#Trump university was another Trump failure

[socialjusticeinamerica]

[reasonsforhope]

"The sleeping giant of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stirred.

In the past month, an avalanche of anti-pollution rules, targeting everything from toxic drinking water to planet-heating gases in the atmosphere, have been issued by the agency. Belatedly, the sizable weight of the US federal government is being thrown at longstanding environmental crises, including the climate emergency.

On Thursday [May 18, 2023], the EPA’s month of frenzied activity was crowned by the toughest ever limits upon carbon pollution from America’s power sector, with large, existing coal and gas plants told they must slash their emissions by 90% or face being shut down.

The measure will, the EPA says, wipe out more than 600m tons of carbon emissions over the next two decades, about double what the entire UK emits each year. But even this wasn’t the biggest pollution reduction announced in recent weeks.

In April, new emissions standards for cars and trucks will eliminate an expected 9bn tons of CO2 by the mid-point of the century, while separate rules issued late last year aim to slash hydrofluorocarbons, planet-heating gases used widely in refrigeration and air conditioning, by 4.6bn tons in the same timeframe. Methane, another highly potent greenhouse gas, will be curtailed by 810m tons over the next decade in another EPA edict.

In just a few short months the EPA, diminished and demoralized under Donald Trump, has flexed its regulatory muscles to the extent that 15bn tons of greenhouse gases – equivalent to about three times the US’s carbon pollution, or nearly half of the entire world’s annual fossil fuel emissions – are set to be prevented, transforming the power basis of Americans’ cars and homes in the process...

If last year’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with its $370bn in clean energy subsidies and enticements for electric car buyers, was the carrot to reducing emissions, the EPA now appears to be bringing a hefty stick.

The IRA should help reduce US emissions by about 40% this decade but the cut needs to be deeper, up to half of 2005 levels, to give the world a chance of avoiding catastrophic heatwaves, wildfires, drought and other climate calamities. The new rules suddenly put America, after years of delay and political rancor, tantalizingly within reach of this...

“It’s clear we’ve reached a pivotal point in human history and it’s on all of us to act right now to protect our future,” said Michael Regan, the administrator of the EPA, in a speech last week at the University of Maryland. The venue was chosen in a nod to the young, climate-concerned voters Joe Biden hopes to court in next year’s presidential election, and who have been dismayed by Biden’s acquiescence to large-scale oil and gas drilling.

“Folks, this is our future we are talking about, and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for real climate action,” [Michael Regan, the administrator of the EPA], added. “Failure is not an option, indifference is not an option, inaction is not an option.” ...

It’s not just climate the EPA has acted upon in recent months. There are new standards for chemical plants, such as those that blight the so-called "Cancer Alley" the US, from emitting cancer-causing toxins such as benzene, ethylene oxide and vinyl chloride. New rules curbing mercury, arsenic and lead from industrial facilities have been released, as have tighter limits on emissions of soot and the first ever regulations targeting the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkylsubstances (or PFAS) in drinking water.” ...

For those inside the agency, the breakneck pace has been enervating. “It’s definitely a race against time,” said one senior EPA official, who asked not to be named. “The clock is ticking. It is a sprint through a marathon and it is exhausting.” ...

“We know the work to confront the climate crisis doesn’t stop at strong carbon pollution standards,” said Ben Jealous, the executive director of the Sierra Club.

“The continued use or expansion of fossil power plants is incompatible with a livable future. Simply put, we must not merely limit the use of fossil fuel electricity – we must end it entirely.”"

-via The Guardian (US), 5/16/23

[contemplatingoutlander]

A Trump judge sends Southwest Airlines to right-wing reeducation camp

Ruth Marcus does an excellent job of pointing out how another Trump appointed judge (from Texas) is stomping on the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. The judge in this case doesn't seem to understand the difference between people being allowed to hold religious beliefs and religious people harassing others who don't share their religious beliefs. The article is well worth reading. Here are some excerpts:

Another day, another extremist ruling by another extremist Trump judge, and this decision — from Texas, no surprise — is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The judge held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for their actions in a religious-discrimination case brought by a former flight attendant and ordered them to undergo “religious liberty training.” And not just any instruction, but training conducted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group that litigates against same-sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. [emphasis added] The issue arises from a lawsuit filed by Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for more than 20 years and a longtime antagonist of the Southwest flight attendants union. In 2017, after union members attended the Women’s March under a “Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants” banner, Carter sent Facebook messages to the union president containing graphic antiabortion messages.

[See more under the cut.]

“This is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC …. You truly are Despicable in so many ways,” Carter wrote in one message accompanying a video of an aborted fetus. After the union president complained, Southwest fired Carter, saying her conduct “crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior,” was “inappropriate, harassing, and offensive,” and “did not adhere to Southwest policies and guidelines.” An arbitrator found that Southwest had just cause for the firing. Carter, represented by the National Right to Work Committee, sued, claiming Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal labor laws and Title VII. The federal job-bias law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, and Carter claimed she was dismissed because of her sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion. [...] The scary part is what came next. [U.S. District Judge Brantley] Starr instructed the airline to “inform Southwest Flight Attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” Instead, Southwest said in a message to staff that the court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.” This sent Starr into orbit.... “In the universe we live in — the one where words mean something — Southwest’s notice didn’t come close to complying with the Court’s order,” Starr said. “To make matters worse,” he said, Southwest had circulated a memo about the decision to its employees repeating its view that Carter’s conduct was unacceptable and emphasizing the need for civility. “Southwest’s speech and actions toward employees demonstrate a chronic failure to understand the role of federal protections for religious freedom,” Starr decreed. He proceeded to order three Southwest lawyers to undergo eight hours of religious-liberty training — a move he described as “the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order.” Luckily, Starr observed, “there are esteemed nonprofit organizations that are dedicated to preserving free speech and religious freedom.” [...] Adjectives fail me here. This is not even close to normal.... the notion of subjecting lawyers to a reeducation campaign by the likes of the ADF is tantamount to creating a government-endorsed thought police. Imagine the uproar — and I’m not suggesting these groups are in any way comparable — if a liberal-leaning federal judge ordered instruction on women’s rights (those are constitutionally protected, too) by Planned Parenthood. [...] This is the alarming legacy that former president Donald Trump has left us — a skewed bench that he would augment if reelected. The Trump judges seem to be competing among themselves for who can engage in the greatest overreach. [...] Conservatives are quick to balk at anything resembling the order that Starr issued when they disagree with the underlying principle. [...] I need no excuses for calling this what it is: a reeducation program — outrageous, unconstitutional and an abuse of judicial authority. [emphasis added]

[vote-democrat-president-congress]

The damage inflicted on the nation during Donald Trump’s first term in office pales in comparison with what he will do if he is elected to a second term.

NYTimes: By Thomas B. Edsall 8/21/24

How can we know this? The best evidence is Trump himself. He has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to tear the country apart.

“Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters,” Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton, writes in a forthcoming article in Liberties,

have made it clear that they will not accept defeat in November any more than they did when Trump lost four years ago. They believe that Trump is the one true legitimate president, that those who refuse to accept this fundamental fact are the true deniers, and that any result other than Trump’s restoration would be a thwarting of history’s purpose and a diabolical act of treason.

The authoritarian imperative has moved beyond Trumpian narcissism and the cultish MAGA fringe to become an article of faith from top to bottom inside the utterly transformed Republican Party, which Trump totally commands.

Like Wilentz, Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, does not mince words, writing by email:

All the dangers foreign and domestic posed by Trump’s cruelly vindictive, self-aggrandizing, morally unconstrained, reality-defying character — as evidenced in his first presidential term and in his unprecedented refusal to accept his 2020 electoral loss — would be magnified many times over in any subsequent term by three factors.

First, he has systematically eroded the norms and the institutional guardrails that initially set boundaries on the damage he and his now more carefully chosen loyalist enablers are poised to do in carrying out the dangerous project to which they are jointly committed.

Second, their failures to insulate themselves from electoral and legal constraints during the dry run of 2017-21 have led them to formulate far more sophisticated and less vulnerable plans for their second attempt at consolidating permanent control of the apparatus of our fragile republic.

And third, their capture of the Supreme Court and indeed much of the federal judiciary has put in place devastating precedents like the immunity ruling of July 1 that will license a virtually limitless autocratic power — if, but only if, they are not stopped during the epic struggle that will reach one climax this Nov. 5 and another next Jan. 6.

The most important reason a second Trump term would be far more dangerous than his first is that if he does win this year, Trump will have triumphed with the electorate’s full knowledge that he has been criminally charged with 88 felonies and convicted of 34 of them (so far); that he has promised to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family”; and that he intends to “totally obliterate the deep state” by gutting civil service protections for the 50,000 most important jobs in the federal work force, a central tenet of what he calls his “retribution” agenda.

Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, contended in an email:

The question is how much the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision will undermine institutional guardrails against Trump’s anti-democratic behavior. If there are no repercussions for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, intimidation of election officers, and casual handling of classified materials, then Trump will be emboldened to partake in such activities again.

Trump has made clear that norms of governance — e.g., civility, accepting electoral defeat, and treating members of the political opposition as legitimate holders of power — do not apply to him.

While Kamala Harris has pulled even with, if not ahead of, Trump in recent polling, Republican attacks on her have yet to reach full intensity, and the outcome remains very much up for grabs.

Bruce Cain, a Stanford political scientist, voiced concerns similar to Wronski’s by email:

Trump is more erratic, impulsive, and self-interested than your average candidate and is much bolder than most in testing the boundaries of what he can get away with. In political insider lingo, he is a guy who likes to put his toes right up to the chalk line between legal and illegal activity.

