"Trump hates debates not least because his knowledge of political topics is weak"
That's being charitable; I'd say "non-existent" rather than "weak."
However, I'm fairly sure the ReThugly-cans and ultra-wealthy don't care as long as they can "continue to pocket disproportionate shares of the national wealth" and impose their morally bank…
"Trump hates debates not least because his knowledge of political topics is weak"
That's being charitable; I'd say "non-existent" rather than "weak."
However, I'm fairly sure the ReThugly-cans and ultra-wealthy don't care as long as they can "continue to pocket disproportionate shares of the national wealth" and impose their morally bankrupt, racist and inhumane policies on the rest of us. (Speaking as a female POC myself)
Sadly, tfg is so illiterate in all aspects of politics and leadership, that we will return to pre-civil war days should he be placed on his imaginary throne in the WH. I, for one, will not be able to abide it -- but where to go?!!!!
My exact thoughts of late. I try to remain hopeful and positive in the fight to right our capsizing democracy, but it becomes more difficult by the day. Sadly, not only is tfg illiterate on politics and leadership, his worshiping followers are blissfully ignorant on civic society.
Nobody chasing me out of my country. Here to the end, making noise until I can't.
But I do think we are headed towards some sort of "Two Americas" to quote the ill fated John Edwards. No idea how it will look. But I suspect there will be authoritarian states and democratic/progressive states. I feel pretty safe in MA. But I see a time when I won't even consider traveling to certain states. The list is obvious.
Hi Ashley - I wish I had your confidence. Look at our Senators. Blackburn (my favorite punching bag) won going away. That speaks worlds to me. Like Tuberville in AL - wasn't even close. A giant thumb in the eye of progressive thinking people in those states.
Jay, it’s not confidence as much as a glass half full mindset. In this Blue corner, I’m doing my part to keep the cerulean waves rolling for my children and their generation of leaders.
They foolishly think his power is helping them and making there lives better. You only need to lol at where we rank (healthcare, literacy, education, etc) and that will tell you all you need to know. Unfortunately blue Lexington & Louisville can’t carry the rest of the red state.
You can’t expect a person that is beyond mentally deficient, way below the level of a moronic simpleton, to be able to present intelligent arguments in a political debate. That’s what we were treated to in the last presidential debates, no wonder they don’t want to demonstrate his ignorance to the world, it makes him look like the imbecilic clown that he is.
I wish Trump was stupid. He was clever enough to manipulate a large portion of this country into voting for his hateful nativist rhetoric and overlooking his corrupt cabinet. Underestimating the enemies of our great democracy is counterproductive. And don't think only one party is to blame just because it is the lesser of two evils.
True. Nevertheless, he's the front man giving the final ok. That said, I hold his enablers more responsible b/c at one time they were responsible people; they've given that up now. But he's always been irresponsible and totally narcissistic.
He is evil, but no genius. Neither is he intelligent, but woefully ignorant. He has a native cunning and is manipulative, magnified by his father's harping. I am still of the belief that along the way he was chosen by authoritarians who knew that if they massaged him correctly he could be utilized as a useful idiot. He is very dangerous, despite his pea-sized brain.
"Trump hates debates not least because his knowledge of political topics is weak...." For Trump to conflate NATO with the UN after having spent four years as POTUS is beyond imagination. That HALF of self identified Republicans still view the idiot in a favorable light is .... beyond description. So my question is this: Should these people be allowed to vote? We requite a written test before even allowing a person to drive a car. How about imposing an IQ test on voters? I would think 85 would be a good cutoff point!
Mary do you remember at the Summit when he said that Germany owes the US money because "they haven't paid up". He thought, somehow in his demented mind that NATO was a business for the US. I'll never forget the look on Merkels face. What a buffoon.
Yes! And the look on Merkel's face was priceless (also her grimace when Dubya rubbed her shoulders). She couldn't contain her astonishment. I loved that about her.
