Sunday, December 27, 2020

IF 60 CASES ARE LAUGHED OUT OF COURT AND MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T HEAR THE LAUGHTER, DO THE ALLEGATIONS REALLY SEEM "BASELESS"?

In The New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, Nick Corasaniti, and Alan Feuer declare that Donald Trump's election allegations have been definitively disproven.
President Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election over the last seven weeks — the most aggressive promotion of “voter fraud” in American history — failed to get any traction in courts across seven states, or come anywhere close to reversing the loss he suffered to Joseph R. Biden Jr. ...

After bringing some 60 lawsuits, and even offering financial incentive for information about fraud, Mr. Trump and his allies have failed to prove definitively any case of illegal voting on behalf of their opponent in court — not a single case of an undocumented immigrant casting a ballot, a citizen double voting, nor any credible evidence that legions of the voting dead gave Mr. Biden a victory that wasn’t his.
And yet somehow the myth of an election stolen by Biden persists!
The false notions have lived on in Mr. Trump’s Twitter and Facebook feeds; on the television programming of Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network; and in statehouse hearings where Republican leaders have contemplated more restrictive voting laws based on the rejected allegations....

After declaring outright that high levels of voting are bad for Republicans, [Trump] persuaded his base that the election system is rotten with fraud, and to view that fiction as a bedrock party principle. Several recent polls have shown that majorities of Republicans think the election was fraudulent, even as election officials across the country report that it went surprisingly smoothly even in a pandemic, with exceptionally high turnout and no evidence of fraud aside from the usual smattering of lone wolf bad actors or mistakes by well-intentioned voters.
How did Trump manage to do this? He did it by being relentlessly on message for nearly two months, backed up by many surrogates who are also perpetually on message. He did it by giving the public easily absorbed, seemingly detailed examples of fraud -- for instance, the notorious (and debunked) story of the suitcases allegedly full of Biden votes in Georgia, which shows up in a lie-filled Trump video that's been removed from other sites but remains available on Facebook:



But where are the TV and social media ads from Democrats that compellingly rebut these and other allegations? Where are the ads from the Democratic National Committee? Or the Lincoln Project? Do those folks assume -- the way well-educated liberals and moderates so often do -- that everyone in America is fully aware of all the details of all the relevant stories? Do they assume that no one needs to be told why Trump's allegations are (as every mainstream news story puts it, usually with little explanation) "baseless"?

I'll give Rutenberg et al. their due: They provide quite a few details in the second half of their Times story. But these details need to be restated by Democrats and their allies in a punchy, emotionally compelling form on multiple media platforms. It would be helpful in non-conservatives could be posting them to social media, rather than allowing Trumpist conspiratorialists to frame the discussion there. From the Times story:
For instance, in pressing their cases across the country, Republicans have referenced data analyses by a cybersecurity executive and one-time Texas congressional candidate named Russell J. Ramsland Jr. One of his reports alleged that various Michigan counties had vote tallies that exceeded their populations, implying their totals were padded with illegal ballots; the counties in question, it turned out, were in Minnesota, not Michigan.
That's a social media ad right there.
Likewise, several specific accusations that people illegally cast ballots in the names of dead people have been born of amateurish data analysis that later proved faulty.

In a federal case the Trump campaign brought seeking to delay certification of the results in Michigan, the specific mention of a ballot cast by a dead voter was incorrect: No vote was cast through the dead man’s registration. Rather, a man with his same exact name voted legally. (Mr. Trump’s team pulled that case from the docket as Michigan moved forward toward certification.)
That's another one.
In several other instances, the “dead voters” in whose names the Trump campaign said ballots were cast proved very much alive.
That's another one.
This past week in Pennsylvania, authorities did make one arrest based on an accusation the Trump campaign first leveled in November. Delaware County prosecutors said a man named Bruce Bartman cast an absentee ballot in his deceased mother’s name — for Mr. Trump.
That's another one -- and in fact, as Pennsylvania's Democratic lieutenant governor has noted,



Democrats need to be putting this narrative -- the truthful narrative -- before the public in an easily absorbed, compleling way. They need to be pulling the most damning sentence or two out of the rulings in the failed Trump legal cases, especially those decided by judges who are Republican appointees, and getting them before the public. They need to be contrasting the claims of evidence by Trump and his lawyers with the complete absence of evidence in those lawyers' filings.

In addition to ads, every Democratic officeholder who appears in the media needs to make this case in this way.

We have the facts. Why aren't we making full use of them?

Friday, December 25, 2020

HAVING A VERY 2020 CHRISTMAS

Sorry not to be blogging, but I'm having some infrastructure issues. I should be back to normal tomorrow or Sunday. Hope you're having a lovely Christmas. See you soon.

Thursday, December 24, 2020

THEY'D DO ANYTHING FOR TRUMP (BUT THEY WON'T DO THAT)

We've established that congressional Republicans will do anything for Donald Trump. They'll defend him against impeachment charges. They'll agree that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though no one can find solid evidence.

But now Trump says he wants Americans to receive larger pandemic relief checks than the ones Congress agreed on. So congressional Republicans have no choice, right? They have to agree! Don't they?

Nope:
House Republicans shot down a Democratic bid on Thursday to pass President Donald Trump’s longshot, end-of-session demand for $2,000 direct payments to most Americans as he ponders whether to sign a long-overdue COVID-19 relief bill.

... House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 House Democrat, sought the unanimous approval of all House members to pass the bill, but GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, who was not present in the nearly-empty chamber, denied his approval and the effort fizzled.

The optics appear terrible for Republicans....
The optics are fine for Republicans.

Sure, they're denying desperately needed cash to voters and defying the president, but "Always be loyal to Trump" is a rule that has one exception: It's okay to defy to Trump if your defiance owns the libs.

Throughout Trump's term, we've all wondered what it would take to get Trump's superfans to turn against him. I think the answer is obvious: He'd have to agree with liberals on something. He'd have to back an assault weapons ban or climate change legislation or Medicare for All or a tax increase on rich people. They probably would have turned against him if he, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer agreed on an infrastructure bill.

I don't think Republican voters will reject Trump for agreeing with Pelosi et al. on the need for larger stimulus checks. But the support of Democrats gives Republicans in Congress -- and the two GOP senators running in Georgia -- cover to reject the idea. If we're for it, it's fine to be against it, no matter what it is.

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

I HAVE MY DOUBTS ABOUT THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ON STIMULUS CHECKS AND GEORGIA

We're being told that President Trump shivved Mitch McConnell last night:
Trump released a video criticizing the $900 billion coronavirus relief package that congressional lawmakers passed on Monday and demanding they increase the checks....

This leaves the next move to McConnell, who has for months insisted on a smaller stimulus package and has rejected Democratic proposals for $1,200 checks.

He now has two undesirable options:

* He can cave and accept a larger stimulus figure after fighting for months to keep it down.

