I expect early voting sites in Chicago to be busy so I’ll request a mail-in ballot and then drop it off at the nearest early voting site (American Indian Center). Our USPS mail has not been reliable lately—I wish it weren’t so. Another reason to eject Republicans.
Well, that's one state we know won't go red! I know my sister will vote. I still remember my mom taking us voting when I was growing up in South Shore, back in the days of those voting machines with the big levers. And no, Mayor Daley didn't steal the 1960 election for JFK, despite the popular rumor.
Since Tuesday is my deadline day, I'm not trusting myself to have time although I can take a break if I want. But they've moved my polling place further away. And I don't want to wait! First day of early voting is it for me.
"This problem of dutifully reporting “Trump says X” will become even more serious when Trump inevitably makes false assertions about the midterm voting and results. The press must not become accessories to election denial."
Exactly. Trump has not earned any benefit of the doubt. The presumption should always be that he is lying.
"No evidence for Trump's latest claim that..." or "Disproven claim repeated again by Trump that..." should be the rule of the day.
Better yet, just leave his name completely out of the headlines. Report the news: "Dems win big victory in midterm elections", then bury the "Trump whines that massive Republican losses were rigged" deep in the middle of the article.
The problem with being a journalist, as compared to an opinion writer, is that one cannot inject personal views into your reporting. If someone says something, you cannot change the quote. And an editor cannot create a news headline that offers analysis - only the facts of the matter.
They didn't lose their ability to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. Talking about a topic or a statement that someone makes with neutrality requires objectivity and the use of facts to support each statement that they make. 99.9% of T/GOP lies and misinformation can be proven to be lies very easily.
Journalists, commentators, and reporters did not have the character and courage that it takes to push back against their bosses due to the fear of losing their jobs. They didn't live up to the idea that news journalists were the Fifth estate who would defend democracy with the truth. COLBERT HAD THE COURAGE. NONE OF THEM DID. Imagine if they had ALL stood up and walked out instead of pretending that nothing was happening in the GOP party. It started with Reagan.
I agree completely. The truth is Trump lies. The truth is he lies almost all of the time. The facts are that these lies are hurting us. That has to be somewhere in the reporting. The inconsistency. The outright deception. It is not, not, NOT the job of a journalist to willingly spread disinformation.
It's perfectly fine to put a fact-check or such in a story, but no professional editor would put that in a primary headline. For instance, the Greenland thing could have been written "Trump Announces New Deal with Greenland" as the primary headline and, as a secondary headline would say "Pact Provides No More U.S. Permissions Than Have Existed Since 1951" and then get into the story body.
Journalists, prior to Reagan ending the Fairness Doc, analyzed political points of view with facts and evidence. If Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley wanted to state their own opinion, then they would have to tell the public. I saw this once when Cronkite was reporting on JFK's assassination. He finished his analysis and said "the following is my personal opinion". He spoke about his admiration of JFK and the impact of the loss of this President.
After Reagan ended the Fairness Doc, 95% of news media/journalists slid into the pockets of the GOP. The vast majority of the public still has NO idea that this was happening. WHY? Because the journalists are using only opinions and beliefs in persuasive articles. There is no FACT-BASED analysis. NOT ONE of them had the courage to speak out - including Pelley - who, after being fired, talked about being pressured for a long time NOT to tell certain stories. COLBERT told more truth than all of them combined - THAT is why he was fired.
A journalist CAN analyze events. It simply needs to include facts and evidence. It's how we all had to write papers for our courses in school. Woodward and Bernstein did this very well as they did their investigative reporting regarding Watergate.
The FAILURE of the news media/journalists to provide the facts is a major reason we may lose our democracy since voters FAILED to vote for Clinton in 2016 and Harris in 2024. The latter broke me. I did NOT understand how people chose NOT to vote, vote for a 3rd party candidate or vote for a disgusting man who was guilty of 34+ felonies and was directly connected to Epstein. US VOTERS were just too self-absorbed to recognize the danger we would be in if T became president. NOPE - it did not matter - whether it was racism, misogyny or just plain ignorance - 2 smart women were just NOT good enough. Even though they both wanted all of us to have healthcare, they were not perfect.
