Skip to content

Month: October 2022

How the Trump cult happened

It’s creepy

This piece by Matthew Rozsa at Salon is fascinating. This is some dangerous stuff and it seems that people are very susceptible to this all over the world, especially right now:

As George Washington prepared to leave the presidency, he issued a famous Farewell Address warning Americans about the dangers of partisanship. Washington — who famously refused to join a political party during his two terms — exhorted that if Americans cared more about whether their party “wins” than maintaining democratic structures, “a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community” could manipulate the masses through a demagogic leader “to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

While the term “cult of personality” did not exist when Washington and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote the Farewell Address in 1796, the two men seemed to have anticipated the ways in which partisanship can slip into cult-like worship of individual human beings. That, at least, was the conclusion reached by experts to whom Salon reached out about the difference between mere hyper-partisanship and cult-like worship of a political leader. 

Indeed, the past two decades of world history have made manifest numerous instances of politicians — in ostensibly democratic countries — whose followers exhibit idolatry towards them. Given what we know of the march of history, that might seem peculiar: shouldn’t the trend towards a more democratic world be linear, rather than regressive? And yet, as leaders like Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and America’s Donald Trump all attest, there is an undercurrent in contemporary politics that has devolved it into something more akin to sports fanaticism. Salon interviewed experts about the nature of this cult-like devotion towards politicians — what drives it, and what it means for the future of the democratic world. 

What is the difference between normal partisanship and a political cult? Experts say that, in the latter scenario, supporters hold their leader as infallible.

“Cult-like politicians and their supporters also hold deep commitments to ideological positions, but these commitments tend to reflect the personalistic whims of leaders, which involve the demonization of critical ‘others,'” Dr. Stephen A. Kent, a sociologist at the University of Alberta who studies new religious movements (NRMs) such as the Church of Scientology and the Children of God, told Salon by email. “These opponents are evil, not merely misguided or wrong.” Once a demagogue’s supporters have reached that conclusion, it is not difficult for the leader to manipulate the masses in the manner that Washington described.

In those situations, power in the political movement stems not from a set of ideas or shared interests, but from the personality and will of one individual. Even the most overzealous party follower will, if they are indeed merely partisan, ultimately abandon a leader when that individual betrays their core principles. This is why a politician with partisan appeal but no strong cult of personality can be reined in by their own side if they excessively abuse their power, like Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. When a leader has a cult of personality, however, their supporters will never abandon them, no matter their transgression.

“Partisan politicians and their adherents support, in principle, a group’s basic ideology concerning political and social policies, usually developed after adherents’ debates and rooted in traditions,” Kent continued. While partisans disagree with and even dislike their opponents because they are perceived as “misguided and wrong on crucial issues,” they do not engage in the behavior extremes of those whose political beliefs are more cultish.

For an example of a modern leader with a cult of personality, Kent pointed to Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

“His racist, anti-feminist, and traditionalist family values have garnered him supporters among his country’s growing, conservative, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian communities, some of which see him as having a godly mandate for the imposition of authoritarian values in the country,” Kent explained. Kent noted that Bolsonaro has followed Trump’s example in claiming he can only lose his election if it is stolen, and in trying to control the nation’s judiciary.

Kent added that in cults of personality like Bolsonaro’s there are “social-psychological associations that give adherents a sense of vicarious power through a heightened sense of destiny and purpose. The figures who receive adherents’ adulation themselves feel validated and encouraged by their followers’ energy, which supplies narcissistic leaders with emotional validation and creates for them a body of potentially mobilized people enacting their directives and whims.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his followers also fulfill some of the cult rubric. This includes cultivating a hyper-macho public image and spreading his own “Big Lie” about Ukraine (claiming it needs to be de-Nazified). Indeed, one of Putin’s chiefs stated that Putin’s reason for invading Ukraine related to an esoteric belief, promulgated by Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, that Russia has a historical and spiritual claim to the country. Since this is Putin’s view, supporters who do not necessarily share Putin’s obscure geopolitical philosophy but seem to be part of his cult of personality wind up repeating those nationalistic talking points.