* He can block the larger checks and take the political heat for it.
The conventional wisdom is that he and his party will be in trouble if the larger checks don't happen, because it's now clear to voters in the Georgia runoffs -- who want more government aid -- that what's holding up that additional aid is the Republican Senate.

I'm with Joshua Holland on this:



My take:



And lo and behold:



If Trump doesn't back down and sign the bill as is -- and despite his grumbling, he might -- McConnell will just add a poison pill or two, then blame Democrats when his bad deal is rejected.

I also believe that the impact of this on Georgia Senate voting is being greatly overstated. Reports on early voting in Georgia say that, yes, Black turnout is strong, but so is turnout among older voters, who tend to be more Republican. And this is without any stimulus checks.

I expect the runoffs to be close, but I think GOP voters will turn out for the same reason they always do: Because they've been told for decades that Democrats are evil. Anti-Democratic negative partisanship didn't just cease to exist when Trump started complaining about Republicans who won't help him steal the presidential election.

If Democrats win the runoffs, it won't be because of GOP infighting or because checks don't arrive. It'll be because they countered a healthy GOP turnout with strong turnout of their own.

BANNON'S REVENGE? (updated)

CNN recently reported:
Conspiracist lawyer Sidney Powell, disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn, onetime chief strategist Steve Bannon, hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro and the eccentric founder of the retail website Overstock have all recently found themselves in the Oval Office or on the telephone advising Trump on new last-ditch efforts to reverse his loss.
But what else are they talking to him about -- particularly Bannon and Navarro, Bannon's fellow anti-globalist? I think I detect their influence in Trump's attack on the coronavirus relief bill:
President Trump on Tuesday night asked Congress to amend the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill passed just one day before, describing the legislation as “a disgrace” and suggesting he would not immediately sign off on aid for millions of Americans.

In a video posted to Twitter, Trump called on Congress to increase the “ridiculously low” $600 stimulus checks to $2,000 and outlined a list of provisions in the overall package of legislation that he described as “wasteful spending and much more.”
Here's the video:



Most reporting on the video has focused on the demand for larger checks, which makes the president seem, at long last, like the potential ally to the Democrats that the mainstream media has always wanted him to be. But note how Trump begins his speech:
Throughout the summer, Democrats cruelly blocked COVID relief legislation in an effort to advance their extreme left wing agenda and influence the election. Then a few months ago, Congress started negotiations on a new package to get urgently needed help to the American people. It’s taken forever. However, the bill they are now planning to send back to my desk is much different than anticipated. It really is a disgrace.

For example, among the more than 5,000 pages in this bill, which nobody in Congress has read because of its length and complexity, it’s called the COVID Relief Bill, but it has almost nothing to do with COVID. This bill contains $85.5 million for assistance to Cambodia, $134 million to Burma, $1.3 billion for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment. $25 million for democracy and gender programs in Pakistan, $505 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.
It's a classic paleoconservative complaint about the very existence of foreign aid.

These provisions are in the bill because Congress folded COVID relief into a larger spending bill. The New York Times reports:
The president ... seized on congressional leaders’ decision to pass the relief bill by combining it with a broader spending plan to fund government operations and the military.
That implies that a well-informed Trump critiqued Congress for putting COVID relief in a larger bill. There's no evidence that Trump actually understands that that's what happened. As far as I can tell, he just thinks Congress called it a COVID bill and then loaded it up with unrelated goodies.

Trump went to complain:
$40 million for the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, which is not even open for business. $1 billion for the Smithsonian and an additional $154 million for the National Gallery of Art. Likewise, these facilities are essentially not open.

$7 million for reef fish management, $25 billion to combat Asian carp, $2.5 million to count the number of amberjack fish in the Gulf of Mexico. A provision to promote the breeding of fish in federal hatcheries, $3 million in poultry production technology, $2 million to research the impact of down trees, $566 million for construction projects at the FBI.
These are old-fashioned right-wing complaints about the very existence of government spending. Only after this do we get a complaint about the size of the checks, and it's folded into Bannonesque (or possibly Stephen Miller-esque) immigrant-bashing.
The bill also allows stimulus checks for the family members of illegal aliens, allowing them to get up to $1,800 each. This is far more than the Americans are given. Despite all of this wasteful spending and much more, the $900 billion package provides hardworking taxpayers with only $600 each in relief payments and not enough money is given to small businesses.
Bannon postures as a populist. (Remember 2017, when he was a White House adviser and he let it be known that he favored raising the top marginal tax rate on rich people from 39.6% to 44%? And then it dropped to 37%?) Bannon is a cultural nationalist. Bannon wants everything blown up, because he's looking forward to some sort of historical "turning" that he expects to Change Everything.

I'm not saying that the entire video was Bannon's idea. One part of the speech seemed to come straight from Trump's heart:
And in particular, restaurants, whose owners have suffered so grievously. They were only given a deduction for others to use in business, their restaurant, for two years. This two year period must be withdrawn, which will allow the owners to obtain financing and get their restaurants back in condition. Congress can terminate it at a much later date, but two years is not acceptable. It’s not enough.
But I suspect Bannon was a major influence.

*****

ON THE OTHER HAND: There's this:
On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) stated that the coronavirus relief bill “should be vetoed” by President Donald Trump via a pocket veto, “and I’m hoping it will be.”

Biggs said, “Well, I — this is the worst bill, and it typifies the swamp. Because it’s terrible, both from a process and a substantive point of view.”
Biggs is one of several House crazies Trump has been meeting with in his efforts to get the election results overturned. I'm sure they all hate the bill and have told him it's bad. But I don't think any of them would recommend larger stimulus checks.

*****

UPDATE: I'm probably wrong to ascribe this to Bannon. The list of foreign aid appropriations seems to have been making the right-wing rounds for a couple of days. Here's a Monday post in the comments section of a Breitbart story that provides a different list of foreign aid recipients:



And also from Monday, in the comments for an AP story in Maryland's Free Lance-Star:



Cambodia and Burma top these commenters' lists of outrages, as they top Trump's. I'm not sure where this ultimately comes from, though.

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

HOUSE LUNATICS WILL CHALLENGE THE ELECTORAL VOTE IN SIX STATES -- AT LEAST

In case you had any doubts, CNN tells us that this is happening:
Alabama GOP Rep. Mo Brooks and fellow House conservatives met privately on Monday with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence as the lawmakers prepared to mount a long-shot bid in January to overturn the Electoral College results that made Joe Biden the official winner of the election....

Pence's involvement in the meeting is significant because he will preside over the joint session of Congress that would count the electoral votes that day.
I told you Pence would join Trump in this. He has to. Sure, we all know he's not crazy enough to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, even if no member of the Trump family runs, but for now he polls well when President Trump isn't included in the surveys. If Pence fails to back this challenge, his chances instantly drop to zero.

Also, as Axios reports, Trump is very focused on whether Pence will die on the "stolen election" hill:
A source who spoke to Trump said the president was complaining about Pence and brought up a Lincoln Project ad that claims that Pence is "backing away" from Trump. This ad has clearly got inside Trump’s head, the source said.

