Tag: Trump

  • Not just another Republican

    Jeff Sharlet on Facebook:

    I’m a journalist, so this, here, is why even as a white man I am personally afraid of Trumpism. I haven’t seen this t-shirt but as part of the crowd at two Trump rallies, in Ohio and Arizona, I turned with the mob as they screamed violent wishes at the press pen — a literal metal pen into which they’d allowed themselves to be corralled. Under a Trump presidency we’d see the power of the federal govt turned against journalists like me who have annoyed Trump, and we’d see vigilantes taking more extreme measures with nothing but show investigations by federal authorities and many of the PDs that have effectively endorsed Trump through their union.

    Dear fellow lefties, fellow disdainers of Clintonite corporatism, this isn’t just another Republican. Put aside your high-mindedness, your games, and even your conscience if you must; let’s stop this asshole and send a message to the millions of mini-Trumps behind him.

    Picture first tweeted — with obscene pleasure — by former Red Sox star Curt Schilling, who is now a Trump supporter, far right radio host, and, he says, a potential political candidate.

    Bad times.

  • 8 hours

    It’s going to be a long day.

    What will Trump do if he loses? Nobody knows. My prediction? It will be some form of bad.

    The son he punched to the floor in front of the son’s classmates when he was at university tells us that if the loss is big enough Puncher Trump won’t fight it. Big of him. Not yuge, but big.

    For months, the Republican nominee encouraged his supporters to mistrust Tuesday night’s results, suggesting the election could be rigged, possibly as part of an intricate scheme involving African-American voters in Philadelphia, Latinos in Nevada, a cabal of international bankers, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, the cast of Saturday Night Live, the FBI, and a dozen women pretending to be victims of his sexual crimes — all working in tandem to execute Crooked Hillary’s plan to end U.S. sovereignty.

    Then, at the final presidential debate, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace gave Trump an opportunity to save that red meat for the base and pose as a reasonable politician. But for once, the GOP nominee didn’t take the bait. Instead of assuring Wallace and America that he would concede the election if he lost, Trump promised to keep the nation “in suspense.”

    So, on Tuesday morning, MSNBC’s Willie Geist gave Donald Trump Jr. an opportunity to repent for his father’s sin.

    “Can you say here right now, if Hillary Clinton is a clear-cut winner tonight in the Electoral College, your father will concede the election in a speech tonight?” Geist asked.

    “Of course,” Donald Trump Jr. insisted. “All we’ve wanted is a fair fight.”

    Nonsense. They’ve wanted far more than that, and gotten it. They wanted to stir up rage and hatred at all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, and they’ve got their wish.

    But Trump Jr. proceeded to explain why his father might be justified in saying the 2016 election was an unfair fight. Specifically, Trump Jr. cited conservative provocateur James O’Keefe’s latest discredited videos, which purport to show Democrats scheming to bus voters across state lines (GOP voter-suppression efforts, inadequate measures to accommodate participation among the disabled, and the fact that we hold elections on a workday did not make his list).

    “You know, we just want a fair system,” he said. “Some stuff is going on. I don’t know if it’s enough to move elections. But we’ve seen states, you know, a few thousand votes can make a difference.”

    “If he loses, he will concede tonight?” Geist asked, again.

    “If he loses and it’s legit and fair and there’s not obvious stuff out there,” Trump Jr. replied, “without question, yes.”

    Trump worked hard to get his fans to intimidate voters. He’s not the one who gets to wonder if the election is legit and fair.

    While the GOP standard-bearer has spoken a bit less about voter fraud recently, his closing argument centers on Clinton’s corruption and the rigged system that enables it. And it’s difficult to see how that argument leaves room for anything but the most perfunctory endorsement of the election’s legitimacy.

    “The FBI, the director, was obviously under tremendous pressure,” Trump toldsupporters Monday. “She still deleted them after getting a subpoena from Congress. I mean, that’s a crime! What happened? That’s a crime! You don’t even need the new stuff. She shouldn’t be allowed to run.”

    Says the liar, thief, cheat, pussy-grabber, bully, fraud.

    Ultimately, should he lose, it may not matter what Trump says. The damage is done, regardless. For a year and half, he’s inundated his supporters with apocalyptic rhetoric about how his loss would both threaten every right they hold dear and show that those rights can no longer be secured through democratic means — because his defeat would prove that their “democracy” is a sham.

    And more.

     

  • One of these school bullies

    Michael De Dora suggests a thought experiment: imagine the policy positions of the two candidates for president were flipped. Trump had all the Clinton policy positions and Clinton had all the Trump ones.

    Yeah. I didn’t have to read on to know the answer. Never. Not in a million years.

    I wouldn’t vote for Clinton either in that scenario, of course, but I sure as hell would not vote for the evil lying cheating pussy-grabbing bully.

    In this world, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, I would also not vote for Donald Trump.

    To be clear, in this election I do support (the real) Clinton, and do not support (the real) Trump. Their policy positions are a significant reason. But what about factors beyond policy positions? Is this election really only about some differences of political opinions?

    For me, the answer is clearly “no.”

    For me too. It’s those other factors that have grabbed my attention and my horror. He’s the most unrelievedly horrible living person I know of. I don’t know of anyone who actually liked Hitler other than Goering and Unity Mitford, but the Führer is long gone. Among people who are around now, Trump takes the prize.

