struggle that is American life today. “Trump’s America and the post-American society that the anti-Trump coalition represents are incapable of coexisting,” Gingrich writes in his most recent book. “One will simply defeat the other. There is no room for compromise. Trump has understood this perfectly since day one.”
I used to get hit hard by some progressives over my obsession with Gingrich during the Obama years. They felt that I was spending too much time looking at the Republicans, particularly, the combat style that Newt and his political progeny started instead of attacking Barack Obama. I understand the frustration with Democrats. I've written millions of words about it over the years, including many attacks on the way the ACA was negotiated and particularly the Grand Bargain, which I opposed from the beginning on both political and ideological grounds.
But I focus on this particular aspect of modern American politics, the radicalization of the Right, because I think it is the most fundamental challenge to our system of government and I don't think it has a damn thing to do with "issues" or ideology. Newt is clear about this. Trump is too. Take them at their word. Fighting among ourselves won't fix that problem.
Nine members of the far-right Proud Boys group and three protesters are facing riot and assault charges after a street brawl between them Friday night in New York.
The fight wasn’t a random clash, though: The Proud Boys were in Manhattan thanks to an invite from the Metropolitan Republican Club.
In a speech at the club, which was vandalized before the event, Proud Boys leader Gavin McInnes waved a sword at anti-fascist protesters and celebrated the assassination of a socialist Japanese politician. McInnes, a Vice co-founder, dressed up as the Japanese assassin who killed the politician, complete with glasses that made his eyes into a racist caricature of a Japanese person’s eyes.
It was a bizarre event to host at the GOP’s Manhattan clubhouse, but the Metropolitan Republican Club defended McInnes and the Proud Boys after the fight. In a statement released Sunday, the club said McInnes’ speech “was certainly not inciting violence.”
The Republican club’s role hosting the event highlights how the Proud Boys have managed to insinuate themselves with mainstream Republicans, even as they increasingly make the news for their violence. But the New York Republicans aren’t alone—the Proud Boys have already managed to make their way into other mainstream GOP campaign events and conservative media.
Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart and Devin Nunes have posed for pictures with Proud Boys on the campaign trail. Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson posed in a Fox green room with two Proud Boys and Republican operative Roger Stone earlier this year.
“The skinheads, for example, would become functional equivalents of Hitler’s SA and Mussolini’s squadristi only if they aroused support instead of revulsion.”
— Historian Robert Paxton
Fascist skinhead groups have wreaked havoc in the U.S. for decades, but scholars of fascism have noted that those groups pose limited political threats—unless a mainstream political party embraces them.
“The skinheads, for example, would become functional equivalents of Hitler’s SA and Mussolini’s squadristi only if they aroused support instead of revulsion,” historian Robert Paxton writes in his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism. “If important elements of the conservative elite begin to cultivate or even tolerate them as weapons against some internal enemy, such as immigrants, we are approaching Stage Two” of what he identifies as fascist insurgency.
The Proud Boys, which have a paramilitary wing, have already proved willing to act as strongmen for Stone, and GOP stalwarts like the Metropolitan Republican Club have already proved willing to host the group.
We are a long way from the kind of streetfighting we saw in fascist Italy. But they started small too.
And I would just point out that there is another worrisome aspect of all this:
What with all the brouhaha about Elizabeth Warren's DNA, I thought it might be a good day to reprise this post about Trump's thoughts on the subject:
Friday, December 09, 2016
Actually, it's MONEY through family but whatevs ..
I have noted this before but it's worth looking at again. Trump is a eugenicist who believes that he and his family have superior genes and his wealth proves it. Remember this?
Trump biographer Michael D'Antonio explains that Trump was raised to believe that success is genetic, and that some people are just more superior than others:
"The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development. They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring."
Huffington Post also took the liberty of compiling a whole bunch of times Trump suggested that genes are the main factor behind brains and superiority. Here are just a few choice quotes from good ol' Trump:
"All men are created equal. Well, it's not true. 'Cause some are smart, some aren't."