Trump views Pence as not fighting hard enough for him — the same complaint he uses against virtually everybody who works for him and has been loyal to him.

Pence’s role on Jan. 6 has begun to loom large in Trump’s mind, according to people who’ve discussed the matter with him.

Trump would view Pence performing his constitutional duty — and validating the election result — as the ultimate betrayal.
More from the CNN story:
Brooks told CNN on Monday night that they would seek to challenge the election in at least six battleground states....
"At least"? After Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Michigan, all of which Biden won by less than 3%, where else could they challenge the results? The next-closest states were Minnesota and New Hampshire -- but Biden won them both by 7%.

It's likely that the challengers won't go beyond those six states, but I have a long-shot prediction for an additional state where they might issue a challenge:

California.

No, really. After the 2016 election, Trump implied that the reason he lost the state (by 30 points) was fraud.



In September of this year, he suggested the same thing in an interview:
“I think I did win the popular vote in a true sense,” Trump told [Laura] Ingraham. “I think there was tremendous cheating in California. There was tremendous cheating in New York and other places.”
There was this a couple of weeks after the election:
“New reports claim that the real results of the 2020 U.S. election were found on a computer server that was seized by the U.S. military in Frankfurt, Germany,” an OAN personality said.... “In a recent tweet, a Virginia congressional candidate shared an electoral map that’s allegedly based on this data from that server. It shows a landslide victory for President Trump with a 410 electoral-college vote, including liberal strongholds California and Minnesota.”

Here is that “recent tweet” which constitutes one of the “new reports.”

And, of course, the conspiracy theorists believe that Smartmatic helped steal the election for Biden. Smartmatic actually had no involvement in the 2020 elections -- except for the fact that it helped Los Angeles County run its elections.

So while I don't expect a challenge of the California results (Trump lost by 29 this time), I won't be shocked if it happens, and I expect that at least one of the many speeches from the challengers will mention California (which has, y'know, all those brown people voting).

So who's likely to challenge? The CNN story tells us:
Brooks said the meeting was attended by a "double digit" number of lawmakers, but he wouldn't say if senators were part of the meeting....

Other GOP lawmakers have also confirmed their attendance at the meeting, including Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who told CNN: "We talked about a lot of things."

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, a staunch Trump defender, said this when asked if Trump urged him to object to the election results at the meeting: "He didn't urge anything, he didn't need to, I've been planning on objecting all along."

Rep. Jody Hice, a Georgia Republican who attended the meeting, tweeted: "I will lead an objection to Georgia's electors on Jan 6."

Sources told CNN that other members were there, including Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, a prominent ally of the President who has been urging him to continue the battle.
Also:



So it'll be a big gang. And I bet they'll get at least one senator. CNN:
... several senators have not ruled out joining the effort, including Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Trump has heaped praise on Alabama's incoming senator, Tommy Tuberville, for signaling he'd object to the results.

Another incoming senator, Kansas Rep. Roger Marshall, wouldn't say if he would join House conservatives' effort to contest a state's election results. Marshall was a signatory on the House GOP's amicus brief backing the Texas suit seeking to invalidate votes across several battleground states that the Supreme Court rejected earlier this month.
And this probably won't be resolved on January 6.
... if a House member and a senator object to six states' results, it would lead to at least 12 hours of debate, in addition to the time for casting votes on each of the motions, potentially prolonging the fight until the next day.
There's something to be said for empty, futile histrionics. They build tribal loyalty. They turn faits accomplis into permanent grievances. This dog-and-pony show will be obnoxious, but I wish Democrats had tried some of this tantrum-throwing during the past few years of judicial confirmations.

NO, TRUMP DID NOT GET MITCH McCONNELL REELECTED -- HERE'S THE EVIDENCE

Axios reports that Donald Trump is trying to scare Republicans who might acknowledge his defeat by demonstrating his mighty power to sustain or destroy their politcal careers:
President Trump lashed out at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday night for acknowledging Joe Biden won the election, sending a slide to Republican lawmakers taking credit for saving McConnell's career with a tweet and robocall....

"Sadly, Mitch forgot,” reads the top of the slide sent to Republican senators by Trump's personal assistant, written in red for emphasis. “He was the first one off the ship.”

... While both the message and its delivery targeted McConnell, they also carried a subtle warning to other Republicans who may follow suit as the president grasps at the last straws of his election-fraud claim.
Here's the slide:



Trump's claim is that the polls in the race between McConnell and Democrat Amy McGrath were tight until June 19, when Trump sent this tweet:



The Kentucky Senate polls collected by FiveThirtyEight do show a tight race early on. As the Trump slide notes, a poll released June 9 by RMG Research showed McGrath with a one-point lead.

But a poll released on June 18 -- a day before Trump's tweet -- showed McConnell with a 20-point lead. That survey, from the liberal firm Civiqs, was conducted June 13 to 15. The numbers were McConnell 53%, McGrath 33%.

So no, Trump's tweet didn't save McConnell. It's Kentucky. McConnell was always going to win.

Monday, December 21, 2020

I'M SURE THIS IS FINE

CNN reports that in addition to the White House meeting with President Trump that she attended on Friday night, "Kraken" lawyer Sidney Powell was also at the White House yesterday and the day before, although it doesn't appear that she met with Trump again. (If she didn't, who was she there to see?)

But there's more. In the Friday night meeting, which was also attended by General Mike Flynn, there was another celebrity guest:
They were joined by Patrick Byrne, the founder of Overstock.com, who tweeted afterward that he was disappointed in how Trump is being served by his White House team.

"President Trump is being terribly served by his advisers. They want him to lose and are lying to him. He is surrounding by mendacious mediocrities," Byrne wrote, adding later: "For the first time in my life I feel sorry for Donald Trump. He is standing up to his waist in snakes. Trust Rudy and Sidney only."
That would be this Patrick Byrne:
They met at a libertarian conference in Las Vegas in July 2015, where they discussed Milton Friedman, Anton Chekhov and John Locke.

He was the philosophizing founder and chief executive of Overstock.com, a publicly traded e-commerce retailer that sells discount furniture and bedding. She was an ambitious graduate student from Russia.

It was the start of a three-year relationship between the e-commerce executive, Patrick Byrne, and the young woman, Maria Butina, that became romantic at times. She is now serving 18 months in prison after being accused by federal prosecutors of trying to infiltrate powerful political circles in the United States at the direction of the Russian government. She ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.
Byrne claimed that the FBI had directed him to pursue a romantic relationship with Butina. He issued
a bizarre press release — “Overstock.com CEO Comments on Deep State, Withholds Further Comment” — in which he claimed he was aiding the “Men in Black” in a “Clinton investigation,” and that he was the “notorious ‘missing Chapter 1’ of the Russian investigation.”