    Up through middle and even early high school, I was bullied. Despite the fact that I was physically larger than some of my bullies, they had a psychological edge. They would engage in endless personal attacks. They would pick on every little characteristic you had, and make you feel horrible about yourself for being the way you are.They would demean and dehumanize you. They would often threaten and encourage physical violence, and sometimes even carry through on their promises.

    In hindsight, I know what these bullies sought: power, and perhaps respect (or fear?) from other bullies. They wanted to be king for the sake of being king, for the privileges that came with having power. They were willing to do anything to feel that power, including harming anyone who stood in their way. And they wielded their power recklessly, without mercy.

    They had no interest in anything other than themselves and their own standing in the world.

    I think back now and imagine that one of these school bullies has decided to run for president of the school government. He presents his fellow students with a lengthy list of policy positions. I read it over and find that I agree on most of his positions, and disagree with most of the positions of his opponent.

    Yet, how could I possibly support this person? I agree with his policy positions, sure, but what about him as a person? And I find that the reason I couldn’t support him is the same reason I couldn’t support even a liberal Trump — my respect for basic human decency.

    It’s shaming that we have someone like that in the position he’s in. Shaming. Shame on us.

  • Thesaurus

    A compilation of all the names for him. Two of the best:

    crotch-fondling slab of rancid meatloaf

    thrice-married foul-mouthed tit-judge

  • Now if somebody can’t handle a Twitter account

    Ben Guarino at the Washington Post looks back on Trump’s Twitter career.

    Of all the loose cannons to roll across political Twitter’s decks, Donald Trump may have been the most volatile. The GOP nominee blasted his messages into the feeds of 13 million followers and accrued retweets by the thousands. For every hit scored against Jeb Bush (“low energy“), Ted Cruz (“Lyin’“) or Hillary Clinton (“Crooked“), though, there remained a risk Trump’s potshots would be self-destructive rather than tactical.

    In the past, Trump’s worst tweets included the ludicrous, like his claim that climate change was a Chinese hoax, as well as the insulting and unsubtle. “While is an extremely unattractive woman,” Trump tweeted in 2012, “I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.” He remained an impulsive tweeter well into his presidential campaign. On Sept. 30, he unleashed a series of tweets in the dead of morning, exhorting supporters to “check out sex tape” of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado.

    Because that’s what presidents do – publicly attack women with whatever disgusting lies pop into their heads.

    An analysis by data scientist David Robinson may shed some light into the nature of Trump’s tweets. In August, Robinson quantified the difference in tweets sent from Trump’s account, depending on the source — whether they came from Twitter for Android or Twitter for iPhone. Robinson concluded that the Android tweets were “more hyperbolic and aggressive” whereas the iPhone tweets were closer to traditional campaign messages.

    (A program like TweetDeck specifies the origin of tweets by operating system.)

    Robinson hypothesized that Trump, who had been documented in the past checking Twitter using a Samsung Galaxy phone and expressing a distaste for Apple, issued the Android tweets. The iPhone tweets, lacking the emotional charge, were dictated to or written by staffers.

    This all reminds me of something…I wonder what it could be…

    President Obama, campaigning for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in Florida, did not pass up the chance to get in a few digs at Trump on Sunday.

    Apparently his campaign has taken away his Twitter.

    In the last two days, they had so little confidence in his self-control, that they said ‘We’re just going to take away your Twitter

    …. Now if somebody can’t handle a Twitter account, they can’t handle the nuclear codes. If somebody starts tweeting at 3 in the morning because SNL made fun of you, then you can’t handle the nuclear codes.

    Here he is saying it.

  • They took away his Twitter

    The New York Times reported yesterday that Trump’s handlers have taken away his Twitter.

    In the final days of the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a jarring split screen: the choreographed show of calm and confidence orchestrated by his staff, and the neediness and vulnerability of a once-boastful candidate now uncertain of victory.

    On the surface, there is the semblance of stability that is robbing Hillary Clinton of her most potent weapon: Mr. Trump’s self-sabotaging eruptions, which have repeatedly undermined his candidacy. Underneath that veneer, turbulence still reigns, making it difficult for him to overcome all of the obstacles blocking his path to the White House.

    The contrasts pervade his campaign. Aides to Mr. Trump have finally wrested away the Twitter account that he used to colorfully — and often counterproductively — savage his rivals. But offline, Mr. Trump still privately muses about all the ways he will punish his enemies after Election Day, including a threat to fund a “super PAC” with vengeance as its core mission.

    Of course he does. By the way, how do you go about “wresting away” a Twitter account? I guess by demanding the password and then changing it to a new one? “Tell me the password right now, Donald, or I won’t be your aide any more.”

    His polished older daughter, Ivanka, sat for a commercial intended to appeal to suburban women who have recoiled from her father’s incendiary language. But she discouraged the campaign from promoting the ad in news releases, fearing that her high-profile association with the campaign would damage the businesses that bear her name.

    Ha! She did the commercial but said please don’t promote it. And, yes, if I had any ties to any businesses of hers I would have cut them a long time ago.

    Mr. Trump’s campaign is no longer making headlines with embarrassing staff shake-ups. But that has left him with a band of squabbling and unfireable advisers, with confusing roles and an inability to sign off on basic tasks. A plan to encourage early voting in Florida went unapproved for weeks.

