RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
"Own the Libs" Is Gradually Morphing Into "Kill the Libs" Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56430"><span class="small">Christina Cauterucci, Slate</span></a>   
Monday, 28 September 2020 13:14

Cauterucci writes: "A governing ethos that once boiled down to 'troll the libs' is steadily escalating toward 'kill the libs.'"

A Kyle Rittenhouse supporter at a rally for Donald Trump on Sept. 18 in Bemidji, Minnesota. (photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
A Kyle Rittenhouse supporter at a rally for Donald Trump on Sept. 18 in Bemidji, Minnesota. (photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)


"Own the Libs" Is Gradually Morphing Into "Kill the Libs"

By Christina Cauterucci, Slate

28 September 20


And far from just a GOP slogan, it’s becoming actual policy.

f Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis gets his way, people who merely attend a protest that results in property damage will be prosecuted for felonies. Yelling at someone in a restaurant as part of such a protest will be a criminal offense. And a driver who kills demonstrators with his car will not be liable for their deaths, as long as he is “fleeing for safety from a mob.”

These are just a few of the policies proposed by DeSantis in a package meant to chill dissent and punish those in the streets demanding an end to racist police violence. Republican leaders in the Florida Legislature have promised to file the bill in 2021. By introducing it now, DeSantis clearly hopes to rile up Trump’s base in Florida, one of the most crucial swing states, with fears of black-clad cabals rampaging through their gated communities. But the specifics of the proposal are worth close consideration, because it represents a rising consensus among conservative leaders under Donald Trump: A governing ethos that once boiled down to “troll the libs” is steadily escalating toward “kill the libs.”

As my colleague Tom Scocca observed one year ago, Trump was elected as the ultimate expression of a political party more concerned with taunting and obstructing its opposition than with any specific governing agenda. Others have noted that, for decades, the driving principle behind the Republican project has been the conviction that people of color and their political allies are undeserving of full participation in American democracy. The push to shield those who murder protesters with their cars from criminal or civil liability, which Republican legislators have attempted to do in at least eight states, is a particularly gruesome offshoot of these two philosophies. It’s also not solving any problematic gap in the legal sphere: Property damage is already a criminal offense; self-defense is already an accepted legal defense for causing others harm. DeSantis and his peers are simply trying to create space within the law—or the perception of it—for their political supporters to kill their political opponents.

A few years ago, after Black Lives Matter demonstrators staged protests on highways and demonstrators blocked roads at Standing Rock, Republicans around the country proposed protections for people who drove their cars through crowds of protesters. James Alex Fields Jr., who killed Heather Heyer at a Charlottesville, Virginia, Unite the Right rally in 2017, may have been emboldened by these bills: According to a civil suit, before Fields drove his car into a crowd of demonstrators, one of the rally’s organizers falsely claimed that “driving over protesters blocking roadways isn’t an offense,” pointing to states that had considered such bills.

This hideous tactic of suppressing political dissent is spreading. This year, in the months since protests first erupted around the country after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd in May, two people have been killed by drivers who drove their cars through demonstrations. Dozens more have been hit. At one June protest in Memphis, Tennessee, two separate drivers, both of whom appear to have exhibited animosity toward protesters on social media, hit demonstrators within the span of one hour. The Sioux Rapids, Iowa, police chief called protesters “road bumps.” The Auxvasse, Missouri, police chief posted on Facebook, of protesters blocking roads, “You deserve to be run over. That will help cleanup the gene pool.”) Officers in several other states have endorsed using cars to murder protesters.

Instead of taking action to quell this type of violence at protests, Trump and his supporters are attempting to incite more violence, and create more victims. After Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old who traveled from his home in Illinois to fight protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, killed two demonstrators with a military-style firearm he was not legally permitted to carry, Trump called it an “interesting situation” that looked justifiable. Rittenhouse “was trying to get away from them,” Trump said, of the victims. “[Rittenhouse] would have been—probably would have been killed.” That’s certainly a possibility, but instead, he killed two people.