"When you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse."
"Secretariat doesn't produce slow horses."
"Do we believe in the gene thing? I mean, I do."
"I have great genes and all that stuff which, I'm a believer in."
We’re in an era of the cult of the entrepreneur. We analyze the Tory Burches and Evan Spiegels of the world looking for a magic formula or set of personality traits that lead to success. Entrepreneurship is on the rise, and more students coming out of business schools are choosing startup life over Wall Street.
But what often gets lost in these conversations is that the most common shared trait among entrepreneurs is access to financial capital—family money, an inheritance, or a pedigree and connections that allow for access to financial stability. While it seems that entrepreneurs tend to have an admirable penchant for risk, it’s usually that access to money which allows them to take risks.
And this is a key advantage: When basic needs are met, it’s easier to be creative; when you know you have a safety net, you are more willing to take risks. “Many other researchers have replicated the finding that entrepreneurship is more about cash than dash,” University of Warwick professor Andrew Oswald tells Quartz. “Genes probably matter, as in most things in life, but not much.”
Trump has certainly been creative ... in covering his ass. He managed to get bankers to keep loaning to him when he was clearly totally inept and repeatedly going bankrupts. It took them decades to catch on. He appears not to have paid federal income taxes for decades. And he just duped a large minority of Americans into believing that he was going to turn back the clock and make them all billionaires. So, he's creative alright. The way the best con artists are creative.
But he couldn't have done that without daddy's money. Not in a million years.
They need Trump to go full Trumpist to get out his voters, because his policies aren’t getting the job done — yet these displays are simultaneously strengthening the anti-Trump backlash among the constituencies most likely to deliver the House to Democrats.
A single quote from a GOP consultant tells the whole story. Republican Lou Barletta is trailing Sen. Bob Casey (D) by double digits — in Pennsylvania, where Trump’s win shocked the world — despite running as a full-blown Trumper. Why? A strategist for Barletta explains it to The Post this way: “One false assumption that was made was that a Trump voter from the 2016 election was necessarily a Republican voter.”
Trump's plan is to fill the media space with Trump, Sargent writes. Displays of contempt and humiliation for the losers, as Trump used on Lesley Stahl and Christine Blasey Ford, are part of the shtick. Kellyanne Conway thinks it's "Donald Trump in full" season, Sargent writes, with the sitting president doing as many rallies and unleashing "as many lies and depravities as the media space will absorb."
That the media is complicit and cannot look away says megabytes about the mindlessness of "moral" capitalism that turns the free press into Trump's vassals. Disembowelings and feeding the powerless to the lions was just as good for business at the Coliseum.
World revulsion at the disappearance/murder/dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of the Saudis seems not to have made a ripple in Trumpworld. For his part, the sitting president's Monday phone call with Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud has Trump floating the idea “rogue killers” (with access to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul) are responsible.
I'm not buying the "I was cleaning my bone saw and it went off" defense.
Fascist skinhead groups have wreaked havoc in the U.S. for decades, but scholars of fascism have noted that those groups pose limited political threats — unless a mainstream political party embraces them.
“The skinheads, for example, would become functional equivalents of Hitler’s SA and Mussolini’s squadristi only if they aroused support instead of revulsion,” historian Robert Paxton writes in his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism. “If important elements of the conservative elite begin to cultivate or even tolerate them as weapons against some internal enemy, such as immigrants, we are approaching Stage Two" of what he identifies as fascist insurgency.
Like Trump, the group is careful to manage its violent elements so as not to overstep:
The frequent clashes between Proud Boys and left-wing protesters apparently haven’t damaged the Proud Boy brand enough to keep the group from gaining new members. While other groups further to the Proud Boys’ right have fractured, the Proud Boys appear to be growing, with members from United Kingdom and Australia posting beat-in videos on YouTube.
“Gavin, smartly, is holding by his fingernails to legitimacy,” Hankes said. “He knows that the second they cross over into being recognized as extreme as they are in reality, it’s all decline from there.”