    The result is chaotic. Advisers cut loose from the campaign months ago, like Corey Lewandowski, still talk to the candidate frequently, offering advice that sometimes clashes with that of the current leadership team. Mr. Trump, who does not use a computer, rails against the campaign’s expenditure of tens of millions on digital ads, skeptical that spots he never sees could have any effect.

    Ahahahahahahaha – yes and when he closes his eyes the world disappears. No Theory of Mind at all at all.

    There are four reporters on this story and they talked to a bunch of people involved in Trump’s campaign, many of them anonymously (no surprise there, working for Mr Vindictive).

    His aides outlined 15 bullet points for him to deliver during an Oct. 22 speech in Gettysburg, Pa., to focus voters on a new theme of cleaning up government, even as several women came forward to accuse him of groping them just as he had described in the recording.

    But Mr. Trump grew frustrated with the instructions. By the time he was done revising the proposed speech, only about a half-dozen of the original suggestions remained. And over the firm objections of his top advisers, he insisted on using the occasion to issue a remarkable threat: that he would sue all of the women who had gone public with the accusations.

    As the advisers begged him to reconsider — it would make him seem small, they warned, and undermine a pivotal speech — Mr. Trump was adamant. There had to be a severe penalty for those who dared to attack him, he said. He could not just sit back and let these women “come at me,” he told one of them.

    Priorities, people. Revenge must always come first, even against people reporting the truth about bad things Trump did to them. Even? I mean especially.

    Several advisers warned him that he risked becoming like a wild animal chasing its prey so zealously that it raced over a cliff — a reminder that he could pursue his grievances and his eagerness to fling insults, but that the cost would be a plunge into an electoral abyss.

    Taking away Twitter turned out to be an essential move by his press team, which deprived him of a previously unfiltered channel for his aggressions.

    As it does for so many lovely people!

    On Thursday, as his plane idled on the tarmac in Miami, Mr. Trump spotted Air Force One outside his window. As he glowered at the larger plane, he told Ms. Hicks, his spokeswoman, to jot down a proposed tweet about President Obama, who was campaigning nearby for Mrs. Clinton.

    “Why is he campaigning instead of creating jobs and fixing Obamacare?” Mr. Trump said. “Get back to work.” After some light editing — Ms. Hicks added “for the American people” at the end — she published it.

    He is working. He’s working hard at saving us all from a Trump presidency.

    Updating to add: a friend on Facebook pointed out something I wish I had: “They say he can’t handle twitter. But they are still working to get him elected.” Why yes, they are, aren’t they. Irresponsible much?

  • He speaks for them

    Classic. A NY Times piece on feverish “militia” types in the rural South, hoping Trump wins and practicing their shooting skills in case he doesn’t.

    During two days of conversations, grievances poured forth from the group as effortlessly as bullets from a gun barrel. On armed excursions through sun-dappled forests, they spoke of a vague but looming tyranny — an amalgam of sinister forces to be held at bay only with a firearm and the willingness to use it.

    They are machinists and retirees, roofers and factory line workers, all steeped in the culture of the rural South. They say Mr. Trump, a Manhattan billionaire and real estate tycoon, speaks for them.

    Nicely done. Trump the New York billionaire real estate tycoon who cheats workers and contractors – they say he speaks for them. Clearly Marx had it all wrong. Class has nothing to do with anything. The important thing is being a belligerent asshole. That’s what unites people under the banner of…erm…being belligerent assholes.

    Solidarity forever!

  • Trump lawyer babbles

    Trump and his campaign have been hit with a restraining order. Common Dreams has the story.

    A federal judge in Ohio on Friday granted a temporary restraining order against the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, as well as his longtime adviser Roger Stone, to prohibit attempts to harass voters in the crucial swing state.

    The case, brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is just one currently being weighed by numerous states alleging that representatives of the Republican Party and the Trump campaign are engaging in illegal voter intimidation efforts.

    According to Cleveland.com, U.S. District Judge James Gwin “said he will order the restraining order against Trump’s campaign and Stone,” who runs the controversial “Stop the Steal” organization, which is recruiting so-called “Vote Protector Exit Pollers” for election day. Gwin “did not order it against the Ohio Republican Party, saying there was not enough evidence to show that a restraining order against it was needed.”

    Recruiting people to intimidate voters is not so much controversial as illegal.

    Throughout his presidential campaign, the GOP nominee has repeatedly called on his supporters to help ensure “ballot security” on election day.

    Attorney Subodh Chandra, who documented Friday’s hearing on Twitter, noted that during the trial Gwin referenced these statements, insinuating that they were inciting aggressive poll-watching.

    Stone was reportedly ordered to testify during a similar hearing in Nevada on Friday.

    Ahead of the trials, Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at University of California Irvine and blogger with the Election Law Blog, who has been following the case, said that “the lawsuits have already borne fruit by getting the campaign on the record with its plans and promises not to intimidate voters.”

    Hasen wrote at Slate on Friday:

    In an important development on Thursday afternoon, the Trump campaign in response to the lawsuits sent an email to Nevada campaign workers describing for them what constitutes illegal harassment and what constitutes good behavior. By getting Trump on the record promising not to harass voters with its “ballot security” activities, the Democrats have significantly lessened the chances of Trump-driven voter intimidation on Election Day.

    Trump is such a bully it takes a court order to restrain him.

  • The number of Americans who would rather elect a rapist than a female human being

    Sady Doyle, like so many of us, is sick to death of this fucking election.

