Skip to content

Month: November 2018

Can you see the difference?

Can you see the difference?

by digby

…. I knew that you could:

By the way, I’ve got your Blue Wave for ya right here:

.

Melania makes a power move

Melania makes a power move

by digby

And in the process screws over John Bolton. Maybe her cluelessness is a virtue at this point:

The president has also decided to remove Mira Ricardel, the top deputy for national security adviser John Bolton, officials said. A National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.

The president became involved in that decision at the urging of first lady Melania Trump, whose staff battled with Ms. Ricardel during the first lady’s trip to Africa last month over seating on the plane and requests to use National Security Council resources, according to people familiar with the matter.

The first lady’s team told the president that they suspect Ms. Ricardel is behind some negative stories about Ms. Trump and her staff.

Ms. Ricardel also repeatedly clashed with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and his Pentagon team over staffing decisions and policy differences, according to people familiar with the feud. That discord has created a chill in relations between Ms. Ricardel and Defense Department officials wary of her intentions, these people say.

Ms. Ricardel has served as a vital ally for Mr. Bolton as he settled into his West Wing role after taking the national security job in April. Mr. Bolton lost another loyalist last month when his longtime friend, Fred Fleitz, stepped down after serving just six months as chief of staff and executive secretary for the National Security Council.

This comes o n the heels of news today that Kirstjen Neilsen and John Kelly are both on the way out, Kelly also because of clashes with Melania. (Who really knows about Kelly? He’s been rumored to be out since the day he got there.)

We knew they were going to clean house. What we don’t know is who is coming in to replace them. And it seems that the First Lady is becoming a player in all this. Great.

Be best, Melania.

Both sides do it again

Both sides do it again

by digby

Axios commissioned this poll to tell us that both sides do it:

Many Americans think people in the other party are ignorant, spiteful, evil and generally destroying the country, according to a new Axios poll by SurveyMonkey, aired on HBO on Sunday night. 61% of Democrats see Republicans as “racist/bigoted/sexist.” 31% of Republicans say they view Democrats in the same light.

If Americans are this convinced that the other side isn’t just wrong, but dumb and evil, they’ll never be able to find enough common ground to solve real problems. And they’re more likely to elect leaders who can’t do it, either.

The suspicion runs so deep that a third of all Americans say they’d be disappointed if a close family member married someone whose partisanship didn’t match their own, according to the poll for “Axios on HBO.”

The percentage saying they’d be at least somewhat bothered by this jumps to 50% among liberal Democrats; it’s 32% among conservative Republicans.

For both parties, more moderate affiliates are about 20 percentage points less likely to say they’d be disappointed.

About half of Democrats think Republicans are ignorant (54%) and spiteful (44%). Likewise, about half of Republicans think Democrats are ignorant (49%) and spiteful (54%).

21% of Democrats think Republicans are evil, and about the same share of Republicans (23%) think Democrats are evil.
How Democrats view Republicans:

Of the 22% who provided open-ended descriptions of Republicans, responses included: selfish, greedy, corrupt, spineless, fearful and bad.

How Republicans view Democrats:

Of the 26% who provided open-ended descriptions of Democrats, responses included: socialist, angry, hypocritical, uniformed, power-hungry and violent.

The other side: Good news! A handful of people think their fellow Americans are OK.

4% of both parties think the other side is fair.
3–4% of both parties think the other side is thoughtful.
2–3% of both parties think the other side is kind.
Yes, but: The share of Americans who have more generous impressions is roughly equal to the poll’s margin of error, which is 3%.

The bottom line: Both parties are being redefined around the extreme emotions shaping extremely ugly views of each other. That means that, as the midterm elections proved, there’s less room for moderates or centrists in the current political environment — a dynamic that’s likely to get worse before it gets better.

If you want to know where all this began in the modern era, this tells the tale. (Hint: it wasn’t the left.)

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

Newt Gingrich’s 1996 GOPAC memo

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that “language matters.” In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: “I wish I could speak like Newt.”

