Debunking

The other day I expressed some frustration about what I called the hair-splitting of fact-checkers. Bleach or disinfectant? What difference does it make? In the grand scheme of things, not much, but accuracy is important, especially when getting one word wrong is going to convince people that your whole argument is wrong. 

Injecting Disinfectant

The whole "he told people to inject bleach" story is a perfect example. In 2020 Trump, along with some of his medical advisors was having regular press conferences to update the nation on aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic. In April of that year he said this:

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing...And then supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."

This was a follow up to remarks by Bill Bryan, head of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Division about the virus not surviving on surfaces that were exposed to light or cleaned with disinfectants, like bleach or isopropyl alcohol. 

Trump continued with this:

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

So no, he didn't tell people to inject bleach, but he did suggest that it was a viable option. It's a distinction without a difference. How is musing that injecting disinfectant in front of the whole country any better than telling people to inject bleach? As usual, Trump cannot admit that he was wrong, or misspoke. He could have apologized for the miscommunication, especially in light of the fact that medical health experts, not to mention Lysol, felt the need to clarify that injecting or ingesting disinfectant was a bad idea and could kill you. What he did do was claim that he was being "sarcastic":

“I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen...a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside.”

What?! - How is that any better? Or any more believable? We're in the early stages of a pandemic that will end up killing a million Americans and he's being sarcastic? The White House spokesperson claimed that the press had taken him out of context. 

I once actually encountered a couple of men in person who actually believed that he was joking. 

When someone claims, as was done at the Democratic National Convention, that Trump suggested that people inject bleach, the details may be wrong, but not all that different than the specifics.

Suckers and Losers

During a trip to Paris in 2018 Trump passed up an opportunity to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery — which is home to the graves of Americans who fought and died in World War I. He is alleged to have said "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump allegedly referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as "suckers" for getting killed. The media who reported this at the time relied on anonymous sources. 

I tend to trust that reporters don't make up quotes by anonymous sources. These are professionals who would not like to get "burned" by publishing inaccurate information. However, the sources themselves might have had an axe to grind - had a personal reason for feeding the press false information. Trump's team denied these allegations and nothing surfaced to either confirm or deny them. One staffer backed up his assertion that Trump did not say that veterans were "suckers and losers" by noting that retired General Kelly was standing with Trump: "I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?" As if an aid to the president would publicly remonstrate his boss, whatever his personal feelings.

Which is interesting, because in October 2023 Kelly said this: "What can I add that has not already been said? A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all 'suckers' because 'there is nothing in it for them.' A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because 'it doesn't look good for me.' A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America's defense are 'losers' and wouldn't visit their graves in France."

Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the military and veterans. On one hand he claims to support them, which usually doesn't go beyond saying "I support the military". But I don't have to dig too deep to find Trump's true thoughts about the men and women in the military: he doesn't like people who were captured and the Presidential Medal of Freedom is better than the Medal of honor. "That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian. It’s the equivalent of the Medal of Honor, but civilian version," the former president said during his remarks. "It’s actually much better, because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor — that’s soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead." Let's not forget his statement at Turning Point USA in 2022 that he wanted to give himself the Congressional Medal of Honor but was talked out of it. 

Even without Kelly's statement, Trump's "suckers and losers" remark is extremely believable

Very Fine People

Recently Snopes came out with a report stating that Trump did not call Neo-Nazi and White Supremacists "very fine people". MAGA world jumped on this as somehow debunking his support for the alt right at the August 2017 "Unite the Right" rally. Interesting in that conservatives generally discount anything from Snopes due to its supposed liberal bias. In fact they disdain any fact checkers who question their version of events. 

What Trump did say was that there were "very fine people on both sides" and he did also say that he wasn't talking about Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "who should be condemned totally". 

Most people who heard Trump say this, or read about it afterward, concluded that despite his disavowal of the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, the people on one of those sides were almost exclusively Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, therefore he was calling Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "very fine people". The Snopes article on this subject seems to acknowledge this. 

Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong. 