    I am tired of the lingering hangover of the Democratic primary, tired of what this conversation has shown me about the seemingly well-meaning, “progressive” men in my life. I am tired of seeing the damage that even the mildest, wimpiest, plaid-shirt-clad beardy-bro can do when he’s been given license to stop taking sexism seriously, and therefore stopped worrying that he might get somebody hurt.

    I’m tired of the hurt. I’m tired of hearing from women who’ve been run off Twitter by harassment and death threats and doxing because they dared to express an opinion about a Presidential election. I am tired of arguing that their pain matters, that the attacks on them matter. I am tired of living in a world where a state Democratic Party chairwoman can record her death threats and post them on the internet, a world where that woman needs a bodyguard to visit the goddamn bathroom, and where feminists are asked to prove that this series of events is, in fact, a bad thing.

    It’s interesting how we get it from all directions, isn’t it. I think women are unique that way. I suppose it’s because everybody hates Mommy or some such thing.

    Doyle is tired of explaining it, too.

    I’m tired of having to explain why it’s sexist for men to tell me how to do my feminism “right,” why they shouldn’t impose their self-declared authority on my liberation. I’m tired of explaining why barring women’s access to public life, penalizing their public voices through tactics like harassment and intimidation, is integral to the functioning of patriarchy. I’m tired of explaining why demonizing powerful women — calling Hillary Clinton a murderer, a criminal, a hag, a witch, a bitch, etc — is a tactic as old as witch-burning. I’m tired of explaining why “likability” is a trap designed to make women worry more about other people’s feelings than they do about their own lives — and why no powerful woman will ever be “likable,” because the only “likable” thing she can do is give away her power. I’m tired of reading shitty divide-and-conquer thinkpieces about the catfight between “old” feminists (evil, capitalist, wear pantsuits, loathe the young and wish to feast on their economically disempowered flesh) and “young” feminists (hot, cool, hip, fun, down with male power because they understand these silly identity-politics struggles don’t get us anywhere and sometimes men are just smarter, am I right, girls?) and I am supremely tired of looking at that thinkpiece, and others like it, and seeing a male fucking byline on it.

    I get that a lot. Just the other day, on Twitter – some guy, explaining women and feminism to me for tweet after tweet after tweet. I let him go on for a couple of days because I was curious to see how far he would push it. Once it became apparent that the answer was open-ended, I stopped letting him go on.

    Now at least people believe her about sexism, but at what a price.

    After spending a goddamn year arguing about whether sexism even existed, let alone whether it influenced people’s votes, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy now depends on beating a guy who is sexism incarnate — the big, orange, pussy-grabbing monster who grew to Tokyo-stomping size while we were arguing the finer points of progressive self-identification. A racist. A con man. A fascist. A joke. An alleged rapist. An alleged wife-beater. An alleged sexual harasser. After all that arguing about sexism and its impact, in the end, we just had to point at Donald fucking Trump and let people draw their own conclusions.

    Truth. There has been a gruesome kind of schadenfreude in the news items about Trump, because they do demonstrate how casual and taken for granted it can be.

    But the larger truth is that the whole thing is deeply insulting.

    It isn’t just an insult to Hillary Clinton that she wound up facing Trump. It’s an insult to all women; it’s confirmation of our darkest suspicions about sexism, that while women are killing ourselves to do better and be smarter and work harder, while we’re building resumes, accumulating qualifications, going to classes, applying for extra credit, the only thing all that excellence does, at the end of the day, is to put us on equal footing with some male idiot who’s done precisely none of the work. It isn’t fun, realizing that the most qualified candidate in modern history is considered roughly equivalent to a barely literate game-show host with no government experience, just because she’s female. It doesn’t feel good, knowing that even Hillary Clinton has to stand there and get screamed at by some Twitter troll, just because she’s trying to get a job.

    It is not fun, was not fun, has never been and could never be fun, spending nearly two years “debating” my own humanity through the lens of the biggest news story in the country. It has not been fun realizing that this matter was up for debate. I mean: By my count, Donald Trump currently has twelve standing allegations of sexual assault. Now, thanks to the magic of modern polling, I can see exactly how many of my countrymen don’t give a shit. According to FiveThirtyEight, the number of Americans who would rather elect a rapist than a female human being stands at around 45 percent.

    And it’s only going to get worse.

    In one scenario, Trump will win, and we’ll be governed by a man who is more vocal and unapologetic than most about believing women to be subhumans and second-class citizens. The sexism will flow down in terms of restrictive policies, cultural backlash, anti-choice and anti-female Supreme Court Justices, the incalculable harm done to younger generations by seeing misogyny legitimized and modeled by the most powerful man in the country. Or, Clinton will win, and she won’t have Trump to run against any longer — meaning that the sexism, “progressive” and otherwise, will come back every time someone gets frustrated with her or wants to delegitimize her, and we’ll have to argue about whether it exists or matters all over again.

    I keep thinking it will take centuries, and then remembering that global warming means we don’t have centuries.

  • An unlikely source

    Melania Trump has returned to campaigning for her owner husband. She’s chosen a theme: bullying. She’s against it.

    Melania Trump returned from political exile on Thursday by making a rather eyebrow-raising claim: as first lady, she would combat bullying. That anti-bullying campaign, however, likely wouldn’t extend to her husband.

    “Our culture has gotten too mean and too violent,” the wife of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told a crowd here in the suburbs of Philadelphia. “It is never OK when a 12-year-old girl or boy is mocked, bullied or attacked. It is terrible when that happens on the playground and it is unacceptable when it’s done by someone with no name hiding on the internet.”