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

While the list could be the size of the latest “College Edition” dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
“compassion” is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor …)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare

Rush Limbaugh was made an honorary member of the Republican freshman class of 1994. Roger Ailes started Fox News in 1996.

Everyone talks about right wing backlash and constantly warns the . But maybe, just maybe, it was the right’s calculated demonization that caused this in the first place? Just throwing that out there …

.

Collapse

Collapse

by digby

Four weeks ago he was at 44% approval. He’s lost 6 points.

Why? Well, I’d guess that a few of his voters have been appalled by his behavior starting with the odious way he acted after the MAGAbomber and the Tree of Life shooter. Then there’s sending troops to the border and his bizarre post-election press conference and evryhing else since then.

But if I had to guess I’d say that it’s because his “winner” bubble has burst and some of his voters finally realize that he isn’t teflon and they’ve had to accept that his absurdity is a liability.

Psychiatrists see a Trump breakdown

Psychiatrists see a Trump breakdown

by digby

Macron did not say that he wanted to arm up to fight the US, (even though you couldn’t really blame him) he was talking about cybersecurity. Trump got his information from Fox News so naturally he’s completely wrong. He’s just flailing about because he made a fool out of himself in France this week-end.

But he’s also melting down. Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone spoke to some psychiatrists:

Following a slew of tweets after the midterm elections congratulating himself on losing control of the House to Democrats, Trump had one clear-eyed, honest promise to Americans: “If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!”

Never mind that it was unclear what “Classified Information” he might be referring to, he ran with this stance at his subsequent press conference, assuring Americans that the bipartisan kumbaya that he was just longing to usher in would be immediately derailed by any attempt on the part of this new House to use its subpoena power to investigate him for corruption. “No,” he responded emphatically to a question about working together for America’s benefit even in the face of heightened investigation. “If they do that, then it’s just — all it is, is a warlike posture.” The threat was clear: Come after me, and I’ll come after you harder — even at America’s expense.

It’s a threat that explains why the relief that comes with taking back the House is tempered by awareness of how Trump will likely respond to resistance outside his base that he can’t ignore. And it’s a threat that many psychologists would have anticipated, especially those who have long been sounding the alarm about Trump’s mental health — or lack thereof. In April 2017, just a few months into Trump’s presidency, I interviewed a number of these professionals about what it might mean to have someone afflicted with Trump’s various proposed mental maladies — narcissistic personality disorder, anti-social personality disorder, sociopathy and mania among them — in the highest office. At the time, many were careful not to proffer a diagnosis of Trump, a man they’d never personally treated; they couched their concerns in a projection of how someone so afflicted might behave.

Since then, times have changed. The change.org petition “Mental Health Professionals Declare Trump is Mentally Ill And Must Be Removed” topped out at 70,760 signatures before it closed, many more shrinks have gone on the record with their diagnoses, and the attendees of an April 2017 Yale ethics conference overwhelmingly concluded that, apropos Trump, their psychiatric “duty to warn” in cases of danger to public health and safety far outweighed any other professional obligations.

“It just seems so quaint now,” says John Gartner, a clinical psychologist who started the petition, of his profession’s reluctance to use its expertise to publicly voice concerns. “I mean, everyone’s shell-shocked. It’s almost beyond this fine point of diagnosis — just the sense that someone who is very ill and dangerous is completely out of control, and no one seems to be stopping him.”

When Trump first took office, of course, it was too early to say with certainty exactly how his psychology would play out. But it was predicted that he would systematically fire those closest to him; that the laws he pushed and the policies he enacted would not benefit America overall, but would benefit him (by either lining his pockets or stoking the affirmation loop of his basest base); that he would attack civil liberties; display further delusions; lie prodigiously and lash out against anyone who opposed him. Now we’ve seen that these predictions have come to pass.

“To be honest, I don’t think he’s done anything that I didn’t anticipate,” says Lance Dodes, a former professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School who, when I interviewed him previously, said that Trump’s attacks on the media would only increase and that his reality-testing would only get worse.