As a former KGB officer, Putin is also intimately familiar with Russia’s history of creating both secular and metaphysical cults of personality for its leaders, one that traces all the way back to Vladimir Lenin and the rise of the Soviet Union. Yet like Trump, Putin wins support among his followers through his narcissistic traits. It is no coincidence that both Trump and Putin supporters find themselves in comparable social positions when compelled to stand up for their heroes: They’re championing leaders who behave like malignant narcissists.

“Both figures demonstrate numerous characteristics typical of malignant narcissists, involving inflated evaluations of self-worth, a need for adoration, high demands upon inner circle supporters and facilitators, and vengeful responses to perceived critics,” Kent said of Trump and Putin.

At the time of this writing, Trump has spent years focusing his cult of personality on promoting what has become known as the Big Lie — i.e., his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him despite conclusive evidence to the contrary. Unlike a normal political issue which springs from authentic mass opinions (abortion rights, gun control, economic policy, etc.), the Big Lie exists because of the personality quirks of a man in charge of a political cult. It survives because, instead of being discredited by Trump’s years-long history of refusing to accept election results unless he wins and the fact that Trump’s arguments having been debunked, Trump supporters are trained to disregard any voice that dissents from their leader’s word.

“People who are believing in the Big Lie have been indoctrinated for the most part into believing only this and into disbelieving any media that is critical of it,” explained Dr. Steven Hassan, one of the world’s foremost experts on mind control and cults, a former senior member of the Unification Church, founder/director of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center Inc. and author of the bestselling books “Freedom of Mind,” “Combating Cult Mind Control” and “The Cult of Trump.”

“When you’re in a mind-control cult what the leader says goes, and that’s it,” Hassan pointed out. “The power is concentrated from the top down. Anyone who raises a ruckus, like [former Attorney General William] Barr saying that the election wasn’t stolen, becomes persona non grata because they are not following the glorious leader.”

Unsurprisingly, narcissism is the glue that hold together political cults such as Trump’s — and not just the narcissism of the leader at the top, although in Trump’s case his narcissistic traits helped psychologists predict his violent response to losing the 2020 election. In a condition known as narcissism by proxy, individuals who fall under a narcissist’s sway will often mimic the narcissist’s behavior and act as extensions of the narcissist’s will. Even though the victims may not be narcissists themselves, and are often simply vulnerable to manipulation for a variety of personal reasons, they willingly serve as effective minions for the narcissist by entering their political cult.

They feel they are part of something, secure in their group, having fun. I know people like this on our side. I suspect we all grew up with them. And when things get confusing and stressful, they are exactly the types to turn to a demagogue.

We know what they’ll do if they lose. What will they do if they win?

They’ll do what they always do

Every day I hear fans of Donald Trump earnestly telling reporters that what they admire most about him is that he accomplished more than any president in American history. And I hear squeamish Trump voters who admit that the tweeting and the ranting may not have been ideal, but they just love his policies. Whenever I hear this, I have to wonder: What accomplishments and policies are they talking about? 

Trump came into office with an economy running at full steam after a slow and gradual recovery from the catastrophic financial crisis of 2008. He instituted a number of policies that were struck down by the courts either partially or in full, such as his odious Muslim ban and family separation policies. He never got his wall built, even though he deployed U.S. troops to the border and precipitated the longest government shutdown in history in an attempt to force Congress to fund it. He certainly didn’t “drain the swamp.” His own personal corruption and conflicts of interest as president are legendary, and numerous members of his administration were charged with criminal behavior. Many others were dismissed in the face of ethics scandals.

He constantly claimed he was going to bring back manufacturing but all that meant was some flamboyant announcements that never actually materialized. His trade war ended up costing taxpayers both in terms of consumer prices and massive subsidies for producers who faced retaliation, with no discernible change in the behavior of foreign trade partners. He kissed up to tyrants all over the world and antagonized U.S. allies but did not end America’s overseas wars as he promised. He failed to repeal Obamacare, the holy grail of Republican politics for nearly a decade.