    If she really thinks that, she made a very bad marital choice. She’s married to the worst public bully I’ve ever seen in action – the.very.worst.

    She’s been away until now, Eliot Nelson notes.

    Her absence made the peculiar focus of her address all the more perplexing. Her husband has become infamous for his bullying ― both online and in person ― of virtually anyone who appears to oppose him. In fact, the National Education Association recently began a campaign to raise awareness of a “Trump effect,” in which children feel emboldened by the candidate’s behavior to engage in bullying.

    The link under infamous for bullying is to that NY Times collection of his bullying tweets. I’m sure you remember just how extensive it is.

    “We’ve seen this already,” Melania Trump said Thursday. “As adults, many of us are able to handle mean words, even lies.” (This very week, a social media campaign, #ImWithTur, has sprung up as a defense of NBC News reporter Katy Tur, whom the Republican nominee singled out for mockery during a speech in Miami on Wednesday.)

    Trump also bemoaned that children are often picked on for their “looks or intelligence” ― even though her husband frequently attacks people based on those characteristics.

    She’d probably better stay away from him for a few days.

  • Coming up roses

    Marc Fisher at the Washington Post ponders how Trump deals with his failures.

    When Donald Trump loses, he lashes out, assigns blame and does whatever it takes to make a defeat look like a win. When that isn’t plausible, he pronounces the system rigged — victory wasn’t possible because someone put in the fix.

    It’s what makes him great. I mean terrible. It’s what makes him terrible. I mean it’s one of the many things that make him terrible.

    Trump calls defeats “blips.” Losing the race for the most powerful job on the planet is no one’s idea of a blip, and if that happens, Trump is highly unlikely to slip away and accept life as a historical footnote, as Michael Dukakis did; to live out his golden years as a respected elder statesman, as Bob Dole has done; or to consider some other form of government service, as John Kerry did.

    Well that’s because he’s terrible. Huge ego, huge vanity, no humility, no respect for people who aren’t Donald Trump.

    In the final month of the campaign — even as he has contended that he will win — Trump has repeatedly said that a loss would be the fault of leaders of his party, the news media, pollsters, career politicians and federal investigators. At his final debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump refused to say he would accept the result of the election as legitimate. For more than a week after that, he added almost daily to the list of institutions he said were rigged against him: special interests, Clinton donors, big media companies, “global financial powers.” (That line of rhetoric grew less heated this past week, after FBI Director James B. Comey focused the nation’s attention back on Clinton’s emails, and Trump even suggested that things might not be as rigged as he’d said.)

    It’s almost as if the whole thing is a colossal vanity project and nothing else.

    Losing politicians rarely distance themselves from defeat this way. Traditionally, if they want to maintain their credibility so they can try again in another election, they eat crow, accept the wisdom of the voters and show a modicum of grace toward their victorious opponents. Trump’s approach is one psychologists say they see more often in sports, where defeated athletes sometimes immediately guarantee that they will demolish whomever just beat them, or in business, where executives with an unusually inflated sense of self-worth tend to blame failures on others.

    It’s also something you see more in terrible people.

    Trump’s classmates, neighbors, teachers and friends from New York in the 1950s are united in their recollections of a kid who had a powerful aversion to defeat — and a tendency to blast others when he lost. In sixth grade in Queens, his neighbor Jeff Bier said, he loaned young Donald his favorite bat during a baseball game at school, but when Trump failed to get a hit, he smashed Bier’s bat on the pavement, cracking the wood. Trump did not apologize, Bier said.

    Terrible even at age 12.

    In 1990, Bruce Nobles, president of the short-lived Trump Shuttle, told his boss that women were avoiding the airline because of the owner’s behavior toward women. “They don’t like what they’re reading about you in the paper,” Nobles told Trump. According to Nobles, the owner laughed and replied, “Yeah, but the guys love it.” (Bankers forced the sale of the airline in 1992; Trump blamed a weak economy.)

    And not the fact that he’s terrible.

    Over and over, moments that looked like defeat have become something else in Trump’s telling. In 1975, after the federal government sued Trump and his father, alleging that their real estate company systematically mistreated blacks and other minorities who wanted to rent apartments from them, the Trumps settled the case, signing a consent order that barred them from discriminating. Trump contended in an interview years later that the Justice Department suit “wasn’t a case against us. There were many, many landlords that were sued under that case.” The suit was filed solely against the Trumps and their company.

    He’s a terrible liar.

  • Vigilante voter intimidation

    Trump people are due in court to answer charges related to voter intimidation.

    A federal judge Tuesday ordered representatives from the Donald Trump campaign and the Nevada Republican Party to appear at a hearing in his courtroom Wednesday afternoon in a lawsuit filed by Nevada Democrats accusing them of the engaging in voter intimidation tactics.

    U.S. District Judge Richard Franklin Boulware also ordered the Trump campaign and state party to turn over any training materials they provided to “poll watchers, poll observers, exit pollsters or any other similarly tasked individuals.”

    At the hearing, the Trump campaign and the Nevada GOP should be prepared to respond to the motion for a temporary restraining order that the Democrats requested in the lawsuit, the judge’s order said.