"So my question is this: Should these people be allowed to vote?" George - I have thought long and hard on this very thing over the years. And I have concluded that, at the risk of being accused of "both-siderism", many folks who vote progressive also are essentially illiterate on important issues, although they are not as dangerous to democracy. So I think they tend to cancel each other out. Instead, we must focus on free and fair elections, no gerrymandering or voter restriction measures, or other ways to misrepresent the will of the voters. In other words a fair fight. Let's see who comes out on top. I am pretty confident the good guys (progressives) will win every time. And the battle lines will move left, where there is actually sanity on either side.
I know it's tempting to set some kind of "information" standard. But I think there is too much risk of abuse (poll taxes, literacy tests etc used by southern states to get around the 15th ammendment.) When I spoke to a friend of mine from Pakistan about the test he had to take for citizenship, I remember seeing some questions that I wasn't sure I could answer! So for me the work should be around free and fair elections and civics education. And better messaging against the lies and "mis" information! Blessings and Happy Easter, Happy Passover.
THIS! It is soooo disconcerting that both some of my kindest but not bright friends and other, very intelligent friends voted for 45, and still believe "he's not that bad, all politicians are corrupt." They disbelieve the FACTS of his cruel and immoral actions, policies, and words!!
Very frustrating to me, so I've had to step back from those former friends for my own sanity.
No. That requirement has been misused before and should not be used again. Just WHO decides what someone should know before voting? I know very educated people with frightening ideas. And I know people who, for various reasons, can barely read, but who pay attention and have good insight on issues. IQ is a poorly defined and badly designed construct for almost anything. And 85 is a number right out of the eugenics movement. Think on THAT for a minute.
If " IQ is a poorly defined and badly designed construct for almost anything", how would you characterize an individual's capacity to cast an "intelligent", which is to say "well informed" vote? Within the context of their own logic, of course, unless they don't do "logic". Eugenics? You think I'm a Nazi for dropping a number like "85". OK, you pick one. I think you're playing word games here. My only point was that we are are doing ourselves no favor by allowing people who won't be bothered to vote on the basis of anything more than a warm fuzzy feeling (wherever they experience it) when they hear a catchy phrase like "Make America Great Again".
IQ is a number standing in for a wide range of possible definitions of intelligence, George. There are many kinds of intelligence, and the number assigned from assessments or tests are limited in their ability to judge a person's capacity in even the areas they are designed for. No, I am not playing word games. I am pointing out that your understanding of what IQ stands for seems to derive from the 1940s. As for "85", you might understand that better if you undertook to read the history of IQ testing and their purpose. You read something into what I said that wasn't there.
Remember, we used to have "tests," especially in the South, where to qualify to vote you'd have to answer convoluted questions, look at a jar of jellybeans and guess the number, or provide other "proof of intelligence." That these hoops were required for Black people to jump through is immaterial in this instance. It would be a slippery slope to reinstate these qualification requirements.
Your point's well taken, Nancy. However, how about a very fundamental test that might be multiple choice? Not so much about intelligence test per se as basic literacy and civics knowledge? It might consist of questions like "How many Supreme Court Justices are there usually sitting on the US Supreme Court? A) 3, B) 6 C) 9 D) 12 or How many states are there currently in the USA? A) 48, B) 49 C) 50 D) the number varies with the census each ten years. OK, offer the test in Spanish as an option. From what I've read, most adults in this country couldn't score 80% on such a test, which is pitiful. Should these people be voting? Or do we accept the current situation in which a sizeable portion of the electorate is unequipped to understand the most basic issues facing our nation, so incurious that they couldn't state even the most fundamental facts about their government, so incapable of any level of critical thinking that their vote can be secured with the most catchy sound bite, or all of the above?
George, while you're correct that many voters are woefully ignorant, I believe the real threat is that even more informed voters choose their "tribe" based on emotion and mis/disinformation. Even intelligent people can sometimes fall prey to that. Consider that Ginni Thomas was a member of a cult in her youth, and is now "deprogrammed" but colluded in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate elected government! If any kind of "test" were proposed as a prerequisite to voting, we would add another layer to voter suppression. Even if I despise those who apparently wish for an authoritarian government, regardless of their intellect or lack thereof, giving government permission to decide on a voter's qualifications is dangerous and open to abuse. Imagine what Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, Bryan Kemp, et al. would do with that opportunity.