There is some evidence that his bad traits are getting worse with old age, but the more serious problem is the lowering of institutional and political guardrails that constrained him in the past. The decision in Trump v. the U.S. entitling a former president to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” seems to me particularly problematic. The court left open the question of how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts. Trump’s personality is such that he will without doubt test the limits of this distinction.

Timothy Snyder, a historian at Yale and an expert on the regimes of Stalin and Hitler, wrote by email in reply to my inquiry: “It would be closer to the truth to think about a second Trump administration beginning from the images of Jan. 6, 2021. That is where Trump left us and that is where he would begin.”

Unlike oligarchy and tyranny, Snyder argued,

Democracy depends upon example, and Trump sets the worst possible one. He has openly admired dictators his entire life. He would encourage Xi and Putin. The Russians make completely clear that a Trump presidency is their hope for victory in Ukraine. Allowing Russia to win that war, which I think is Trump’s likely orientation, destabilizes Europe, encourages China toward aggression in the Pacific, and undermines the rule of law everywhere.

Charles Stewart, a political scientist at M.I.T., warned in an email:

A second Trump administration would escalate the threat of authoritarian governance, most notably, by sanctioning politically motivated prosecutions. Even if the courts resisted the baldest of efforts, doing so will be costly to political opponents and also continue to silence dissent among conservatives who wish to have political careers.

In 2016 and for much of his first term, major elements of the Republican Party viewed Trump with deep suspicion, repeatedly blocking or weakening his more delusional initiatives. That’s no longer the case.

“The Republican Party is fully and totally behind Trump — the epicenter of election disruption — even after two impeachments, an insurrection and a criminal conviction,” Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton, pointed out in an email, adding:

The support that Trump received after Jan. 6, and the entire effort to overturn the election, demonstrates that much of the G.O.P. is fine with doing this. Now that the party knows what insurrection looks like and has given its stamp of approval by nominating Trump, we know that this is officially part of the Republican playbook.

One thing is clear: Trump would assume control of the White House in 2025 with far more power and far fewer restraints than when he took office in January 2017.

Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, argued that Trump’s near-dictatorial rule over the Republican Party and the absence of intraparty dissent will play a crucial role if he returns to the White House in 2025:

Democratic backsliding rests heavily on the absence of contrary messages within the party undermining democracy, because (a) this further radicalizes sympathetic voters (who take their cues from in-party politicians) and (b) makes the battle into an “us” vs. “them” partisan fight that is easily used by demagogues to justify further democratic backsliding.

Both Hacker and Frances Lee, a Princeton political scientist, pointed out that even with solid support from fellow House and Senate Republicans, Trump’s power and freedom to act will depend on partisan control of the House and the Senate.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox. As Hacker put it:

The scale of the threat posed by a Trump presidency will rest far more than commonly recognized on the exact balance of partisan power in D.C. If Trump has both houses of Congress — along with, of course, a highly sympathetic Supreme Court — the pace and extent of democratic backsliding will be much greater than if Republicans “merely” hold the White House.

Given its role in appointments and its greater prominence, the Senate is the critical fulcrum. We saw in 2019-20 that Democrats holding the House helped keep the spotlight on Trump’s misdeeds and blocked some of Trump’s most egregious potential legislative moves. But House control is worth much less than Senate control, and a Democratic House may not be enough to prevent serious democratic backsliding.

If Democrats win a House majority, Lee wrote by email, “their control of the House would foreclose any opportunity for one-party legislating, such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.”

In addition, Lee argued, “Trump’s proposals and priorities still do divide the Republican Party internally. Even though Trump has improved his position with the congressional wing of the Republican Party relative to 2017, he still faces pockets of intraparty resistance, especially but not exclusively on foreign policy.”

As a result, Lee wrote, “the remaining Trump-skeptic Republicans in Congress will have pivotal status in a narrow Republican majority. So the bottom line is that we don’t know much about the influence Trump can wield until we see the outcome of the congressional elections.”

Even accounting for Lee’s caution, however, Trump’s base of support has grown over the past eight years to encompass not only the MAGA electorate and the network of elected officials who have learned dissent is politically suicidal, but also the individuals and interests that make up the party’s infrastructure, especially the donors and lobbyists.

Just three and a half years ago, in the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, this wing of the party threatened to become a major roadblock to a second Trump term. Leaders of Wall Street and big business voiced seemingly deep concern over the threat to democracy posed by Trump and his followers, with many of these leaders vowing that they would never contribute to a Trump campaign.

“Many of the nation’s richest people said after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that they would never again back former President Trump,” David Lauter of The Los Angeles Times reported. Those concerns have dissipated.

In March, The Washington Post reported: “Elite donors who once balked at Trump’s fueling of the Capitol insurrection, worried about his legal problems and decried what they saw as his chaotic presidency are rediscovering their affinity for the former president — even as he praises and vows to free Jan. 6 defendants, promises mass deportations and faces 88 felony charges.”

It would be hard to overestimate the importance of Trump’s increasingly strong ties to his party’s financial establishment. His ability to shape the flow of campaign money is second only to the power of his endorsements, making obeisance to his authority even more crucial to political survival.

Trump’s shifting relationship with the Republican establishment’s major-donor community can best be seen in the changing composition of his financial backing from 2016 to 2024.

In 2016, many of Trump’s top backers, according to OpenSecrets, could best be described as marginal figures in the world of campaign finance:

McMahon Ventures, a consulting firm founded by the owners of World Wrestling Entertainment, $6 million; Mountainaire, a chicken producer, $2.01 million.

In terms of money, Trump today is a very different candidate. The corporate qualms that surfaced in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection have been subordinated to the prospect of billions in tax breaks for business and the rich if Trump returns to office.

According to OpenSecrets, of the $472.8 million Trump and allied PACs have raised through the middle of this year, a quarter, $115.4 million, has come from the securities and investment industry, the financial core of the Republican establishment. In 2016, this industry effectively shunned Trump, giving him a paltry $20.8 million.

“The leaders of major industries’ decision to back Trump suggests that the economic benefits of staying on the team will outweigh principled concerns about democratic norms should push come to shove in a second Trump term,” Eric Schickler, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote by email in response to my query.

There are several other factors raising the level of danger posed by a second Trump term in the White House.

When he took office in 2017, Trump had no clear agenda, just a collection of grievances, impulses and prejudices; no carefully prepared list of prospective loyalists to appoint to key posts; and in essence no understanding of the workings of the federal government.

These deficiencies kept many, but not all, of his destructive impulses in check as top aides and key party leaders repeatedly steered him away from the cliff.

If he wins this year, those checks on Trump will be gone.

Trump’s advisers and allies have put together a detailed agenda along with lists of men and women who are ready to do his bidding — developments that have been detailed in this column and elsewhere.

In his email, Schickler emphasized the crucial role played by Trump’s successful efforts to drive Republican opponents out of elective office. Now, Schickler wrote:

“Each Republican member’s own political survival depends on being loyal to the team.” He continued, “Republicans will stand by Trump in any potential impeachment battle — as result, there will be no chance for a conviction, essentially making any attempt to enforce accountability into just another partisan showdown.”

During his first term, Schickler noted, Trump “raised the possibility of taking a threatening action — such as sending in troops to arrest or even shoot protesters,” but he was held back by his own appointees and senior government employees.

“The big difference in 2025,” Schickler cautioned,

is that there is a much more built-out political operation supporting Trump. Appointees will be carefully vetted for their loyalty. When it comes time to implement an order that, for example, removes civil service protections from most federal workers, the top layers of executive agencies will be filled with people eager to follow through and weed out those with “bad” views.

Not only will Trump be more robustly protected if he returns to the White House in 2025; a key institution — the Supreme Court — is more likely to back his initiatives now that it is dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority, half of which is made up of Trump appointees.

That conservative bloc has already signaled its willingness to unleash Trump in its July 1 immunity decision, Trump v. United States.

The ruling gave Trump new grounds to challenge the criminal charges and convictions he faces and suggests broad approval for future Trump policies and initiatives. The president, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion, “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

Robert Y. Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia, wrote by email:

Trump says he wants to replace the bureaucracy — part of the “deep state” — with political appointees. He wants to go after his political enemies, lock up refugees in camps, and implicit in all this he will appoint cabinet members and high-level officials who support what he wants to do instead of the “grown-ups” who constrained him at every turn during his presidency.

In this context, Shapiro continued:

The above threat to democracy has to be seen, on the face of it, as real, given that the Supreme Court has opened the possibility of immunity on any presidential actions, however criminal they might be. What Trump has said he will do, and what the Supreme Court has opened the door to — what he can do in terms of what would be criminal and not just impeachable offenses — pose an enormous threat to the nation and American democracy.

Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, summarized the risks raised by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in an email:

The court’s decisions have made it harder for the judiciary, Congress or other institutions to hold Trump in check. The immunity decision certainly enables an authoritarian presidency far beyond that envisioned by the people who wrote the Constitution.

The biggest difference if Trump is re-elected, Jacobson argued,

will be the absence of officials in the administration with the stature, experience, and integrity to resist Trump’s worst instincts in such matters. A White House staffed with sycophantic loyalists or white nationalist zealots who share Trump’s ignorance and contempt for norms and institutions will give him freer rein than in the first term.

As Sean Wilentz warns:

Trump, who does not speak in metaphors, has made it plain: “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath.” This is a time for imagining the worst. Not a single loyal Republican official has objected to that statement or to similar MAGA warnings about an impending civil war.

Yet, Wilentz writes, “many of even the most influential news sources hold to the fiction Trump and his party are waging a presidential campaign instead of a continuing coup, a staggering failure to recognize Trump’s stated agenda.”

