Skip to content

Month: March 2018

Snowflake in chief

Snowflake in chief

by digby

President Trump took the scenic route after spending Saturday at his golf club …

Scores of people had lined the motorcade’s usual path, which has been well-traveled by the president as he shuttles between his Mar-a-Lago estate and the Trump International Golf Club … 

But returning to Mar-a-Lago from the club on Saturday afternoon, Trump’s motorcade took a longer route … 

The White House did not respond to a question about the reason for the detour.

I doubt he made that decision. I’ll bet his staff did in order to keep him from having to see all the protesters and having a great big sad.  He’s been re-watching Fox and Friends all week-end and would be upset if he found out that the protests were bigger than his inauguration.

.

“One of my best friends was killed by gun violence right around here”

“One of my best friends was killed by gun violence right around here”

by digby

I just had to post this.

.

They even marched in Alaska

They even marched in Alaska

by digby

And there is no state that reveres guns more than Alaska. Here’s how they made the argument:

FAIRBANKS — An estimated 200 people filled the Golden Heart Plaza on Saturday to rally against gun violence and show solidarity with hundreds of thousands of other protesters across the nation.

The Fairbanks March For Our Lives gathering followed a town-hall-style panel discussion on gun violence at Raven Landing led by three professors from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. About 100 people attended that event.

The rally unfolded under a bright afternoon sun, and speakers young and old took turns demanding action from policymakers to address what some say is a public health crisis.

Since 1999, there have been 10 school shootings per year—on average—in the United States, said Alex Hirsch, assistant professor of political science at UAF.

The rally was the third protest held in Fairbanks this month in defiance of gun violence. On March 9, students walked out of Randy Smith Middle School to bring attention to the issue. Area high schoolers staged a walkout last week.

“None of us want to go forward in this society wondering whose child will be killed,” said Keith Champagne, UAF vice chancellor of Student Affairs, one of the speakers at Golden Heart Plaza. “We all, as human beings, need to decide how we are going to deal with these issues.”

Protesters held signs that said: “Protect kids, not the NRA (National Rifle Association),” “Tougher gun laws make America civilized,” and “Thoughts and prayers don’t stop bullets.”

Speakers included Rep. Adam Wool, D-Fairbanks, Lathrop High School students and North Pole High School English teacher Krista Christensen.

Christensen also produced an art installation titled “Stations of the Fallen” involving posterboard-sized messages about violence toward marginalized groups. A separate display showed posterboard-sized photographs of local schoolchildren with bullseyes on them. “I am not a target,” was the text on the signs. “Protect kids, not guns.”

Christensen cautioned people from believing in a “false dichotomy” that the debate about gun violence boils down to gun owners versus those who don’t approve of guns.

“Most gun owners care deeply about the safety of the children and the vulnerable,” she said.

Prepared statements from state lawmakers and the governor were read aloud. Wool said he forgot to prepare a statement so he decided to attend the rally in person. He gave examples of public policy that addresses public safety. Seat belts must be worn, he said. Adults must show identification to buy certain over-the-counter medications.

“Why aren’t we doing this same kind of approach with gun violence?” he asked.

The rally ended with a prayer and a march.

Nobody in Alaska wants to confiscate guns. It’s a huge hunting state. So it’s meaningful that people turned out to protest, that young people are participating in this movement and that politicians are willing to speak out.

.

QOTD: Santorum

QOTD: Santorum

by digby

Has there ever been a bigger asshole? No pun intended.

“How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter that you can actually respond to that.”

Right. Maybe they could do something really useful like stage a massive national demonstration of blood stanching and tourniquet binding.

Santorum went on to argue that political action is stupid and young Americans should drop out and concentrate on their own lives.

“They took action to ask someone to pass a law. They didn’t take action to say, ‘How do I, as an individual, deal with this problem? How am I going to do something about stopping bullying within my own community? What am I going to do to actually help respond to a shooter?’… Those are the kind of things where you can take it internally, and say, ‘Here’s how I’m going to deal with this. Here’s how I’m going to help the situation,’ instead of going and protesting and saying, ‘Oh, someone else needs to pass a law to protect me.'”

He stopped short of saying they should shut up and throw themselves in front of the bullets and I’m not exactly sure why.