Nancy, While I have to acknowledge your concerns regarding potential voter suppression I think of the issue in terms of sheer numbers. I have no data on this, but I see people like Ginnie Thomas as outliers. Certainly people like her would have no trouble passing the basic test I've described. And to folks like us, they are dangerous, but you can't deny them the vote. I also have a favorite nephew who hasn't spoken to me in two years due to our differences over Donald Trump. My nephew is extremely bright but I've come to think of him as a paranoid schizophrenic. In his mind, anything including Trump, is preferable to "the deep state". But I live in a deep red state. Perhaps my perception of this issue has been influenced by that experience. Most of the people you interact with here seem to be less interested in discussing real issues than clinging to the last outrageous and inflammatory statement issued by Tucker Carlson on Fox. I grow weary of it. Anyhow, I do appreciate your well expressed points. Take care.
George, yes, Idaho is a deep red state (why my folks left as very young adults). So perhaps your take has indeed been influenced by that exposure. But I know people who live there who seek out a wider lens (there are several here whose posts are beacons of clarity for the rest of us. I can't see that you think things through any more clearly than the people you think should be tested. That frightens me more than anything. I hope you keep coming and keep reading, especially when folks write about things like empathy and finding ways to reach across the breach. That really is the only way to get to where we need to go. Looking down on people will not change anything; it just makes us like Trump.
Thank you, George. Having been raised in suburban Boston, then moving to suburban Atlanta years ago, I've seen both liberals in Boston (with a fair number of racists and now Trumpies) and now slowly emerging, more liberals here in Georgia but still some recalcitrant Marjorie Taylor Greenes in very conservative areas. At times, I've severed ties with those who I consider to be wrong-headed and unreasonable.
I think the problem is largely with folks who blindly follow without bothering to read and research our history, and rely on false narratives. One would think that people would understand that the Biden administration is offering to help everyone, regardless of political persuasion, but even the mainstream news is trashing him. Contrasted with 4 years of Trump and his cohorts, one should be able to see the improvement. A local newscaster was talking about inflation last night, and commented that mortgage interest rates had risen to a "very high 5%." When we built our house 30 years ago, interest rates were above 9%, but we were able to refinance less than a year later at a lower rate, then again when we could get 4% a few years later. How ignorant can information-dispersers be? Regardless of this person's age (under 40), he is the anchor. He should be better informed, and Biden is having to deal with this trash, and worse, daily. As you say, it is wearisome.
Beau of the Fifth Column today suggested since the Republicans are refusing a debate that the Democrats should invite the Libertarians to the debate. I love this idea!
The GOP quitting the debates and claiming media bias is more evidence that they can't articulate a policy plan to help the country and its people. Because they don't have a plan.
The GOP will not make any kind of move without thinking it through. To them regaining power (or remaining in power) is the only thing. The only thing. All things, in their eyes, are fair in support of it. Even they will admit that. The question to ask is "why do they think this will work?". Because it might just work. I believe a large block of Americans believe the progressive agenda is evil and bad for the country in one way or another. So much so as to spawn true hatred, and to counter that at the ballot box is the most important thing to do. It's been there for a long time; Trump helped bring it out into the open. It is an ugly and embarrassing part of the American psyche that needs to go away for good. So the GOP apparently thinks this sentiment is so strong that they can use it to take back power, without a platform other than stop the progressives. So instead of ridiculing the GOP for such a revealing move, I'd like to see action taken to eliminate the cause for such a move. Somehow convince more people that the progressive cause is a good one, not just for progressives but for everyone save the 1%'ers. We need a cushion badly. Having 52% or so on our side isn't good enough. It fails to account for little things not going our way.