I am going to give the last word to Timothy Snyder, the Yale historian:

Trump is in the classic dictatorial position: He needs to die in bed holding all executive power to stay out of prison. This means that he will do whatever he can to gain power, and once in power will do all that he can to never let it go. This is a basic incentive structure which underlies everything else. It is entirely inconsistent with democracy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/opinion/trump-second-term-2025.html

[tanadrin]

[epistemic status: a bunch of semi-related thoughts I am trying to work out aloud] It has been noted countless times that reactionary politics rely on a feeling of threat: our enemies are strong and we are weak (but we are virtuous and they are not, which is why they’re our enemies!); we must defend ourselves, we must not be afraid of doing what needs to be done; we must not shie away from power generally, and violence specifically.

And there are lots of contexts--like when talking about the appeal of reactionary politics in the US before and at the beginning of Trump’s rise to prominence, or when talking about hard-on-crime policies that are a springboard to police militarization, or (the central example of all this in the 21st century) the post 9/11 PATRIOT-act terrorism paranoia that was a boon to authoritarians everywhere, and spurred a massive expansion of both control and surveillance in everyday life--where critics of reactionary rhetoric are chastised for their failure to appeal to the other side, because they come off as callous towards their concerns and their real fears and anxieties.

And while this might not be strategically correct, frankly, I think there’s a sense in which it is justified to be callous towards those concerns. Because those concerns are lies. They may be lies borne out of a seed of real experience (9/11 did happen, of course), but the way that seed is cultivated by focused paranoia, by contempt toward cultivating any sense of proportionality or any honest comparison of risk, the way it is dragooned into the service of completely orthogonal political goals (”the CIA/NSA/FBI must be able to monitor all private communications everywhere in the world, just in case it might prevent another 9/11″) chokes off any possible sympathy I might otherwise feel. American paranoia about another couple thousand lives being lost in a 9/11 like event resulted in a number of deaths literally multiple orders of magnitude larger in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the former, some years Iraq was suffering the equivalent of six or seven 9/11s a year.

So, any fear-driven policy must not (for example) say “to prevent disaster X happening again, we’re going to make it happen 270 times over to someone else.” That’s not reasonable. And “fear is a bad basis for crafting policy” is not exactly a revolutionary observation. There’s that probably-apocryphal story of a Chinese professor responding to Blackstone’s Ratio--you know, “better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer”--with “better for whom?” Which is supposed to be this trenchant and penetrating question that makes you reexamine your assumptions. But it’s always struck me as idiotic. Better for society! For everyone! Because the law only functions well if it is seen as a source of order and justice, not as an authoritarian cudgel; because a society in which anxiety drives policymaking and legal responses to social ills is one that is in the process of actively devouring itself; because flooding the public discourse with language that dehumanizes criminals and makes it easy to separate the individual from universal principles like civil rights is an acid that destroys the social fabric.

Fear as a germ of reactionary politics manifests itself in lots of ways outside of both historical examples, like fascism, or more recent examples, like US foreign policy during the war on terror. Fear and its link to purity-attitudes, with a low level of scientific literacy in general, drives stuff like the organized anti-vaccine movement. In the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram of political tendencies, I’d argue it’s a big factor in the wellness-to-Qanon track. It’s a big part of tough-on-crime rhetoric, which in the American instance in particular also draws on an especially racialized form (cf. the “Willie Horton” ad). Fear and purity and anti-contamination anxieties are even big in opposition to nuclear power, because most of the public just has a really bad sense of what the comparative dangers of nuclear vs fossil fuel are; and because the former has been culturally salient since 1945 in a way the latter hasn’t, nuclear contamination feels much more threatening than fossil fuel waste, despite by any measurable harm the latter causing far worse problems, even before you factor in any risks from climate change.

I would like to argue in particular that true crime as an entertainment genre, and wellness culture, and fears about child abuse all contribute to reactionary politics--they are in themselves major reactionary political currents--in a way that cuts across the political spectrum because they are not strongly marked for political factionalism. A lot of the rhetoric both from and around true crime entertainment promotes the idea that violent crime exists, or at least can flourish, because of an insufficiently punitive attitude toward crime; one that can only be fixed by centering victims’ desire (or putative desire) for retribution in the legal process, by eroding the civil rights of the accused, and by giving the police and prosecutors more power. Obviously, this is just 80s and 90s tough on crime rhetoric repackaged for millennials; it centers individual experience a bit more and deemphasizes the racial component that made the “Willie Horton” ad so successful, but it posits that there is only one cause for crime, a spontaneous choice by criminals that has no causal relationship with the rest of the world, and only one solution, which is authoritarianism.

Wellness culture leverages purity concerns and scientific illiteracy in ways which are so grifty and so transparently stupid that it’s by far the least interesting thing on this list to me; its most direct harm is in giving an environment for the anti-vaccine movement to flourish, and I’m always incredibly annoyed when people talk about how the medical establishment needs to do more to reassure the public about vaccines’ safety and efficacy. Again, strategically, this may be correct; people dying of preventable disease is really bad. But doctors as a body didn’t promote Andrew Wakefield’s nonsense; doctors as a body didn’t run breathless article after breathless article about vaccines maybe causing autism; doctors as a body didn’t scare the bejezus out of folks in the 90s and then act all surprised when preventable childhood diseases started breaking out all over the place.

Although outside the whole anti-vax thing, I think there are lots of other harms that wellness culture creates. It tends to be fairly antiscientific; in order to sell people nonsense (because as a subculture it exists almost exclusively to sell people things) it has to discredit anything that might point out that it is selling nonsense. Whether the anti-intellectualism that flourishes in these quarters is a result of intentional deceit or just a kind of natural rhetorical evolution probably varies. But it is an important component of wellness culture to be able to play a shell game between “big pharma doesn’t have your best interests at heart,” “you don’t need your anti-depressants,” and “laetrile cures cancer.”

The way in which fears of child abuse are turned into a reactionary political cudgel probably actually annoys me the most; whether it’s Wayfair conspiracy theories, conservatives trying to turn “groomer” into an anti-queer slur, or just antis on tumblr, the portrayal of sadistic sexual threat aimed at children from an outside malevolent force is compelling only because the vast majority of child abuse and CSA comes from within families and within culturally privileged structures of authority like churches, and this fact makes everyone really uncomfortable, and no one wants to talk about it. I remember getting really annoyed during the Obama years when the White House wanted to talk about bullying and anti-LGBT bullying in particular, while studiously avoiding blaming parents and teachers in any way for it, despite the fact that all the coming out horror stories I know are from people’s parents turning on them.

Now, very conservative politics have always opposed dilution of a kind of privilege for the family structure; they envision a family structure which is patriarchal, and so dilution of this privilege is dilution of the status of patriarch. Very insular communities which cannot survive their members having many options or alternative viewpoints available to them, including controlling religions but also just abusive parents who want to retain control over their kids, also bristle at the idea of any kind of general society-wide capacity for people to notice how parents treat their children. But beyond that, I think our society still treats parents as having a right of possession over their children and their children’s identities, especially when they’re young, and bolsters that idea with an idea that the purity of children is constantly under threat from the outside world, and it is the parents’ job to safeguard that purity. The result is the nuclear family as a kind of sacred structure which the rest of society has no right to observe or pry open; and this is a massive engine of enabling the abuse of children. To no other relationship in our society do we apply this idea, that it should be free from “interference” (read: basic accountability) from the rest of society.

Moreover, the idea of childhood as a time of purity and innocence, which not only must be protected from but during which children must be actively lied to about major aspects of how the world works, is one of the last ways remaining to an increasingly secular culture to justify censorious and puritanical Victorian morality. It is hard to advocate for censorship to protect the Morals of the Christian Public, when nobody believes in the Morals of the Christian Public anymore; but “think of the children!” still works as a rallying cry, because of this nagging sense we have that age-appropriate conversations with children about adult topics will cause them to melt or explode.

In many ways, these anxieties on behalf of theoretical children are the ones I am most contemptuous of. Not because child abuse isn’t a serious problem--it is--but because the vector imagined for it is almost entirely opposite the one it actually tends to occur along. People who pretend that the primary danger to children is from strangers are usually woefully misinformed; people who pretend it is from media are either idiots or liars seeking a cover for their craving for censorship.

In conclusion: while it’s not possible to exorcise all our neuroses from our politics, anymore than we will ever exercise all our neuroses from our aesthetics, there are some we should be especially on guard against. A sense of threat, and anxieties which tie into concerns about purity and fears of contamination, are two big ones. These produce policies that are not only badly correlated with the outcomes they ostensibly want, but actually and severely destructive to them, in the same way that invading Iraq was actively destructive to any notion of preventing terrorism, saving American or Iraqi lives, or promoting political stability in the Middle East. And we should hold in healthy suspicion anybody whose politics seem to be driven by similar neuroses. Some merely believe very harmful things. Some are actually actively deceptive. None will achieve any of the higher aims they claim as justification for their beliefs.

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

Maresuke Nogi was always his own toughest critic. Emperor Meiji trusted him and appointed him to high military posts in Japan: general in the imperial army, governor-general of Taiwan. But we all make mistakes, and Nogi’s lapses gnawed at him. Twice he requested the emperor’s leave to commit ritual suicide. Each time, the emperor refused. In Nogi’s home, now a quiet shrine in a Tokyo meadow, you can see pictures of Nogi reading the newspaper on September 13, 1912, the morning of his boss’s funeral. No one was left to stop him. Near the photo you can see the sword he used later that day to disembowel himself.