Naturally, investors weren’t thrilled, as company shares dropped by 36 percent over the next two days, sheering $317 million off Overstock’s market value. And they probably weren’t thrilled by his interview with the New York Times on August 15, [2019,] in which he ... said he was still “quite fond” of Butina ... and recommended that she “go home and be president of Russia one day.” On August 22, Byrne resigned....
I'm sure it's perfectly fine that this guy is advising the president of the United States. Right?

THIS IS SO IDIOTIC THAT IT'S ALL BUT INEVITABLE

Back in June 2019, I wrote a post in which I tried to imagine a second Trump term. I assumed that if he managed to win reelection, he'd largely ignore the responsibilities of the job and focus even more than usual on golf, Twitter, and TV, while looking ahead to his legacy:
... he might start focusing on inappropriate honors. Where's my Nobel Prize? How do I get on Mount Rushmore? Do I have to be dead before they put me on money?
I thought of that post when I read this at the Daily Beast:
In the dying days of his presidency, Donald Trump has taken to asking some aides and advisers about the process of naming airports after former U.S. presidents, according to two people who’ve heard him recently inquiring on this.

... [One] knowledgeable source said that Trump had, at one point since the 2020 election, offhandedly asked what kind of “paperwork” was necessary to get an airport named after a former president....

Trump’s focus on airport namings suggests that his mind has begun to wonder towards the ceremonial elements that accompany life after the presidency.
I don't think this means that all of Trump's "election fraud" talk is an act. The human mind is complex -- we know that friends and relatives of people who commit suicide often say they were surprised because the person seemed to have been making a lot of plans for the future. I think Trump is thinking along parallel tracks in a similar way. Because he believes any crackpot theory that confirms his prior beliefs, he's certain he really won. Because he finds failure unbearable and shameful, he has to fight to the bitter end to establish the notion that he was the winner. (It's working, of course -- the vast majority of his base thinks he was robbed.) But part of him knows that no one with the power to do so has demonstrated a willingness to throw the election to him.
It also shows that his infatuation with having pieces of infrastructure emblazoned with his name hasn’t faded at all with his time occupying the single most powerful position in the world.
He's so obsessed with this that last summer I noticed he'd purchased the cleaning rights to a stretch of roadway in Manhattan, on the Upper West Side, where he's loathed, and where he didn't have a chance in hell of winning the state's electoral votes:



Another individual close to Trump told The Daily Beast that they could recall the president mentioning at least a couple times since early 2018 his desire for having a national or international airport in the United States named after “Donald J. Trump,” and that he hoped there would be an aggressive organized effort to do so....
You can laugh at this, but it will happen.

First, you don't have to be dead to have an airport named after you. Washington's National Airport was renamed in honor of Ronald Reagan in 1998, six years before Reagan died.

Beyond that, we can assume that fawning Trumpist governors and state legislators will be in a hot competition to see who can get an airport named after Trump first. I assume Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and South Dakota's governor, Kristi Noem, will fight hardest to get this done. I'm sure Trump would prefer having a big international airport named for him, which would seem to give Florida the advantage, but it's a purple state, and the airports there are mostly in Democratic areas, so he might encounter less popular and legislative resistance in South Dakota.

Red America loves Trump. Many things will be named after him once he's out of office. There are Ronald Reagan Schools....



So I'm sure there'll be Donald Trump Schools in a few years.

****

UPDATE: I'm reminded that the Trump highway sign has been there for a while -- since 2007, although it was down for about a year after it was vandalized in 2017.

Sunday, December 20, 2020

HOW CAN TRUMP JUST LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE PEACEFULLY ON JANUARY 20?

You know the alarming news:
President Trump on Friday discussed naming Sidney Powell, who as a lawyer for his campaign team unleashed conspiracy theories about a Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines in the United States, to be a special counsel overseeing an investigation of voter fraud, according to two people briefed on the discussion.

It was unclear if Mr. Trump will move ahead with such a plan.
And the even more alarming news:
Ms. Powell’s client, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser whom the president recently pardoned, was also there....

During an appearance on the conservative Newsmax channel this week, Mr. Flynn pushed for Mr. Trump to impose martial law and deploy the military to “rerun” the election. At one point in the meeting on Friday, Mr. Trump asked about that idea.
We're told there's nothing to worry about. The ideas were rejected by Trump's aides:
Ms. Powell’s ideas were shot down by every other Trump adviser present, all of whom repeatedly pointed out that she had yet to back up her claims with proof....

The White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, and the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, repeatedly and aggressively pushed back on the ideas being proposed, which went beyond the special counsel idea, those briefed on the meeting said.
So if "the ideas being proposed ... went beyond the special counsel idea," does that mean that "those briefed on the meeting" wouldn't confirm the martial-law part of the story, but would acknowledge that something off-the-wall was discussed beyond making Sidney Powell a special counsel? Or does that mean there were even crazier ideas floated that have yet to be revelead?

A Business Insider story assures us that Trump can't really declare martial law.
The president has broad powers to suspend normal legal constraints on his authority in response to a "national emergency," such as a natural disaster or terror attack, including deploying troops within the US to subdue unrest and assist law enforcement officers.

However, Joseph Nunn, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, in October, wrote that the legal precedents for a president imposing martial law are vague, with no clear Constitutional principles or Supreme Court rulings governing its use. He wrote that under current law, "the president lacks any authority to declare martial law."
Nunn notes that martial law can be appealed to the courts:
The Supreme Court, without actually endorsing the federal government’s power to declare martial law, has established that such declarations are subject to judicial review. At a minimum, in a state or territory that the federal government has placed under martial law, individuals who have been detained by the military may ask a federal court to order their release by petitioning for the writ of habeas corpus. A court that considers an individual’s petition can decide whether the declaration of martial law was constitutionally permissible. The reviewing court can also decide whether the military’s particular actions — such as the decision to arrest and detain the person petitioning for habeas corpus — have violated the Constitution or exceeded the powers granted by the statute (if any) that authorized martial law.
Even Jonathan Turley, usually a Trump sycophant, says that "a plan for martial law ... would quickly collapse in the courts." I'm not sure this would be the case if Trump had installed loyalists rather than Federalist Society clones on the bench, but the judges he's appointed, even though they're right-wing ideologues, seem to want to do their work within the system.

Also:
Despite Flynn’s claim that the U.S. military could be dispatched to take part in re-running the presidential election in certain states, senior military leaders say that’s not going to happen.

On Friday, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville said in a joint statement that there “is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”
And now even Trump is claiming he never entertained the notion:



But it's clear that he's desperate to do something. It's clear that he won't accept a congressional ratification of the Electoral College vote on January 6. And neither will a large segment of his base. (Polls suggest that the about a third of the electorate firmly believes he was cheated.)

You might think he's just grifting, or trying to stave off legal and financial entanglements. But even if this is a grift, how can he simply leave office voluntarily on January 20 and retain the support of folks like these?