As more Republicans spoke up about Rittenhouse, the rhetoric they used shifted from simple defense to full-on admiration. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said Rittenhouse’s victims were killed because the governor of Wisconsin didn’t accept Trump’s offer to send the National Guard to Kenosha. This lead people to “believe they’ve got to protect their own property and take matters into their own hands.” CNN’s Dana Bash asked him multiple times whether he condemned the shootings. All he’d say was “it’s a tragedy.” Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has actually praised Rittenhouse for his “incredible restraint and presence and situational awareness.” Again, he killed two people.

In the popular conservative imagination, Rittenhouse has become more than just a teen who did something regrettable in the process of defending himself. By killing two protesters at a protest for Black lives, he became a righteous crusader for the Americans who really matter. Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Rittenhouse “had to maintain order when no one else would.” Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi called him “a little boy out there trying to protect his community” and “mitigate the chaos out there.” Conservative writer Rod Dreher maintains that “Rittenhouse did no wrong”—he was ridding Kenosha of “the enemy of civilization,” the people “vandalizing, burning, and looting.” Trump supporters have called him a “hero” and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to support his legal defense.

This applause for the killing of the right’s political nemeses is everywhere these days, popping up wherever the GOP can be found. It was there in one of Trump’s first tweets about the George Floyd protests: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” It was at the Republican National Convention, which honored Mark and Patricia McCloskey, a random St. Louis couple who earned a moment of fame for threatening protesters with guns, as esteemed representatives of the party. It’s in ads for Republicans like Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, whose recent TV spot suggests she’ll “eliminate the liberal scribes,” and QAnon supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene, who posted a photo of herself brandishing an assault rifle next to images of Reps. Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib. “Squad’s worst nightmare,” it read.

The rhetoric is repulsive. But the GOP’s kill-the-libs ethos is not limited to violent rhetoric. It’s becoming policy. And I don’t just mean DeSantis’ bill—indifference to American death, as long as the Americans dying are liberals, is one of the many horrors we’ve been forced to witness this year. From the very start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump has explicitly, shamelessly hastened the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans living in blue states, then smirked as they perished. Every step of the administration’s pandemic response has been undergirded by the assumption that it’s fine for the president’s putative opponents to die. In March, the federal government shorted several blue states on the protective equipment and ventilators they’d requested from the national stockpile (while furnishing GOP-led Florida, which carries the most electoral votes of any swing state, with far more supplies than it needed at the time). One public health expert involved in the White House’s coronavirus task force told Vanity Fair that “the political folks” on the team dismissed the idea of producing a national pandemic response plan once it appeared that the virus “was going to be relegated to Democratic states.” According to a “senior administration official” who spoke to the Washington Post, it took evidence that COVID-19 was killing “our people” in red states and would probably start killing more people in swing states to get Trump to care about stopping the spread of the virus. Trump has also publicly argued against coronavirus-related relief bills because he believes they’d help blue states more than red states.

These have always been the stakes of politics: When lawmakers block Medicaid expansion, slash funding for affordable housing, bow to police unions, or redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top, they’re expressing their beliefs about who deserves to live and who deserves to die, whose lives matter and whose lives don’t. The pandemic and the national uprising for racial justice are slightly new terrains, but the stakes haven’t changed. The quiet part is just getting louder.

Earlier this month, the president encouraged his supporters to stop counting the people who’ve died in blue states as part of the official U.S. COVID-19 death toll. “If you take the blue states out … we’re really at a very low level,” he said. It was as if their deaths, which resulted from his politicized negligence, were no loss at all.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Amid Talk of Civil War, America Is Already Split - Trump Nation Has Seceded Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9643"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 28 September 2020 12:00

Reich writes: "The president thrives on division, speaks of 'we' and 'them' and encourages violence. No wonder we fear he won't accept defeat."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Amid Talk of Civil War, America Is Already Split - Trump Nation Has Seceded

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

28 September 20


The president thrives on division, speaks of ‘we’ and ‘them’ and encourages violence. No wonder we fear he won’t accept defeat

hat is America really fighting over in the upcoming election? Not any particular issue. Not even Democrats versus Republicans. The central fight is over Donald J Trump.