I raise the example of General Nogi to encourage present-day leaders (military, political, educational) to take a much more modest step. They should offer to resign—often, and both in times of trouble and in times of calm. This weekend, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, did the honorable thing, and the chair of Penn’s board, Scott Bok, followed his kōhai’s example shortly after. Magill resigned because she, along with Harvard President Claudine Gay and MIT President Sally Kornbluth, performed abysmally under questioning in Congress. Their inquisitor, upstate New York’s Elise Stefanik, a Republican, asked them whether chanting genocidal slogans violated their universities’ policies. It depends on the context, they all said, on the advice of counsel and the worst PR teams money can buy. Within days, Magill and Gay conceded that their answers had not been ideal. Gay is facing calls for her resignation, too.

Resign. Resign. Everyone: resign. Resignation has come to mean failure, something one does when cornered, caught dead to rights, incapable of continuing for even another day. It should be an act of honor—a high point in a career of service. It isn’t shameful. It is noble. It is the first and sometimes only step in the expiation of shame, and (ironically) the ultimate sign of one’s fitness for office.

No one demonstrates the value of these traits better than those who lack them entirely. I thought of Nogi’s katana, flashing from its scabbard, last week when the House voted to expel George Santos, Stefanik’s colleague in New York’s Republican delegation. The House almost never kicks anyone out, mainly because those facing expulsion have in the past tended to resign rather than weather the indignity of an expulsion vote. Santos is taking his ouster well and posting prolifically on TikTok. A psychologically normal person would have resigned the instant his tower of lies showed signs of wobbling. To let it crash down, then dance around the rubble of that tower until the orderlies arrive and pull you away, is truly mad behavior, and a demonstration of unfitness for the job, or indeed any job other than TikTok star.

I cannot prove this, but I believe the tendency to stick it out rather than resign started roughly when Representative Anthony Weiner (New York again, this time a Democrat) called a press conference to discuss whether he had, in fact, tweeted a picture of his penis, tumescent in his underwear. He could have just quit, and eventually he did (but lived to humiliate himself another day). But that pause to hold a press conference broke the seal on something dangerous, the idea that one can talk one’s way through a mortification. To take the podium and subject oneself to hostile questioning under those circumstances bespoke a delusionary chutzpah.

It soon became clear that anyone socially defective enough to persist through a scandal has a good chance of surviving it. By the time then-candidate Donald Trump (Republican, guess where) appeared on the Access Hollywood tape, describing his hobby of sexually assaulting women, it ceased to be obvious that at some point one should tap out and go home. If you have no shame, and you refuse to go, there might not be anyone out there who can make you. Mechanisms exist, as the Santos case shows. But the mechanisms were devised to govern people from another time, sensitive to ridicule and guffaws.

One should be ready for criticism, both earned and unearned. But resignation—more precisely, the offer of resignation—is an expression of confidence, both in oneself and in one’s employers or constituents. A board can reject a resignation. Voters can turn out in the streets to beg you to reconsider, or can turn out at the ballot to vote you back in. In fact, the more defensible one’s position, the greater esteem we should show for the one who offers to leave it. Call this the Nogi rule.

Harvard’s Claudine Gay evidently believed that she’d erred, because she reverted immediately to damage-control mode after leaving Washington. The next day, she told the Crimson that her testimony did not represent “my truth”—that is, that she disapproves of genocidal anti-Semitism. (This is an extreme example of the political axiom “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”) Her original answer before Congress lacked any visceral disapproval of anti-Semitism, certainly none to match Harvard’s recent record of condemning speech deemed offensive to historically disadvantaged groups. Her affect was robotic, neutral. She showed no signs of concern at all.

But her neutrality was born of an honorable principle, well worth defending. It reflected the values of free expression in a modern interpretation of the First Amendment, under which anyone can say just about any foolish thing, as long as saying it isn’t about to cause someone else to break the law. If the “context” of a genocidal chant is a nonviolent rally, the university shouldn’t stop anyone from chanting. (It should examine its soul. But that is another matter.) If the context is a crowd of protesters with bricks in hand, running at a group of Jews, the university should expel or fire every demonstrator there, whether armed with a brick or a bullhorn. All three presidents should have said this, then added a note of contrition over their universities’ failure to uphold these principles of free expression in the past.

But I’ll say it again: Gay should resign. To offer her neck to Harvard’s Board of Overseers would show her confidence that its members, like Emperor Meiji, would see past her error and ask her to endure in her position. It would also demonstrate her willingness to own that error, to acknowledge it publicly and unselfishly. Maybe the board would accept her resignation, and maybe it would not. Either of these fates is better than the one she is courting. At the moment she is trying to wriggle out of her error, and clinging to her job as if her dignity depended on keeping it. Better to teach by example that the reverse is often true, that dignity depends on leaving a job—and that staying suggests that one has nothing else, once it is gone.

The greatest legacy a resignation leaves is the creation of a culture of resignation. One institution that, up until now, has had such a culture is the Israeli defense establishment. A few weeks ago, I spoke with a former Mossad official who assured me that the entire leadership of the Mossad and the Israel Defense Forces would, as soon as the Gaza war reached a satisfactory pause, resign from their positions. They would do so, he said, because resignation was the only honorable response to their failure to foresee and prevent Hamas’s attack on October 7. Their predecessors did so in 2006, after the very messy war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and after several other episodes of modest failure in Israeli history. That they might stick around, slinking back to their offices as if hoping everyone forgot about their mistakes, would be inconceivable. In this context, one understands better the popular rage against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in whom the spirit of General Nogi is extinct: To this day, he is making the case to the Israeli right for his remaining their leader indefinitely.

One can’t get far in politics without a dogged willingness to destroy one’s critics and step on their corpses to reach the next height. But this is a minimal qualification for success, and everyone who attains high office, having climbed up from decades in the Senate or in departmental meetings, has it to an unusual degree. To persist is just to do what comes naturally for these people. To give up at the right moment—that is a quality against type, and a virtue possessed by the greatest of leaders. It is nevertheless available even to those who have hitherto shown no signs of greatness at all. Let it be said of them what is said in Macbeth of the Thane of Cawdor: that nothing became them in public service like the leaving it.

[kalashnikovlaserpussy]

Communists: Capitalist electoralism isn't, hasn't, and won't ever serve the wants of the people. Here's eight four-hundred page theses on the exact underlying logic and why this is more irrefutable than fucking gravity, including one from Albert Einstein. All of these point to the irrefutable conclusion that the usamerican elections serve to pacify voters with the vague promise of change and divide and conquer minority groups that would be able to see their needs met if they united under a single banner. Here's another three papers by Lenin showing how only ever throwing your lot in with socialist candidates in bourgeoisie elections helps build and measure the success of a socialist movement, creating a runaway effect that ensures much more effective revolutions. Here's more than five hundred examples of how Biden has been as bad or worse than trump on almost every metric, reinforcing the argument that bourgeoisie elections are not actually about making decisions. Here's more evidence that Biden is either arrogant enough that he's dooming himself to failure or intentional sabotaging the democratic campaign to divert criticism from him for things to come. Here's more evidence showing that he's unpopular enough that he's not likely to win anyway, and even more showing that communists wouldn't have enough votes to affect the outcome even if they did. Finally, here's an explanation of the electoral college that shows how working class votes are barely even considered, and can be ignored whenever the ruling class wishes for it. This all proves conclusively that if you are voting for someone, it needs to be a socialist candidate, and not an unpopular fascist who might be sabotaging his own campaign, because even if your vote doesn't matter, you make a real, provable contribution towards a chance for the world to be better.

Random bot with an AI generated pfp that looks like it should be satire of AI images: Well actually here's a handful of half-assed symbolic bills people passed while Biden was within the building, and somehow these prove that you're a nazi and need to kill yourself.

Account with the stupidest name you've ever heard and the most pathetically smarmy pfp in the universe: yea! See! Vote blue no matter who!!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!

Self-proclaimed "Leftist freak and commie": God I fucking hate tankies, go starve you gulag-loving piece of shit.

[exprimis]

The author's bio is a treat:

Charles S. Faddis served for 20 years as an operations officer in the Central Intelligence Agency, including as a department chief at the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and as a chief of station in the Middle East. He earned his B.A. from Johns Hopkins University and his J.D. from the University of Maryland Law School. He is the author of several books, including Willful Neglect: The Dangerous Illusion of Homeland Security and Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.

I wonder what he identifies as the failures of the CIA? Let's see:

The CIA had no sources inside Al Qaeda to tell us about the 9/11 plot.

The CIA didn't immediately attribute COVID-19, known to be descended from bat-borne coronaviruses, to the bat coronavirus gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab.

Bureaucracy and a risk-averse culture.

Loss of skills, but also loss of mystique: "The people who run our government [...] have done their best to turn the CIA into just another federal agency. [...] We act as if anyone can be taught to conduct espionage—as if this is no longer an arcane craft to be practiced by a select group of unique people."

"The CIA has proved unable to put a source inside a Chinese bio lab, within the leadership structure of the Taliban, or next to Vladimir Putin."

The CIA has been politicized: backing Hillary Clinton in the Benghazi inquiries, aiding the Trump dossier investigation, and former intelligence officers decrying the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian propaganda.

The first point is transparently false; read the 9/11 Report and you will learn that the CIA had "real-time intelligence" on Bin Laden as early as 1996, with a plan to capture the known terrorist financier in place by the fall of 1997. That Bin Laden was planning to hijack civilian airliners was known as early as 1998.

The second point is still a matter of contention.

The third point is true of every part of government, but is especially true in international politics, geez.

The fourth point makes Charles Faddis sound like he's been reading too many spy novels where there's no risk of war from getting found out.

The fifth point is false as to Al Qaeda and laughable as to Putin. And if the CIA had any assets in Wuhan, their existence would be so totally classified that the CIA would hesitate to use their information in public, because the CIA prefers to not have its spies tortured and executed.