    The Nevada Democratic Party’s lawsuit was filed along with lawsuits from three other Democratic state parties against their GOP counterparts and the Trump campaign in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Arizona. They allege that the Trump campaign and the state Republican parties have violated the Voting Rights Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act, with an approach to elections monitoring that Democrats described as “vigilante voter intimidation.” Roger Stone, the longtime GOP operative and former Trump adviser, was also named in the complaints, as was the group he is affiliated with, Stop the Steal, for its poll watcher recruitment efforts.

    Good.

  • Another endorsement

    Last I heard, only one real newspaper had endorsed Trump. By “real” I mean not a party paper or a free giveaway paper that’s basically real estate ads and nothing else – I mean a “normal” newspaper with a city name in it and a longish history. But there are a few unreal ones. The Washington Post cites one.

    Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out.

    It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the most prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux Klan.

    Under the banner “Make America Great Again,” the entire front page of the paper’s current issue is devoted to a lengthy defense of Trump’s message — an embrace some have labeled a de facto endorsement.

    The Ku Klux Klan. On the other hand – let us be fair and balanced here – there is that matter of Clinton’s email server.

    “‘Make America Great Again!’ It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency,” Pastor Thomas Robb wrote in the Crusader. “You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally. … But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!”

    “While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What made America great in the first place?’” the article continues. “The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were.

    “America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great.”

    Yeah! There’s nothing like a racist theocracy for sheer greatness! Just look at Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

    The Trump campaign sharply and swiftly criticized the article. “Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form,” the campaign said in a statement Tuesday evening.

    Well that’s hilarious. Trump vomits hate almost every time he opens his mouth. “Pocahontas” anyone? Trump is a hater. Hatred is almost all he has. Hatred is at the core of his being.

    The 12-page quarterly newspaper calls itself “The Political Voice of White Christian America!” and has a well-known white supremacist symbol on its front page. The latest edition includes articles about Jewish links to terrorism, black-on-white crime and a man who claims to be Bill Clinton’s illegitimate child. An article near the end of the paper says that Trump’s candidacy is “moving the dialogue forward.”

    Does any of that sound like a bad fit for Trump? No.

    Earlier this year,

    Rachel Pendergraft — the national organizer for the Knights Party, a standard-bearer for the Ku Klux Klan — told The Post that Trump’s campaign offered the organization a new outreach tool for recruiting new members and expanding their formerly dwindling ranks.

    The Republican presidential candidate, Pendergraft said at the time, provided separatists with an easy way to start a conversation about issues that are important to the dying white supremacist movement.

    In addition to opening “a door to conversation,” she said, Trump’s surging candidacy has electrified some members of the movement.

    “They like the overall momentum of his rallies and his campaign,” Pendergraft said. “They like that he’s not willing to back down. He says what he believes and he stands on that.”

    In August, the American Nazi Party’s chairman, Rocky Suhayda, agreed, declaring on his radio show that Trump offers “real opportunity” to build the white nationalist movement.

    That’s the candidate.

  • Sid Miller for Texas

    Of course. The people in the crowd have been doing it all along, of course a Trump honcho would call Clinton a cunt on Twitter. It’s a wonder Trump didn’t call her that in the debates.

    Sid Miller @MillerForTexas

    PENNSYLVANIA: NEW ALLIANCE POLL

    TRUMP 44

    Cunt 43

    Go Trump go!

    The Governor of Texas said no true Texas gentleman would ever talk this way.

    Riiiight.

  • Chickenshit

    Robert Reich on Facebook:

    Yesterday I spoke with a former Republican member of Congress whom I’ve known for years.

    Me: What do you think of your party’s nominee for president?

    He: Trump is a maniac. He’s a clear and present danger to America.

    Me: Have you said publicly that you won’t vote for him?

    He (sheepishly): No.

    Me: Why not?

    He: I’m a coward.

    Me: What do you mean?

    He: I live in a state with a lot of Trump voters. Most Republican officials do.

    Me: But you’re a former official. You’re not running for Congress again. What are you afraid of?

    He: I hate to admit it, but I’m afraid of them. Some of those Trumpistas are out of their fucking minds.

    Me: You mean you’re afraid for your own physical safety?

    He: All it takes is one of them, you know.

    Me: Wait a minute. Isn’t this how dictators and fascists have come to power in other nations? Respected leaders don’t dare take a stand.

    He: At least I’m no Giuliani or Gingrich or Pence. I’m not a Trump enabler.

    Me: I’ll give you that.

    He: Let me tell you something. Most current and former Republican members of Congress are exactly like me. I talk with them. They think Trump is deplorable. And they think Giuliani and Gingrich are almost as bad. But they’re not gonna speak out. Some don’t want to end their political careers. Most don’t want to risk their lives. The Trump crowd is just too dangerous. Trump has whipped them up into a goddamn frenzy.

    That’s pretty contemptible. We’re all afraid of the Trumpistas, but the Republicans are responsible for Trump. We wouldn’t be in danger of seeing him in the White House if it weren’t for the Republicans, so I think they should be thinking about the safety of all of us more than their own at this point.

  • Guest post: The party where facts don’t matter

    Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on Trump and framing.