Why in the world does anyone think we need to hear from this idiot about anything? Recall his greatest hits:

1. “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

2. “In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to. … What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism.” (Santorum’s 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good)

3. “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. … What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values.” (South Carolina campaign stop, Feb. 22, 2011)

4.”All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians. There is no ‘Palestinian.’ This is Israeli land.” (Campaign stop in Iowa, Nov. 18, 2011)

5.”Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?” (Santorum’s Philadelphia Inquirer column, Dec. 20, 2007)

6.”I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” (Campaign stop in Iowa, Jan. 2, 2012)

7.”The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘We’re going to decide who are people and who are not people.'” (CNS News interview, Jan. 19, 2011)

8. “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?” (Santorum’s Philadelphia Inquirer column, May 22, 2008)

9. “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. … That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.” (AP interview, April 7, 2003)

Rhetoric Matters by tristero

Rhetoric Matters 

by tristero

It is deeply inspiring to hear the young voices demanding real responses to America’s epidemic of gun violence. But the movement is being undermined by the media’s obsession with a fake rhetorical balance that actually puts a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of the NRA.

We’ve seen this before. Perhaps the most cunning move by fans of coat hanger abortions was to demand that the media call them “pro-life.” And even today, people sensitive to language and who really should know better give these fanatics a rhetorical pass. It’s a huge mistake, because you end up having to argue that your position – namely safe, accessible reproductive choices for women – is not an “anti-life” stance.

And now, fans of gun violence have mounted a campaign to have themselves called:

Across the country, supporters of the Second Amendment gathered at state capitals and in city centers,

An earlier version of the Times article actually used this utterly misleading phrase – one that panders to some of the most extreme elements in our discourse –  in the headline (and it’s in the print edition of the Times). This is not accidental. Pro-gun violence extremists have been pushing this framing for years.

This is a false dichotomy – “gun control advocates” vs “supporters of the Second Amendment.” A false dichotomy that is perfect for the NRA to portray its position – quite falsely – as a patriotic one. Rhetorically, “gun control advocates” want to control – as in take away rights, they’re control freaks – while “supporters of the Second Amendment” support the Constitution and are protectors of American freedoms. This framing is a free gift to the NRA.

To frame the fans of More guns! More guns!  in this way…well, we still might win, but it will take a lot longer because we’ll need to explain to people who would otherwise side with us that we’re not anti-American, not anti-Constitution, and note even anti-Second Amendment (given what its actual meaning is).* And while we fight an uphill rhetorical battle against people who have wrapped themselves in a deluded fantasy about what the Constitution means, thousands more will die from needless gun violence.

The leaders of the new movement should forcefully expose this rhetorical trap and refuse to let the media frame their issue in such a crude, deceptive fashion. At the very least, we should never call those calling for increased gun-cased mayhem in United States by this cynical phrase.

– – –

*Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU and author of a book on the Second Amendment:

There are surprises in this book for people who support gun control, and people who are for gun rights. When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, Justice Scalia said he was following his doctrine of originalism. But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. 

They refuse to be tributes by @BloggersRUs

They refuse to be tributes
by Tom Sullivan

Survivors of the Valentine’s Day massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School refuse to be the gun lobby’s tributes. In March for Our Lives events held Saturday across the country, hundreds of thousands of students, parents, victims, and supporters called for legislative action to bring U.S. gun violence to a halt.

Emily Witt of the New Yorker described the main event in Washington D.C. as “a massive outcry against extreme violence delivered with a mix of pop sentiment, corporate coöperation, and an awareness of the socioeconomic privilege that allows certain voices to be heard louder than others.”

Ironically, the loudest voice said the most with silence. Wearing an olive jacket and ripped jeans, Emma Gonzalez signaled that she and her friends had not come to the capitol city to play by Washington rules. When Gonzalez took the stage, she carried a timer set to the time the Parkland, FL shooter used to murder 17 of her classmates. After briefly recounting the ordeal she and fellow student experienced, she read the names of friends whose voices would never again be heard. Then Gonzalez stood staring, tears streaming down her face in steely, unmoving silence for over four minutes until her hidden timer beeped at six minutes and twenty seconds.