The sixth point reads like the seething cope of a man whose ideology is opposed by the Deep State, whether or not his facts are right. It is incredibly ironic that he complains that the CIA, which historically reported only to the President, was a political tool of the presidential administration of a Democrat.

So what does he identify as solutions?

Fire a lot of people.

"Recruiting must be completely revamped. Quotas are absurd. Focusing on color, gender, and sexual orientation is at best irrelevant. We want the best, and that means those people who possess the unique blend of skills and abilities that enable them to do what everyone else considers impossible."

Make training tougher.

Flatten the org chart and make it all about ops, not about analysis or support.

... for a man complaining that the CIA wasn't able to put spies in specific locations, he seems awfully invested in removing the ability of the CIA to recruit people who will blend in in those locations due to their color, gender, and sexual orientation.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

Globalists are cultivatating professional thugs of anarchists whose goal is to usher in their so called "new world order" through the destruction of the world's cities.

It pains me to see people who look like me rewarded for theft, vandalism and even murder. Once upon a time in black culture, lawlessness was discouraged. Now, mayors (like the one in Baltimore) tell the police to give rioters "space to destroy." Morally corrupt Maxine Watters threatened jurors in Minnesota that a "not guilty" verdict in the case against officer Derek Chauvin would cause violence & destruction.

Two (2) of these gangs have names: Antifa and BLM. Antifa recruits students or entry level young professionals who seek career advancement. This first rung up the anarchist's ladder of success serves as an initiation into more sophisticated anarchist circles. It can lead to lucrative job opportunities and political appointments.

Participants are often rewarded with tenured teaching posts in colleges and universities. They also move up the ladder in various corporate and legal firms and they are positioned for political appointments.

BLM and the lower level "gangs" are made up of the nameless, disposable radicals meant to be sacrificed for "the greater good." Organizations like the NAACP and so called "black leaders" like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Michelle & Barack Obama serve as plantation DRIVERS who are assigned to manipulate the minds of the "disposable" anarchists.

The collapse of American cities into lawless cities is strategic. It is no coincidence that over 400,000 Americans have fled "Gotham" NYC as it is destroyed from the inside out.

New York is redefining what constitutes an actual crime. The result is their statistics don't tell the full story of how failure to prosecute criminals has destroyed New York City and in turn, millions of lives. The dirty cop, DA Alvin Bragg only has dismal 49% success rate prosecuting crime.

A native New Yorker:

A silver lining to these fraudulent Trump indictment(s) is a bright spotlight on criminal INJUSTICE at the hands of dirty DAs, AGs, State's Attorneys, Judges and so-called special prosecutors.

Our American House of Representatives hosted a NYC field hearing for victims of violent crime.

Below please find heartbreaking testimonies of the victims. They are cautionary tales of how lawlessness has impacted everyday people around the United States of America. Sadly, the residents of these cities don't understand that they voted for their demise.

America's Lawless Cities

Seattle

Los Angeles

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

Portland

New Orleans

Chicago

New York City

San Francisco

Starbucks, Walmart, Cracker Barrel, Whole Foods fleeing due to "security concerns."

Portland, OR

"An open air insane asylum." Portland's Meltdown: "A Progressive Experiment That Has Gone Colossally Bad. Controlled Demolition."

Chicago, IL

Walmart Closes 4 Chicago Stores Shoppers complain but they just voted for another mayor who is soft on crime.🤦‍♂️

The company has pledged to offer more safety training for workers and clarify safety procedures, such as when to call 911, and making changes to store formats and layouts. The measures include “closing a restroom, or even closing a store permanently” where safety is no longer possible, according to a letter posted on the company website. 

Social Disorder Insurance Claims $2 Billion during a Historic Summer of Anarchy

"The most expensive outbreak of civil unrest in U.S. history, costing insurance companies an estimated $2 billion to cover protestor wreckage in the days following George Floyd’s death.

The sky high price tag comes from an assessment by Property Claims Services (PCS) published in Axios which has tracked claims related to social disorder since 1950. The company classifies any violent outbreak sparking more than $25 million in claims a “catastrophe.”

The $2 billion figure covering claims made from rioting across 20 states between May 26 and June 8 dwarfs the dollar-amounts doled out by insurance companies in the aftermath of previous periods of unrest isolated to individual cities.

“It’s not just happening in one city or state – it’s all over the country,” Loretta L. Worters, a spokesperson for the group told Axios. “And this is still happening, so the losses could be significantly more.”

Indeed, the initial Floyd riots merely kicked off a historic summer of anarchy sweeping the nation’s cities where

in Portland, Oregon, militant social justice warriors surpassed 100 days of consecutive terrorism. Protestors launched repeated assaults on state and federal law enforcement featuring mortar-style fireworks and lasers that can cause permanent blindness.

Protestors launched repeated assaults on state and federal law enforcement featuring mortar-style fireworks and lasers that can cause permanent blindness.

The only prior outbreak to come close to producing the same level of carnage as the 14 days of rioting after Floyd’s death, measured by insurance claims, are the 1992 Los Angeles riots causing $775 million in insured losses, or more than $1.4 billion in today’s dollars, according to PCS.

Consequent research on the nation’s pandemic of domestic terrorism this summer has further highlighted the breadth of the destruction. The map below shows where the nation suffered nearly 570 violent riots between May 24, the day before Floyd’s death, and Aug. 22, the day before Jacob Blake was shot in Kenosha, Wisconsin triggering a second wave of chaotic demonstrations reaching smaller communities."

Cracker Barrel Manager Killed During Robbery

An Inconvenient Truth: To neutralize the threat, you fire until the threat is neutralized.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Trump déjà vu: It's always about him

January 31, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Remember that time—during Trump's presidency—when every proposed action by the US government was evaluated by a single criterion: Does the action advance Trump's personal interests? Although Trump is not president, House Republicans are giving us a reminder of what it was like when Trump was president. The text of the proposed immigration bill has yet to be released, but House Speaker Mike Johnson reportedly told his GOP colleagues on Tuesday that the bill is “dead on arrival” in the House. Why? Because Trump told him so—in order to advance Trump’s election prospects.

The situation is even more maddening than it appears at first blush. The House will likely vote on vague impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. One of the grounds for impeachment is that Mayorkas has lost “operational control of the border”—a fact that is unassailably true because Texas is blocking federal access to portions of the border!

There are other stories that deserve attention, but immigration is the lead issue. We should know by Friday if Trump will kill an immigration compromise that has been months in the making and whether the House will impeach a Cabinet secretary for the first time in 150 years.

[...]

The House GOP prepares to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

It appears that the House will issue articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas this week. Here is what you need to know: The impeachment is a sham designed to distract from the GOP’s abject failure to address immigration reform in decades. For a lengthier and more detailed explanation, see WaPo, The Republican effort to impeach Mayorkas, explained. (Accessible to all.)

WaPo interviewed an expert on immigration policy, Frank O. Bowman III, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, who summarized the proposed articles of impeachment as follows:

The first article is essentially a claim that the various policy decisions of the secretary, with which they happen to disagree, are ‘violations of law,’ which have produced, in their view, a whole bunch of bad consequences,” Bowman said. “Their claims that he has violated the law [are] wrong because virtually every one of them is an argument about the way in which the secretary has interpreted the frankly contradictory provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other immigration legislation.”

Moreover, even if Mayorkas were convicted and removed by the Senate (which won’t happen), President Biden could simply appoint another Homeland Security Secretary to implement the same policies that are angering Republicans. In other words, the entire proceeding is pointless and ineffectual.

Meanwhile, Congress is not acting to pass an immigration bill. And, by the way, Mike Johnson, how much progress have you made on eleven budget bills that must pass to avoid a government shutdown in March? Wasting time on a show-trial impeachment is the last thing that Republicans should be doing.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[popolitiko]

Transcript

Turning to our special Report tonight which is about Journalism and lies.

It's about defamation and the big case that fox news is onDefense over, but it is about soMuch more than that.  It's about some of the people Involved, including Tucker Carlson, but is about also more than Tucker.  To understand all of this, we’re going to show you not just some of the new, hot damning texts And receipts that has been in the news, but we're going to go Deeper tonight, because it Matters, and we begin with Mr. Tucker Carlson as our guide in the about sanction of any universally recognized standard or source of news, what happens?

Well, rumors take the place of News, and so ultimately you have an electorate that is really poorly informed and incredibly Suspicious, and in that Environment, crazy conspiracy Theories bloom and take the Place of facts.

>> Fact check, true. Now, that was years ago Mr. Carlson discussing Standards, news, conspiracy Theories and the wider Implications I'm going to show you tonight Why some of what he has long Said before is actually Incriminating for him now, but Also why it matters on a broader Basis. 

Mr. Carlson was talking then, Long before he was embroiled in A case of defamation Now, the take one example you May have seen, there were text Messages that show Carlson did Not believe, the quote, crazy Stuff trump lawyers were pushing And his platform endorsed. Indeed, one of the questions at Some level of Pushback or failure to keep the Shows on the air So then after that, Carlson Found a new lane He wasn't getting hired to host Another TV show, so he created His own media political news Website called the daily caller In and argued it would be a Conservative answer to popular Sites at the time like Huffington post. He said it wouldn't be partisan.

Quote, our goal is not to get Republicans elected. We are not going to suck up to People in power. That's disgusting; he told "the Washington post.