They can point. out what that person "said" earlier without "injecting personal views." It isn't a "personal view" to point out that a few days before saying he would annihilate Iran he said they would be signing a peace deal in 24 hours.
“ The press must not become accessories to election denial.”
That's a big ask of the media companies, whose reportage on and sane-washing of this president's antics since he ran in 2015 got them so many clicks and $$$$$$$.
I saw an appalling headline in their daily email the other day: "Our new poll gives Republicans reason to hope." In other words, they're panicking because they no longer have the "horse race"/"could go either way" narrative they love (why they created the "her emails!" "scandal" in 2016) Their "3 Bright Spots for the GOP" hilariously included "A change in Maine" and cited s single poll showing Collins with a slight lead and they wrote this paragraph:
"A majority of voters say they view Collins positively, which was not the case in our poll over the summer. She has made gains with independent voters, and is even winning 8 percent of Democrats. What shines through brightly in the poll is that voters believe Collins is delivering for Maine. Nearly 60 percent of voters — including 63 percent of independents and even 20 percent of Democrats — say they think Collins would do a better job bringing money and resources to the state than Jackson would."
(Again, keep in mind this was a single poll.)
As they were writing this, her corruption scandal was breaking. Actually, it had already broken by the time they published this on Friday September 25 and they themselves had published Pro Publica's work earlier in the week. It should have been pulled because they now have egg all over their face. The next poll is unlikely to show anything like this.
Their other two points were equally feeble. One was "Republican candidates are running ahead of the party." The other was "As Democrats are divided, Republicans are united." They just cannot ever give up their "Democrats in disarray" narrative, even when it's total nonsense. They based this on some polling asking Democrats and Republicans if they think their party is divided. Democrats will always argue and believe some silly things but they are not "divided."
The NY Times is going to be in for a shock in November.
Regarding the court decision about banning the media
I'm not a lawyer but I gather than when someone is admitted to the bar (particularly the Federal bar which is necessary to bring a case in Federal court) one must take an oath, which includes a statement that you will not bring a meritless/frivolous case before the court. It's time for the judges to hold the DOJ and Don the Con's personal lawyers to that oath by:
1. Making the DOJ or Don pay for the defendant's attorney fees
2. Reporting those attorneys to the disciplinary committee of the bars to which they are members.
I keep hoping there is a basis for seeking sanctions against DOJ officials who caused a win-able prosecution to be quashed because of affiliations of the prospective defendant.
Can we really do nothing with prosecutors who don't prosecute?
Joyce Vance is very good on the subject, she’s a really terrific lawyer and explains all these things very well. It’s very Difficult to get rid of prosecutors who don’t prosecute, because the standards are not clear cut. In most places, if they are elected, they should be voted out but of course in this instance it doesn’t work that way. Because we can never know everything a prosecutor knows, for the most part, outside of obvious corruption, it’s difficult to say that they should or shouldn’t have brought prosecution. But I’m not explaining it nearly as well as Joyce does
I see a difference between refusing to prosecute on one hand and prosecuting someone as a means of vengeance on the other. In the former case, it's often a prosecutorial judgement call on whether a grand jury would agree and whether a pettit jury would convict.
In the latter case, presumably the prosecutor puts the best evidence forward, and if a judge sees that the whole case is bullstuff intended to make a defendant's life miserable for a while, then it's easier to justify professional sanctions against the prosecutor. It seems to me that like doctors testifying in malpractice cases, lawyers take care of their own, and it's almost unheard of for a judge to sanction a prosecutor. That needs to change
it is tough. It probably falls into the same basket as judicial decisions that are correctly based on the pertinent facts and law but seem wrong based on other views but must still be repected. We had a classic case of refusal to prosecute in Miami years ago of local politiicans who had been buying stolen suits and not paying sales tax from a clandestine salesman/thief operating out of a motel room. They weren't prosecuted because the accessible facts were insufficient no matter how obvious it was to the rest of us.