    Here’s my armchair theorizing about the rise of Trump:

    1. Republicans became the party that refuses to compromise. Explaining why is probably a whole separate argument itself, but here are a few contributors. (a) The tyranny of 40% — hard-core conservatives don’t have an actual majority among the population as a whole, but they can control the Republican Party, and they make up enough of the public that they don’t think they need non-conservative allies. In part they’re right: they vote in higher numbers (especially in midterms), and aren’t “wasting” their votes by being concentrated in urban areas. (Progressives, by contrast, have generally learned to accept that they need to do business with squishy left-center moderates if they want to get something done.); (b) They’ve promoted an ideology that strong leaders don’t ever ever compromise, they just stand firm and wait for their opponents to capitulate. Some of them really believed that Obama would give up his signature piece of legislation (Obamacare) if faced with a government shutdown, while others just promoted that idea for personal gain (hi, Ted Cruz!), but it’s stuck; (c) their increasingly dramatic rhetoric makes it hard to compromise: it’s one thing to cut a deal with a president who is just another American who happens to be more liberal than you care for, but cutting a deal with a president who is a socialist Muslim atheist communist tyrant bent on destroying the country is practically treason. So everything in the Republican race became a competition to see who could outflank the others — “you say you want to close the borders? Well, I want to build a wall! And make Mexico pay for it! Beat that!”

    2. Republicans became the party where facts don’t matter. Global warming is a liberal hoax! Tax cuts totally do reduce the deficit! Obamacare is failing! Ignore the crime statistics, you know in your gut that the country is more dangerous. Ignore the unemployment statistics, they’re rigged. The media are all liberals, experts are lying, data is faked. How can, say, Jeb Bush show that Trump’s tax plan doesn’t add up, when Jeb Bush’s plan doesn’t, either? Who cares what the factcheckers at the NY Times and WaPo say about Trump, given that we know they’re lying liberal media stooges?

    3. Since facts don’t matter, it’s about appealing to the emotions of Republicans. And Trump won that game, “bigly,” because he recognized that restraint and dignity and looking “presidential” are secondary, if not counterproductive, to showing that you share their anger. Sure, all 17 candidates are anti-immigrant, but I called them rapists and murderers! They all say Hillary’s a crook, but I’m the one threatening to lock her up! They whine about the liberal media, but I’m going to sue the fuckers!

  • Trump and framing

    George Lakoff on Trump last July:

    Donald J. Trump has managed to become the Republican nominee for president, Why? How? There are various theories: People are angry and he speaks to their anger. People don’t think much of Congress and want a non-politician. Both may be true. But why? What are the details? And Why Trump?

    He gives an extended answer that he says is based on his research…but his sample of the theories above is too short: he leaves out the simple fact of Trump’s celebrity, which is surely much too important to leave out. An unknown guy from East Jesus, Oklahoma who did exactly what Trump did would not, I think, have had the success Trump had.

    Lakoff explains Trump’s success with his story about the nation as a family.

    In the 1900’s, as part of my research in the cognitive and brain sciences, I undertook to answer a question in my field: How do the various policy positions of conservatives and progressives hang together? Take conservatism: What does being against abortion have to do with being for owning guns? What does owning guns have to do with denying the reality of global warming? How does being anti-government fit with wanting a stronger military? How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? Progressives have the opposite views. How do their views hang together?

    The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers. We send our sons and daughters to war. We have homeland security. The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).

    Meh. I’m sure that’s true to some extent, but I’m not the least bit convinced it’s the Key to All Mythologies, and I dislike the way Lakoff always presents it as if it is. His “realization” is his interpretation, and I don’t think it explains as much as he seems to think it does.

    And then Trump…What the hell kind of father figure is he?!! He brags about never playing any active part at all in rearing his own children. He cheated on all his wives. He abuses women and brags about it. (To be fair, Lakoff wrote the above long before the Access Hollywood tape appeared.) He’s rude and pugnacious and unpleasant and hostile to women – he’s hardly a Jimmy Stewart or Tom Hanks type. The Strict Father is not supposed to be a greedy violent rapey asshole. So, no, I don’t find Trump convincing in the part.

    Lakoff is interesting but not, to me, very convincing…which is amusing in a way, since he “frames” himself as an expert on how to be convincing.

    H/t Dave Ricks

  • He is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan

    Oh look, a detailed examination of Trump’s SLAPP suits, sweetly titled Donald J. Trump Is A Libel Bully But Also A Libel Loser. The author is Susan E. Seager.

    Donald J. Trump is a libel bully. Like most bullies, he’s also a loser, to borrow from Trump’s vocabulary.

    Trump and his companies have been involved in a mind-boggling 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and sent countless threatening cease-and-desist letters to journalists and critics.[1]

    But the GOP presidential nominee and his companies have never won a single speech-related case filed in a public court.

    He had all the fun of bullying people though.

    This article examines seven speech-related cases brought by Trump and his companies, which include four dismissals on the merits, two voluntary withdrawals, and one lone victory in an arbitration won by default. Media defense lawyers would do well to remind Trump of his sorry record in speech-related cases filed in public courts when responding to bullying libel cease-and-desist letters.

    Or they could just say we look forward to discussing it with you in court.