Trump is already that extreme. He's just better at manipulating a media trained not to say so forcefully and responsibly.
Trump team seems to have decided it needs to saturate the media space and political bandwidth w/Trump to greatest extent possible.
Welp, it looks like the Democrats are going to help Donald Trump win a second term
This is my greatest fear. They only have to wait for two years and then they can launch their agenda without empowering a would be fascist imbecile for another four years. But it would be just like them to think that having their pictures taken on the steps of the White House yukking it up with Trump will be good for them.
White House officials say they have begun preliminary talks internally — and with Democratic lawmakers — about areas where they could work together in 2019.
They also say the ball is in the Democrats’ court.
“The president’s always ready to deal. Always,” Shahira Knight, the White House legislative director, said in an interview with The Hill.
The president famously reached a budget deal late last year with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), much to the chagrin of GOP leaders in Congress.
Trump has recently indicated he is willing to go down that path again. He said in a "Fox & Friends" interview last Thursday that it would be a “shame” if Democrats won control of Congress, but indicated it could open the door to an elusive deal to rebuild the nation’s roads and bridges.
“There’s a chance that we’ll get along and get along well. We have a lot of things, like infrastructure, that they want and that I want,” the president said.
Trump also crowed about the prospect for bipartisan wins during a signing ceremony for a new law aimed at reducing ocean pollution, the type of televised victory lap he seems to relish. The measure unanimously passed the House and Senate.
“Bipartisan. Did you ever think … you'd hear that? Bipartisan,” he told lawmakers at the White House.
Those remarks came even after Trump denounced Democrats this week as “wacko” and “too dangerous to govern” at campaign rallies designed to fire up his conservative supporters ahead of the midterms.
Some top Democrats already see Trump as a potential ally in an infrastructure push.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he has a $500 billion proposal “with a revenue source” ready to go.
And Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), who's in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee, said he sees infrastructure as an area where Democrats can work with the White House.
“Clearly, the administration might be able to move to do some infrastructure work with us,” Neal said.
He'll be the guy who brought the Democrats to heel. All Hail Emperor Trump.
Originally, Trump's campaign had proposed giving out $137 billion worth of tax breaks that would supposedly pay for themselves and get the private sector to spend $1 trillion on toll roads and the like. But that seemed to change when Trump's ideological consigliere, Stephen K. Bannon, talked up a “trillion dollar infrastructure plan” that would take advantage of the fact that “negative interest rates throughout the world” meant it was the “greatest opportunity to rebuild everything” from “shipyards” to “ironworks” and “get them all jacked up.” It would, Bannon explained, “be as exciting as the 1930s.”
Trump's top economic adviser Gary Cohn, though, worried that the deficit-spending this implied would hurt the economy as much as it helped by forcing the Federal Reserve to raise rates, and, as a result, sending the dollar up. So instead of saying that the government would spend $1 trillion on roads and bridges and waterways itself, the Trump team said it would commit $200 billion over the next decade and offer as-of-yet unspecified incentives to get corporations to invest the other $800 billion. But even this was too much for Trump's austerian budget director Mick Mulvaney, who put together their latest plan to partially offset this $200 billion surge in infrastructure spending with a $95 billion cut in the years after that.
Trump's infrastructure plan, then, has gone from being builder-friendly to populist to Wall Street-approved and now tea party-inspired.
That's what Trump said earlier today, and then he floated the theory that some "rogue killers" may have been responsible. Now we hear that the Saudis are saying it was just an interrogation and kidnapping gone wrong which is supposed to be a reasonable excuse, I guess. Presumably this will allow Trump and Kush to comfortably maintain their financial ties with the Kingdom and especially the young princeling, MBS.
They brought in the bone saws to "enhance" the interrogation and well, oops.