And to the instant complaint, I cannot imagine that any damning documentation exists.
As a non-lawyer (who also loves Joyce Vance), I find myself feeling less and less inclined to be charitable to the defenders of lawyers. There are some great lawyers. Defenders of democracy. But the level of cowardice and dishonesty shown by a lot of people with power and prestige who supposedly uphold the law---that is another nail in the coffin for the prestige of this profession.
I don’t disagree with you at all, Sharon. I’ve been dismayed at what I see. Of course, in every profession there are bad apples, but most prosecutors do try harder, and of course most of them are lower level lawyers, like a DA or an attorney general for a state, who are closer to the people, and more obvious to the people who are concerned about the legal matters in front of them. Joyce does a good job of explaining all that. But the level of incompetence and or corruption with the DOJ lawyers and related lawyers, it’s unprecedented.
When the lawmakers and law enforcers and people who swear oaths to uphold the law are the criminals, it just makes it worse. It's like the women who support Trump. It's like the United State of America, defender of the free world, having an Extortionist in Chief. It's painful. But you're right---there are folks in every profession who sully that profession. And I know for a fact that it's lawyers who are saving our butts in courts today. We will overcome, I swear it.
I love your phrase "Trump's creepy sycophancy.' Might I suggest that we begin applying the word 'creepy' to everything Trump does, and is? My husband is (IMO) overly fond of those police procedural shows that lean heavily on catching 'psycho killers.' AKA malignant narcissists, AKA 'creepy guys.' Hmm. Maybe 'creepazoid' would be a better label, implying as it does that Trump might be in a category all his own.
A stunning fall from MAGA grace. The threat to annihilate Iran makes me very nervous. I have this terrible feeling that his sick pea sized brain is telling him to launch nuclear weapons against Iran. It's the only way he could eliminate every person living in Iran. I sure hope that the military has changed the codes without him knowing. If not, someone needs to. His desperation is rolling off him in waves. Not a good sign. As more Republicans turn on him, his desperation will intensify.
I suspect the first threat was the real one, but then he was talked out of it, probably in terms of potential damage and fallout to ME neighbors. We dropped bombs on *islands* during WWII. Is a "contained" nuclear annihilation of a landmassed country of 90+ million people even possible?
But Trump definitely noticed how he had the world on pins and needles on that occasion and now pulls out the threat for the thrill of it. But he's the little boy who cried wolf.
And I suspect Iran is even better prepared for such an attack now. Our recent wars haven't come home to our shores, but with cyber capabilities or even small drone attacks, can we continue to count on that? Especially with the level of incompetence in this administration tasked with protecting us.
Agree with your analysis but I don't think any country is prepared to withstand a nuclear assault. I don't think we can count on attacks not coming to our shores.
One recalls our status at the end of WW II and during the 1950s. To have Trump take our country to the exact opposite pole is embarrassing, disgusting, shameful, and mostly, dispiriting. I remain unable to forgive Trump voters for doing this to us. No excuse or rationale redeems their lack of judgement and denial of reality. I understand the notion that they cannot be written off and that they need to be brought back, but still, they did this.
To quote from one of my favorite films, Trump can’t handle the truth. Never could. Everything is always a hoax, a witch hunt or fake news. But did you ever notice that no matter what is said or written about him, the most litigious man in history NEVER sues anyone? That’s because, one, he knows what he’s denouncing as fake news is accurate, and two he doesn’t want to get caught in court, where better lawyers than his will ask for documentation he knows will expose him as the inept thief he’s always been.
Actually, he does sue. The New York Times and the Des Moines State Register come to mind, along with several law firms and a university or two. There have been settlements in his favor in some, though the Iowa case was dismissed. It would appear that his cases show a preponderance of lack of evidence and justification.
Sorry, Jen, but the world has already moved on. It WILL take decades for the United States to recover its international stature and reputation, and to rebuild frayed alliances. But it doesn't follow that the rest of the world will be "less stable, less free, and less prosperous" - the US will be. The rest of the world is already making new alliances and economic and defense partnerships.