Trump seems to conclude, whether ignorantly or purposefully, that there were people there to peacefully protest the pulling down of a Confederate statue that had nothing to do with the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists - and these were the "very fine people". This stretches the bounds of credulity. This was a rally organized by and for Neo-Nazis, the whole purpose was to bring their views out in public. But we're to believe that "very fine people", who were not at all, not even a little bit, sympathetic or supportive of Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist ideology somehow held their noses and participated. If I march with the Nazis the logical conclusion is that I'm a fellow traveler with the Nazis - not among the "very fine people". You can't say "Josef Stalin was a great guy, but I condemn the mass murders that he conducted" - you can't say you're condemning the Nazis while saying what great guys they are. 

Russia, Russia, Russia

This one would take more time, but it's worth addressing anyway. Mueller's report did nothing to exonerate Trump. In fact it specifically says that it doesn't exonerate Trump. Here's a few links to things I wrote about the Mueller Report:

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2019/04/i-just-finished-reading-redacted.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2019/05/yes-there-was-collusion.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2020/10/russia-russia-russia-and-lil-bit-o.html

https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2022/07/russia-russia-russia.html

Conclusion

It's important to get our facts straight and not get sucked into our own conspiracy theories regarding Trump that are based on what we wish were true but are simply not. It's equally important to recognize that there is a difference between denying and debunking. A denial is someone simply stating that an allegation is false. A debunking is proof that an allegation is false. 

Determining what Trump did or didn't say is not always straightforward. His statements meander and ramble. He contradicts himself. He gaslights us. His supporters want to concentrate on whether we get a word or two wrong when the issue is the context and intent. Is injecting disinfectant actually better than injecting bleach? Is making sarcastic comments to "see what [reporters] will do" better than making ignorant statements? Is calling a crowd comprised mainly of Nazis and their ilk "very fine people" any different than calling Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "very fine people"? 

It's incumbent upon us to know what we're talking about. Don't double down with an inaccurate quote and insist that you heard him say "bleach". You didn't. If they're going to split hairs, be prepared. 

I Alone Can Fix It

One of the criticisms that I have seen about Vice President Harris' campaign is that she is promising to "fix" things. Her critics ask what it is she's planning on fixing, since her party has been in control of the White House for 12 out of the last 16 years. It's a fair question to ask - is she saying that her own team has made a mess that she, turning her back on that team, now has to "fix"? It's a fair question, but a bit disingenuous, coming from people who have already decided that they'll be supporting her opponent. 

Let's start with the assertion that Harris is pledging to fix things. There may be video of her out there using those words, but I haven't seen it. And it's not Harris who infamously declared "I alone can fix it". Harris and her supporters are also not claiming that the country is in a mess of Trump's doing, even though he left office almost 4 years ago. The Trumpublicans are framing things to make it seem as if that's what she and the Democrats are running on. They are also intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting how the government works. 

Despite the perception that a serving president is an all-powerful figure, our government was very consciously set up with three co-equal branches, each with its own ways of asserting authority and frustrating the well-laid plans of the other branches. The last time the Democrats held the White House and Congress, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (counting 2 Democratic caucusing Independents), was during the first two years of President Obama's first term from 2009 - 2011. This was when the Affordable Care Act was passed. By the midterm elections of 2010 the Democrats lost 64 House seats and handed over the majority to the Republicans; the Senate majority shrunk to 53. By the midterms of Obama's second term the Republicans gained the Senate majority as well. Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first two years of Trump's term, but it's been split ever since. Divided government limits what any president can do, despite optimistic campaign promises. 

Let's not underestimate the influence of the federal judiciary, especially the Supreme Court. Appointments to the various levels of federal judgeships is one of the main ways that a president can extend their influence beyond their term. Senator McConnell was a main force behind putting a conservative stamp, not only on the Supreme Court, but on lower court appointments. The precedent breaking refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee by President Obama during his final year in office and the reversal of the new "rule" during Trump's final year in office effectively changed the balance of the court from 5-4 favoring the liberal justices to 6-3 in favor of the conservatives. The new conservative majority is systematically reversing long standing precedent, ostensibly deferring to an originalist  judicial philosophy, but arguably simply using originalism to mask instituting a right wing agenda. 