This editorial by Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post gives a nice overview of the current middle east policy and how this situation came to be:
When Donald Trump was unexpectedly elected president, two nations in the Middle East that had been particularly aggrieved by the policies of the Obama administration rushed to take advantage. They were Saudi Arabia and Israel — and they succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
In a matter of months, Trump reversed Obama’s strategy of encouraging a regional equilibrium of power between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, siding unequivocally with the Saudis. He also abandoned decades of U.S. attempts to balance Israeli interests with those of the Palestinians. He tore up the Iran nuclear deal, moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and cut off aid for Palestinian refugees.
Trump and his supporters argued that this radical shift would lead to Mideast breakthroughs that eluded the Obama administration, including a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the Saudis would help to broker. His son-in-law and Middle East point man, Jared Kushner, talked expansively both of forging that “ultimate deal” and of an “Arab NATO” to roll back Iranian influence across the region.
Today, those ambitions have been revealed as the misguided fantasies they always were. The disappearance and alleged murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul has exposed the real return on Trump’s gambits: a string of reckless acts by the Saudis and Israelis that have made the region more rather than less unstable.
The leaders of the two countries, Mohammed bin Salman and Benjamin Netanyahu, have given Trump what he most craves: syncophantic support. On substance, however, they have done next to nothing to reciprocate unilateral Trump concessions such as the embassy move or the resumption of U.S. support for Saudi bombing in Yemen. Netanyahu expanded West Bank settlements and rejected confidence-building steps with the Palestinians. The Saudis, predictably, have failed to deliver on the $110 billion in arms purchases Trump boasted about last year.
This being the Middle East — a far more ruthless theater than the New York real estate market — both countries have exploited Trump’s indulgence to the hilt, taking actions they never would have dared under Obama or any other previous president. Netanyahu’s government supported a new law that makes non-Jews second-class citizens; it has put pressure on critical NGOs and press outlets. Last week it was detaining a visa-holding American student because she belonged to a pro-Palestinian campus group.
Netanyahu, to be sure, is a cautious statesman; his exploits pale beside those of the 33-year-old Mohammed. Since wooing Trump with a sword dance in Riyadh last year, the callow crown prince has launched a blockade of neighboring Qatar, though doing so undermined the promised Sunni front against Iran; abducted the pro-American Lebanese prime minister and forced him to resign on Saudi TV; dropped American-supplied bombs on civilian targets in Yemen, including a bus full of children, thus implicating the United States in what the United Nations has described as possible war crimes; and sanctioned Canada for criticizing the regime’s human rights record, including its imprisonment of women who advocated the right to drive.
None of this has troubled Trump. On the contrary, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last month met a congressional mandate by certifying — against the judgment of the State Department’s own experts — that the Saudis were taking adequate steps to avoid civilian casualties in Yemen.
Given that record, and Trump’s labeling of news organizations such as The Post as the “enemy of the people,” it stands to reason that Mohammed might have concluded he could abduct or even kill Khashoggi, who was living in the Washington region and writing regularly for The Post, without serious consequence. Tragically, he may yet be proved right. Trump, who took six days to respond to Khashoggi’s disappearance, is now promising “severe punishment,” but he also called relations with the regime “excellent” and said he does not want to scrap those elusive military sales.
Still, as many have already discovered, an alliance with Trump rarely ends well. Even before Khashoggi’s disappearance, outrage over Yemen had created an unusual bipartisan coalition in Congress, which conditioned further military aid to Saudi Arabia. As the reaction to Khashoggi swelled, 22 senators divided between the parties signed a letter to Trump triggering a mandatory investigation of sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, which punishes human rights abuses. Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said that if Saudi complicity is confirmed, it would “drop [relations] off the cliff.”
If Netanyahu believes he has nothing to worry about, he is not reading the polls showing a huge gap in support for Israel opening up between Republicans and Democrats. Like Mohammed, he seems to be betting that Trumpism will prevail in Washington indefinitely — and that there will be no reckoning for the outrages committed under its umbrella.
It's hard to see how there will be. The US was barely able to raise its voice against the Saudis in the past. Now we're basically saying, "go for it" we don't give a shit.