Before Trump, most Americans weren’t especially passionate about politics. But Trump’s MO has been to force people to become passionate about him – to take fierce sides for or against. And he considers himself president only of the former, whom he calls “my people”.

Trump came to office with no agenda except to feed his monstrous ego. He has never fueled his base. His base has fueled him. Its adoration sustains him.

So does the antipathy of his detractors. Presidents usually try to appease their critics. Trump has gone out of his way to offend them. “I do bring rage out,” he unapologetically told Bob Woodward in 2016.

In this way, he has turned America into a gargantuan projection of his own pathological narcissism.

His entire re-election platform is found in his use of the pronouns “we” and “them”. “We” are people who love him, Trump Nation. “They” hate him.

In late August, near the end of a somnolent address on the South Lawn of the White House, accepting the Republican nomination, Trump extemporized: “The fact is, we’re here – and they’re not.” It drew a standing ovation.

At a recent White House news conference, a CNN correspondent asked if Trump condemned the behavior of his supporters in Portland, Oregon. In response, he charged: “Your supporters, and they are your supporters indeed, shot a young gentleman.”

In Trump’s eyes, CNN exists in a different country: Anti-Trump Nation.

So do the putative rioters and looters of “Biden’s America”. So do the inhabitants of blue states whose state and local tax deductions Trump eliminated. So do those who live in the “Democrat cities”, as he calls them, whose funding he’s trying to cut.

California is a big part of Anti-Trump Nation. He wanted to reject its request for aid to battle wildfires “because he was so rageful that people in the state of California didn’t support him”, said former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor.

New York is the capital of Anti-Trump Nation, which probably contributed to Trump “playing down” the threat of Covid-19 last March, when its virulence seemed largely confined to that metropolis. Even now, Trump claims the US rate of Covid-19 deaths would be low “if you take the blue states out”. That’s untrue, but it’s not the point. For Trump, blue states don’t count because they’re Anti-Trump Nation.

To Trump and his core enablers and supporters, the laws of Trump Nation authorize him to do whatever he wants. Anti-Trump Nation’s laws constrain him, but they’re illegitimate because they are made and enforced by the people who reject him.

So Trump’s call to the president of Ukraine seeking help with the election was “perfect”. It was fine for Russia to side with him in 2016, and it’s fine for it to do so again. And of course the justice department, postal service and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should help him win re-election. They’re all aiding Trump Nation.

By a similar twisted logic, Anti-Trump Nation is dangerous. Hence, says Trump, the armed teenager who killed two in Kenosha, Wisconsin, acted in “self-defense”, yet the suspected killer of a rightwinger in Portland deserved the “retribution” he got when federal marshals killed him.

It follows that if he loses the election, Trump will not accept the result because it would be the product of Anti-Trump Nation, and Trump isn’t the president of people who would vote against him. As he recently claimed, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.”

In the warped minds of Trump and his acolytes, this could lead to civil war. Just this week he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. His consigliere Roger Stone urges him to declare “martial law” if he loses. Michael Caputo, assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, warns “the shooting will begin” when Trump refuses to go.

Civil war is unlikely, but the weeks and perhaps months after election day will surely be fraught. Even if Trump is ultimately forced to relinquish power, his core adherents will continue to view him as their leader. If he retains power, many if not most Americans will consider his presidency illegitimate.