So, despite 12-4, D's vs. R's in the last 16 years, there's potentially a lot of Republican damage still to be undone. So, despite Republican misrepresentation of her message, she's not suggesting that President Biden is leaving her a mess to fix, or that the "mess" is the result of Democratic mismanagement, but that the job isn't done. 

Harris' campaign philosophy is also partly focusing on the danger that a second Trump term means, separate from any damage that still remains undone during the last three and a half years. I've written regularly on why a second Trump term would be a disaster for the country, so I won't recount it all now, but Harris is prioritizing reminding the electorate of the cons of a Trump presidency, especially since there seems to be some amnesia about some of what went on during his term. 

As with any politician, there are legitimate areas of Harris' record and her proposed agenda, that are subject to criticism. This isn't one of them.

Candidates' Policies - Part II

Is there one single voter out there who is in the dark about how either Trump or Harris will govern if elected? What off-the-grid corner of the backwoods are these people living in? I suppose there are true conservatives, disgusted with Trump, who might be persuaded to vote for a Democrat or an Independent, or far-left liberals who don't think the Democratic Party is progressive enough, or amnesiacs who remember the low inflation days of the Trump administration but have blocked out the whole of 2020. Theoretically these people exist, but "c'mon man" (as President Biden would exclaim) - what cave are they living in?

Any of us who pay the slightest attention to politics (the governor of Nebraska is excluded from this demographic) knows that despite a president's best (or worst) intentions, there are two other co-equal branches of government. The last time a president had a Congress that (mostly) supported his agenda was 2008, when President Obama had a large Democratic majority in the House and 60 Democrats in the Senate - a filibuster-proof majority. After this election either party could control either house of Congress, with a likely single digit majority in the House and a one seat majority at most in the Senate. Hardly the scenario for tyranny of the majority. 

For the most part we know the broad strokes of how each candidate would govern, whether you like either's policies or personality or not. And since we are a de facto two party system, both of the major parties need to be "big tent" organizations, welcoming a range of views. We know what Trump was like since he was the president for four years, and we know how Harris most likely would govern - she was in the Senate, has a long career of public service, has been in the public eye as Vice President and has not been reticent about her goals as president. We also know that a lot of what any candidate says during a campaign is to get people excited, encourage the base to show up on Election Day and yes, maybe draw in those eleven people who are yet undecided. 

What is the right way for a candidate to get their message across? Well certainly not by succumbing to the "standards" that their opponents have set.  Donald Trump was certainly successful in 2016 by setting his own rules. He ignored all norms and "the way it's done" by insulting his way through the early debates, the primaries and the general election campaign. He refused to release his tax returns as had been customary for 40 years. His campaign rallies were more religious tent meetings than political gatherings. He was unapologetically hateful. He famously was asked after the election whether he regretted his divisive rhetoric, "No, I won didn't I?" was his response. But now, VP Harris is being criticized for not having a platform on her website and for not yet doing a sit down interview. Why does she need to do either of those things? I refer you back to the first paragraph. 

There's is no one who doesn't know, at least in general terms, what Harris stands for. She has been in politics for a long time, she makes speeches, she has done interviews, she's done a few rallies. The Democratic convention is next week - we'll see a platform and we'll hear her speak again. She's a Democrat! The calls for her to do things differently than how she's doing them come from her opponents, not from her supporters, the same people who were apoplectic about the supposedly undemocratic method of her nomination as the Democratic candidate for president - that Democrats understood was the best way to move forward and defeat Trump. 

Listen to what she's saying...she's speaking!

The Candidates' Policies - Part I

Vice President Harris has been criticized lately for (1) not sitting down for a long interview with the press and (2) not listing her agenda or policy platform on her website. She is contrasted with Trump, who has sat down for "interviews" and has something that he calls a "platform" on his website. Set aside for a a moment the ridiculous notion that there is anyone out there who is genuinely ignorant of the contrast in governing styles of the two candidates and consider Trump's "platform". I'm going too look at the more ridiculous claims, or those that are so vague as to be worthless. All of the following are from Trump's campaign website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform . My comments are in bold italics.