Let's face it. Trump is a big fan of authoritarian leaders and has a serious problem with democratic leaders. That's who he is. That's what his fans love about him. You remember them. The people who used to wave around the constitution and bleat about freedom and liberty all the time. The same ones who are screaming right now about a "deep state" and "due process."
By the way, Trump's vaunted "arms deal" was negotiated by the Obama administration, it's worth maybe 28 billion and that's being generous, and it won't create many jobs for another decade. He's lying about all of it. Because he's a pathological liar.
1. Evoking a mythical past
2. Dividing the country into Us and Them
3. An all-out assault on the truth
That is exactly what is going on right now in this country. And, to quote Professor Stanley, "When fascism starts to feel normal, we’re all in trouble."
Remember: this is not normal. Two examples: Until Trump, the word "lie" was rarely used (except by Krugman re: W. Bush) to describe the statements of a US president. Now, it is used all the time. And never, until Trump, have I seen the NY Times publish any political commentary as alarming as Professor Stanley's.
There were many appalling moments in Trump's 60 Minutes interview last night, not the least of which was his comment that he knows more about NATO's mission than James Mattis, his blithering idiocy about economics and well ... everything. He's getting worse.
He obviously did not like Lesley Stahl's questions and he got very defensive throughout, almost surly. When he gets defensive he immediately starts bragging. This was one of the most embarrassing moments of his career.
Lesley Stahl: Okay. Changing subjects again-- you are the first president of the United States who never had a political post before, nor never served in the military. You come up here, you've been here for almost two years, what's the biggest surprise and what have you learned since you've been president?
President Donald Trump: Okay. So I always used to say the toughest people are Manhattan real estate guys and blah, blah. Now I say they're babies.
Lesley Stahl: Who's the toughest?
President Donald Trump: The political people. This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal with somebody and it's like making a deal with-- that table.
Lesley Stahl: Give me an example.
President Donald Trump: Well, I don't wanna give you an example. I'm not lookin' to-- in the meantime, nobody's been able to do what I've been able to do. Remember that. When you look at taxes, you look at regulations, you look at-- making deals with other countries. Nobody's been able to do anything like this. Actually, most people didn't even try because they knew they didn't have the ability to do it. But it's a very deceptive world. The other thing I've really learned is I never knew how dishonest the media was. I-- I-- and I really mean it. I'm not saying that as a sound bite. I never--
Lesley Stahl: I'd like to--
President Donald Trump: Knew how dishonest--
Lesley Stahl: I'm-- I'm gonna change the subject again.
President Donald Trump: Well, no, even the way you asked me a question, like, about separation. When I say Obama did it, you don't wanna talk about it.
Lesley Stahl: No, I'm gonna run your--
President Donald Trump: When I say I did it, let's make a big deal of it.
Lesley Stahl: I'm gonna run your answer, but you did it four times, so.
President Donald Trump: I'm just telling you that you treated me much differently on the subject.
Lesley Stahl: I disagree, but I don't wanna have that fight with you.
President Donald Trump: Hey, it's okay--
Lesley Stahl: All right, I'll get in another fight with you--
President Donald Trump: Lesley, it's okay. In the meantime, I'm president--and you're not.
Yes, he actually said that. He was uptight and angry. He's so used to being fluffed by Fox that he forgot what it's like to be interviewed by anyone else. But it got worse:
Lesley Stahl: This country is divided, polarized. Within families, there aren't even people who can talk to each other. What does this say about where we are as a country right now, all this division and strife and--
President Donald Trump: Yeah-- I think that--
Lesley Stahl: --anger?
President Donald Trump: --what's going to happen-- I think the economy's bringing people together. It was very polarized under President Obama, unbelievably polarized under President Obama. I can see the country uniting. I can see it. We have people, Democrats, who behaved horribly during the Judge Kavanaugh-- you-- know what I'm saying.
Lesley Stahl: But when you won that.
President Donald Trump: --during the hearings for the Supreme Court, we had senators that behaved horribly.