“Fight for your lives before it’s someone else’s job,” Gonzalez finished to cheers.

It was a silence as eloquent and powerful as speeches given by men memorialized up and down the National Mall. “Emma Gonzalez just gave us the mic drop of all time,” tweeted The Atlantic‘s Charlie Pierce. “Loudest silence in the history of US social protest,” added Mother Jones‘ David Corn.

While Gonzalez’s stoic poise stunned viewers, survivor Samantha Fuentes, 18, spoke loudly by losing her composure. In an angry speech, Fuentes said, “Day in and day out our kids are getting shot up. At the moment we speak out, we are scolded that we are not old enough. It is as if we need permission to ask our friends not to die.”

Fuentes herself was shot in both legs during the rampage. She continued, “Lawmakers and politicians will scream guns are not the issue, but can’t look me in the eye….”

Uttering that trigger word (no pun intended), Fuentes vomited on stage. She was also struck in the face and has shrapnel behind her eye.

“I just threw up on international television,” she smiled upon continuing. “And it feels great!”

Fuentes finished calling for policy changes and asking the crowd to join her in singing “Happy Birthday” to Nicholas Dworet, a fellow Stoneman Douglas student Fuentes said was shot in front of her. On Saturday he would have been 18.

Here in Asheville, 16-year-old Anna Dittman, another Stoneman Douglas survivor, took the stage at the local rally. Tears streamed down her face as she relived the moments when she and her sister ran for their lives, then she read off the names of dead classmates.

The emotions are still raw and unfiltered. That is what makes them hard to ignore. The Parkland survivors have known real fear, seen real death. Being “not old enough” is what makes them politically so dangerous to the gun lobby. The have no incomes to protect, no elections to lose, no rich donors to please, and no powerful lobbyists to fear. Least of all the National Rifle Association, which, exhibiting more fear than these students, continues to attack them. The authenticity of the protesters sets in sharp relief the hackneyed and desperate actions of the gun lobby.

Just as white men long dominated this country as if it were their birthright, the NRA has dominated Washington. That power may finally be eroding. The gun lobby worships the Second Amendment almost as an idol, as if it needs guns to give it courage. The Parkland survivors need none to fuel theirs.

In the aftermath of the 2014 shootings in Isla Vista, California, Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher posted an open letter to survivors’ families insisting, “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.” But none of those rights are absolute. The document with which this country was founded asserted “self-evident” truths, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Those words are not from the Constitution. They are not law. But if they are not to be discounted as meaningless, they should temper the absolutism of the gun lobby.

The right of gun advocates to be happy in wielding weapons of war does not outweigh others’ right to live. Let them cry, “But my rights!” Everybody has rights. The mounting numbers of dead had rights. Not everybody is so single-mindedly selfish as to assume their rights take precedence over their neighbors’. Every day across this country, people whose rights are in conflict stand before judges and juries whose job it is to decide in each case whose take precedence. That’s how laws work … if we are still a nation of them, which today is in doubt.

Because the law has failed, as the Parkland protesters know too well. They mean to do something about it.

David Hogg has had enough. The student activist told the crowd at yesterday’s rally the student movement means to make gun violence a voting issue. Only eighteen percent of first-time voters, he said, vote in mid-term elections. Not this time:

“Who here is going to vote in the 2018 election?” he asked. “We are going to make this a voting issue. We are going to take this to every election, to every state and every city. We are going to make sure the best people get in our elections to run, not as politicians, but as Americans.”

“Because this is not cutting it,” Hogg said, pointing behind him to the U.S. Capitol building.

He described adult failure weeks earlier in terms less broadcast-friendly:

“When your old-ass parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage,’ and you’re just like, ‘Give me the fucking phone’ and you’re like, ‘okay, let me handle it.’ And you get it done in one second. Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government; our parents don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to.”

Let the NRA bray. Its threats suddenly sound as hollow as those uttered in Munchkinland by the Wicked Witch of the West, to which Glinda replied, “You have no power here! Begone, before somebody drops a house on you, too.”