    Trump filed his first and crankiest libel lawsuit in 1984 against the Chicago Tribune and the newspaper’s Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic, Paul Gapp. Trump filed his libel lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.[3] Trump claimed he suffered $500 million in damages.[4]

    Gapp, who won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 1979, dared to publish a “Design” column in the Sunday Tribune Magazine on August 12, 1984 ridiculing Trump’s proposal to build the tallest building in the world: a 150-story, nearly 2,000-foot tall skyscraper on a landfill at the southeast end of Manhattan.[5]

    Gapp wrote that Trump’s planned office tower was “one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city” and a kind of “Guinness Book of World Records architecture.” Gapp’s column said the “only remotely appealing aspect” of Trump’s planned office tower was that it would “not be done in the Fence Post Style of the 1970s.” The architect critic slammed the already-built Trump Tower as a “skyscraper offering condos, office space and a kitschy shopping atrium of blinding flamboyance.” Gapp wrote that Trump’s claim that the 150-story skyscraper would architecturally balance the two World Trade Center towers on the opposite side of lower Manhattan was mere “eyewash.”[6]

    Gapp also gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, telling a reporter that Trump’s plan was “aesthetically lousy” and complaining that the central part of Chicago “has already been loused up by giant-ism.”

    Trump filed a libel lawsuit in New York, claiming that Gapp’s criticisms in the Tribune and the Journal were false and defamatory.

    From the description his criticisms sound like criticism, which is legal.

    (Oh – it’s just occurred to me. I wonder if that’s why Michael Nugent has been defending Trump – maybe he feels rapport with a guy who likes to sue people for defamation because they criticized him in public.)

    The Tribune and Gapp filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the grounds that Gapp’s statements and the artist’s rendering were protected opinions, and U.S. District Judge Edward Weinfeld agreed, granting the motion to dismiss.[8]

     

    Judge Weinfeld gave Trump a lesson in the First Amendment and politics: “Men in public life … must accept as an incident of their service harsh criticism, ofttimes unfair and unjustified – at times false and defamatory – and this is particularly so when their activities or performance may … stir deep controversy” …. “De gustibus non est disputandum, there is no disputing about tastes.”[9]

    Judge Weinfeld, then 84, reaffirmed the First Amendment rule that “[e]xpressions of one’s opinion of another, however unreasonable, or vituperative, since they cannot be subjected to the test of truth or falsity, cannot be held libelous and are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under the First Amendment.”[10]

    Judge Weinfeld explained that opinions expressed in the form of “rhetorical hyperbole,” “rigorous epithets,” and “the most pejorative of terms” are protected from liability, so long as the opinions do not veer to into factual accusations, such as accusing someone of a crime, unethical conduct, or the lack of professional integrity in a manner that would be proved true or false.[11]

    Then there’s the one where Trump sued a writer for saying he wasn’t a billionaire. There’s a hilarious sample of his testimony:

    Q: Now Mr. Trump, have you always been completely truthful in your public statements about your net worth of properties?

    A: I try.

    Q: Have you ever been not truthful?

    A: My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and feelings, even my own feelings but I try.

    Q: Let me just understand that a little bit. Let’s talk about that for a second. You said that the net worth goes up and down based on your own feelings?

    A: Yes ….[29]

    Then there’s one he filed against Bill Maher for saying he was fathered by an orang utan…

    It’s a treasure-trove.

  • Trump’s vocabulary exercise

    The Times has compiled a massive collection of Trump’s Twitter insults of various people and institutions. Each item is a link. That’s a lot of work!

    Let’s look at the list under Elizabeth Warren:

  • Erratic, empty, cruel, intolerant, and corrupt

    The New Yorker has a lo-o-o-ng editorial endorsing Clinton and dis-endorsing Trump. Some highlights:

    …the Democratic nominee has ended up playing a sometimes secondary role in a squalid American epic. If she is elected, she will have weathered a prolonged battle against a trash-talking, burn-it-to-the-ground demagogue. Unfortunately, the drama is not likely to end soon. The aftereffects of this campaign may befoul our civic life for some time to come.

    If the prospect of a female President represents a departure in the history of American politics, the candidacy of Donald J. Trump, the real-estate mogul and Republican nominee, does, too—a chilling one. He is manifestly unqualified and unfit for office. Trained in the arts of real-estate promotion and reality television, he exhibits scant interest in or familiarity with policy. He favors conspiracy theory and fantasy, deriving his knowledge from the darker recesses of the Internet and “the shows.” He has never held office or otherwise served his country, never acceded to the authority of competing visions and democratic resolutions.

    And, I would add, with all that, he considers himself good enough for the job. That error in judgment all by itself should be enough to disqualify him. It’s peak Dunning-Kruger, and you don’t want that in someone with power.

    Worse still, he does not accept the authority of constitutional republicanism—its norms, its faiths and practices, its explicit rules and implicit understandings. That much is clear from his statements about targeting press freedoms, infringing on an independent judiciary, banning Muslim immigration, deporting undocumented immigrants without a fair hearing, reviving the practice of torture, and, in the third and final debate, his refusal to say that he will accept the outcome of the election. Trump has even threatened to prosecute and imprison his opponent. The American demagogues from the past century who most closely resemble him—Father Coughlin and Senator Joseph McCarthy among them—were dangers to the republic, but they never captured the Presidential nomination of a major political party.

    The comparison to Father Coughlin pleases me. I’ve made it too.

    Trump really does represent something singular. The prospect of such a President—erratic, empty, cruel, intolerant, and corrupt—represents a form of national emergency.

    Empty and cruel – well-chosen words.

    It is not merely narcissism that leads him to speak about grabbing women’s genitals or to endorse the “Lock Her Up!” chants directed at his opponent. It is his temperamental authoritarianism—a trait echoed in his admiration of Vladimir Putin.

    The combination of free-form opportunism, heroic self-regard, blithe contempt for expertise, and an airy sense of infallibility has contributed to Trump’s profound estrangement from the truth.

    They write well at that place.