End inflation, and make America affordable again

Okay - so when Harris puts forth a specific plan, that's Communism, but when Trump suggests it. How specifically does he plan on "ending inflation"? Is he talking about bringing prices back down to pre-2024 levels? What about wages? 

Defend our constitution, our bill of rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms

What does any of this look like? When he was president the only amendment he thought worth defending was the Second. He is on record as wanting to weaken the freedom of the press. 

Prevent world war three, restore peace in Europe and in the middle east, and build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country -- all made in America

Of course no specifics on any of this. Does he even know what the 'Iron Dome' even is?

End the weaponization of government against the American people

We all know that he believes that his legal troubles are some kind of government persecution. This from the guy who encouraged his followers to "lock her up" and is on record as wanting to go after President Biden and any other enemies as revenge for his own prosecutions. 

Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations

The mandate that doesn't exists? Or is he for electric vehicles now that the owner of Tesla is being nice to him?

Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children

More things that aren't happening?

Deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again

He thinks anyone who criticizes Israel is "pro-Hamas". Is he talking about deporting American citizens?

Secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship

He literally tried to overturn the last presidential election

Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success

In the Trump dictionary "unite" means muzzle dissent

Okay, so he has a list that he is calling a policy platform. Where it's not vague it's either dangerous or an unworkable fantasy. He's also being praised, and contrasted positively with Harris because he's sitting down for interviews and inviting reporters in for press conferences. Let's not get too excited about those either. The one with Elon Musk was a lot of softball questions. His press conferences are invitation only. When he gets tough questions he goes on the attack, or rambles incoherently. 

So I don't know what we're learning from these performances that we didn't already know.

 

Taxing Tips

 Now that both major candidates have come out in favor of making tips tax exempt, I have to ask “why?”. Other than pandering to the powerful hospitality industry unions in Nevada.

Tips are income and are considered taxable – subject to income & payroll taxes. In the past, when tips were primarily given in cash, and IRS regulations were looser (or nonexistent) it was easier to avoid reporting some or all of them as income - but they've always been taxable income. With most payments now being made by card or app, virtually all tips go through the employer with income and payroll tax withheld from paychecks. Even with the dwindling number of cash tips, the IRS has been tightening reporting requirements.

There’s a myth that the IRS requires that employers assume that servers receive a certain percentage of the gross sales in tips and withhold income & payroll taxes on that amount whether or not they actually received that amount of tips. The IRS DOES mandate that employees report ALL tips to their employer and that the employer consider those taxes as income & withhold taxes accordingly. If the total reported tips for a business falls below 8% the employer is also required to allocate the difference between the actual percentage and 8% among all tipped employees. (This might be the origin of the myth) This shows up in a separate box on an employee's W-2. The employee must add this amount to the total gross income unless they can provide records to show that their actual tips were less. (Which is why keeping a tip record is important) 

What I do not think is legal is for an employer to assume that servers receive a certain percentage of the gross sales as tips and withhold income & payroll taxes accordingly. (No taxes are withheld from the allocated amounts) I understand that this happens, illegal or not, but I don’t know what recourse an employee has if it’s happening. Bottom line is that it’s not the responsibility of the employer to confirm that 100% of tips are being reported, their only responsibility is to remit the taxes that they collect based on wages plus reported tips .

I understand that employees who depend on tips are in a different boat than hourly or salaried employees. I’ve always known what my pay was going to be before going to work – a tipped employee never knows. But it’s still INCOME. I’d focus more on making those who derive their income from non-wage sources (dividends and so-called carried interest etc.) pay the same income tax rates as wage earners and remove the cap on social security taxes. And speaking of Social Security, if you artificially depress your income by not reporting tips, the amount of income that is used to calculate your eventually Social Security benefits will necessarily be much lower.

Single Issue Voters

Something I have encountered a lot lately is the right-wing one-issue voter who pretends to not be a one-issue voter. A conversation might go like this:

Other guy: I can't vote for Democratic candidate "A", he thinks we should have open borders
Me: [debunks that position]

Other guy: Yeah, but [presents garbled attack on his military service]

Me: Here's a news article debunking that

Other guy: [Yet another unsubstantiated position]

Me: [Easy debunking]

Other guy: Well, he believes in killing babies!

And there you have it. You can expound upon women's bodily autonomy or the immorality of forcing women to put their lives in danger or the ethics of requiring rape victims to give birth to their rapist's baby all day long, but you're going to make no headway against someone who believes that the moment of conception is the start of a fully human life, i.e. "a baby". Anyone who believes that is not statistically likely to be open to debate about the subject and fully believes that an abortion is "killing a baby". 

But this post isn't really about abortion (I get similar reductive "arguments" that end with equating gender-affirming care with "mutilating children"), it's about derailing every political policy discussion and disregarding it in favor of that one issue. If abortion is the issue that overrides every other issue, if it doesn't matter if the pro-choice candidate is for literally every other issue that you think is important, or if the anti-abortion candidate is against literally every other issue that you think is important, then don't waste my time bringing up the border, or taxes, or inflation and just tell me you can't vote for any candidate who is pro-choice. 

Then we can go about our respective days.

So, You Want To Join a Cult - Never Mind, You Already Have

Part of being in a cult is that you don't realize that you're in a cult. 

"No one wakes up in the morning, and after a shower and that first cup of coffee, decides that they’re going to join a cult. No one approached by someone with an engaging smile and an encyclopedic knowledge of the bible thinks “Cool! A cult! Just what I’ve been looking for!” Yet, every day in America, people join up with groups that are labelled cults."
So, You Want To Join a Cult - Part I- Aes Duir Blog

But it's not just religions that spawn cults. The most insidious cult in America right now is the MAGA  Cult, the cult of the man I call "Losin' Don", Donald J. Trump - former President of the United States. 

It didn't start out as a cult - they never do. I don't think it even started out as a serious run for the presidency. 2015 seems like a lifetime ago, but Trump's announcement that he was running for the Republican Party presidential nomination seemed like a big joke. There was no shortage of respectable, experienced, serious contenders among the crowd of Republican governors and senators. But Trump stood out from that crowd. Not because he had any new and exciting ideas, or had a proven track record of leadership, but because he was brash, loud and Americans love a spectacle. 

American politics is seldom about who is best qualified. In a crowded primary field there is a feedback loop of polls and money. Those with name recognition have an early advantage - in polls conducted before any voting takes place typically no one receives anywhere near a majority, but the ones that lead the pack are viewed as "winners" and receive the lion's share of funding, enabling them to run ads to increase their name recognition. News organizations stop paying attention to those with low poll numbers, reinforcing the name recognition of the leaders. Voters, if they're thinking at all, start considering "electability". They figure that if Candidate "A" is polling so low and isn't attracting much in donations, he or she can't win in the general election, so they slowly (or not so slowly) fade away and have to drop out. Trump benefitted from all of this. As people began to drop out it became a contest between Trump and various "not-Trumps". 

Even after he secured the Republican nomination, I'm not sure if it was a cult yet. There were still plenty of Never Trumpers in the Republican Party who wished he would just go away, but once a nominee is chosen, the parties typically close ranks around their candidate. In the general election the irrational hatred that many people had for Hillary Clinton made the difference. Many voters who would have voted for Senator Sanders or Vice President Biden held their noses and voted for Trump. "How bad could it be?" many Republicans thought, "We'll keep him in line".  

It was once Trump was elected that the vast army of his voters transitioned from an amorphous mob into a cult. It was when he had the power of the presidency that he began to wield his power as a cult leader. 

The Way, the cult that I was a member of, started out as just another rural small town church. From the mid fifties to the mid sixties its leader was just a guy who travelled around teaching his Bible class and holding services at his family's farmstead. It wasn't until the sixties were almost over when he convinced a bunch of hippies that he had "The Truth" that he was able to turn his small potatoes operation into a worldwide movement with him as the virtually infallible head of it all. 

Something that all cult leaders love is persecution. It allows them to present themselves as fighting against the evil system. I used to hear how when we were being attacked it showed how the Devil was worried and was trying to stop us. This soon became the line that Trump and his followers took. According to them, everything that Trump did was godly and patriotic, therefore anyone who opposed him was satanic and un-American. Any reporting that pointed out his corruption, or even his policy mistakes, was fake news. News organizations were "the enemy of the people". Other politicians were "treasonous" or "traitors" and should be "locked up". 

One of the characteristics of cults that is often overlooked is the fear of looking stupid. I don't subscribe to the idea that cult members are brainwashed (at least in most cases), but that they have so much time and energy invested that they can't bring themselves to admit that they may have been wrong. (I wrote some blog posts about this concept Brainwashing, Deprogramming). Trump's followers have made MAGA such a part of their identity that any suggestion that Trump was a bad president, or indeed any criticism at all of him, becomes a personal attack. They support positions that Trump holds that are in direct opposition to their own long-held beliefs and do so without any awareness of the contradiction inherent therein. Two examples illustrate this phenomenon:

At one time mainstream Republicans were the party of moral uprightness (or so they claimed). To them the Democrats were the party of hedonism, licentiousness, and ungodliness. In the nineties they viewed the Clintons as prime examples of this. Much of the conservative opposition to Clinton was ostensibly due to his sexual escapades with an intern in his White House office. They prized religious piety as a characteristic to which politicians should aspire. (We'll ignore for now their dislike for Carter, the most visibly Christian of all recent presidents) Yet with Trump, who has cheated on all his wives, has a history of behaving unethically in his business dealings, and is seemingly ignorant of even the basics of Christianity is viewed as a messiah figure, sent by God to save the nation and its Christian citizens. This isn't hyperbole. Many Christians compare Trump to Cyrus, a Persian monarch who according to the Bible, freed the Jews and allowed them to return to Israel and rebuild their temple. And is called "messiah" in the Bible. This is not something that is believed by a tiny fringe, but is a widespread belief among Trump followers. 

The other example is more recent. Trump followers tend to be Second Amendment absolutists. They made Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two people and seriously wounded a third during a protest in Kenosha Wisconsin, into a hero. Kyle was all-in with MAGA world and even had a personal meeting with Trump. Trump people loved him and defended him in social media, viewing his actions as perfect examples of self defense, and why gun ownership is a sacred right. Kyle reciprocated with unqualified support of Trump. Trump, however, isn't a Second Amendment absolutist, he changes his positions when it's convenient - if he even has core beliefs other than securing a payday for himself. Last week Rittenhouse posted on X that he thought Trump was weak on the Second Amendment and could no longer support him or vote for him in November. The reaction from the MAGAverse was swift and vicious. The thousands of Trump acolytes, instead of considering that Murderin' Kyle might have a point and having an open debate about Trump's Second Amendment bona fides, decried Rittenhouse's words as lack of loyalty. The previously holy Second Amendment took second place to their holy avatar, Donald Trump. 

One might ascribe the obstinacy of Trump voters to a simple desire to see conservative politics overcome liberalism. And in a general election where Democrats are demonized as socialists, communists and pedophiles, that may be part of it, but what about their fealty to him even against other Republicans? Trump has convinced his faithful that politicians whose conservative credentials are unimpeachable, like Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz and former Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse are Republicans In Name Only (RINOs). Republicans who could have been much more efficient at advancing a conservative agenda have been lumped in with far left lawmakers and as equally worthy of MAGA scorn. They had a chance to nominate someone else this time around. Ron DeSantis, as unlikeable as he is, has proved as governor of Florida that he knows how to implement the MAGA agenda, but he is efficient - he knows how to get things done (as much as I dislike those "things"). Nikki Haley, as much as she toed the right wing line, was actually a fairly moderate governor. Nonetheless, Trump got at least 50% of the vote in all but one primary. 

Not everybody who votes for Trump is in his cult. Some people just hold their noses and vote against the Democratic candidate, because they dislike the Democrats' policies. Even among the cultified, there's a continuum. There's the full-blown nut jobs who fly giant Trump flags, wear their red MAGA hats wherever they go and will tell anyone within earshot how God saved him that day in Pennsylvania and that "he alone" can save our country. These are usually the same people who still believe that Hillary Clinton was running a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant that didn't have a basement. There's the people who perhaps don't view Trump in religious terms but rationalize the January 6th riots at The Capitol as just another group of tourists and think that California legalized "abortion" after birth. There's the people who are convinced that Trump loves our country and is a godly man. He has convinced people that it's a good thing to be friendly with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un but to antagonize and insult our allies. He has convinced his minions that the 2020 election was stolen and has people calling him "the rightful president", and is priming them to believe it again if he loses this year. 

Most Trump supporters will say that they don't agree with everything Trump does and don't put him on a pedestal, but won't admit to anything that they really disagree with and excuse and rationalize any behavior that they would abhor in anyone else. If that's not a cult, I don't know what is. 

Hell Yes I'm Voting for Harris

Since the last blog post Vice President Harris has emerged as the uncontested presumptive nominee. While I would have voted for Biden's uneaten half a ham and cheese sandwich before I'd vote for Losin' Don, or facilitate his election by voting for any of the independent candidates, Harris is actually a Democrat who I'd be voting for, rather than just against Donnie Two-Scoops. Why?

In general, most of the electable potential nominees in the Democratic Party are going to govern a similar manner. They're going to be broadly left-of-center with a nod to the progressive wing without alienating the moderate base. They all have some government experience and therefore know how things work, know the extent and limits of presidential power and they understand that working with Congress is not optional. If there are vacancies on the Supreme Court they would all appoint liberal-leaning justices and do the same for the other federal courts. They all understand the importance of strong international alliances and the need for mutual support of those allies. So why Harris?

Two reasons. During her short time in the Senate the tenacious way she held administration officials accountable was inspiring. Not in a "getting social media likes" manner, not in the rude way some members of Congress treat those who testify, but as one would expect from a former prosecutor, by cutting right to the heart of matters. Her rise through various levels of government show a familiarity with the system that would serve her well juggling the myriad responsibilities of the presidency. Secondly, as a practical matter, since she is the Vice President she is the logical choice to step up and run for the highest office in the land. Skipping over her in favor of one more White dude would have alienated some of the Democrats' core constituencies. That's not something that they could or should risk this late in the game. 

I've heard a lot of criticism about the Democrats' "undemocratic" elevation of Harris. Although the criticism is mainly coming, not from other Democrats, but from Republicans and so-called neutral observers. Most of this criticism is based on a lack of understanding of how the nomination process works as well as an ignorant view of just how impossible an operationally feasible plan for opening up the nomination to "the people". One thing I keep a hearing is that the Democratic party should have run another primary to give people a choice. "A" primary? That's a fantasy: (1) There isn't a national primary (2) Each state party in cooperation with the state government, sets its own rules for primaries. - How long do you think it would take for candidates to come forward, ballots to be printed and the whole machinery of an election geared up? Hint: it's measured in months. I've asked people to tell me how this could have been accomplished and no one can come up with an answer other than "They should figure it out". Heck, you can tell me I should drive to New York and arrive by tomorrow morning, but no amount of "figuring it out" is going to make it possible. 

The other issue is the lack of understanding from the "We're a republic, not a democracy" crowd. When you vote for a candidate for president in a primary or caucus you're actually voting for a slate of delegates who are pledged to vote for that candidate at the convention in the first round of voting. The delegates represent us. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, or a candidate drops out then the delegates are free to vote for whoever they think best represent the party and can win. Which is the situation we are in. Besides, all of the plausible Democratic candidates had resigned themselves to standing aside for Biden, and wisely chose to do the same for Harris in the cause of party unity. And do we really think that Harris is going to drive away anyone who had planned to vote for Biden? At the very least she'll bring in some voters who would have sat out due to being uncomfortable with Biden's age and its attendant weaknesses.  

I don't care about her laugh. I don't care about accusations that she slept her way into politics. I certainly don't care whether she is Black or Indian or what my fellow White people think about her heritage. What I care about is that she is our best chance to keep Losin' Don out of the White House and that she is well suited to lead our nation.