Lesley Stahl: But when you won, you won. No-- no one is gonna argue with that.
President Donald Trump: I won--
Lesley Stahl: You won. And then after you won, instead of saying, "Oh, let's all come together, this is wonderful. Let's heal all of this," you come out and bash the Democrats.
President Donald Trump: Well, I bashed their attitude. I bashed their statements--
Lesley Stahl: But why not try to--
President Donald Trump: Because they were--
Lesley Stahl: --bring us together?
President Donald Trump: --so unfair to Judge Kavanaugh. I've never--
Lesley Stahl: But why not--
President Donald Trump: seen anything like it.
Lesley Stahl: --why not try and-- we need to be healed. We need--
President Donald Trump: I don't think they want to heal yet, I'll be honest.
Lesley Stahl: Well, you don't wanna--
President Donald Trump: I think--
Lesley Stahl: heal yet.
President Trump on his treatment of Christine Blasey Ford at rally: "It doesn't matter. We won."
President Donald Trump: I-- I-- I saw Hillary Clinton made a really nasty statement. I don't think they wanna be healed. I do wanna heal.
Lesley Stahl: I'm n-- I'm not talking about Democrat-- I'm talking about the country. You go out and you go to Mississippi.
President Donald Trump: The famous Mississippi speech?
President Trump at rally in Mississippi: I had one beer. Well, you think it was, nope! It was one beer. Oh good. How did you get home? I don't remember. How did you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember. How many years ago was it? I don't know. I don't know… I don't know…
Lesley Stahl: And you mimicked Professor Blasey Ford. You mimicked her.
President Donald Trump: Had I not made that speech, we would not have won. I was just saying she didn't seem to know anything.
Lesley Stahl: No (UNINTEL)--
President Donald Trump: And you're trying to destroy a life of a man who has been extraordinary.
Lesley Stahl: Why did you have to make fun of her?
President Donald Trump: I didn't really make fun of her.
Lesley Stahl: Well, they were laughing.
President Donald Trump: What I said the person that we're talking about didn't know the year, the time, the place.
Lesley Stahl: Professor Blasey Ford got before the Senate and-- and was asked what's the worst moment. And she said, "When the two boys laughed at me, at my expense."
President Donald Trump: Ok, fine.
Lesley Stahl: And then I watched you mimic her and thousands of people were laughing at her.
President Donald Trump: They can do what they-- I-- I will tell you this. The way now Justice Kavanaugh was treated has become a big factor in the midterms. Have you seen what's gone on with the polls?
Lesley Stahl: But did you have to--
President Donald Trump: Well, I think she was treated with great respect, I'll-- I'll--
Lesley Stahl: And-- but--
President Donald Trump: be honest with you.
Lesley Stahl: but do you think—you treated her with--
President Donald Trump: There are those that think she shouldn't have--
Lesley Stahl: Do you think you treated her with respect?
President Donald Trump: I think so, yeah. I did.
Lesley Stahl: But you seem to be saying that she lied.
President Donald Trump: W-- you know what? I'm not gonna get into it because we won. It doesn't matter. We won.
My family (including Fox News-watchers) sat together and talked about what they think of @realDonaldTrump’s attacks on our heritage. And yes, a famous geneticist analyzed my DNA and concluded that it contains Native American ancestry. pic.twitter.com/r3SNzP22f8
I hear that the angry mob is on the march getting ready to take to the streets and destroy everything God-fearing Real Americans care about. Again. This latest iteration of the perennial rightwing fear-mongering began when survivors and women's rights activists came to Washington to protest the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh. These frightening revolutionaries scared the bejeejuz out of Republicans and they haven't been able to get a good night's sleep ever since.
President Trump has taken the lead in bravely defending the good people of our nation against these vicious street fighters telling rally-goers in each of his many such events in the past week:
“You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry, left-wing mob. And that’s what the Democrats have become.”
That was a scripted line, obviously. Trump could never come up with such a literary phrase. His own words are a bit more pungent: “The Dims have gone wacko!”