So what did Donald Trump actually do? He reversed a lot of Barack Obama’s policies, like the Paris climate accords and the Iran nuclear deal. The only substantial thing he accomplished through legislation was those tax cuts for the rich — largely the doing of then-House Speaker Paul Ryan.

What Trump really did was dominate the political world and escape all accountability. That’s the “policy” his followers love. 

But right-wing congressional Republicans are different animals. If they win the majority in next month’s midterm elections, they too want to dominate — but they bring a different set of skills and goals to the table. First of all, of course they will vote to extend the Trump tax cuts and offer more to corporations. That goes without saying. Joe Biden will veto any such bill, but voting for tax cuts is a Republican religious ritual. They have to appease the gods of wealth.

Like Trump, they are also driven by revenge and have already made clear they plan to begin broad “investigations” into various Democratic officials and affiliates, including Hunter Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Various members have stated they may seek to impeach the secretary of state, the secretary of education, the attorney general and the head of Homeland Security, as well as President Biden and Vice President Harris.

Presumptive Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is trying to soft-pedal all this investigation-impeachment zeal, but as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene more or less told New York Times reporter Robert Draper, either he does what she wants or she’ll sic the rabid GOP base on him. She filed articles of impeachment against Biden the day after his inauguration. In fact, she’s already filed five of them.

But fired-up congressional Republicans aren’t simply going to be content with harassing Biden and the Democrats for sheer entertainment value. In order to truly dominate the political landscape and set the table for Vengeance Tour 2024, they will seek to turn the country, and perhaps the world, completely upside down. To that end, they’ve been signaling that they plan to run one of their standard plays and hold the government debt ceiling hostage (I wrote about this here last week) to force the elimination of numerous Biden programs and fulfill their long-standing goal of destroying Social Security and Medicare. McCarthy confirmed this on Tuesday. (Donald Trump, let us recall, repeatedly vowed to protect Social Security and Medicare, but there’s no sign that he’ll try to intervene.)

Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell recently addressed the likely consequences of gambling with government default under the current economic circumstances, and let’s just say they are dire. Such a move might not just destroy the creditworthiness of the U.S. treasury, but “might accidentally blow up every other financial market on Earth too… Boom, financial crisis.” It’s not as if the global economy is especially healthy at the moment as it recovers from the pandemic shock and struggles with the ripple effects of war in Ukraine. Playing these games now is the height of irresponsibility. But that’s how the Republican Party has done business for at least the past 25 years.

And as if that weren’t enough, they are also planning to re-run one of the great moments in “If he’s for it, I’m against it” foreign policy sophistry of the past quarter-century. Kevin McCarthy has suggested that his party not only plans to hold the debt ceiling hostage, but support for Ukraine as well. Apparently, Republicans intend to refuse more military aid to Ukraine because — despite the massive unaccountable sums the U.S. spends on its own military — we just can’t afford it right now. (After all, we’ve got the Space Force to pay for!)

Tempting as it is to lay this on the new Trumpist “America First” philosophy, that actually isn’t true. GOP isolationism goes way back. Just as the government shutdown maneuver comes straight out of the 1990s Newt Gingrich playbook, so too does this gambit to shut down military support for allies in Europe.

Kevin McCarthy’s threat to shut down aid to Ukraine isn’t actually a product of Trumpist “America First” philosophy. It’s old-time GOP isolationism, straight out of the Newt Gingrich playbook.

After several years of watching idly as ethnic cleansing and war crimes took place in Bosnia during the early ’90s, NATO had finally concluded it needed to step in to stop the Kosovo conflict from spreading. As dissonant as this was coming from a party that often gleefully endorses violence and claims to worship the military, Republicans fought hard to prevent Bill Clinton from intervening with NATO in the Kosovo conflict, saying that it wasn’t our fight and could lead to a wider war. If Ronald Reagan had proposed military intervention, they would of course have wrapped themselves in the flag and started singing “The Yanks Are Coming.” But since a Democrat was in office and after 1994 Republicans held the Congress for the first time in decades, they decided it wasn’t America’s place. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott even snidely pronounced, “Give peace a chance.”