But of course, being right is cold comfort for mental health professionals, especially when it comes to Trump’s sense of his own persecution as the Democratic House prepares to take office armed with the power of subpoena, his approval rating continues to lag (it’s now at 42 percent), and his fear of the Mueller investigation and paranoia about traitors in his midst continue to increase (“one of the fundamental components of narcissism is paranoia,” points out Gartner).

“People like Donald Trump who have severe narcissistic disturbances can’t tolerate being criticized,” says Dodes, “so the more they are challenged in this essential way, the more out of control they become. They change reality to suit themselves in their own mind.” And, as Dodes explains, it creates a vicious cycle: The more out of control Trump becomes, the more reason others have to challenge him, which only makes him more out of control. When he tells a rally crowd that America will become “a third-world country” if he gets impeached, that’s this defensive/delusional coupling playing out in real time.

According to Gartner, as the pressure mounts — as it likely will with a Democratic House investigating the Trump syndicate — the situation will only continue to deteriorate. “The more desperate he is, the more aggressively and the more recklessly he’s going to lash out — and not just lash out on Twitter, but really lash out in ways that are destructive to the bones of our institutions. So, he’ll try to declare criminal investigations on his enemies or anyone who criticizes him. He’ll fire everyone involved in the Mueller investigations. He’ll fire Sessions” —which, of course, he actually did last Wednesday. “He’ll ramp up his attack on civil liberties and the rule of law. He’ll escalate his incitement to violence, whether it’s supporting white nationalists or demonizing minority populations. Things that we think, ‘Oh, he could never do that, because that would be so outrageous,’ he can and he will. There’s no restraints here. There’s nothing he won’t do. And if it’s enormously destructive, that’s not actually a negative for him, that’s a positive.”

Especially because the more destructive something is, the more it will create a distraction from what riled him up in the first place. “Anything you can imagine is not off the table,” Gartner continues. “Starting a war is very possible to distract from his wrongdoing and try to rally the country around him — that whole wag the dog scenario isn’t a joke. I think it’s actually very, very possible. I think he would love to do that. It’s going to be like a scorched-earth swath of destruction.”

The obvious target is Iran. But he might just settle for a war with Mexico.

I’m worried that some terrorist is going to decide this is the perfect time to poke the bear.

We are in a dangerous moment.

.

Poisoning the epistemological well by @BloggersRUs

Poisoning the epistemological well
by Tom Sullivan

The Enlightenment was so 18th century. In the 21st, the spirit that gave birth to the United States of America is under attack by people who value form over substance, for whom values themselves are simply patriotic affectations.

Paul Krugman comments on how Donald Trump’s thralls reject the very idea of objective fact and by extension, one might add, learning that teaches any. “’Fake news’ doesn’t mean actual false reporting; it means any report that hurts Trump, no matter how solidly verified,” Krugman writes. “Any assertion that helps Trump … is true precisely because it helps him.”

Krugman continues:

The attempt by Trump and his party to shut down the legally mandated Florida recount with claims, based on no evidence, of large-scale voting fraud fits right into this partisan epistemology. Do Republicans really believe that there were vast numbers of fraudulent or forged ballots? Even asking that question is a category error. They don’t “really believe” anything, except that they should get what they want. Any vote count that might favor a Democrat is bad for them; therefore it’s fraudulent, no evidence needed.

The same worldview explains Republicans’ addiction to conspiracy theories. After all, if people keep insisting on the truth of something that hurts their party, it can’t be out of respect for the facts — because in their world, there are no neutral facts.

Stephen Colbert the character defined “truthiness” in 2005. Using truthiness to form national policy long predates the Trump presidency.

Amanda Marcote offers some advice for children of the Enlightenment “still romantically attached to the idea of reasoned debate.” Friends who ask how they can reason with right-wingers are compounding the category error Krugman defines in assuming “that for every problem, there must be a solution — an assumption that the evidence simply doesn’t support.”