It won’t be a house. It will be ballots. It will just feel like a house.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Peace, love and AK-47s: “Wild Wild Country” By Dennis Hartley

Saturday Night at the Movies

Peace, love and AK-47s: Wild Wild Country (****)

By Dennis Hartley

“If people stand in a circle long enough, they’ll eventually begin to dance.”
– George Carlin

In my 2012 review of Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master, I wrote:

What [Anderson] has crafted is a thought-provoking and original examination of why human beings in general are so prone to kowtow to a burning bush, or an emperor with no clothes. Is it a spiritual need? Is it an emotional need? Or is it a lizard brain response, deep in our DNA?

As Inspector Clouseau once ruminated, “Well you know, there are leaders…and there are followers.” At its most rudimentary level, The Master is a two-character study about a leader and a follower (and metaphorically, all leaders and followers).

You could say the same about the mind-blowing, binge-worthy Netflix documentary series Wild Wild Country, which premiered March 16th. On one level, it is a two-character study about a leader and a follower; namely the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and his head disciple/chief of staff/lieutenant (take your choice) Ma Anand Sheela. In this case, the one-on-one relationship is not a metaphor; because the India-born philosophy professor-turned-guru did (and still does) have scores of faithful followers from all over the world.

Actually, the Bhagwan is dead, but his legacy lives on. The exact nature of that legacy, however, is still open to debate…depending on whom you talk to. Obviously, those who continue to buy his books (and related “Osho” merch like T-shirts, coffee mugs, posters, etc.), attend seminars, join communes, and/or live by his philosophy and consider themselves “Rashneejees” tend to think and speak of him in nothing less than glowing terms. Others, not so much. Both “sides” are given a fairly even shake in the 6-part series.

In the early 80s, fed up with harassment from authorities in his native India (who were readying to drop the hammer on him on suspicions of smuggling and tax fraud), the Bhagwan closed his ashram and, like the persecuted Pilgrims before him, set sail (more likely, booked a flight) for the land of the free. Opting to resettle a bit farther West than Plymouth Rock, he scooped up 100 square miles of cheap rangeland adjacent to a sleepy cow town in Wasco County, Oregon. Eventually, a veritable New Age city was created.

Who, you may ask, would have a problem with this soft-spoken, beatific gentleman who encouraged people to let go of hang-ups, realize their full potential, be as spontaneous and joyous and free and giving and loving toward one another as humanly possible (i.e. fuck like bunnies) while insisting he himself not be deified in any way, shape, or form?

What do you mean, “What’s the catch?” Must there always be a catch? Why so cynical?


What tipped you off that something may have been amiss…was it his fleet of Rolls-Royces? Was it his affinity for collecting shiny things, like expensive watches and jewelry? Can he be faulted if (as he claimed) his admirers insisted on festooning him with baubles? Oh, I bet I know what it was…it was the henchmen, armed with AK-47s—right?

Here’s a refresher, from a 2017 revision of a piece published in The Oregonian in 2011:

The Rajneeshees had been making headlines in Oregon for four years. Thousands dressed in red, worked without pay and idolized a wispy-haired man who sat silent before them. They had taken over a worn-out cattle ranch to build a religious utopia. They formed a city, and took over another. They bought one Rolls-Royce after another for the guru — 93 in all. 

Along the way, they made plenty of enemies, often deliberately. Rajneeshee leaders were less than gracious in demanding government and community favors. Usually tolerant Oregonians pushed back, sometimes in threatening ways. Both sides stewed, often publicly, before matters escalated far beyond verbal taunts and nasty press releases.[…]
Hand-picked teams of Rajneeshees had executed the largest biological terrorism attack in U.S. history, poisoning at least 700 people. They ran the largest illegal wiretapping operation ever uncovered. And their immigration fraud to harbor foreigners remains unrivaled in scope. The revelations brought criminal charges, defections, global manhunts and prison time. […] 

It’s long been known they had marked Oregon’s chief federal prosecutor for murder, but now it’s clear the Rajneeshees also stalked the state attorney general, lining him up for death. 

They contaminated salad bars at numerous restaurants, but The Oregonian’s examination reveals for the first time that they just as eagerly spread dangerous bacteria at a grocery store, a public building, and a political rally. 

To strike at government authority, Rajneeshee leaders considered flying a bomb-laden plane into the county courthouse in The Dalles — 16 years before al-Qaida used planes as weapons. 