We might have gotten a pass for electing him the first time, but after repeating, we've branded ourselves idiots probably for a generation. "Always within four years of bringing on a proto-despot"
And we only have a chance to recover our international stature in decades if we do not elect another ignorant, authoritarian, oligarch-worshipping personality disorder again. No one trusts the U.S., its outdated voting rules, its corrupt SCOTUS or low information voters.
While a student at the Air War College I started to understand that the US was at the time, a "reluctant" leader of the "free" world - the role came with tremendous responsibility. Perhaps the best role going forward as new leaders try to undo the maga (no longer deserves all caps) damage, is to be a strong supporter, one that works as part of the group to ensure goals of the organization are met. theDumRump and his puppeteers have made the only role for the US one of subservient supporter for the lifetime of many Americans. May the 300th anniversary of the US be able to celebrate the return of democratic values and a respect for our Constitution.
"(H)e rejected Trump’s bogus national security excuse (Trump’s lawyers “offer little to back up their asserted national security interest,”
Trump has been using the term 'national security' as a wedge to get anything he wants across home plate. Thanks to Judge Timothy Kelly, this empty threat has met its challenge. Just because Trump says it does not mean that it's a reality. What is a reality is that his propensity to lie makes the assertion even more dubious. The use of the phrase is but one more example of the man's sinking. As Ms. Rubin documents, both internationally and domestically the man is a failure. If nothing else, a loss of affordability and trust at home, and an apparently unwinnable war abroad highlight this.
Sad that the entire UN Assembly didn't walk out en masse. By staying silent while a madman rails about annihilating his foes and overtaking countries they give him oxygen. He does not deserve any.
Who is Michael Velchik? According to a social media post by Liz Oyer, his favorite book is Mein Kampf, and he wrote a paper praising Hitler while at Harvard. Why do we have nazi sympathizers in important positions in government? He also has a leadership position in the administration's actions against Harvard! What kind of slimeball would lead the attack on his alma mater?
If there is one thing Trump is right about, the rest of the world probably is laughing at America - at least now that Trump, as President, is failing so miserably. How could a proud and admirable nation fail so miserably to stand up to an authoritarian? Where are its Congressional leaders? Where is the voice of the people? Turmp has made us the laughing stock of the world!
I don't think they're laughing. Not because we don't deserve it, but because our military and economic power are so great that the echoes of our f**kups will reverberate around the entire world, and that's not funny.
Watch Trump blame this on Natalie Harp: it was her! She's the one who forced all the bad press stuff on me. I didn't want to, but she made me do it. Now I look foolish to the world like nobody's ever seen before.
The end of an empire and the beginning, perhaps, of a renewed democracy, if We the People can begin to reclaim our government from fascist thugs and a captured gop with these midterms and in every election in every town and hamlet over the next years. May the democrats not suppose they're " home free". Plenty of them have hidden behind the reality of minority numbers. Truth is, many of these cowards are not where the majority of Americans are regarding creating a democracy that works for every single person and is not sold out to the highest bidder in the back rooms. So my hope is We the People will follow our votes right into the proverbial cloak room. If we're to have a government that is ours and not merely the play thing of the tech broligarchs and epstein class then constant engagement is what it will take.
Early voting starts today in Illinois!
I expect early voting sites in Chicago to be busy so I’ll request a mail-in ballot and then drop it off at the nearest early voting site (American Indian Center). Our USPS mail has not been reliable lately—I wish it weren’t so. Another reason to eject Republicans.
Well, that's one state we know won't go red! I know my sister will vote. I still remember my mom taking us voting when I was growing up in South Shore, back in the days of those voting machines with the big levers. And no, Mayor Daley didn't steal the 1960 election for JFK, despite the popular rumor.
I took my Mail in Ballot right to
Our Drop Box‼️‼️
Cathy, we do that too. It may bespeak concern about the integrity of the post office, but in our case, it's more "making sure"
I'm going in-person on election day, because I can (two blocks from my poling place), rain or blizzard.