So, that's  Tucker Think about it

What he said then was he was Going to stand for exactly the Factual mission that today's Tucker opposes And the point is not just Hypocrisy, the point is Tucker's Standard belies his liability  now and it shines a weird and  perhaps troubling light on how  this all works, at least for people like him who are willing  To tell you things the dominion Suit suggests are misleading or False, and you know with your Own eyes aren't true when it Comes to January 6th denialism, His trutherism Now, he took his mission, though At that time -- remember, when He said he wasn't going to do What he's doing now. He said he wanted more accuracy in conservative media. And accuracy in any type of Media is great He took that argument to the Crowd at the famously Conservative cpac conference we’re going to the archives. Watch how that cpac crowd boos Then Mr. Carlson for simply saying something, saying Conservatives should have Institutions devoted to rack si. Accuracy.

>> If you create news Organization whose primary Objective is not to deliver accurate news, you will fail you will fail. "The new York times" is a Liberal paper, but it's also -- And it is to its core a liberal Paper. It's also a paper that cares about whether they spell People's names right by the Large. It cares about accuracy. Conservative institutions need To build institutions that Mirror those that’s the truth you don't believe me "the new York times," you don't Think now, Carlson was briefly on To something But the people booing were not Only in that literal audience, they were his target audience, which never materialized As the reports told it, there wasn’t an audience, and with a Few months Tucker's website was Pushing, quote, fake news and Outrage driven commentary. That's a contradiction publicly Exposed. You can't erase the internet we have what Carlson said it was Going to be about. With that pivot, we found Results. The page quadrupling page views in two years, according to "the New York times," which we know is a site at least then Tucker Carlson thought was valid.

Now, he may have taken that Lesson when he did make it over to fox, the place he once said It would be hard to imagine Working at Carlson joined fox initially as a contributor, which could mean anything, right? Those guests you see pop in and Out. But then began co hosting fox and Friends weekend and got his Evening show there in now, at the time Carlson may have looked to some like Journeyman ballplayer who struck out on other teams I showed you the history more people don't realize. But Carlson had basically tried everything; including pitching what he called accurate news to Conservatives and concluding that did not work. So he offered some of the most Incendiary and misleading Material available at the time On fox, and that formula brought in viewers He then overtook hannity as slot As the highest rated host with the largest audience, as TV news put it, the largest audience in History. That's a big deal. We're going to try to be Objective. I'm going to tell you that fact. So what happened Carlson built that audience very Similarly to how he made that Pivot we showed you at that Website the daily caller, Putting views above everything, Catering to the extreme right, Welcoming conspiracy theories o Air. He's been criticized for how he pushed that great replacement Theory, which is something that argued basically there is a Secret cabal of evil Jews and Racial minorities who are going to replace the voting public it is hateful stuff. Carlson built the following on these supersized lies and of Course on an alliance with Republicans, which is the very Thing Tucker said initially previously he opposed.

>> I actually love Donald trump as a guy [Cheers] [Cheers and applause And I -- I know trump. I've known trump for years because I work in the media. And I just have always gotten Along with him Trump is like, totally charming and engaging and fun and Interesting. >> That were three months ago, and you can compare it to what He said privately. That he hates trump passionately, that he can't wait to get past him. That's his own words and there's a contradiction there. Carlson wields influence He's currently using this perch To mislead viewers about the January 6th attack, giving cover To seditionists and traitors That's a project that's so Extreme it's been rebuked by Everyone from independent fact Checkers and people who were There, reporters, facts of Course to the police officers fox and Carlson claim to be behind, to the most powerful republican in the senate, Mitch McConnell. But remember what we saw tonight -- Mr. Carlson clearly made a decision a long time Ago -- and this is evidence. This is not opinion.

Publicly decided how he would pursue his audience and it doesn’t involve consistency or Facts. It just involves figuring out Where he thinks he can get that Large audience and along the Way, if he is minimizing a Sedition, so be it But this is also much larger Than Mr. Carlson With all this exposed, it's all Out here Fox viewers have been exposed to What happened on January 6th You can say they might be only Relying on fox or less informed About certain things but people Saw January 6th. It unfolded live we’ve shown the fox coverage that day People know what happened. The larger question is whether And why this movement appears to Affirm this as their number one Speaker and leader, affirm this Kind of lying and attacks on Democracy and a leadership that Is clearly documented built on Little more than selling out If you're a fox viewer, it would Appear Mr. Carlson is not being Honest with you, it would appear He doesn't think you'll catch Him, he doesn't respect you. If this is what the conservative Movement embraces it bridges us to a very famous and simple

Question -- is this your king?

>> is this your king Huh? Is this your king?

>> is this your king the question goes beyond the Attributes of in that case the other warrior. The question goes to whom you choose to support and what they stand for, and do they represent you. That's a larger question than any particular personality here. We are not as you'll notice Trying to personally attack or demean anyone. We on this program put together This evidence so you could see Mr. Carlson's facts, his life, His career, his work, which is, Whether we like it or not, Intimately and deeply tied into How many people understand What's happening in our country And whether or not we will have Another insurrection, another Coup, whether people understand We already had an insurrection And attempted coup Is this your king? And as for Mr. Carlson, who has gone on such a journey how does he feel if he's a human Being? What does he make of all this? And he is literally living out the thing he used to Criticize -- the right wing Shtick, the lies, the type of Media who does not do what he Said they needed, institutions of accuracy. Does he feel like he's lying every day?

If he did, would he have it seep out in a projection filled Tirade

Something like this?

Imagine forcing yourself to tell lies all day about everything in ways that were so transparent and so outlandish that there is no way the people listening to you could possibly believe in you said.

Then imagine doing that again and again and again.

Imagine forcing yourself to tell lies all day about everything in ways that were so transparent and so outlandish that there is no way the people listening to you could possibly believe in you said.

Then imagine doing that again and again and again.

[thepnictogenwing]

a lesson in authoritarian “loyalty”

bıgoted, dictatorial, evil people like Donald Trump and @elonmusk place an enormous premium on “loyalty”. that might seem like simple hypocrisy, because evil authoritarian elitists like Trump and Musk have no reliable sense of morality or ethics; they believe they’re exempt from morality and ethics, so loyalty and all other virtues are qualities they don’t need to exercise. pretending to have virtues works well enough for people who believe that they’re genetically destined to be masters of the Universe—after all, they’re giving the orders.

but there’s an aspect to this “loyalty” business that I’d like to examine in a bit more detail—it’s the fact that disloyalty is the only way that authoritarian villains like Musk and Trump are able to explain their own failures. they’re practically forced to pretend that they’re surrounded by “disloyal” underlings.

their moral logic starts with the presumption that they’re perfect. that’s central and fundamental to being a bıgoted bully-boy like Elon Musk. Musk believes at all times that he’s the greatest human being who ever existed in the Cosmos and that he knows everything about everything. that means that whenever Musk issues an order to a flunky—and that’s another central feature of being an authoritarian, you make flunkies do everything for you because that’s the chief privilege of being a master of the Universe—Musk imagines that every part of that process of issuing an order to someone is governed by his own perfection. in Musk’s imagination he’s got perfect mastery of a situation so of course all of his orders pertaining to that situation are perfect. he’s got perfect judgment about other human beings, so all of his flunkies are perfectly chosen and capable of carrying out his orders.

...and that causes trouble, when one of Musk’s commands goes wrong.

could the command itself have been wrong or misjudged? of course not! Elon Musk is perfect, his genes are the best in the Cosmos, and he’s a genius—naturally (in Musk’s mind) none of his commands can possibly be incorrect.

could Musk have misjudged his choice of friends and sidekicks, the people on whom he depends for carrying out orders? once again, impossible (from Musk’s viewpoint) because Musk is perfect, which means that he can’t possibly ever be wrong about people’s capabilities.

that only leaves one option: Musk gave an order to a subordinate, someone who was capable of carrying the order out to perfection—but the flunky must have *sabotaged* the command, and deliberately made sure it wouldn’t turn out right. after all, Musk is perfect, while the subordinates are inferior people. good chaps, perhaps, and willing to take orders, but nevertheless inferior and therefore potentially jealous of Musk’s perfection.

hence we arrive at disloyalty as the only credible explanation, from the standpoint of Musk’s belief in his perfection, for why his commands go wrong. Donald Trump and the Chancellor of the Third Reich were other people who behaved in exactly this way when their ambitions ran into difficulties: all of a sudden, it seemed to them, they were surrounded by traitors. Elon Musk must perpetually imagine that he’s ringed by spies and sneaks, people only pretending to be loyal friends—because who else but a disloyal person could possibly fail to carry out one of Musk’s commands?

it’s a wretched way to live, if you ask me, but Elon Musk pretends he’s having the time of his life, and who are we to say he’s wrong?

he’s the perfect one, after all. that’s what he tells us, anyway.