And power struggles within Rajneeshee leadership spawned plans to murder even some of their own. The guru’s caretaker was to be killed in her bed, spared only by a simple mistake. 

Strangely, most of these stunning crimes were in rebellion against that most mundane of government regulations, land-use law. The Rajneeshees turned the yawner of comprehensive plans into a page-turning thriller of brazen crimes.

Meditate on that (om, om, on the range). And that’s just the Cliff’s Notes version. This tale is so multi-layered crazy pants as to boggle the mind. It’s like Dostoyevsky meets Carl Hiaasen by way of Thomas McGuane and Ken Kesey…except none of it is made up.

It’s almost shocking that no one thought to tackle this juicy subject as fodder for an epic documentary until now (eat your genteel heart out, Ken Burns). Co-directors Chapman and Maclain Way mix in present-day recollections from various participants with a wealth of archival news footage. Oddly, with its proliferation of jumpy videotape, big hair and skinny ties, the series serves double duty as a wistful wallow in 1980s nostalgia.

Previous posts with related themes:
Let the Fire Burn

Bury My Heart at the Visitor Center

More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter

Dennis Hartley

So far, #NeverAgain isn’t hurting the Republicans. Maybe today will change things

So far, #NeverAgain isn’t hurting the Republicans

by digby

Harry Enten has some sobering news about gun control. Let’s hope today changes this dynamic:

Even as the majority of Americans disapprove of the job the President has done handling gun policy, his approval rating has not fallen in the wake of Parkland shooting. The shooting occurred on February 14. Looking at the average of all polls and adjusting for whether the pollster normally has results that are more or less favorable to the President, Trump’s approval rating in the month before the murders at Parkland (i.e. January) was 40%. In the first full calendar month after Parkland (i.e. March), his approval rating is actually a point higher at 41%. That 41% is also a point above the average for his entire presidency of 40%.

The President’s approval rating over February and March of 2018 are the highest they’ve been in a very long time. In no month in the second half of 2017 did his approval rating ever top 40% for a month. He’s now done it for two consecutive months (including February, during which the massacre at Parkland occurred).

Contrast that to other monumental moments in this administration: Trump saw his ratings dip by three or four points on average after he fired FBI Director James Comey and during the debate over the unpopular Republican health care bill.

Congressional Republicans too have seen no decline in their ratings. Although they still trail on the generic congressional ballot, an average of all surveys in March puts the Republican deficit at 8 percentage points. That’s the same as it was in February and in January. All of which are equal to the long-term average since the beginning of the Trump presidency. All of which are also better than where Republicans were in December when they trailed by 11 percentage points on the generic congressional ballot.

Just five years ago, when Congress didn’t enact stricter gun laws following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, congressional Republicans similarly didn’t see their polling numbers take a hit and they went on to gain seats in the following year. Or go back 24 years ago, when Republicans might have actually been rewarded for mostly voting against the federal assault weapons ban that President Bill Clinton signed into law.

In fact, Trump and Republicans might be at bigger risk of losing support if they were to support stricter gun legislation. A majority of those who support Trump oppose stricter gun legislation, and the GOP base could abandon him and Republicans who stray from that position.

I can’t believe Trump has actually ticked up in approval. It boggles the mind. The only thing I can attribute it to is normalization. What we once believed was impossible for a president to be and do we have now found out is entirely possible. It’s bringing his tribe back home.

Meanwhile, other polling is showing a surge of support for gun control:

Support for tougher gun control laws is soaring in the United States, according to a new poll that found a majority of gun owners and half of Republicans favor new laws to address gun violence in the weeks after a Florida school shooting left 17 dead and sparked nationwide protests. 

The poll, conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that nearly 7 in 10 adults now favor stricter gun control measures. That’s the strongest level of support since The Associated Press first asked the question five years ago.

The problem? Hopelessness:

The new poll also found that nearly half of Americans do not expect elected officials to take action.

“It feels hopeless,” said 30-year-old Elizabeth Tageson-Bedwin, of Durham, North Carolina, a self-described Republican who teaches 7th grade English. “Considering recent events, gun control in this country needs to be stricter — and it can be without infringing on anyone’s rights.”