Reflexive GOP hyper-partisanship has been with us for a long time, as Salon’s Amanda Marcotte illustrates in her recent interview with historian Nicole Hemmer. Trump didn’t invent any of this. Divided government gives Republicans a chance to do what they truly love to do, and what their voters demand: Own the libs. If they have to destroy the global economy, accommodate war crimes and explode the Atlantic alliance, that’s a price they are more than willing to make the world pay.

Incoming!

Even if Democrats hold the line on Nov. 8

Still image from Apocalypse Now (1979).

One date to watch will be the day the Supreme Court rules on Moore v. Harper next year. It could be a day that lives in infamy. The justices will hear oral arguments in the case on a date that actually does live in infamy, Joan McCarter reminds us (Daily Kos):

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Moore v. Harper on December 7. That’s North Carolina case that could upend democracy in any state with a Republican legislature, the one where Republican state legislators are arguing that the Constitution says they’re the bosses when it comes to federal elections, including drawing congressional redistricting maps. As the Court prepares to hear that one, Ohio Republican legislators are piling on, asking the Supreme Court to toss a bipartisan ruling from that state’s Supreme Court that declared a gerrymandered Republican map unconstitutional.

“The United States Constitution expressly puts the responsibility to prescribe ‘The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives…’ with the legislature of each state,” the Ohio Republicans said in their press release announcing the Supreme Court appeal. “As our petition lays out, the 4-3 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court encroached on this legislative authority in multiple ways, and that action deserves to be tested in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our appeal today sets that process in motion.”

That’s the theory of independent state legislatures the Court is taking up in December. It’s is based on an interpretation in the Constitution’s Elections Clause, as quoted by the legislators. These extremist Republicans interpret that to mean that state legislatures have supremacy in crafting the rules governing federal elections. Supremacy over state courts, over federal courts, over Congress, over governors, over citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.

Checks and balances? Bah! Like democracy, where do those words appear in the Constitution? Huh?

Ohio Republicans want to get in on North Carolina’s norms-wrecking act. We shall have more anon. It’s going to be a long war.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us

Be a voter

Your freedoms depend on it

Virginians in the lead up to the American Revolution, wrote Edmund Morgan, “may have had a special appreciation of the freedom dear to republicans, because they saw every day what life without it could be like.” Meaning they were slavemasters.

Freedom and subjugation are bound together deep in the American psyche, Jamelle Bouie observes. And woven into our founding documents:

This duality is present in our federal Constitution, which proclaims republican liberty at the same time that it has enabled the brutal subjugation of entire peoples within the United States. The Constitution both inspired the democratic vistas of radical antislavery politicians and backstopped the antebellum dream of a transcontinental slave empire.

Move a little closer to the present and you can see clearly how American democracy and American autocracy have existed side by side, with the latter just another feature of our political order. If we date the beginning of Jim Crow to the 1890s — when white Southern politicians began to mandate racial separation and when the Supreme Court affirmed it — then close to three generations of American elites lived with and largely accepted the existence of a political system that made a mockery of American ideals of self-government and the rule of law.

Bouie’s point is that it takes only a small shift in perspective to go from viewing the nation through a democratic lens to an authoritarian one. For most of our history, he cautions:

… America’s democratic institutions and procedures and ideals existed alongside forms of exclusion, domination and authoritarianism. Although we’ve taken real strides toward making this a less hierarchical country, with a more representative government, there is no iron law of history that says that progress will continue unabated or that the authoritarian tradition in American politics won’t reassert itself.

Just as white Christians reconciled their “love thy neighbor” faith with enforcing Jim Crow — through lynching, if necessary — Americans, when it suits them, possess a demonstrated knack for rationalizing autocracy with their belief that this is a “free” country. Thus do violent Jan. 6 insurrectionists who fought police for hours perceive themselves patriots who “back the blue,” who excuse lawbreaking by members of their political tribe, and who accuse Democrats of “defunding” the police while they themselves advocate abolishing the FBI.