~Chara of Pnictogen

[bananadictionary]

Jesus and john wayne the arenos

What do you think? Please leave a comment at the bottom. Get a Kindle copy of Jesus and John Wayne for $14.99 Can. Jesus and John Wayne is not a flawless book but it is worth the read over your Christmas holidays. He grew his churches to over 15,000 with young men through preaching about wives serving their husbands sexually. Mark Driscoll is the former pastor of Mars Hill Church, and leader of the Acts29 network of churches. Most damning is story after story of downplayed instances of clergy sexual abuse and the subjugation of wives. She goes on to observe, “This evangelical consumer culture not only shapes evangelical beliefs and values, but it also fosters a sense of communal identity across regional, denominational, and socioeconomic differences.” In an interview Du Mez asks, “Did you grow up listening to Focus on the Family in your home each and every day? Did you shop at Christian bookstores? Did you listen to Christian music or Christian talk radio?” Yes, yes, yes and yes. For those of us who have struggled to make sense of our evangelical culture, we don’t need citations to tell us what we already know.”ĭu Mez clearly shows that the books, book tours, Bible studies, music, Christian bookstores, and publishing industry within evangelicalism played a crucial role in maintaining and distributing evangelical norms and values. “We’ve seen many of these issues with our own eyes: the dismissive responses, the sexist comments, the failure to act on the part of victims, the exaggerated responses to perceived cultural threats. Jamie Carlson, though critical of Du Mez’s arguments, says her work brings order to what others have struggled to express. “This is the way apostle Paul describes marriage in Ephesians chapter 5: A husband is like a savior to his wife, the burden really lies with men, to see themselves as those who rescue women from loneliness, to rescue women from being in a unfulfilled life, being in a place where they are not provided for, where they are not protected, not cared for, not loved, not given opportunity to have children.” Norms And Values He is one of the many leaders that Du Mez points to as an illustration of an unhealthy, patriarchal church culture. John MacArthur is the lead pastor of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California, the Chancellor of Master’s University & Seminary, and featured teacher with the Grace to You media ministry. And what of his vulgarity?… Even sexual assault? Well, boys will be boys…If you wanted a tamer man, castrate him.” She offers a biting version of Evangelical Christianity “What makes for a strong leader? A virile (white) man. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller. She holds a PhD from the University of Notre Dame and her research focuses on the intersection of gender, religion, and politics. Boys Will Be Boysĭu Mez is a Professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin University. Jesus and John Wayne share a lot in common in evangelical thinking. John Wayne is the icon of a lost time when men were men, political correctness was for sissies, the good guys were unafraid to tell it like it is and did what needed to be done. Her research shows evangelical males replacing the Jesus of the Gospels with what one chaplain calls “a spiritual badass.” Du Mez exposes the darkest underbelly of Evangelicalism. She doesn’t make accusations or applications. Billy Graham, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Ed Cole, Bill McCartney, and organizations like Promise Keepers, and the Christian Men’s Network. One after another, legendary influencers of my formative pastoral years were paraded out. I plowed through all 386 pages in three nights of reading. She crafts a compelling narrative revealing Trump in fact represented the fulfillment, rather than the betrayal, of white evangelicals’ most deeply held values: patriarchy, authoritarian rule, aggressive foreign policy, fear of Islam, ambivalence toward #MeToo, and opposition to Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQ community. Jesus, I know and John Wayne, I know, but who is Kristen Kobes Du Mez? White Evangelicalsĭu Mez is the author who set evangelical Christians’ hair on fire writing about John Wayne, Jesus, white evangelicals and, of course, Donald Trump.

[newsource21]

The state of Mississippi is spending over $100 million on illegal immigration, according to a new report by the state -- with the governor blaming it on an "intentional failure" by the Biden-Harris administration to secure the border.

The report by the Mississippi state auditor found that there are at least 22,000 illegal immigrants in the state. Analysts estimate that it costs taxpayers over $100 million annually, with more than $25 million to educate illegal immigrants in public school alone.

Meanwhile, taxpayers spend $77 million to provide health care for illegal immigrants and their children, and another $1.7 million to incarcerate illegal immigrant criminals, it found.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves told Fox News Digital that states "are being forced to step up and pay for the Biden-Harris administration’s intentional failure to secure our border, and Mississippi is no exception."

"Their dangerous immigration policies are endangering Americans and putting enormous financial strain on states all across our country — and it’s long past time to put a stop to it. It’s clear Kamala Harris isn’t up to fixing the administration’s self-inflicted problems at the border," he said. "She’s been a disaster as border czar and is actually making the situation worse. Securing our border starts with electing Donald Trump in November."

"Mississippi’s illegal immigration problem is spiraling out of control and is costing taxpayers millions," said State Auditor Shad White. "Our public schools, hospitals, and prisons will continue to lose massive sums of money that we could have spent on our own citizens if this problem is not solved."

The number is only an estimate because specific data is not always available. The report noted that the Mississippi Dept. of Education is barred from collecting citizenship information. Instead, it used data from the University of Mississippi to project that there are approximately 2,500 illegal immigrants attending public schools. It also accounted for extra spending on English Language Learners  and Low Income Student Supplements. 

For health care, the report found that approximately 50% of illegal immigrants have no health care coverage and 38% use emergency medical services for primary care. It also notes the costs of births to illegal immigrants and the cost of Medicaid for children born to illegal immigrants -- who are citizens of the United States.

The report comes at a time when border security and the ongoing crisis at the southern border is a top priority for voters and a major issue ahead of the November election.

Republicans have blamed the three-year border crisis on the Biden administration’s policies, claiming that the administration rolled back Trump-era policies and encouraged migrants to flood into the country as a result.

The Biden administration has said it needs more funding and reform, including a recent bipartisan Senate bill, but that Republicans have failed to provide it. It has also pointed to a recent sharp drop in encounters and releases since President Biden signed an executive order limiting asylum in June. Vice President Kamala Harris told attendees at the Democratic National Convention last week that former President Trump has "ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal."

"As president, I will bring back the bipartisan border security bill that he killed, and I will sign it into law. I know, I know, we can live up to our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants and reform our broken immigration system," she said. "We can create an earned pathway to citizenship and secure our border."

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

By Thomas B. Edsall

The damage inflicted on the nation during Donald J. Trump’s first term in office pales in comparison to what he will do if he is elected to a second term. How can we know this? The best evidence is Trump himself. He has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to tear the country apart.

“Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters,” Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton, writes in a forthcoming article in Liberties,

have made it clear that they will not accept defeat in November any more than they did when Trump lost four years ago. They believe that Trump is the one true legitimate president, that those who refuse to accept this fundamental fact are the true deniers, and that any result other than Trump’s restoration would be a thwarting of history’s purpose and a diabolical act of treason. The authoritarian imperative has moved beyond Trumpian narcissism and the cultish MAGA fringe to become an article of faith from top to bottom inside the utterly transformed Republican Party, which Trump totally commands.

Like Wilentz, Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, does not mince words, writing by email:

All the dangers foreign and domestic posed by Trump’s cruelly vindictive, self-aggrandizing, morally unconstrained, reality-defying character — as evidenced in his first presidential term and in his unprecedented refusal to accept his 2020 electoral loss — would be magnified many times over in any subsequent term by three factors. First, he has systematically eroded the norms and the institutional guardrails that initially set boundaries on the damage he and his now more carefully chosen loyalist enablers are poised to do in carrying out the dangerous project to which they are jointly committed. Second, their failures to insulate themselves from electoral and legal constraints during the dry run of 2017-21 have led them to formulate far more sophisticated and less vulnerable plans for their second attempt at consolidating permanent control of the apparatus of our fragile republic. And third, their capture of the Supreme Court and indeed much of the federal judiciary has put in place devastating precedents like the immunity ruling of July 1 that will license a virtually limitless autocratic power — if, but only if, they are not stopped during the epic struggle that will reach one climax this Nov. 5 and another next Jan. 6.

The most important reason a second Trump term would be far more dangerous than his first is that if he does win this year, Trump will have triumphed with the electorate’s full knowledge that he has been criminally charged with 88 felonies and convicted of 34 of them (so far); that he has promised to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family”; that he intends to “totally obliterate the deep state” by gutting civil service protections for the 50,000 most important jobs in the federal work force, a central tenet of what he calls his “retribution” agenda.

Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, contended in an email that

The question is how much the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision will undermine institutional guardrails against Trump’s anti-democratic behavior. If there are no repercussions for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, intimidation of election officers, and casual handling of classified materials, then Trump will be emboldened to partake in such activities again. Trump has made clear that norms of governance — e.g., civility, accepting electoral defeat, and treating members of the political opposition as legitimate holders of power — do not apply to him.

While Kamala Harris has pulled even with, if not ahead of, Trump in recent polling, Republican attacks on her have yet to reach full intensity, and the outcome remains very much up for grabs.

Bruce Cain, a Stanford political scientist, voiced concerns similar to Wronski’s by email:

Trump is more erratic, impulsive, and self-interested than your average candidate and is much bolder than most in testing the boundaries of what he can get away with. In political insider lingo, he is a guy who likes to put his toes right up the chalk line between legal and illegal activity. There is some evidence that his bad traits are getting worse with old age, but the more serious problem is the lowering of institutional and political guardrails that constrained him in the past The decision in Trump v. the U.S. entitling a former president to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” seems to me particularly problematic. The court left open the question of how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts. Trump’s personality is such that he will without doubt test the limits of this distinction.

Timothy Snyder, a historian at Yale and an expert on the regimesof Stalin and Hitler, wrote by email in reply to my inquiry: “It would be closer to the truth to think about a second Trump administration beginning from the images of Jan. 6, 2021. That is where Trump left us and that is where he would begin.”

Unlike oligarchy and tyranny, Snyder argued,

Democracy depends upon example, and Trump sets the worst possible one. He has openly admired dictators his entire life. He would encourage Xi and Putin. The Russians make completely clear that a Trump presidency is their hope for victory in Ukraine. Allowing Russia to win that war, which I think is Trump’s likely orientation, destabilizes Europe, encourages China toward aggression in the Pacific, and undermines the rule of law everywhere.

Charles Stewart, a political scientist at M.I.T., warned in an email that

A second Trump administration would escalate the threat of authoritarian governance, most notably, by sanctioning politically motivated prosecutions. Even if the courts resisted the baldest of efforts, doing so will be costly to political opponents and also continue to silence dissent among conservatives who wish to have political careers.

In 2016 and in for much of his first term, major elements of the Republican Party viewed Trump with deep suspicion, repeatedly blocking or weakening his more delusional initiatives. That’s no longer the case.