So whatever happens, Trump’s megalomaniacal ego will prevail. America will have come apart over him, and Trump Nation will have seceded from Anti-Trump Nation.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump's Tax Returns Have Exposed Him as a Massive Failure Who Thrived in the Age of Plutocracy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Monday, 28 September 2020 10:40

Pierce writes: "The New York Times report is the final and conclusive evidence that the president failed at a time in which politics and government were rearranged to keep his particular genre of failure ever from being fatal."

Donald Trump. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty)
Donald Trump. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty)


Trump's Tax Returns Have Exposed Him as a Massive Failure Who Thrived in the Age of Plutocracy

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

28 September 20


The New York Times report is the final and conclusive evidence that the president failed at a time in which politics and government were rearranged to keep his particular genre of failure ever from being fatal.

y happy accident, the latest bombshell from The New York Times dropped one day after some nice folks in New York sent along a copy of Without Compromise, a collection of pieces written for the late, lamented Village Voice by the late (and equally lamented) Wayne Barrett, who wrote that newspaper's "Runnin' Scared" column for almost 40 years. There is absolutely no point in trying to understand the current president*, the sleazoid New York milieu that birthed him as a public figure, and our immediate peril without having read Barrett's dogged pursuit of Manhattan's landshark demimonde and how it put the screws to everyone else. From the Go-Go Gordon Gecko 1980s all the way through Rudy Giuliani's fealty to developers (and criminal cops) as the city's mayor, without fear or favor, as the old muckrakers used to say, and using the country's signature city as his index patient, Wayne Barrett traced the steady corruption that came along with nearly a half-century of shoving the nation's wealth upwards, a process that, hitched to retrograde politics, made someone like El Caudillo Del Mar-a-Lago not only possible, but inevitable. That Barrett died the day before this president*'s thoroughly corrupt inauguration is one of those episodes in which history and Providence get together to rob us blind.

Barrett was onto the president* early on. In 1979, Barrett published an insanely detailed two-part epic in the Voice describing not only the president*'s initial rise to New York power broker, but also his own battle with the president*, who already was ham-handedly trying to manage his own press. "In this two-part history," Barrett concludes, "we've been looking into a world where only the greed is magnified. The actors are pretty small and venal. Their ideas are small, never transcending profit. In it, however, are the men elected to lead us and those who buy them. And in it, unhappily, are the processes and decisions that shape our cities and our lives."

And, in 2016, those two groups merged into one vulgar talking yam, someone whose innate contempt for democratic government was reinforced, as Barrett explains, by how easy it was to buy his way into it, or around it, if needs be.

He had prided himself on never having met a public official, a banker, a lawyer, a reporter, or a prosecutor he couldn’t seduce. Some he owned, and others he merely manipulated. As he saw it, it was not just that everyone had a price, it was that he knew what the price was. He believed he could look across a table and compute the price, then move on to another table and borrow the money to pay it. "Everybody tries to get some money" was his assessment in one unpublished interview of what motivates the people he dealt with. It was his one-sentence summary of human nature.

So, as stunning as the Times series is, and the fact that he may have run for president in the first place because the revenue stream from The Apprentice was drying up is my personal favorite, it functions best as the final verdict on five decades in which the institutions of democratic government surrendered themselves to the implacable forces of plutocracy. The tax code—and therefore, the tax burden—has been rigged against most Americans. (As bad as the fact that the president* once paid $750 in federal income tax is, we should remember, that $750 is $750 more than Amazon paid in 2018.) There were giants who profited from this transformation of American society and politics, and there also were some bottom-feeders. Our current president* is one of the latter. 

The Times report is the final and conclusive evidence that everything the president* has sold about himself to his business partners, his lackeys in the press, his bankers, the Republican Party and, ultimately, the country, is the purest moonshine. He stands exposed now as a massive failure. As a businessman, he's a debt-ridden mess, deeply in hock to God alone knows who. As a president*, he has set new standards for incompetence that may well stand for centuries, assuming the country does, of course. 