Americans elide the contradictions. There is no reason to believe elites as in control as those Virginia colonists will not once again, Bouie cautions, “accommodate themselves to the absence of democracy for many of their fellow Americans.”

With the demise of the Voting Rights Act, Roe and other Civil Rights era expansions of freedoms to a wider array of citizens, we are witnessing that shift in real time.

Bouie concludes:

As we look to a November in which a number of vocal election deniers are poised to win powerful positions in key swing states, I think that the great degree to which authoritarianism is tied up in the American experience — and the extent to which we’ve been trained not to see it, in accordance with our national myths and sense of exceptionalism — makes it difficult for many Americans to really believe that democracy as we know it could be in serious danger.

In other words, too many Americans still think it can’t happen here, when the truth is that it already has and may well again.

Here is a taste of what that looks like.

Across the aisle, they might say “Wake up, Uhmerca!” I’ll just say, please, please, go vote.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us

Just another day on Truth Social

There is a lot of discussion about whether or not it’s right to share something like that under the impression that it might persuade someone to agree with it. I don’t worry about that on this blog because I know that nobody that crazy or stupid comes here. But I do think it’s important to let people like you know what these weirdos are spreading to their audiences. You have to be prepared.

Mostly Trump retweets dozens of embarrassing boot licking cult offerings like this

It’s enough to make you hurl. But about 1 out of 20 posts are something like the first one: dangerous, authoritarian lunacy.

Remember, the man who is spreading that bilge is the front runner for the Republican nomination in 2024.

The so called “principled” Mike Lee

Not so principled after all…

Utah Senator Mike Lee used to have the reputation of a principled libertarian.He and Michigan’s Justin Amash were seen as allies on civil liberties and anti-authoritarianism. Amash was the real thing and jumped ship on Trump and the Republicans in disgust. Lee, on the other hand, revealed his true self: a toady for power.

A.B. Stoddard at the Bulwark has this on Lee:

Beseeching Mitt Romney for help—on Tucker Carlson’s show of all places—would have been unthinkable to Sen. Mike Lee, even recently. Yet there he was last week, demeaning himself before Fox viewers who loathe Romney, begging not only for Romney’s endorsement, but adding “you can get your entire family to donate to me.”

Over the last six years, Donald Trump has ruined many Republican political careers. Lee is now scrambling to avoid becoming another of them. The two-term senator knows exactly why his campaign is in trouble and what led to his humiliation on Fox News.

Lee isn’t in trouble because of (just) Democratic voters. His re-election is teetering because of Republican voters who are disgusted by his full embrace of Trump—including his attempts to help Trump overturn the 2020 election. These machinations created space for former CIA officer Evan McMullin to run as an independent after convincing the Utah Democratic Party not to put anyone on the ballot this year. McMullin has, improbably, energized a coalition of moderate Republicans, unaffiliated voters, and Democrats behind his candidacy. Mitt Romney has chosen not to endorse either candidate, saying they are both friends.

And now the race is a dead heat.

Lee is still the favorite to win. He’s the incumbent and a Republican running in a deep-red state against an independent who’s never won a statewide election. He should be running away with this thing. But the latest Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics polls—the gold standard in Utah—found McMullin in a tight race with Lee, who was up five points and three points among likely voters in their last two polls. A Hill Research poll has McMullin ahead of Lee, 46 percent to 42 percent among active voters—when a comparable survey by the same firm had McMullin trailing Lee by 13 points in June. Meanwhile, respondents’ unfavorable view of Lee has grown, from 44 percent in June to 52 percent now.

This is the first competitive Senate race in Utah in nearly 50 years, the last one being in 1976, when Orrin Hatch defeated incumbent Frank Moss. It didn’t have to be this way. Lee easily could have been senator for life. But the combination of his Trump brown-nosing and his disconnect from his constituents—he has passed very few bills and has opposed popular bipartisan bills—have made him vulnerable.