Marcotte’s approach is not to waste one’s time, explaining, “you can’t reason someone out of a belief they didn’t reason themselves into.” Arguing facts is pointless with people who are lying to themselves at you. She suggests:

Instead, try to raise the social costs of lying for the purpose of trolling — as high as possible. For randos on social media, shame is admittedly unlikely. Blocking them and depriving them of the interaction they crave is the only real method. But on those occasions when you’re engaged with a coworker, friend or family member, that’s a time that social shaming — which liberals are often reluctant to use, but which can be really effective — is helpful.

Don’t debate facts. Focus instead on impacts. Instead of getting into an argument about whether climate change is real, point out that lying in order to leave the world a worse place for one’s children is gross behavior. Don’t debate whether #MeToo has gone “too far” or whether Christine Blasey Ford is lying. Instead, shame the person saying these things by bluntly stating your support for victims and opposition to sexual abuse. I find that making it personal can often be really helpful. If a conservative in my life praises Trump for trolling the press with his “enemy of the people” language, I might ask that person if they really think that I am a force for evil and that I should be censored, or perhaps imprisoned.

Be calm and dispassionate, however, and state things matter-of-factly. Any sign of emotion will be taken as evidence of “triggering” and is likely encourage to encourage still more trolling behavior. But I’ve personally had a lot of luck with calm but adamant shaming, perhaps because it makes behavior the focal point, rather than some pointless debate over what the facts are.

In essence, don’t give antagonists the satisfaction of you wasting your breath arguing a point when theirs is to poison the epistemological well. That is, “avoid speaking to liars and instead speak about them.” Good advice.

Whiny Little Twit Presidential Tweet of the Day

Whiny Little Twit Presidential Tweet of the Day

by digby

You cannot make this stuff up.

I wish I could understand why so many adults in the country like this five-year-old beahvior. The bragging the blaming, the whining.

I think we may have misdiagnosed the source of the Republican meltdown. Yes, they are voting for racists and misogynists without a second thought which is revealing of their characters. But the bigger problem, it seems to me, is that the Republican coalition is suffering from a case of mass arrested development. You can only appreciate this arrogant, ignorant man-child if you are equally immature.

What happened to these people? Fox? Rush? Bad schools? Lead in the water? It’s a real conundrum.

.

What do the troops think about Trump?

What do the troops think about Trump?

by digby


They don’t think as highly of him as they used to:

President Donald Trump’s approval rating among active-duty military personnel has slipped over the last two years, leaving today’s troops evenly split over whether they’re happy with the commander in chief’s job performance, according to the results of a new Military Times poll of active-duty service members.

About 44 percent of troops had a favorable view of Trump’s presidency, the poll showed, compared to 43 percent who disapproved.

The results from the survey, conducted over the course of September and October, suggest a gradual decline in troops’ support of Trump since he was elected in fall 2016, when a similar Military Times poll showed that 46 percent of troops approved of Trump compared to 37 percent who disapproved. That nine-point margin of support now appears gone.

During that same period, the number of neutral respondents has dwindled from almost 17 percent to about 13 percent, suggesting political polarization inside the military community has intensified in recent years.

Still, the latest survey shows that military service members are more supportive of the president than the American public at large, which, according to the most recent Gallup poll, approves of Trump at a rate of 43 percent compared to the 53 percent who disapprove.

“The general rule of thumb with the military is that it moves along with public opinion but lags conservative,” said Peter Feaver, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush who is now a political science professor at Duke University and an author of several books on military culture.

“In this case, we’re seeing military members shifting along with the public, but still staying a little more pro-Trump than the rest of the country.”

But even there we see the familiar polarization.

The new survey results also show sharp divides within the ranks. Enlisted men show Trump the most overwhelming support. Military women, meanwhile, have a much harsher view of Trump’s time in office. Officers still have a lower opinion of his presidency than enlisted troops.
[…]
Reflecting views in the broader American public, Trump’s support is higher in the military among men and enlisted troops, and significantly lower among women, minorities and officers.