I don't trust the PO nor the drop boxes.
Trump is a liar and a thief. I don't put anything past him.
Since Tuesday is my deadline day, I'm not trusting myself to have time although I can take a break if I want. But they've moved my polling place further away. And I don't want to wait! First day of early voting is it for me.
Good on ya!!
I'm voting at the BoE on the first day of early voting. My congresswoman and a bunch of other elected officials planned to be there too.
“ The press must not become accessories to election denial.”
Exactly why I no longer pay to have access to the New York Times for the last two years. It’s not worth my money.
"This problem of dutifully reporting “Trump says X” will become even more serious when Trump inevitably makes false assertions about the midterm voting and results. The press must not become accessories to election denial."
Exactly. Trump has not earned any benefit of the doubt. The presumption should always be that he is lying.
"No evidence for Trump's latest claim that..." or "Disproven claim repeated again by Trump that..." should be the rule of the day.
Better yet, just leave his name completely out of the headlines. Report the news: "Dems win big victory in midterm elections", then bury the "Trump whines that massive Republican losses were rigged" deep in the middle of the article.
I'm pretty sure that's called a Truth Sandwich.
The problem with being a journalist, as compared to an opinion writer, is that one cannot inject personal views into your reporting. If someone says something, you cannot change the quote. And an editor cannot create a news headline that offers analysis - only the facts of the matter.
How is calling a lie a lie injecting personal views?
I think some journalists have lost the ability to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality.
They didn't lose their ability to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. Talking about a topic or a statement that someone makes with neutrality requires objectivity and the use of facts to support each statement that they make. 99.9% of T/GOP lies and misinformation can be proven to be lies very easily.
Journalists, commentators, and reporters did not have the character and courage that it takes to push back against their bosses due to the fear of losing their jobs. They didn't live up to the idea that news journalists were the Fifth estate who would defend democracy with the truth. COLBERT HAD THE COURAGE. NONE OF THEM DID. Imagine if they had ALL stood up and walked out instead of pretending that nothing was happening in the GOP party. It started with Reagan.
I agree completely. The truth is Trump lies. The truth is he lies almost all of the time. The facts are that these lies are hurting us. That has to be somewhere in the reporting. The inconsistency. The outright deception. It is not, not, NOT the job of a journalist to willingly spread disinformation.
It's perfectly fine to put a fact-check or such in a story, but no professional editor would put that in a primary headline. For instance, the Greenland thing could have been written "Trump Announces New Deal with Greenland" as the primary headline and, as a secondary headline would say "Pact Provides No More U.S. Permissions Than Have Existed Since 1951" and then get into the story body.
Journalists, prior to Reagan ending the Fairness Doc, analyzed political points of view with facts and evidence. If Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley wanted to state their own opinion, then they would have to tell the public. I saw this once when Cronkite was reporting on JFK's assassination. He finished his analysis and said "the following is my personal opinion". He spoke about his admiration of JFK and the impact of the loss of this President.
After Reagan ended the Fairness Doc, 95% of news media/journalists slid into the pockets of the GOP. The vast majority of the public still has NO idea that this was happening. WHY? Because the journalists are using only opinions and beliefs in persuasive articles. There is no FACT-BASED analysis. NOT ONE of them had the courage to speak out - including Pelley - who, after being fired, talked about being pressured for a long time NOT to tell certain stories. COLBERT told more truth than all of them combined - THAT is why he was fired.
A journalist CAN analyze events. It simply needs to include facts and evidence. It's how we all had to write papers for our courses in school. Woodward and Bernstein did this very well as they did their investigative reporting regarding Watergate.
The FAILURE of the news media/journalists to provide the facts is a major reason we may lose our democracy since voters FAILED to vote for Clinton in 2016 and Harris in 2024. The latter broke me. I did NOT understand how people chose NOT to vote, vote for a 3rd party candidate or vote for a disgusting man who was guilty of 34+ felonies and was directly connected to Epstein. US VOTERS were just too self-absorbed to recognize the danger we would be in if T became president. NOPE - it did not matter - whether it was racism, misogyny or just plain ignorance - 2 smart women were just NOT good enough. Even though they both wanted all of us to have healthcare, they were not perfect.