Gun proliferation advocates vote on the issue. Maybe #NeverAgain will turn a new generation into people who vote on that issue too.

They don’t know that it’s hopeless.

So maybe it isn’t.

.

From the annals of desperate conservatism

From the annals of desperate conservatism

by digby

… comes this article by the right wing Washington Examiner:

A man who claimed without evidence that he had sex with former President Barack Obama says the media is showing a “sickening” double standard with coverage of an alleged affair between President Trump and porn star Stormy Daniels.

Larry Sinclair’s allegations involving Obama, cocaine, and a limo — set in 1999, when Obama was a state senator — failed to gain broad coverage for a variety of reasons, including lack of corroboration and Sinclair’s record of crimes involving deceit.

But Sinclair says the media is giving too much attention and too little skepticism to claims of a 2006 affair between Daniels and Trump.

“Stormy Daniels is being pimped and pimping the media now and it’s lining her pockets,” Sinclair told the Washington Examiner. “I believe she had sex with him. Do I believe she’s trying to twist and add to it to benefit her interests? You’re damn right I do.”

An interview with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is set to air Sunday on the CBS program “60 Minutes.” The performer staging a national strip club tour has given other recent interviews, including to “Inside Edition” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

Sinclair said he views Daniels’ coyness about details — as she sues to invalidate a $130,000 nondisclosure agreement — as well as her attempt to sidestep the deal, as reasons to doubt her truthfulness. He said he watched with suspicion as she declined to say if a signature was hers.

“I do believe that there are enough contradictions by Ms. Daniels to justify questioning her motive and truthfulness,” Sinclair said, citing “her statements or nonstatements in subsequent interviews implying that her signature was not her signature [and] her back-and-forth on whether Trump paid her.”

“I find this whole double standard sickening, and no I am not a bigger supporter of Trump, but I am a supporter of fair and unbiased media coverage,” he said. “I find the whole NDA and accepting money and then later coming back and using a completely legal incident for political and personal gain questionable.”

It goes on much longer.

I guess this is the best they can do …

.

Is he losing it?

Is he losing it?

by digby

Assuming there was anything to lose …

With reports that a giddy commander in chief is running around the White House like a kid freed of any adult supervision, having dispatched every moderate who hasn’t resigned in hopes of saving a shred of his integrity, Donald Trump now appears to be in a state of mania as he escalates his efforts to bolster his fragile ego before he goes into the cage with special prosecutor Robert Mueller—or fires him.

This was exactly what the contributors to the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump warned about six months ago. The psychiatric professionals who contributed to the book have monitored and come to know Trump’s character better than most clients they have treated or people they have interviewed. As the special prosecutor’s noose tightens around the president and his cultish family, it is increasingly clear that he is an imminent danger to the public, and this impinges on professionals’ duty to society. Sheehy wrote about the book and its genesis in these pages last October (Sheehy and Sword also contributed to the book).

Lawmakers with experience as prosecutors or foreign affairs experts are sounding red alerts about how far out of control is this tormented tweeter. In this White House it’s now every man for himself. As authors of the book warned, Trump trusts no one. Predictably, that has taught everyone who works for him that they can’t trust their boss. Praised today, fired tomorrow.

The authors of the book warned that the Trump effect was creating a “malignant normalcy,” a collective psychological anesthesia in the face of people’s free-floating fears about the stability of this president. Last fall, it was the kind of hush that falls before an impending hurricane or an October Surprise. The book warned that the worst was ahead.

Trump’s paranoia, exaggerated by the real and imminent threat of prosecution for obstruction of justice, money laundering, and physical intimidation of women he has bought for sexual pleasure, is reaching a break point. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal warns of a “catastrophic crisis” pitting an unhinged president against the rule of law and the future of democracy.


More at the link…

For me it’s hard to tell the difference at this point. I’m somewhat reassured by the fact that many millions of Americans are pushing back on this. But I’m still gobsmacked by the fact that tens of millions support this lunatic and the officials of the US Government are apparently unwilling or unable to do anything about this.

But yet, he is in a manic state, and seems to have decided to just go for it. We are looking at a new phase of this horrible season of “Survivor: America.” I don’t know where it’s going.

.