There’s a great deal of irony in Lee’s supplication before Tucker’s throne. For starters, he chose to make his appeal to Romney while kneeling in front of a guy who frequently attacks Romney. Maybe not the best way to win friends and influence people.

But also, Lee himself has a record of refusing to endorse. He didn’t endorse Sen. Orrin Hatch for re-election in 2012 and he didn’t endorse Romney in 2018.

Call it Mike Lee’s Golden Rule: Demand from others what you would never do unto them.

It’s very interesting to see how much this era is exposing the true political hacks and opportunists. I think of Sinema on the Dem side and this guy on the other. These are empty people, no center. It’s quite clarifying.

Redefining Blackness

Southern states are saying Black people aren’t really Black

This is bold. They’re trying to say that Black people of mixed race/ethnicity aren’t really Black which means they shouldn’t be counted for the purposes of the Voting Rights Act. It brings to mind the old quip from Obama when he was questions about whether he was ‘authentic” enough: “You know, when I’m catching a cab in Manhattan in the past, I think I’ve given my credentials.”

Since a 2003 ruling by the Supreme Court, that definition of “Black” has included every person who identifies as Black on census forms — including people who check off the boxes for Black and any other racial or ethnic category such as white, Asian and Hispanic or Latino, which the federal government considers to be an ethnicity that can be of any race.

Republican state officials, however, have called for narrower definitions of Blackness that do not include people who also identify with another minority group.

Citing no evidence, GOP officials in Alabama argued in lower court filings that limiting the definition to people who mark just the “Black” box and do not identify as Latino for the census would be “most defensible.”

And in the Louisiana case — Ardoin v. Robinson — officials have been arguing for the definition to only include people who check off either just the “Black” box or both “Black” and “White” and do not identify as Latino.

Before appealing their redistricting case to the Supreme Court, Alabama officials dropped their push to redefine Blackness.

But the state of Louisiana and its Republican secretary of state, Kyle Ardoin, have asked the country’s highest court to weigh in with a final word on which definition should be used in Section 2 cases.

Lower courts have already found that even when using more limited definitions of “Black” as proposed by the Republican officials, the premise of the courts’ analyses of the voting maps does not change.

Still, in one filing to the high court, Louisiana officials say using the more expansive definition of Blackness, which includes all people who identify themselves as Black, to analyze the state’s new map of congressional districts is an “independent legal error warranting this Court’s intervention.”

Do they think people are identifying themselves that way on census forms in order to game the redistricting system? That’s just daft.

No, they have a plan:

A narrower definition of “Black” could end up allowing other redistricting plans to minimize Black voting strength.

How the Supreme Court decides the case over Alabama’s congressional map, however, could have broader implications on the political power of all voters of color. Many voting rights advocates are watching to see if enough of the court’s conservative majority adopts one of Alabama’s more extreme arguments — that race cannot be taken into account when drawing voting districts unless there’s evidence of intentional racial discrimination.

A ruling along those lines could make it virtually impossible to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge voting maps in the future, turning how “Black” is defined in redistricting into a less urgent question.

Still, the challenges Republican state officials have already made on who counts as Black have raised uneasy questions about the complicated history of defining Blackness and the future of Black voting power in a country where growing numbers of people identify with more than one race.

Who are these people to decide who’s Black and who isn’t? But I guess they think they have a chance with this court:

Kareem Crayton — a former law professor and redistricting consultant who advised Alabama’s Democratic state House minority leader during the drawing of the state’s new congressional map — says he did not expect Alabama GOP lawmakers to challenge the definition of Blackness in court given that they’ve publicly emphasized they drew congressional districts “race-blind.”

“It was a mild surprise that a group that had in many places tried their best not to talk about race, at least in the formal proceedings, all of a sudden took a very, let’s just say, staunch and, I’d say, retrograde understanding of race and decided to say that in court,” Crayton adds. “It also made me wonder how much the Republican lawmakers were willing to just take their chances in court. That is, maybe this legislature looked at the U.S. Supreme Court and said, ‘You know, we’re going to try our hand at revisiting what most people thought about both racial definitions and, frankly, the state of the law on race and how race is used.’ “

Sure,why not? They’ve come through for them on voting rights up until now. Is there any limit on what the Supremes will do to prevent Black people from getting a fair chance? I don’t think so.