They can point. out what that person "said" earlier without "injecting personal views." It isn't a "personal view" to point out that a few days before saying he would annihilate Iran he said they would be signing a peace deal in 24 hours.
I skip stories that start with "Trump says," especially on Iran because Trump will "say" the opposite in less than 24 hours.
“ The press must not become accessories to election denial.”
That's a big ask of the media companies, whose reportage on and sane-washing of this president's antics since he ran in 2015 got them so many clicks and $$$$$$$.
I saw an appalling headline in their daily email the other day: "Our new poll gives Republicans reason to hope." In other words, they're panicking because they no longer have the "horse race"/"could go either way" narrative they love (why they created the "her emails!" "scandal" in 2016) Their "3 Bright Spots for the GOP" hilariously included "A change in Maine" and cited s single poll showing Collins with a slight lead and they wrote this paragraph:
"A majority of voters say they view Collins positively, which was not the case in our poll over the summer. She has made gains with independent voters, and is even winning 8 percent of Democrats. What shines through brightly in the poll is that voters believe Collins is delivering for Maine. Nearly 60 percent of voters — including 63 percent of independents and even 20 percent of Democrats — say they think Collins would do a better job bringing money and resources to the state than Jackson would."
(Again, keep in mind this was a single poll.)
As they were writing this, her corruption scandal was breaking. Actually, it had already broken by the time they published this on Friday September 25 and they themselves had published Pro Publica's work earlier in the week. It should have been pulled because they now have egg all over their face. The next poll is unlikely to show anything like this.
Their other two points were equally feeble. One was "Republican candidates are running ahead of the party." The other was "As Democrats are divided, Republicans are united." They just cannot ever give up their "Democrats in disarray" narrative, even when it's total nonsense. They based this on some polling asking Democrats and Republicans if they think their party is divided. Democrats will always argue and believe some silly things but they are not "divided."
The NY Times is going to be in for a shock in November.
Regarding the court decision about banning the media
I'm not a lawyer but I gather than when someone is admitted to the bar (particularly the Federal bar which is necessary to bring a case in Federal court) one must take an oath, which includes a statement that you will not bring a meritless/frivolous case before the court. It's time for the judges to hold the DOJ and Don the Con's personal lawyers to that oath by:
1. Making the DOJ or Don pay for the defendant's attorney fees
2. Reporting those attorneys to the disciplinary committee of the bars to which they are members.
Yes, I’m hoping as a lawyer to start to see the Bar Association’s handing out notices of hearings about disbarments.
I keep hoping there is a basis for seeking sanctions against DOJ officials who caused a win-able prosecution to be quashed because of affiliations of the prospective defendant.
Can we really do nothing with prosecutors who don't prosecute?
Joyce Vance is very good on the subject, she’s a really terrific lawyer and explains all these things very well. It’s very Difficult to get rid of prosecutors who don’t prosecute, because the standards are not clear cut. In most places, if they are elected, they should be voted out but of course in this instance it doesn’t work that way. Because we can never know everything a prosecutor knows, for the most part, outside of obvious corruption, it’s difficult to say that they should or shouldn’t have brought prosecution. But I’m not explaining it nearly as well as Joyce does
I see a difference between refusing to prosecute on one hand and prosecuting someone as a means of vengeance on the other. In the former case, it's often a prosecutorial judgement call on whether a grand jury would agree and whether a pettit jury would convict.
In the latter case, presumably the prosecutor puts the best evidence forward, and if a judge sees that the whole case is bullstuff intended to make a defendant's life miserable for a while, then it's easier to justify professional sanctions against the prosecutor. It seems to me that like doctors testifying in malpractice cases, lawyers take care of their own, and it's almost unheard of for a judge to sanction a prosecutor. That needs to change
it is tough. It probably falls into the same basket as judicial decisions that are correctly based on the pertinent facts and law but seem wrong based on other views but must still be repected. We had a classic case of refusal to prosecute in Miami years ago of local politiicans who had been buying stolen suits and not paying sales tax from a clandestine salesman/thief operating out of a motel room. They weren't prosecuted because the accessible facts were insufficient no matter how obvious it was to the rest of us.