He pulls the "law and order" card frequently, claiming the loyalty of all police, casting them in opposition to Democrats. To a cheering group of law enforcement officers at the White House back in August, the president of the United States said, "[W]e have a little opposition called, the Democrats. I guess they just don't mind crime. They don't mind crime. It's pretty sad...The Democrat Party is held hostage by the so-called resistance, left-wing haters and angry mobs...." Then he called himself their proud Commander in Chief, showing that he believes he commands the police as well as the military which isn't true.
From the moment Trump was inaugurated and the big woman's march was held the following day, the propaganda arm of the GOP has been pushing the idea that people protesting Trumps presidency are violent. The NRA was the first out of the gate with a series they called "the clenched fist of truth" warning their members that the left wing mob was coming for them:
Today, Trump's loyal soldiers have lined up behind him to wring their hands and clutch their pearls over the nasty women who stormed the halls of the Senate to yell at men in elevators. They've never been more frightened in their lives. David French of National Review wrote that "it's time to stop excusing, rationalizing, and minimizing behavior that is dangerous, menacing, and threatening" by which he meant people being rude to Republicans in restaurants.
None of them seemed to have been concerned about the storming of town halls back in 2010 which came with written instructions from the Tea Party organizers to "Artificially Inflate Your Numbers," "Be Disruptive Early And Often" and "Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate."
The conservative protest model was very dignified and decent:
As for descending on the capitol to take the protest to the elected officials, here was how it's handled by respectable people.
The Tea Party protests against the Affordable Care Act were certainly aggressive, sometimes dangerous and always inexplicable. (Why people were so overwrought that the government was trying to make health care available to more people is something for future psychiatrists to figure out.)
Anyone who has observed the Trump phenomenon knows that he has a history of inciting his own followers. Recall that during the campaign at various times he said, “I’d like to punch him in the face,“"maybe he should have been roughed up," part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other anymore," and "if you do (hurt him), I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it.” And his reference to the Charlottesville Nazi demonstration as containing "very fine people" will go down as one of the more disturbing comments made by any president in American history.
His rally goers still commonly launch into chants of "lock her up" at the mere mention of Hillary Clinton and, more recently, Dianne Feinstein. Perhaps some people think that crowds calling for the jailing of political opponents is all in good fun but it's chilling for the president of the United States to stand smiling and nodding above them as they do it.
This current chest beating about "the angry left-wing mob" may morph into something more threatening as we get into the presidential campaign and Trump and his followers start to feel the heat of possible defeat. The NRA certainly seems prepared to take it to the next level. And sure, the Republicans hope to keep their base riled up by pretending that the "angry mob" of women in pink hats and protesters embarrassing Republicans officials in restaurants presents a threat to the nation. But Trump voting right-wingers are not afraid. They're playing the victim to own the libs.
Republican officials are using this "angry mob" rhetoric for a different purpose: they are trying to get Democratic lawmakers to feel uncomfortable and distance themselves from their passionate supporters in the hopes that this will suppress the midterm vote. The handwringing conservative pundits are trying to make liberals in the media condemn the protesters and put them on the defensive. They want to make the Democrats condemn their own voters. So far, it's not working.
Protests, even violent ones, are nothing new in America. Trump copped his "I am the candidate of law and order" from Richard Nixon, (who basically stole it from George Wallace) during a time of political assassinations, urban riots and massive civil rights and anti-war protests And there are plenty of examples of similar political and social upheavals in our past, even including a very bloody civil war. The "polarization" we are experiencing in our politics is hardly unprecedented.
Considering how outrageous the president of the United States has become and how supine and accommodating the Republicans in congress have been, these first two years of the Trump administration have been remarkably serene. That's because the supposedly dangerous "Resistance" has actually been feverishly organizing on the ground all over the country to recruit candidates and run campaigns to send Republicans packing. The "angry left-wing mob" isn't running wild in the streets --- it's running for office. That's really what's got these Republicans shaking in their boots.