These people will conclude that Trump is a cuck if he leaves peacefully -- but he'll also look weak if he's successfully dragged out kicking and screaming.

I don't know what the way out will be. Maybe Trump will save face by declaring that he doesn't want anything more to do with Washington because it's so sick and corrupt, in effect telling us that we can't fire him because he quit. Or maybe he'll insist (preposterously) that he can force the system to reinstate him as president and force Biden out. Failing that, I think he'll make a scene right up to noon on January 20 -- and beyond. There might be a standoff. I can't believe there'll be a peaceful transition.

Saturday, December 19, 2020

OBAMA'S LIST OF 2020 FAVORITES IS CULTURALLY ELITIST, AND SO WHAT?

Sean Trende, a conservative-but-not-crazy elections analyst at Real Clear Politics, posted this on Twitter yesterday, in response to Barack Obama's release of his list of favorite 2020 movies and TV shows:



It might be hard to think of a president who's enjoyed critics' favorites the way Obama does, but Bill Clinton fared pretty well in American elections, and he let it be known in 1992 that he was a great admirer of Marcus Aurelius's Meditations and Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude. (We were also told that he read murder mysteries and big biographies of statesmen; his favorite movie was High Noon.) After Clinton left the White House, in 2003, he released a list of his favorite books. Marcus Aurelius and Garcia Marquez were on the list, as well as T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets, William Butler Yeats's Collected Poems, and works by Reinhold Niebuhr and Max Weber. Not exactly beach reading. And yet that guy did all right in electoral politics.

George W. Bush tried to go both high and low. In 2005, we learned about the songs on his iPod, which included a lot of uptempo hits:
... Mr. Bush's iPod is heavy on traditional country singers like George Jones, Alan Jackson and Kenny Chesney. He has selections by Van Morrison, whose "Brown Eyed Girl" is a Bush favorite, and by John Fogerty, most predictably "Centerfield," which was played at Texas Rangers games when Mr. Bush was an owner and is still played at ballparks all over America....

The president also has an eclectic mix of songs downloaded into his iPod from Mark McKinnon, a biking buddy and his chief media strategist during the 2004 campaign. Among them are "Circle Back" by John Hiatt, "(You're So Square) Baby, I Don't Care" by Joni Mitchell and "My Sharona," the 1979 song by the Knack....
Later, we were told that he was in a book-reading contest with adviser Karl Rove. Rove said Bush's reading in 2006 included these books:
Biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Babe Ruth, King Leopold, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, LBJ and Genghis Khan.
Andrew Roberts’s “A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900,”
James L. Swanson’s “Manhunt,”
Nathaniel Philbrick’s “Mayflower,”
Eight Travis McGee novels by John D. MacDonald,
Michael Crichton’s “Next,”
Vince Flynn’s “Executive Power,”
Stephen Hunter’s “Point of Impact,” and
Albert Camus’s “The Stranger.”
None of this mattered. Obama's tastes don't matter. Americans appreciate these lists, criticize them, mock them, or ignore them, but they don't vote on them.

We also talk as if this is the first time in American history that we've had cultural divides. That's absurd. Let's go back seventy years. Here was one of the top hit songs of 1950:



But some people in 1950 much preferred this:



Or this:



Or this:



In 1950, these divisions didn't lead to civil war. People just liked different things. (Rock music was part of a civil war a couple of decades later, but that war was about much more than music.)

We don't have to let these matters divide us as a nation. We can agree to disagree on music, books, movies, and TV shows. If we're letting them matter, it's because conservatives know that if they redirect voters' class anger away from plutocrats and toward "cultural elitists," they'll keep winning elections and be free to continue lining the plutocrats' pockets. When we're encouraged to care, we should recognize that we're being played for chumps.

Friday, December 18, 2020

WILL TRUMP JUST CASH IN AND THEN PASS THE TORCH?

As Shane Goldmacher and Maggie Haberman reported today in The New York Times, losing the presidency has perhaps been Donald Trump's most successful business venture.
Deflated by a loss he has yet to acknowledge, Mr. Trump has cushioned the blow by coaxing huge sums of money from his loyal supporters — often under dubious pretenses — raising roughly $250 million since Election Day along with the national party.

More than $60 million of that sum has gone to a new political action committee, according to people familiar with the matter, which Mr. Trump will control after he leaves office. Those funds, which far exceed what previous outgoing presidents had at their disposal, provide him with tremendous flexibility for his post-presidential ambitions....

Some campaign finance experts have speculated that Mr. Trump might try to use the excess of cash in his new PAC, formally known as a leadership PAC, to pay for his own personal future legal quagmires, as he faces investigations once he leaves office....

“A leadership PAC is a slush fund,” said Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One, a group that supports increased political transparency. “There are very, very, very few limits on what he can’t spend money on.”
The story notes that Trump is collecting this money, ostensibly in order to fight to retain the presidency, or fund a campaign to retake it in 2024, even though he seems fed up with politics.
Those who have spoken with Mr. Trump say he appears shrunken, and over his job....

Mr. Trump has talked about running again in 2024 — but he also may not.... Talk of counterprogramming Mr. Biden’s inauguration with a splashy event or an announcement of his own is currently on hold.

Mr. Trump had been tentatively planning to go to Georgia on Saturday, according to a senior Republican official, to support the two Republicans in Senate runoff races there. But he is still angry at the state’s Republican governor and secretary of state for accepting the election result, and simply doesn’t want to make the trip. There is some discussion about him going after the Christmas holiday, but it’s not clear he will be in a more magnanimous mood by then.
But the grift can continue only as long as he insists that he can still be declared the winner, or can be returned to office four years from now. (Or sooner -- it won't surprise me if, after January 20, Trump insists that he can sue to regain the office and drive Biden out. His people will probably believe that, the same way they now believe he can overturn Biden's victory.)

Can Trump hope keep the cash flowing until the next election cycle? I bet he can. I know most of you think he'll spend much of the next several years in the dock, but I think he'll crowdfund his court battles, too. He'll be a hero and a martyr -- Deep State socialists are trying to destroy me!

I'm sticking with my theory that neither Trump nor any of his relatives will ever see the inside of a jail cell, because we don't convict rich people in America. But if you don't believe that, you can imagine that Trump believes it. And you can understand why: He's in his seventies and the law hasn't caught up with him yet.

Which brings us to 2024. If he's still a free man, will Trump really want to run again? It's quite possible that he won't. But to keep the grift going, he'll need to say that he's running right up until the last possible moment.

And at that point -- sometime in 2023 -- I think he might pass the torch. He should pass it to his angry wingnut son and namesake. But he'll pass it to his daughter, who may or may not have run for Marco Rubio's Senate seat by then. She might actually be a senator at that point.

I've long believed that Ivanka isn't sufficiently in touch with the beliefs of the crazy base to succeed as a Republican politician. But Trumpism has become such a personality cult that the Godfather might really be able to tell his adoring fans to direct their worship her way, and they'll do it.

And yes, I know that there's an aura of criminality around Ivanka and her husband, too. Business Insider reported on that today (paywalled story, but you can read it here):
President Donald Trump's most powerful advisor, Jared Kushner, approved the creation of a campaign shell company that secretly paid the president's family members and spent almost half of the campaign's $1.26 billion war chest, a person familiar with the operation told Insider....

The shell company — incorporated as American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC — allowed Trump's campaign to skirt federally mandated disclosures. The tactic could attract scrutiny from federal election regulators.
But:


I'm sure ther'll never be an accountability moment for this. The grift will just go on. And Ivanka might eventually be crowned. Or maybe Trump and his family will lose their hold on the base. But it'll take someone crazy and driven to knock the Trumps off their perch.

MAYBE THE WINGNUT ANTI-VAXXERS WON'T WIN

This is dangerous:
... after her [election] assertions were widely derided and failed to gain legal traction, [Sidney] Powell started talking about a new topic. On Dec. 4, she posted a link on Twitter with misinformation that said that the population would be split into the vaccinated and the unvaccinated and that “big government” could surveil those who were unvaccinated.

“NO WAY #America,” Ms. Powell wrote in the tweet, which collected 22,600 shares and 51,000 likes. “This is more authoritarian communist control imported straight from #China.”

... As Mr. Trump’s challenges to the election’s results have been knocked down and the Electoral College has affirmed President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win, voter fraud misinformation has subsided. Instead, peddlers of online falsehoods are ramping up lies about the Covid-19 vaccines....

Apart from Ms. Powell, others who have spread political misinformation such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican of Georgia, as well as far-right websites like ZeroHedge, have begun pushing false vaccine narratives, researchers said.
On the other hand, there's this:
Vice President Mike Pence will receive the coronavirus vaccine Friday morning -- an on-camera event that the Trump administration says is part of federal efforts to build confidence among the public in the vaccine's safety and efficacy.

Along with the vice president, second lady Karen Pence and Surgeon General Jerome Adams will be administered the vaccine....
You don't have to like Pence to hope that his public embrace of the vaccine will diminish some right-wingers' skepticism about COVID vaccines.

Somewhere between Powell and Pence stands Tucker Carlson, a phony edgelord who wants to get credit from his crazy base for vaccine skepticism without actually being a true skeptic. A great deal of what Carlson said about the vaccine on his show last night is dangerous:
... the right-wing host ... derisively snarked about the amount of positive news coverage the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines has received.

“Suddenly the COVID vaccine is on the morning shows, touted on celebrity Twitter accounts, and the news about it is uniformly glowing,” he sarcastically declared. “This stuff is just great. A lot of famous people say so. Just the other day, the guy who played Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings series got the vaccine. As on any media tour, the paparazzi were there for the dramatic moment when they stuck the needle in his arm.”

Carlson quickly switched his attention to the recent news that an Alaskan health care worker suffered a serious allergic reaction to the Pfizer vaccine....

“‘It was all a fantastic experience,’ according to doctors who treated her,” Carlson said, quoting an article about the situation. “‘During the whole time, she was still enthusiastic she got the vaccine and the benefits it would give her in the future.’”

“What a cheerful patient, she must be,” he further sneered. “We’ve got to assume she is, in any case, because we can’t really know. The authorities did not release her name. All we know is she is a highly satisfied customer. Yet another. Have a vaccine and a smile. Just do it!”
But he's not telling his audience unambiguously that the vaccine is bad. He's telling them that Twitter and Facebook are bad. Last night, he said:
How are the rest of us supposed to respond to a marketing campaign like this? Well, nervously. Even if you're strongly supportive of vaccines -- and we are -- even if you recognize how many millions of lives have been saved over the past 50 years by vaccines -- and we do -- it all seems a bit much. It's too slick. Better to treat Americans like adults, explain the benefits, be honest about the risks, and let the rest of us decide....

Twitter has announced a new policy to censor any unauthorized inquiry about the vaccine or, as the company put it, "false or misleading narratives about COVID-19 vaccinations." Among other things, Twitter is censoring any claim that this vaccine might be used to "control populations."

So whatever you do, don't say this is social control. If you do, the richest, most powerful people in the world will act in perfect coordination to shut you down immediately. To repeat: There is no social control going on here, but if you suggest otherwise, Twitter will censor you.

In addition, Facebook has now decided it must "build demand for vaccination in communities worldwide" by sharing "reassuring information" about getting the vaccine. Mark Zuckerberg was a tech tycoon. Now he's a professional marketer who gets to control the conversation about the product he's selling. Facebook has announced it will squelch "any misinformation" it sees about this vaccine.

None of this inspires confidence. Censorship will not convince a single person to take the coronavirus vaccine. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. If you wanted to roll out a national vaccination campaign, the first thing you would need after the vaccine itself is social trust. People have to believe that the authorities know what they're doing, otherwise they won't participate. Censorship is the enemy of social trust.
Do his viewers walk away from this determined never to get vaccinated -- or just hating the tech giants more? I don't know. But as awful a human being as Carlson is, it's clear that he could be worse. He's claiming to be pro-vaccine. He's doing somewhat less damage than he could.

I'll conclude by noting that I read a Free Republic post last night from a Freeper who calls himself "gas_dr." The poster, who describes himself as " a critical care physician in a large city environment," says he just received his first vaccine shot. He was positive about the experience:
I arrived and underwent a very streamlined check in process, gave written informed consent that was not unusual in any way. Acknowledged that this was a vaccine being administered under EUA conditions. The media was out in force as this was the first private hospital as previously said that was inoculating its staff.

I was called third stepped up and underwent the most routine of injections. The vaccination was administered into my left deltoid, a quantity of approximately 0.3 cc on a 30 g needle. To say I felt nothing would be absolutely true. There was absolutely pain. [He later explained that he meant to write "absolutely no pain."] ...

I was scheduled for follow up booster in 19 - 21 days. When I left, I cannot quantify the wave of relief and genuine happiness that I had. I was reflecting that in 7 days, I would not longer have to personally worry about this disease causing a tragic outcome in me personally. I also was overjoyed that the means in 7 - 10 days I will no longer be a threat to my family, my elderly parents, and I won't have to get any further CoVID tests.

... As I have said before, this represents the Manhattan project of the 21st century. I am proud to be a recipient of this vaccine, and grateful for the President who made this happen in 10 months.
Perhaps because they know the poster, who's familiar to them and shares their political beliefs -- he goes on to describes himself as "somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun" -- the other Freepers seem receptive to what he's saying. He shoots down a skeptic or two and explains why he trusts the science.

Or maybe there isn't as much vaccine skepticism on the right as I've feared. It helps that these folks want to give much of the credit for the vaccine to President Trump. I'm fine with that. Whatever gets people vaccinated. Whatever stops the spread.