And to the instant complaint, I cannot imagine that any damning documentation exists.
As a non-lawyer (who also loves Joyce Vance), I find myself feeling less and less inclined to be charitable to the defenders of lawyers. There are some great lawyers. Defenders of democracy. But the level of cowardice and dishonesty shown by a lot of people with power and prestige who supposedly uphold the law---that is another nail in the coffin for the prestige of this profession.
I don’t disagree with you at all, Sharon. I’ve been dismayed at what I see. Of course, in every profession there are bad apples, but most prosecutors do try harder, and of course most of them are lower level lawyers, like a DA or an attorney general for a state, who are closer to the people, and more obvious to the people who are concerned about the legal matters in front of them. Joyce does a good job of explaining all that. But the level of incompetence and or corruption with the DOJ lawyers and related lawyers, it’s unprecedented.
When the lawmakers and law enforcers and people who swear oaths to uphold the law are the criminals, it just makes it worse. It's like the women who support Trump. It's like the United State of America, defender of the free world, having an Extortionist in Chief. It's painful. But you're right---there are folks in every profession who sully that profession. And I know for a fact that it's lawyers who are saving our butts in courts today. We will overcome, I swear it.
Disbursements them all.
DISBAR
The time for implementing your #1 & #2 is WAY overdue!!!!!
I love your phrase "Trump's creepy sycophancy.' Might I suggest that we begin applying the word 'creepy' to everything Trump does, and is? My husband is (IMO) overly fond of those police procedural shows that lean heavily on catching 'psycho killers.' AKA malignant narcissists, AKA 'creepy guys.' Hmm. Maybe 'creepazoid' would be a better label, implying as it does that Trump might be in a category all his own.
A stunning fall from MAGA grace. The threat to annihilate Iran makes me very nervous. I have this terrible feeling that his sick pea sized brain is telling him to launch nuclear weapons against Iran. It's the only way he could eliminate every person living in Iran. I sure hope that the military has changed the codes without him knowing. If not, someone needs to. His desperation is rolling off him in waves. Not a good sign. As more Republicans turn on him, his desperation will intensify.
I suspect the first threat was the real one, but then he was talked out of it, probably in terms of potential damage and fallout to ME neighbors. We dropped bombs on *islands* during WWII. Is a "contained" nuclear annihilation of a landmassed country of 90+ million people even possible?
But Trump definitely noticed how he had the world on pins and needles on that occasion and now pulls out the threat for the thrill of it. But he's the little boy who cried wolf.
And I suspect Iran is even better prepared for such an attack now. Our recent wars haven't come home to our shores, but with cyber capabilities or even small drone attacks, can we continue to count on that? Especially with the level of incompetence in this administration tasked with protecting us.
Agree with your analysis but I don't think any country is prepared to withstand a nuclear assault. I don't think we can count on attacks not coming to our shores.
It is America that needs fixing.
One recalls our status at the end of WW II and during the 1950s. To have Trump take our country to the exact opposite pole is embarrassing, disgusting, shameful, and mostly, dispiriting. I remain unable to forgive Trump voters for doing this to us. No excuse or rationale redeems their lack of judgement and denial of reality. I understand the notion that they cannot be written off and that they need to be brought back, but still, they did this.
To quote from one of my favorite films, Trump can’t handle the truth. Never could. Everything is always a hoax, a witch hunt or fake news. But did you ever notice that no matter what is said or written about him, the most litigious man in history NEVER sues anyone? That’s because, one, he knows what he’s denouncing as fake news is accurate, and two he doesn’t want to get caught in court, where better lawyers than his will ask for documentation he knows will expose him as the inept thief he’s always been.