Are we soon to see a full-blown Nazi social media merger?

Prospective Twitter owner Elon Musk is posting then deleting some very odd tweets. This was from yesterday:

Today:

Is he talking about merging the three social networks? Sure looks like it.

If Musk takes over twitter it will be ruined in no time. There will be zero moderation and the haters will take over. That’s just how internet communities work. Believe me, I’ve been around this a long time. Whatever the come up with would shortly end up being a one dimensional hellhole dominated by Trump cultists, fascists and racists.

Call me crazy but I don’t think we need any more media like that, social or otherwise, We have plenty.

Before everyone decides to slit their wrists from reading that one NYT poll…

People, it’s a jump ball

538’s poll average:

Polls are all over the place and all within the margin of error. This will be very close. We don’t know how it will turn out.

For perspective, here’s a poll from this morning that isn’t getting nearly the coverage that NY Times poll got yesterday:

Just sayin’

More on Marge

She could be your next (acting) Attorney General

Following up on the post below, here’s more on Marge’s growing cachet in the GOP. Trump won’t be able to get her confirmed through the Senate but he knows he doesn’t have to . He just appoints “acting” officials for everything.

IF YOU’RE WONDERING what a second term of Donald Trump would look like, look no further than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

As he lays the groundwork for a 2024 presidential run, Trump has talked to close associates about who he’d tap for top government positions should he win back the White House, and Greene has repeatedly made his list, two sources familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone.

“Wouldn’t she be great?” Trump privately said earlier this year to a confidant, one of the two people says. It is unclear what specifically Trump has in mind for the severely MAGAfied Georgia Republican, be it a White House staff position, cabinet post, or agency appointment, the sources say. But, “he loves MTG and would want her very close in a second term, that much was clear,” one source says. 

The second source recalls that over the past year, the ex-president had briefly mentioned Greene’s name as someone who could be in the running to be a senior official at the Justice Department during a second Trump administration. The former president’s comment confused the source, because “I don’t think she’s a lawyer,” this person says.

Reps for Trump and Greene did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone‘s requests for comment.

As Trump rampaged through his first term in the White House, those alarmed by his inexperienced and mercurial nature sought solace from the so-called “adults in the room” — seasoned officials who, with mixed results, endeavored to constrain the president’s most destructive impulses. But as his term wore on, most members of the alleged club gave up, resigned in protest, or were fired, and by the end of Trump’s term, he was surrounded by hardcore MAGA loyalists.

Trump’s interest in hiring Greene suggests that Trump aims to begin a second term in the White House exactly where he left off in his first. During her time in Congress, Greene has consistently stood to Trump’s right, embracing conspiracy theories and espousing extreme positions — all while continually antagonizing her political opponents. The list of her outrages includes speaking at an explicitly white-supremacist political action convention (as well as defending her decision to do so) early this year, and being unable to definitively affirm that she doesn’t support exerting political violence on her enemies.

In a 2018 Facebook post, Greene blamed a space laser for California wildfires. In 2019, she mocked a survivor of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed. And last year, GOP honchos, including House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, condemned Greene for comparing masking and coronavirus vaccines to Nazi persecution and atrocities.

But Greene has since been welcomed back into the Republican establishment — despite her politics getting more extreme. McCarthy and Greene now have a cozy working relationship, multiple sources with knowledge of the situation say, and the latter is expected to be a significant player in the mainstream of the party.

Nowadays, Greene is a fixture at Trump rallies, and talks fairly regularly to the former president. By February of this year, she had already become one of the most coveted and aggressively courted endorsements in competitive GOP House and Senate contests.

No, nothing to see here. It’s fine. No problem. The most toxic person in American politics after Donald Trump is hugely popular with Republicans all over the country and the GOP front runner wants to put her in the cabinet.