Maybe this vaccination campaign will work. Maybe America won't still be having COVID outbreaks five years from now. Maybe, when Tucker Carlson gets vaccinated -- and he will -- he'll be willing to tell his audience that it wasn't so bad. Maybe this country isn't as crazy as I thought.

Thursday, December 17, 2020

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER IS SO EVIL HE ... ONCE ASKED CHINESE-AMERICANS TO VOTE FOR HIM!

This is what the right now considers a scandal:
In several videos posted to YouTube, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger begged Chinese-Americans to vote for him by mail in his 2015 Georgia House of Representatives race. Raffensperger went on to win this race by 159 votes.

The videos, apparently recorded in Raffensperger’s home, seem to be tied to Atlanta 168, a Chinese-American community located in Georgia. Raffensperger is seen in one video begging for at least 100 votes from the Chinese community, specifically suggesting they use absentee voting.

“Some of you may be going out of town,” said Raffensperger. “We brought applications today that you can fill out, we’ll even give you envelopes with a stamp on it. You can fill it out, and the Board of Elections will send you your absentee ballot, and you can just fill it out and send it back.”
The story is from National File, a website edited by Tom Pappert, who used to write for a wingnut site called Big League Politics and has been known to appear on Alex Jones's InfoWars broadcast. National File made news during the 2020 when it accurately reported on explicit texts sent by North Carolina Senate candidate Cal Cunningham to a woman who was not his wife, and then falsely accused Mark Kelly, a Senate candidate from Arizona, of dressing as Hitler for a 1985 Halloween party. Cunningham lost his race; Kelly won his.

The scandal in Raffensperger's case, according to National File, is that Raffensperger attended to a gathering of Chinese-American citizens and urged them to vote for him. That's all he did. Watch the video. This was a perfectly innocuous candidate forum in someone's house, like the ones candidates conduct in every election. (Atlanta168.com is a web portal for Chinese-Americans in the Atlanta area.)



The right doesn't like Brad Raffensperger because he chose to follow the law rather than the demands of his own party when he ratified Joe Biden's victory in his state. National File is suggesting here that it's sinister for Raffensperger -- and, presumably, any other politician -- merely to associate with people of Chinese descent. I don't have to explain how dangerous this message is, do I?

YOU CAN HAVE MY NARRATIVE WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS

What we're being told by Tom Bossert, former homeland security adviser to President Trump and deputy homeland security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, is alarming:
This week, we learned that SolarWinds, a publicly traded company that provides software to tens of thousands of government and corporate customers, was ... hacked.

The attackers gained access to SolarWinds software before updates of that software were made available to its customers. Unsuspecting customers then downloaded a corrupted version of the software, which included a hidden back door that gave hackers access to the victim’s network.

... Evidence in the SolarWinds attack points to the Russian intelligence agency known as the S.V.R., whose tradecraft is among the most advanced in the world.

According to SolarWinds S.E.C. filings, the malware was on the software from March to June. The number of organizations that downloaded the corrupted update could be as many as 18,000, which includes most federal government unclassified networks and more than 425 Fortune 500 companies.

The magnitude of this ongoing attack is hard to overstate.
If you suspect that your right-wing relatives will have trouble redirecting their anger from China to Russia ... you're right. The FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence have issued a press release on the attack. When Gateway Pundit posted the press release, here were some of the comments. The first one quotes a tweet from "stop the steal" lawyer Lin Wood, followed by a row of emojis.
Lin Wood
@LLinWood
· Dec 13
Did you know that Chinese Communist Party owns THE Panama Canal?

Did you know that CCP built its own Suez Canal next to one built by America?

Do you know how much land CCP has purchased in Africa, South America & United States?

Wake up America.

#FightBack

πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

*****

The owners of SolarWinds, the company involved in one of the largest cyber-attacks in history, have links to Obama, the Clinton family, China, Hong Kong and the U.S. election process, according to investigators.

Per research by our friends at The Gateway Pundit, the owners of SolarWinds are connected to high profile U.S. politicians and companies that “verify” the outcome of elections in America.

*****

It is all the collateral the worthless pukes in DC have used to borrow money from China. China is the world's largest lender. The loans are worse than you would get from the Don

They are also the biggest payout to corrupt cowards in our midst. Something is brewing but it’s because evidence, which the MSM denies, is mounting. China grows nervous. We are under attack and I think it started 1 year ago when China unleashed a virus.

*****

I remember just reading the CCP owns 30 million acres of U.S. farmland....

*****

Bill Clinton gave them Panama Canal back in the 1990s. He also gave the Chi-Coms IBM supercomputers so they could predict weather to drop ballistic missles on us.

*****

Pretty sure that was Jimmy Carter.. Bill Clinton let the ChiComs have missile guidance technology from Loral so they could actually hit targets in the US.

*****

The three government investigative bodies are reportedly working together on the with SolarWinds to wipe clean any connection to Dominion and China.

There a little more truthful.

*****

Why do you suppose mitch wants plugs?

We now know why mitch wants plugs. mitch and his chinese wife have a shipping company they make a lot of money on from communist China. Hmmmm hmmmm
(Rush Limbaugh regularly calls Joe Biden "Plugs," a reference to hair transplants. Wait till someone tells him about Donald Trump....)

Meanwhile, here are the two lead stories at Breitbart:



And there's this:



So no, you're right-wing relatives won't get angry at the Russians anytime soon. They have a narrative to preserve.

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

THEY TELL THEMSELVES THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE

This is monstrous:
A top Trump appointee repeatedly urged top health officials to adopt a "herd immunity" approach to Covid-19 and allow millions of Americans to be infected by the virus, according to internal emails obtained by a House watchdog and shared with POLITICO.

“There is no other way, we need to establish herd, and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD," then-science adviser Paul Alexander wrote on July 4 to his boss, Health and Human Services assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, and six other senior officials.

"Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk....so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected..." Alexander added.

"[I]t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected" in order to get "natural immunity...natural exposure," Alexander wrote on July 24 to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Caputo and eight other senior officials. Caputo subsequently asked Alexander to research the idea....
But I don't agree with Atrios:
It's never been polite to say so, but the "herd immunity" concept mostly wasn't being pushed due to a different reading of the "science" (however dumb), or even a different weighting of various economic costs and benefits (also however dumb), but because some people got very excited at the prospect of A Great Culling, quite convinced that a devasting pandemic was just the little kick in the pants our gene pool needed.
We know that early on there was right-wing indifference to the victims of the pandemic because they mostly seemed to be non-whites concentrated in Democratic parts of the country. (In the fall, Vanity Fair reported on a March meeting at FEMA after which, in the view of one attendee, "it seemed 'very clear' [Jared] Kushner was less interested in finding a solution because, at the time, the virus was primarily ravaging cities in blue states.") But the pandemic has recently been at its worst in the Dakotas and other blood-red areas of America, and they continue to be indifferent to the suffering.

I don't believe they're cheering on a culling of people they see as unfit. I think they've been telling themselves lies in order to justify doing what they want to do regarding the virus.