But he stands also exposed as a failure who was allowed to thrive because he failed at a time in which politics and government were rearranged to keep his particular genre of failure ever from being fatal. In fact, if he hadn't run for president*—and, especially, had he not been elected president*—he likely would have floated gracefully into eternity, leaving a complex disaster for his heirs to straighten out, and remembered in history as a crude, wealthy wastrel with some interesting eccentricities. And measured only against his fellow plutocrats, posterity might have gotten away with remembering him that way. But measured against the presidency, he was what Wayne Barrett said he was in 1979: small and venal, with no ideas big enough to transcend profit, a fitting epitaph for the republic in the age of the money power.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Minority Rule Is Un-American and Unacceptable Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 28 September 2020 08:53

Ash writes: "Minority rule is by its very nature authoritarian. If power is not truly derived from the people - a majority of the people - then that power is exercised in defiance of the people."

Social unrest in the Trump era is growing. (photo: Twitter/Unknown)
Social unrest in the Trump era is growing. (photo: Twitter/Unknown)


Minority Rule Is Un-American and Unacceptable

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

28 September 20

 

inority rule is by its very nature authoritarian. If power is not truly derived from the people – a majority of the people – then that power is exercised in defiance of the people.

Four times in American history a candidate has won the presidency without a popular majority. In each instance it was a Republican, never a Democrat. In the first 20 years of this young 21st century, twelve of those years have seen the nation led by a president who could not win a majority from the American voters.

The result has been a degree of social division and unrest not seen in the country since the post Civil War era, which was the moment in history when the other two Republican minority presidents captured the White House. 

Minority rule is fundamentally antithetic to American core values. The Declaration of Independence was at its foundation a pronouncement of self-determination. The idea that there should be “no taxation without representation” was a defining ideology of the Revolution. 

Our perception or interpretation of the intent of the Framers seems to be a never-ending work in progress. Did they really intend that presidents serve without having won the popular election? After their bout with King George III, that would seem unimaginable. Nonetheless, we have found ourselves governed by not one but two presidents without majority support. What could go wrong? 

Once the door to minority rule is opened, those who enjoy its power may not want to relinquish it. See current events for more on this. In addition, if the majority is ruled by the minority, this leads to social unrest – as evidenced by developments in Portland, Kenosha, Louisville, and hundreds of other emerging hotspots around the country. Minority rule imposes a lack of social order and naturally fosters social unrest. 

There were concerns in 2015 as Donald Trump’s campaign for president began to get rolling that the tone of his rhetoric could, or perhaps was even intended to, lead to civil war. We are not there yet, but we can see that place from here. 

Amy Coney Barrett and the frantic rush job to install her as the 2020 presidential election process is in full swing is another deliberate step toward constitutional nullification, minority rule, and social chaos.

The time has come for the minority to feel the full weight of the majority. Simply standing aside as the Constitution is trampled makes those who take no action complicit with those who transgress.

Should a state like Wyoming, with a population of roughly 600,000, stand in full parity in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice as a state like California, whose population stands at 40 million and has the fifth largest economy in the world? Or is the better question how long will California, New York, Illinois, and other states whose major population centers are fundamentally impacted by the imposition of the will of small rural states stand for the intrusion.

When do the major population and economic centers of the US begin to act like it? When do the citizens of those areas begin to demand it? Small, rural minority states can only control large, populous, economically powerful states if the larger states are docile and compliant. 

The strength and power of the larger states can be exercised effectively without undue strife, but the process must begin in earnest and with immediacy. 


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
NYT: Trump's Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50742"><span class="small">Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, The New York Times</span></a>   
Monday, 28 September 2020 08:52

Excerpt: "The tax returns that Mr. Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public."

The aftermath of a Trump rally in 2016. (photo: Jim Watson/Getty Images)
The aftermath of a Trump rally in 2016. (photo: Jim Watson/Getty Images)


NYT: Trump's Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance

By Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire, The New York Times

28 September 20


The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.

onald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 Next > End >>

Page 341 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN