Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

14546485051

Comments

  • stetson--

    I respectfully disagree.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    stetson--

    I respectfully disagree.

    On what grounds?
  • stetson--

    He absolutely *is* massively dysfunctional, broken, most likely mentally ill. (So much so that many, many mental health professionals have broken protocol, and publicly stated how dangerous they think he is.) He spurs on white supremacism. According to his own statements, he's a sexual predator (though he didn't use that term).

    IMHO: for T, 99.5% of the time, *everything* is about getting and keeping adulation, power, and love (as he understands love to be). His father taught all the kids that only winners deserve to be loved. He almost always has to twist a conversation to feed that--no matter how untrue his statements are. (Then there's the matter of whether he does that consciously.) Everything he does has to be defined as being better than anything anyone else has ever done. Etc.

    I respectfully disagreed because we've had this conversation before, and ISTM you honestly don't see what so many other people see plainly. Some Shipmates who originally didn't think T would be much of a problem eventually realized he is a severe problem.

    You have a right to your perspective and belief. But since you can't see the problems that many worried people see, and are quite firm in that, there's not much point in an extended discussion with you about that, and it might well become a "more heat than light" situation.
  • Mmm. I think that Trump is indeed a big problem, but the bigger problem is that many people not only supported him to become elected, but also look at what he's doing now and like what they see.

    It will be a very good thing if Trump is defeated this November but it will not represent "back to normal politics" or anything like it. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 16
    Mmm. I think that Trump is indeed a big problem, but the bigger problem is that many people not only supported him to become elected, but also look at what he's doing now and like what they see.

    It will be a very good thing if Trump is defeated this November but it will not represent "back to normal politics" or anything like it. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

    Yes. And it was the Republican Party that willingly let him out of the bottle. So either they are as mentally ill as he allegedly is(whatever the mass equivalent of a folie a deux is), or they are cynically allowing him to indulge his psychotic tendencies, in order to hang onto power. Either way, a party that's willing to carry on it that manner was severely fucked-up long before he came along.

    And that's assuming that Trump can, in fact, be explained by mental illness, as opposed to just general assholery. For the people pushing the psychiatric analysis, I'd be curious to know which specific policies of Trump's can be explained by mental illness.

    (And FWIW, I don't think "obsessed with being loved and admired" is a mental illness in the same way that, say, waking up one morning and involuntarily hearing voices that aren't there is.)
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    He absolutely *is* massively dysfunctional, broken, most likely mentally ill. (So much so that many, many mental health professionals have broken protocol, and publicly stated how dangerous they think he is.)
    I remember one mental health professional though saying that a mental illness is a condition that causes the person distress or other difficulty. Trump's condition causes distress and difficulty to other people.

    Don't stigmatise mentally ill people by associating them with Trump. Narcissism, sociopathy, and idiocy are not mental illnesses
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    He absolutely *is* massively dysfunctional, broken, most likely mentally ill. (So much so that many, many mental health professionals have broken protocol, and publicly stated how dangerous they think he is.)
    I remember one mental health professional though saying that a mental illness is a condition that causes the person distress or other difficulty. Trump's condition causes distress and difficulty to other people.

    Yes, and as for the effect on Trump himself:

    His statements and policies, even at their most extreme, appeal to a certain section of the electorate, thus maintaining his status as a serious contendor for re-election to the most powerful office in the world.

    IOW the results of his actions are pretty much what you would expect from someone acting on rational self-interest.

  • Mmm. I think that Trump is indeed a big problem, but the bigger problem is that many people not only supported him to become elected, but also look at what he's doing now and like what they see.

    It will be a very good thing if Trump is defeated this November but it will not represent "back to normal politics" or anything like it. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
    Funny, the Republican party spent so many years speaking in code only to find out it is not necessary.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Mmm. I think that Trump is indeed a big problem, but the bigger problem is that many people not only supported him to become elected, but also look at what he's doing now and like what they see.

    It will be a very good thing if Trump is defeated this November but it will not represent "back to normal politics" or anything like it. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
    Funny, the Republican party spent so many years speaking in code only to find out it is not necessary.

    Well, statements like "There are good people on both sides" is a dog-whistle(aka code), because it's pandering to those who think the good people are all on one side(ie. the white-supremacist side), but leaves them the option of saying "See? He's not praising the neo-Confederates ONLY!"

    Same with "All lives matter", which in the context of the issue in question, basically means you don't want to do anything about racist violence against blacks. But, read technically, includes black lives in the category of those which matter.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    No reason you can't giggle AND cheer. Great article -- thanks for the link.
  • stetson wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Mmm. I think that Trump is indeed a big problem, but the bigger problem is that many people not only supported him to become elected, but also look at what he's doing now and like what they see.

    It will be a very good thing if Trump is defeated this November but it will not represent "back to normal politics" or anything like it. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
    Funny, the Republican party spent so many years speaking in code only to find out it is not necessary.

    Well, statements like "There are good people on both sides" is a dog-whistle(aka code), because it's pandering to those who think the good people are all on one side(ie. the white-supremacist side), but leaves them the option of saying "See? He's not praising the neo-Confederates ONLY!"

    Same with "All lives matter", which in the context of the issue in question, basically means you don't want to do anything about racist violence against blacks. But, read technically, includes black lives in the category of those which matter.
    OK, OK; he's reduced the code to grade 1 level instead of eliminating it.
  • Mmm. I think that Trump is indeed a big problem, but the bigger problem is that many people not only supported him to become elected, but also look at what he's doing now and like what they see.

    It will be a very good thing if Trump is defeated this November but it will not represent "back to normal politics" or anything like it. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

    But trump, is he the only genie in the bottle. It's a big bottle and he has lots of company. That there's actually a competitive election and he's in it shows that. And that he won a previous one.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    I'm not sure that using the *word* "fascist" openly and approvingly is necessarily a major tipping point, on its own. I'm more concerned about behavior. And that's already going on, much of it for years.

    My point is that once those on the right/alt right recognise who they are, any scruple is out the window. Yes, be concerned about the past and current behaviour, but once the right acknowledges what they are - and some of them assuredly will - then the time for pearl clutching will be long passed, if it has not already. I am quite sure that the open and approving use of "fascist" will give license to those straining at the bit. Fascism is the manifestation, usually in a capitalist, bourgeois context, of much darker instincts of collective identity and its expression through violence. I fear that once the word is used from within, its moment is at hand.

    I don't disagree with you, but it is worth noting that "anti-fascist" is an ideological identity that is distinct from mere opposition to fascism and has historical roots in the militant left, just as "anti-communist," when it appears in the names of organizations, has historically been a signifier of reactionary right-wing activism (and sometimes even fascism) and not just opposition to communism.

    I'm not saying organizing to oppose fascism is a leftist thing or that organizing to oppose communism is a rightist thing. Some of the strongest opponents of fascism have been on the right and some of the strongest opponents of communism have been on the left.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Mmm. I think that Trump is indeed a big problem, but the bigger problem is that many people not only supported him to become elected, but also look at what he's doing now and like what they see.

    It will be a very good thing if Trump is defeated this November but it will not represent "back to normal politics" or anything like it. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
    Funny, the Republican party spent so many years speaking in code only to find out it is not necessary.

    Well, statements like "There are good people on both sides" is a dog-whistle(aka code), because it's pandering to those who think the good people are all on one side(ie. the white-supremacist side), but leaves them the option of saying "See? He's not praising the neo-Confederates ONLY!"

    Same with "All lives matter", which in the context of the issue in question, basically means you don't want to do anything about racist violence against blacks. But, read technically, includes black lives in the category of those which matter.
    OK, OK; he's reduced the code to grade 1 level instead of eliminating it.

    He says the quiet bits out loud.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited September 16
    @stonespring I appreciate your embrace of complexity (e.g., right wing opposition to fascism), a rare commodity these days.

    I do disagree with your take on the genesis of "anti-fascist". Its origin as a common, popular label is in the Spanish Civil War (though one certainly finds it in the context of Italian politics before that), and the "anti-fascists" spanned from the Basque nationalists (tended to be very Catholic) to the Trotskyite POUM, so "anti-fascist" is not historically rooted in militant left, but in disparate groups which included the radical left, in defence of the Second Republic. I am quite comfortable describing myself as "anti-fascist" rather than merely opposed to fascism, and I'm not a militant leftist - though, in contemporary America I could be mistaken for a Trotskyite since most Americans wouldn't know an actual socialist if he/she/they bit him/her/them on the ass.
  • Dafyd--
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    He absolutely *is* massively dysfunctional, broken, most likely mentally ill. (So much so that many, many mental health professionals have broken protocol, and publicly stated how dangerous they think he is.)
    I remember one mental health professional though saying that a mental illness is a condition that causes the person distress or other difficulty. Trump's condition causes distress and difficulty to other people.

    Don't stigmatise mentally ill people by associating them with Trump. Narcissism, sociopathy, and idiocy are not mental illnesses

    --Ummmm...news to me if narcissism and sociopathy aren't mental illnesses. News to the diagnostic manual, too. NOTE: That article is from Very Well. I looked for online access to the DSM, but was difficult to find. But this article quotes the DSM diagnostic chapter and verse.

    --There are all sorts of mental illnesses, just like there are all sorts of physical illnesses. I happen to have both. I usually don't "own" the term "mental illness" (various kinds of depression, anxiety, SAD, etc., in my case) because of stigma (including from me!), and because they're more or less under control.

    --T is often called a "malignant narcissist" by mental health professionals who speak out. "Malignant Narcissism: Does the President Really Have It?" (Psychology Today, 2019) gives an overview.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 16
    Is malignant narcissism an actual organic brain disorder? Or more something like "His dad taught him that he should always be Number Fucking One, and he's never had any particular reason to question that"?

    I guess another way of asking this would be whether we should have the same sort of compassion for Trump that we would have for a schizophrenic whose chemical imbalances cause him to think the devil is trying to kill him.
  • Are *only* organic brain disorders mental illnesses?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Speaking of which:

    "Health Aide Pushes Bizarre Conspiracies and Warns of Armed Revolt" (New York Times, via Yahoo)

    Michael Caputo put out quite a live video on FB. (I've only read about it, not watched it.) I feel a little sorry for him: he mentions having mental health issues because of the Covid situation; he says he and his family have been threatened; and he's in a health-related job for which he has no experience nor training.

    He basically had a meltdown, live on FB. But/and he said and advocated things that are in tune with many people's fears and wonderings.

    Including stocking up on ammunition.

    Yikes.
    :votive:

    Word today is that Michael Caputo is taking two months off.
  • Trump's problem is not a mental illness, but a personality disorder. A personality disorder is a type of mental disorder in which you have a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking, functioning and behaving. A person with a personality disorder has trouble perceiving and relating to situations and people. This causes significant problems and limitations in relationships, social activities, work and school.

    In some cases, you may not realize that you have a personality disorder because your way of thinking and behaving seems natural to you. And you may blame others for the challenges you face.

    He has no problems, others do.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Are *only* organic brain disorders mental illnesses?

    Let's put it this way. I have a lot more sympathy for people suffering from organic brain disorder, than I do for someone suffering from stupid ideas pumped into his head as a kid, which they've never bothered to question. And I view the difference between the two as a difference of kind, not of degree.

    Okay, so Trump's dad told him it's okay to be a jerk if it makes you Number One. Some men teach their sons it's okay to slap around their wives and girlfriends. If one of those boys grows up and gets arrested for spousal abuse, should his lawyer be able to put forth an insanity defense?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Speaking of which:

    "Health Aide Pushes Bizarre Conspiracies and Warns of Armed Revolt" (New York Times, via Yahoo)

    Michael Caputo put out quite a live video on FB. (I've only read about it, not watched it.) I feel a little sorry for him: he mentions having mental health issues because of the Covid situation; he says he and his family have been threatened; and he's in a health-related job for which he has no experience nor training.

    He basically had a meltdown, live on FB. But/and he said and advocated things that are in tune with many people's fears and wonderings.

    Including stocking up on ammunition.

    Yikes.
    :votive:

    Word today is that Michael Caputo is taking two months off.

    I do feel for that guy. The horrible things he said were really bad, especially for someone in his position, and I am glad they seem to have been as a result of a breakdown. I wish him and his family well.
  • Oh, this is hilarious!

    "Trump Blames Biden, Who Isn't President, For Not Instituting Mask Mandate" (HuffPost, via Yahoo).

    And Biden's tweeted response, about 1/3 of the way down the page, is priceless.

    ROTFL.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Word today is that Michael Caputo is taking two months off.

    So that would mean he'd return to his job in . . . let's see . . . mid-November. What a coincidence of timing!
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited September 17
    LOL. But from his own statements, his behavior, and that live meltdown video, he really does need time off, and a whole lot of help.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Oh, this is hilarious!

    "Trump Blames Biden, Who Isn't President, For Not Instituting Mask Mandate" (HuffPost, via Yahoo).

    And Biden's tweeted response, about 1/3 of the way down the page, is priceless.

    ROTFL.

    Biden's social media team seems to be very good. Which is encouraging.
  • So what does everybody here think about Trump's war on TikTok? Seems to me it's just jingoistic chest-thumping more than anything else, but the Democrats are probably hesitant about criticizing it, for fear of being labelled agents of Chinese influence.

    If Trump really believes that China can use TikTok to hack strategically important information, wouldn't just banning it from the military and sensitive government departments be enough? Maybe throw in private sector companies that handle military contracts and whatnot.

    Or is there something about this I'm not understanding?

    I see where the ACLU is arguing that the ban is a First Amendment violation, though I'd imagine the government would reply that they're not trying to suppress the ideas that get expressed on the app, just the app itself.

    (And strictly from a PR angle, I gotta say, this is a pretty bad look for the US: "Ha ha ha! The most powerful nation on the planet is terrified of being brought down by teenagers twerking in their pajamas!")
  • Oh, I just saw an article saying that Trump now backs the Oracle deal, allowing TikTok to continue operating in the US. I assume this renders moot my post above?
  • I've read several places (sorry, I don't have the links) that Trump's anger with TikTok is that a lot of young people somehow used it to register for one of his rallies (Tulsa?) -- the one where he expected millions and all we saw were empty seats. He had put up extra seating and a stage outdoors -- all of which were removed, unused, before the rally even began.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I've read several places (sorry, I don't have the links) that Trump's anger with TikTok is that a lot of young people somehow used it to register for one of his rallies (Tulsa?) -- the one where he expected millions and all we saw were empty seats. He had put up extra seating and a stage outdoors -- all of which were removed, unused, before the rally even began.

    Yeah, I wasn't quite clear about who did what there, beyond that it was a variation on the old dirty-trick of assuring your opponent speaks in front of a huge but sparesely-filled room(other versions include calling all the attendees to inform them it's been cancelled).

    As for the cast of characters, from what I was able to piece together, I think the woman behind it was an adult, affiliated with the Lincoln Project, and she enlisted a bunch of K-Pop fans to book tickets that were never used. Maybe TikTok was involved somehow, though I'm not sure how that would work.

    (FWIW, the fact that we found out who was behind the stunt a day or so after it went down kinda shows it was an amateur-hour operation. You're not supposed to BRAG about your dirty tricks.)

  • If trump is going to lose, what might he concoct to reverse this? A war on Iran perhaps? given recognition of Israel by several mid-east countries on the Saudi side. He has to have given them something for this. Maybe he promised them to make war. Which would also have the helpful tendency of Americans to unite behind their president and thus get him re-elected.
  • I note that the owner of Oracle made a large contribution to the Trump campaign in 2016. Quid pro quo anyone?
  • I don't give a tinker's toss about the issue, but I do think that it is ridiculous for the Chinese Govt to be bitching about it, given the hoops they make international companies go through to get access to their markets, especially concerning IT.

    I hope Biden will continue an aggressive policy towards China. In my dreams, I would like to see primary producers selling into China operate a cartel, so that China can't play us off against each other. Right now, the CCP is putting the screws on us, banning our goods on spurious grounds and making up the shortfall by buying from the US and Canada. Last year it was the US in the bad books and us benefitting, and before that Canada was on the nose. This behavior, which is about politics, not trade, needs to get some serious, co-ordinated push back in the economic sector, and avoid the necessity for action in the military sector.
  • stetson wrote: »
    So what does everybody here think about Trump's war on TikTok? Seems to me it's just jingoistic chest-thumping more than anything else, but the Democrats are probably hesitant about criticizing it, for fear of being labelled agents of Chinese influence.

    If Trump really believes that China can use TikTok to hack strategically important information, wouldn't just banning it from the military and sensitive government departments be enough? Maybe throw in private sector companies that handle military contracts and whatnot.

    If we assume that Americans' personal data is in danger of being harvested by Chinese tech companies and passed along to the Chinese government (not an unreasonable assumption) it does not make sense to pursue one specific platform (TikTok) instead of pursing more comprehensive measures. But that would require effort and Trump is fundamentally lazy.

    On the other hand, maybe it's just a way to get rid of those Sarah Cooper videos mocking Trump.
  • stetson wrote: »
    ...
    (FWIW, the fact that we found out who was behind the stunt a day or so after it went down kinda shows it was an amateur-hour operation. You're not supposed to BRAG about your dirty tricks.)

    Since the targeted event was a rally and not an actual vote, I would put this into the prank category rather than dirty tricks. The whole point was to have Trump brag about how many tickets were reserved, see the mostly-empty arena, and throw a "Nobody came to my party! Waah!" tantrum.

    I'd definitely brag about that. The really impressive part was that nobody found out BEFORE, as the yoof are so often criticised for over-sharing.
  • stetson wrote: »
    ...
    (FWIW, the fact that we found out who was behind the stunt a day or so after it went down kinda shows it was an amateur-hour operation. You're not supposed to BRAG about your dirty tricks.)

    Since the targeted event was a rally and not an actual vote, I would put this into the prank category rather than dirty tricks. The whole point was to have Trump brag about how many tickets were reserved, see the mostly-empty arena, and throw a "Nobody came to my party! Waah!" tantrum.

    I'd definitely brag about that. The really impressive part was that nobody found out BEFORE, as the yoof are so often criticised for over-sharing.

    There was another point to the prank. The main purpose of the rallies isn't to provide publicity or boost Trump's ego (though they do that as well), it's to get names and contact info on likely Trump supporters who can then be mobilized as voters and volunteers. Such lists are campaign gold, and the list for the Tulsa rally was essentially unusable because it contained so many false leads. I suspect this was a major contributing factor to Brad Parscale, who organized the rally and failed to notice what was happening in advance, being ejected as Trump's campaign manager.
  • And Biden's social media campaign has another clever hit. Be sure to have the sound on for this one.
  • @Soror Magna

    In its common usage, I don't think the phrase "dirty trick" has to involve the vote itself. In fact, the most famous examples that come to mind didn't involve elections per se.

    Nixon's "Canuck Letter", for example, in which Republican operatives sent a fake letter to a newspaper from someone claiming to have overheard Edmund Muskie using slurs against French Canadians, is referred to as a dirty trick.

    (That did take place during a primary, but it wasn't the voting process itself that was being fucked with.)

    And the reason I thought one shouldn't brag about the ticket trick is that it looks worse for Trump if people think that he actually couldn't fill an arena in a solidly Republican state.
  • Right now, I'm watching the PBS "Frontline" special "The Choice 2020: Trump vs. Biden" (PBS).

    Frontline is an investigative series; and, before each presidential general election, it does a "The Choice" special about the candidates. This one premieres tonight (9/22/20), and runs just under 2 hours. You can watch it on the site, and there's also a transcript.

    I'm about a half hour in. Good, so far. Sorry for T's childhood. I like a story Biden's sister (?) told about him. B was in Catholic school, had to read something aloud, and his stutter and reading difficulties kicked in. The nun who was his teacher made fun of him. He walked out of school, and all the way home. On hearing what happened, his mom hauled him back to school to see the nun. IIRC, the gist of the conversation was: "Did you make fun of my son?" "Well, I..." "Did you make fun of my son?" "Well, I..." "The answer is 'yes', you did. And if you ever, EVER do it again, I will come back and knock your bonnet off!"
    :)

    Anyway, worth watching.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    I wish she had said "I'll rumple your wimple."
  • Not the same implications to those two phrases.
  • No surprise here: Trump will not commit to a peaceful transition if he losses. Going to get interesting. Many Republican Senators are putting distance between Trump and them now.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    edited September 25
    Not distance enough, though. No further than their lips, glued to his you=know-what, will stretch.
  • I am having a deja-vu moment. I could have sworn Trump has been saying stuff like this for a good six months and that McConnell and Co have been going hrumph hrumph that could never happen here mumble mumble like those two old blokes from The Muppet Show.
  • IIRC, he occasionally said it, in a low-key way. Possibly floating the idea? But he's been saying it more and more, in a much more brazen, "I'm in control" way.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    IIRC, he occasionally said it, in a low-key way. Possibly floating the idea? But he's been saying it more and more, in a much more brazen, "I'm in control" way.

    Donald Trump doesn't do anything low-key. He's been fairly open about how he intends to cheat in the upcoming election. What's frustrating is the American political press' assumption is that anything which is done openly can't be corrupt or criminal. At any rate, the real question isn't "What if Donald Trump doesn't concede defeat?" or "What if Donald Trump resist the transfer of power if he loses?", it's "What is Donald Trump going to do to make sure there's no clear outcome in the 2020 presidential election?"

    A couple of data points. First from The Altantic:
    December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

    We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

    Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

    To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law.

    I recommend reading the full thing. You can see the play: complain loudly about "fraudulent" mail-in ballots, declare that the vote is too compromised to be valid, and get states with Republican legislatures to simply appoint your slate of electors.

    Next from the New York Times:
    I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices. This scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation, if you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8-0 or 9-0. But just in case it would be more political than it should be, I think it’s very important to have a ninth justice.

    So Trump believes that the Supreme Court, not the voters or the electoral college, will install the next president and wants to make sure he gets another of his picked appointees on the Court before that happens to make sure he "wins". My guess is that he's already discussed this with his pick and someone on the Judiciary Committee should ask her about that, and ask whether they'd recuse themselves in any such case. Kamala Harris sits on the Judiciary Committee but someone else should probably ask that question.

    In short, Trump's statements and actions aren't those of a man trying to win an election, they are those of a man who knows he'd lose any fair vote and is using whatever means are at his disposal to make sure the vote isn't fair.
  • Someone like Murkowski, or another less controversial Republican, and ancient, wizend one, should ask that question of whatsherface - Trump's pick.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Someone like Murkowski, or another less controversial Republican, and ancient, wizend one, should ask that question of whatsherface - Trump's pick.

    Unfortunately Senator Murkowski does not sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your choice of Republicans in that venue are Trump toady Lindsey Graham, the fossilized Chuck Grassley, John Cornyn, who's facing a tough re-election race and needs the support of Trump's followers, Mike Lee of Utah, ambulatory lard sculpture Ted Cruz, the perpetually concerned but never active Ben Sasse, the rabidly anti-abortion Josh Hawley, Trump cheerleader Thom Tillis, Sarah Palin knockoff Joni Ernst, drunk driver Mike Crapo, John Kennedy (no, not that John Kennedy), and former Trump transition team vice chair Marsha Blackburn. The only Judiciary Committee Republican I can see asking Judge Barrett about the election and recusal is Mike Lee, and that's a very low probability outcome.
  • not Grassley?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    not Grassley?

    Considering the way he's been willing to run interference for Trump in Russia-related matters, I'd say Grassley is all in for Trump.
Sign In or Register to comment.