“The Republican Party is fully and totally behind Trump — the epicenter of election disruption — even after two impeachments, an insurrection and a criminal conviction,” Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton, pointed out in an email, adding:

The support that Trump received after Jan. 6, and the entire effort to overturn the election, demonstrates that much of the G.O.P. is fine with doing this. Now that the party knows what insurrection looks like and has given its stamp of approval by nominating Trump, we know that this is officially part of the Republican playbook.

One thing is clear: Trump would assume control of the White House in 2025 with far more power and far fewer restraints than when he took office in January 2017.

Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, argued that Trump’s near dictatorial rule over the Republican Party and the absence of intraparty dissent will play a crucial role if he returns to the White House in 2025:

Democratic backsliding rests heavily on the absence of contrary messages within the party undermining democracy, because (a) this further radicalizes sympathetic voters (who take their cues from in-party politicians) and (b) makes the battle into an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ partisan fight that is easily used by demagogues to justify further democratic backsliding.

Both Hacker and Frances Lee, a Princeton political scientist, pointed out that even with solid support from fellow House and Senate Republicans, Trump’s power and freedom to act will depend on partisan control of the House and Senate.

As Hacker put it,

The scale of the threat posed by a Trump presidency will rest far more than commonly recognized on the exact balance of partisan power in D.C. If Trump has both houses of Congress — along with, of course, a highly sympathetic Supreme Court — the pace and extent of Democratic backsliding will be much greater than if Republicans “merely” hold the White House. Given its role in appointments and its greater prominence, the Senate is the critical fulcrum. We saw in 2019-20 that Democrats holding the House helped keep the spotlight on Trump’s misdeeds and blocked some of Trump’s most egregious potential legislative moves. But House control is worth much less than Senate control, and a Democratic House may not be enough to prevent serious democratic backsliding.

If Democrats win a House majority, Lee wrote by email, “their control of the House would foreclose any opportunity for one-party legislating, such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.”

In addition, Lee argued, “Trump proposals and priorities still do divide the Republican Party internally. Even though Trump has improved his position with the congressional wing of the Republican Party relative to 2017, he still faces pockets of intraparty resistance, especially but not exclusively on foreign policy.”

As a result, Lee wrote, “the remaining Trump-skeptic Republicans in Congress will have pivotal status in a narrow Republican majority. So the bottom line is that we don’t know much about the influence Trump can wield until we see the outcome of the congressional elections.”

Even accounting for Lee’s caution, however, Trump’s base of support has grown over the past eight years to encompass not only the MAGA electorate and the network of elected officials who have learned dissent is politically suicidal, but the individuals and interests that comprise the party’s infrastructure, especially the donors and lobbyists.

Just three-and-a-half years ago, in the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, this wing of the party threatened to become a major roadblock to a second Trump term. Leaders of Wall Street and big business voiced seemingly deep concern over the threat to democracy posed by Trump and his followers, with many of these leaders vowing that they would never contribute to a Trump campaign.

“Many of the nation’s richest people said after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that they would never again back former President Trump,” David Lauter of The Los Angeles Times reported. Those concerns have dissipated.

In March, The Washington Post reported that “Elite donors who once balked at Trump’s fueling of the Capitol insurrection, worried about his legal problems and decried what they saw as his chaotic presidency are rediscovering their affinity for the former president — even as he praises and vows to free Jan. 6 defendants, promises mass deportations and faces 88 felony charges.”

It would be hard to underestimate the importance of Trump’s increasingly strong ties to his party’s financial establishment. His ability to shape the flow of campaign money is second only to the power of his endorsements, making obeisance to his authority even more crucial to political survival.

Trump’s shifting relationship with the Republican establishment’s major donor community can best be seen in the changing composition of his financial backing from 2016 to 2024.

In 2016, many of Trump’s top backers, according to OpenSecrets, could best be described as marginal figures in the world of campaign finance:

McMahon Ventures, a consulting firm founded by the owners of World Wrestling Entertainment, $6 million; Mountainaire, a chicken producer, $2.01 million.

In terms of money, Trump today is a very different candidate. The corporate qualms that surfaced in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection have been subordinated to the prospect of billions in tax breaks for business and the rich if Trump returns to office.

According to OpenSecrets, of the $472.8 million Trump and allied PACs have raised through the middle of this year, a quarter, $115.4 million, has come from the securities and investment industry, the financial core of the Republican establishment. In 2016, this industry effectively shunned Trump, giving him a paltry $20.8 million.

“The leaders of major industries’ decision to back Trump suggests that the economic benefits of staying on the team will outweigh principled concerns about democratic norms should push come to shove in a second Trump term,” Eric Schickler, a political scientist at Berkeley, wrote by email in response to my query.

There are several other factors raising the level of danger posed by a second Trump term in the White House.

When he took office in 2017, Trump had no clear agenda, just a collection of grievances, impulses and prejudices; no carefully prepared list of prospective loyalists to appoint to key posts; and in essence no understanding of the workings of the federal government.

These deficiencies kept many, but not all, of his destructive impulses in check as top aides and key party leaders repeatedly steered him away from the cliff.

If he wins this year, those checks on Trump will be gone.

Trump’s advisers and allies have put together a detailed agenda along with lists of men and women who are ready to do his bidding — developments that have been detailed in this column and elsewhere.

In his email, Schickler emphasized the crucial role played by Trump’s successful efforts to drive Republican opponents out of elective office. Now, Schickler wrote,

“Each Republican member’s own political survival depends on being loyal to the team.” Schickler continued. “Republicans will stand by Trump in any potential impeachment battle — as result, there will be no chance for a conviction, essentially making any attempt to enforce accountability into just another partisan showdown.”

During his first term, Schickler noted, Trump “raised the possibility of taking a threatening action — such as sending in troops to arrest or even shoot protesters,” but he was held back by his own appointees and senior government employees.

“The big difference in 2025,” Schickler cautioned,

is that there is a much more built out political operation supporting Trump. Appointees will be carefully vetted for their loyalty. When it comes time to implement an order that, for example, removes civil service protections from most federal workers, the top layers of executive agencies will be filled with people eager to follow through and weed out those with “bad” views.

Not only is Trump more robustly protected if he returns to the White House in 2025, but a key institution — the Supreme Court — is more likely to back his initiatives now that it is dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority, half of which is made up of Trump appointees.

That conservative bloc has already signaled its willingness to unleash Trump in its July 1 immunity decision, Trump v. United States.

The ruling gave Trump new grounds to challenge the criminal charges and convictions he faces and suggests broad approval for future Trump policies and initiatives. The president, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion, “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

Robert Y. Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia, wrote by email:

Trump says he wants to replace the bureaucracy — part of the “deep state” — with political appointees. He wants to go after his political enemies, lock up refugees in camps, and implicit in all this he will appoint cabinet members and high level officials who support what he wants to do instead of the “grown-ups” who constrained him at every turn during his presidency.

In this context, Shapiro continued,

The above threat to democracy has to be seen, on the face of it, as real, given that the Supreme Court has opened the possibility of immunity on any presidential actions, however criminal they might be. What Trump has said he will do, and what the Supreme Court has opened the door to — what he can do in terms of what would be criminal and not just impeachable offenses — pose an enormous threat to the nation and American democracy.

Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego, summarized the risks raised by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in an email:

The court’s decisions have made it harder for the judiciary, Congress or other institutions to hold Trump in check. The immunity decision certainly enables an authoritarian presidency far beyond that envisioned by the people who wrote the Constitution.

The biggest difference if Trump is re-elected, Jacobson argued,

will be the absence of officials in the administration with the stature, experience, and integrity to resist Trump’s worst instincts in such matters. A White House staffed with sycophantic loyalists or white nationalist zealots who share Trump’s ignorance and contempt for norms and institutions will give him freer rein than in the first term.

As Sean Wilentz warns:

Trump, who does not speak in metaphors, has made it plain: “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath.” This is a time for imagining the worst. Not a single loyal Republican official has objected to that statement or to similar MAGA warnings about an impending civil war.

Yet, Wilentz writes, “many of even the most influential news sources hold to the fiction Trump and his party are waging a presidential campaign instead of a continuing coup, a staggering failure to recognize Trump’s stated agenda.”

I am going to give the last word to Timothy Snyder:

Trump is in the classic dictatorial position: He needs to die in bed holding all executive power to stay out of prison. This means that he will do whatever he can to gain power, and once in power will do all that he can to never let it go. This is a basic incentive structure which underlies everything else. It is entirely inconsistent with democracy.

[tomorrowusa]

Trump found a place in his playlist for a Titanic song at his Bozeman, Montana rally.

You can't make this stuff up.

Is the Trump campaign trolling itself? That’s what some people were asking online after Celine Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On” started playing just before the former president hit the stage at his rally on Friday in Bozeman, Montana, reported Daily Mail. “Is Trump’s campaign being trolled from within? Someone on his staff decided to play Celine Dion singing ‘My Heart Will Go On’ from Titanic at his Montana rally. Many consider Titanic a metaphor for Trump’s sinking campaign,” wrote NBC Universal exec Mike Sington on X. Another X user added, “Seems to me it’s a cry for help from a sinking ship. Has anyone checked on his campaign managers, are they being held hostage or maybe water boarded.” The irony of a ship sinking slowly into oblivion was not lost online, and many took the gaffe to be an omen that Trump’s popularity and grip on the spotlight is loosening. One X user tweeted that the song was actually to plug a new film called “Trumptanic” that will “collide” with failure come November.

Perhaps you remember that at the beginning of the UK election campaign, now former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made an appearance in front of the place where the Titanic was built.

Sunak follows up Downing Street soaking by a visit to site of Titanic

Sunak's Conservative Party suffered its most disastrous electoral defeat ever in July.

Identifying with the Titanic is usually something which candidates try to avoid. The Titanic is associated with hubris and with losers like Trump.