Actually, he does sue. The New York Times and the Des Moines State Register come to mind, along with several law firms and a university or two. There have been settlements in his favor in some, though the Iowa case was dismissed. It would appear that his cases show a preponderance of lack of evidence and justification.
Aka E. Jean Carrol…
Sorry, Jen, but the world has already moved on. It WILL take decades for the United States to recover its international stature and reputation, and to rebuild frayed alliances. But it doesn't follow that the rest of the world will be "less stable, less free, and less prosperous" - the US will be. The rest of the world is already making new alliances and economic and defense partnerships.
We might have gotten a pass for electing him the first time, but after repeating, we've branded ourselves idiots probably for a generation. "Always within four years of bringing on a proto-despot"
And we only have a chance to recover our international stature in decades if we do not elect another ignorant, authoritarian, oligarch-worshipping personality disorder again. No one trusts the U.S., its outdated voting rules, its corrupt SCOTUS or low information voters.
While a student at the Air War College I started to understand that the US was at the time, a "reluctant" leader of the "free" world - the role came with tremendous responsibility. Perhaps the best role going forward as new leaders try to undo the maga (no longer deserves all caps) damage, is to be a strong supporter, one that works as part of the group to ensure goals of the organization are met. theDumRump and his puppeteers have made the only role for the US one of subservient supporter for the lifetime of many Americans. May the 300th anniversary of the US be able to celebrate the return of democratic values and a respect for our Constitution.
I hope to God it comes sooner than that!
"(H)e rejected Trump’s bogus national security excuse (Trump’s lawyers “offer little to back up their asserted national security interest,”
Trump has been using the term 'national security' as a wedge to get anything he wants across home plate. Thanks to Judge Timothy Kelly, this empty threat has met its challenge. Just because Trump says it does not mean that it's a reality. What is a reality is that his propensity to lie makes the assertion even more dubious. The use of the phrase is but one more example of the man's sinking. As Ms. Rubin documents, both internationally and domestically the man is a failure. If nothing else, a loss of affordability and trust at home, and an apparently unwinnable war abroad highlight this.
Sad that the entire UN Assembly didn't walk out en masse. By staying silent while a madman rails about annihilating his foes and overtaking countries they give him oxygen. He does not deserve any.
Who is Michael Velchik? According to a social media post by Liz Oyer, his favorite book is Mein Kampf, and he wrote a paper praising Hitler while at Harvard. Why do we have nazi sympathizers in important positions in government? He also has a leadership position in the administration's actions against Harvard! What kind of slimeball would lead the attack on his alma mater?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Velchik
The fish rots from the head down…
If there is one thing Trump is right about, the rest of the world probably is laughing at America - at least now that Trump, as President, is failing so miserably. How could a proud and admirable nation fail so miserably to stand up to an authoritarian? Where are its Congressional leaders? Where is the voice of the people? Turmp has made us the laughing stock of the world!
We have made ourselves the laughingstock of the world. South Korea did the correct thing when their President tried a coup.
As did the Brazilians with Dump's good friend Jair Bolsonaro.
I don't think they're laughing. Not because we don't deserve it, but because our military and economic power are so great that the echoes of our f**kups will reverberate around the entire world, and that's not funny.
Watch Trump blame this on Natalie Harp: it was her! She's the one who forced all the bad press stuff on me. I didn't want to, but she made me do it. Now I look foolish to the world like nobody's ever seen before.
Trump would never admit to looking foolish, though he does, and much more.
The end of an empire and the beginning, perhaps, of a renewed democracy, if We the People can begin to reclaim our government from fascist thugs and a captured gop with these midterms and in every election in every town and hamlet over the next years. May the democrats not suppose they're " home free". Plenty of them have hidden behind the reality of minority numbers. Truth is, many of these cowards are not where the majority of Americans are regarding creating a democracy that works for every single person and is not sold out to the highest bidder in the back rooms. So my hope is We the People will follow our votes right into the proverbial cloak room. If we're to have a government that is ours and not merely the play thing of the tech broligarchs and epstein class then constant engagement is what it will take.
👏👏👏👏‼️So well said, thank you