In March, the libertarian Hoover Institution scholar (and non-scientist) Richard Epstein proclaimed that the coronavirus would kill only 500 people in America; shortly after that, he told us he'd made a mistake -- the real number was 5,000. (We crossed the 300,000 mark this week.) Epstein's pronouncements justified a lot of right-wing inaction.

More recently, the Trump administration embraced the Great Barrington Declaration, an anti-lockdown manifesto whose signers included doctors who claim that coronavirus herd immunity can be achieved at an infection rate of 10% to 20%. Reputable scientists reject this notion, telling us that herd immunity in the absence of a vaccine can't be achieved without an infection rate of 60% to 70%, which would result in a death rate in the seven figures. But if you tell yourself that herd immunity is just around the corner, then you're not a bad person for pursuing it, right?

And Paul Alexander, in the messages quoted above, expresses an opinion that defies common sense: that young, healthy people can become infected to the virus harmlessly. This is premised on the notion that all young people are thin, fit, and healthy and socialize only with other young, fit, healthy young people, and that elderly people and people who have been in poor health can be sequestered completely away from the young and the fit. The absurdity of this can be seen by thinking about a college campus. Are there no older or less-than-perfectly-healthy professors? Or dining hall workers? Or security staff? Or workers and patrons in off-campus bars? Or people on the streets and in the stores near campus? And don't many people with preexisting conditions -- maybe even just asthma -- want to work and be able to walk the streets? Don't many more simply need to work? Has the Trump adniistration supported anything that would allow them to step away from their work indefinitely and be guaranteed it when the pandemic is under control?

But if you tell yourself these fairy tales, you can also tell yourself that you're not a sociopath for wanting to treat the pandemic as trivial. And maybe you aren't a sociopath. Maybe you're just engaging in magical thinking so you don't have to seriously consider the horrific consequences of what you've done.

THESE PEOPLE ARE HILARIOUS BUMPKINS, UNTIL THEY AREN'T

It's only a matter of time before Republican election truthers kill someone. It almost happened in October. The ABC affiliate in Houston reports:
Mark Anthony Aguirre, 63, was arrested by Houston police Tuesday and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison....

According to Aguirre, he had been conducting surveillance for four days on a man who was allegedly the mastermind of a giant voter fraud scheme. Aguirre told authorities the man was hiding 750,000 fraudulent ballots in a truck he was driving....

Aguirre ran his SUV into the back of the truck to get the technician to stop and get out, according to court documents.

When the technician got out of the truck, Aguirre pointed a handgun at the technician, forced him to the ground and put his knee on the man's back until police came, the court document said.

Aguirre allegedly directed police to a parking lot nearby where another suspect, who has not been identified, took the truck.

According to court documents, there were no ballots in the truck. The truck was filled with air conditioning parts and tools.
This wasn't a ragtag operation. The group Aguirre was working for was run by a prominent Republican donor and right-wing activist.
Aguirre allegedly never told police that he had been paid a total of $266,400 by the Houston-based Liberty Center for God and Country, with $211,400 of that amount being deposited into his account the day after the incident.
The Texas Tribune has more:
Prosecutors say Aguirre ... was paid $266,400 by the group Liberty Center for God and Country, whose CEO is prominent Texas right-wing activist Steven Hotze.

Hotze was among a group of Republicans who unsuccessfully sued to have nearly 127,000 Harris County ballots tossed out this year. He was also among Republicans who tried — and failed — to stop Gov. Greg Abbott from extending early voting during the coronavirus pandemic, a suit for which Aguirre had provided an affidavit, stating that he was involved in an investigation into a “wide-ranging and fraudulent ballot harvesting scheme” in Harris County.

Jared Woodfill, a spokesperson and attorney for Hotze, confirmed that the Liberty Center hired a company led by Aguirre to investigate voter fraud ahead of the 2020 election. The company contracted approximately 20 private investigators to work on claims of fraudulent ballots in Harris County and other places in Texas.
Hotze is a doctor, author, public speaker, and "wellness expert." He's also a frequent donor to Republicans -- he's given multiple donations to Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and past and present Republicans including Jesse Helms and Tom DeLay.

Hotze's main organization, Conservative Republicans of Texas, has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group has published European-supremacist propaganda.

A particular obsession of Hotze's is the LGBT community.
Hotze ... said [a proposed ordinance outlawing LGBT discrimination in Houston] was linked to a “Satanic movement” ...

At an anti-LGBT rally [in 2015], Hotze wielded a sword on stage, compared LGBT people to Nazis and pledged to drive “homofascists” from Houston to San Francisco. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of nationwide marriage equality, Hotze said justices in the majority “hate God” and “want to let sodomites queer our country,” and that the decision would lead to kindergarten teachers encouraging their students to try anal sex.
Hotze despises Obamacare, and once recorded a couple of bizarre Auto-Tuned anti-Obamacare songs in opposition, “God Fearing Texans Stop Obamacare” and “Texans Stand Against Obamacare”:


More recently:
In 2020, Hotze filed lawsuits challenging governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In April he sued Judge Lina Hidalgo of Harris County, Texas for mandating the wearing of face masks. In June, he filed suits against Texas Governor Greg Abbott, alleging that contact tracing violated the US Constitution's First Amendment, privacy, Due Process, and Equal Protection provisions, and that the governor's state-wide face mask requirement was unlawful.

After protests over the killing of George Floyd reached Texas in early June 2020, Hotze called Greg Abbott's office on June 6 and demanded Texas Army National Guard soldiers be sent to Houston with "the order to shoot to kill if any of these son-of-a-bitch people start rioting like they have in Dallas, start tearing down businesses — shoot to kill the son of a bitches. That’s the only way you restore order. Kill 'em. Thank you."
The website of the Liberty Center for God & Country -- the group that was paying Mark Anthony Aguirre when he allegedly terrorized an innocent air conditioner repairman -- is full of Hotze-written nonsense like this:
The Communist revolutionaries are like termites that have been undermining the American Constitutional Republic for decades. Their goal is to establish a totalitarian Communist regime in the United States.

The Communist revolutionaries have infiltrated the public school system, university faculties, the seminaries and clergy, the state and federal bureaucracies, corporations and both political parties. The Democrat Party has been completely taken over by Marxist Socialists and Communists. ANTIFA and BLM are the militant arm of the Democrats. It has been well documented that their funding has come from the Communist Chinese Party. The Chinese Communist party has bought off leaders in the Democrat party and in the mainstream media....

I have been warning about these revolutionary plans for decades, often falling on deaf ears. Finally, there is this incontrovertible evidence that a Communist revolution has been planned to begin tomorrow, November 4th, starting in Washington, D.C.

In every country that the Communists have conquered, they have targeted for assassination those leaders who oppose them.

I encourage you to prepare yourself to defend your family and friends.
But as an innocent air conditioner repairman learned when he came close to losing his life, the people you need to defend yourself against are Hotze and his allies.