A CNN poll released earlier this month put Trump’s disapproval rating among women at 62 percent. 

In the Military Times poll, that figure topped 68 percent, with only about 26 percent of military women expressing a favorable view of the president.

Among military men, Trump still enjoys a 47 percent favorable rating and a 38 percent disapproval mark.
[…]
Dissatisfaction with Trump among minorities in the ranks was less pronounced than the gender gap, but still significant. Only 29 percent have a favorable view of Trump, as opposed to 47 percent with an unfavorable view.

Since the December 2016 poll, the biggest shift among minorities has been into the “no opinion” viewpoint of his presidency. Two years ago, only about 15 percent of that group did not have a positive or negative view of Trump. In this poll, that figure rose to nearly 25 percent, drawing from both the favorable and unfavorable camps.

As has been the case in the past, the poll shows that officers are less enamored with Trump than enlisted troops. More than half have an unfavorable view of his presidency, against 41 percent who have a favorable view.

Still, that’s an improvement for Trump, who saw only a 31 percent favorable rating from officers in the poll one year ago.

Enlisted service members trend in the opposite direction. More have a positive opinion of the president (about 45 percent) than a negative view (about 41 percent), but those numbers are down from a 49 percent favorable, 34 percent unfavorable split two years ago.

In most categories, troops were more likely to fall into the “very favorable” or “very unfavorable” groups when asked about Trump’s presidency, suggesting the military may be even more polarized than the overall differences suggest.

The military isn’t all that different from the rest of the country. But Trump hasn’t done himself any favors by sending all those troops down to the border for a political stunt or refusing to visit the troops in the field even once during his presidency, which is just weird. Acting like an ass on Veteran’s Day is never a good look although his followers seem determined to overlook all his flaws.

Still, it’s interesting. I’m sure he believes the military is fully supportive — and they are slightly more supportive than the general population. They’re mostly Republicans after all. But they don’t really love him all that much and the numbers are going the wrong way.

.

Trump is making Naziism great again

Trump is making Naziism great again

by digby

This is just one little story among many. But it’s so telling. It happened in Wisconsin, not Alabama. And according to this twitter thread, it’s infected the whole culture of this high school. Female and racial minority students report constant harasment from this disgusting people and say that when they reported it to the school authorities they were brushed off.

And apparently, theboys bragged when they took that picture that they got “the black guy” to do it too. If you look closely you’ll see that they are flashing that “ok” white power sign as well. Nice kids.

The local paper reports that the school officials are suddenly concerned:

A photo that appears to show the boys from the Baraboo High School Class of 2019 spring prom is generating outrage online over what some say looks like a Nazi salute made by a majority of those in the photo.

The photo was taken on the Sauk County Courthouse steps and includes about 50 students, though not all are holding their arms outstretched.

The photo quickly spread on twitter Sunday night and Monday morning with the hashtag #barabooproud, which often is used by the Baraboo School District to promote its activities and athletics programs. The photo also was shared on Facebook.

Baraboo School District Administrator Lori Mueller addressed the controversy on twitter and said school officials were investigating.

“The photo of students posted to #BarabooProud is not reflective of the educational values and beliefs of the School District of Baraboo. The District will pursue any and all available and appropriate actions, including legal, to address,” Mueller tweeted.

Baraboo High School was placed in a “soft hold” Monday due to the photo, according to Administrative Assistant Angie Cowling. She said a soft hold prevents students from leaving school premises — such as for off-campus lunch — unless they have permission from a parent and approval through the office.

The Baraboo Police Department said officers are assisting with the school district’s investigation into a “controversial photo.”

According to reports in that twitter thread I referenced above, this stuff has been going on in that school for a while and they did nothing about it. They used to just do this:

Now they’ve gone full-on Nazi.

Trump thinks they are very fine people I’m sure.

Good lord. Look at this mascot. It’s real:

.