We are on the same page Janice. The position Republicans have taken demonstrates to all that their formula for winning is to refuse to debate the issues. It is an authoritarian position, similar to the "shadow docket" being used by the SCOTUS more and more. It is ominous. Very telling that the Republicans do not even have a platform anymore - they somehow think that they will get enough votes just be being Rethuglican, and enacting strict voter suppression laws. That is pure authoritarianism. And alarmingly they might be right. It is beyond me that such a large part of our electorate is falling for this, such that voter restrictions can tilt the balance. There was a time I was proud to be an American....
"Trump hates debates not least because his knowledge of political topics is weak"
That's being charitable; I'd say "non-existent" rather than "weak."
However, I'm fairly sure the ReThugly-cans and ultra-wealthy don't care as long as they can "continue to pocket disproportionate shares of the national wealth" and impose their morally bankrupt, racist and inhumane policies on the rest of us. (Speaking as a female POC myself)
Sadly, tfg is so illiterate in all aspects of politics and leadership, that we will return to pre-civil war days should he be placed on his imaginary throne in the WH. I, for one, will not be able to abide it -- but where to go?!!!!
My exact thoughts of late. I try to remain hopeful and positive in the fight to right our capsizing democracy, but it becomes more difficult by the day. Sadly, not only is tfg illiterate on politics and leadership, his worshiping followers are blissfully ignorant on civic society.
Nobody chasing me out of my country. Here to the end, making noise until I can't.
But I do think we are headed towards some sort of "Two Americas" to quote the ill fated John Edwards. No idea how it will look. But I suspect there will be authoritarian states and democratic/progressive states. I feel pretty safe in MA. But I see a time when I won't even consider traveling to certain states. The list is obvious.
Outside of lack of winters and low taxes, there is no reason for anyone to live in Florida!
❤️. Icon won’t light up.
Actually, it's a beautiful state where the people aren't...
Like TN, where unfortunately I live.
Jay, we have several, blue, major cities. I’m not ready to give up hope of continued “purpling.”
Hi Ashley - I wish I had your confidence. Look at our Senators. Blackburn (my favorite punching bag) won going away. That speaks worlds to me. Like Tuberville in AL - wasn't even close. A giant thumb in the eye of progressive thinking people in those states.
Jay, it’s not confidence as much as a glass half full mindset. In this Blue corner, I’m doing my part to keep the cerulean waves rolling for my children and their generation of leaders.
If we give up, they win. 💙
KY is sadly following in the footsteps of our sister/rival state to the south.
The people of KY are responsible for much of the political anguish in our country - by continuing to vote in McConnell.
They foolishly think his power is helping them and making there lives better. You only need to lol at where we rank (healthcare, literacy, education, etc) and that will tell you all you need to know. Unfortunately blue Lexington & Louisville can’t carry the rest of the red state.
Nothing wrong with respecful Digital Communities Rowshan, no borders.
We have proven that here for several years with folks from around the world. It is true, Bryan.
Underground.
You can’t expect a person that is beyond mentally deficient, way below the level of a moronic simpleton, to be able to present intelligent arguments in a political debate. That’s what we were treated to in the last presidential debates, no wonder they don’t want to demonstrate his ignorance to the world, it makes him look like the imbecilic clown that he is.
I wish Trump was stupid. He was clever enough to manipulate a large portion of this country into voting for his hateful nativist rhetoric and overlooking his corrupt cabinet. Underestimating the enemies of our great democracy is counterproductive. And don't think only one party is to blame just because it is the lesser of two evils.
Barry as we are seeing now, he had alot of help.
So much help.
Attempted like
True. Nevertheless, he's the front man giving the final ok. That said, I hold his enablers more responsible b/c at one time they were responsible people; they've given that up now. But he's always been irresponsible and totally narcissistic.
Unfortunately, he’s an evil genius.
He is evil, but no genius. Neither is he intelligent, but woefully ignorant. He has a native cunning and is manipulative, magnified by his father's harping. I am still of the belief that along the way he was chosen by authoritarians who knew that if they massaged him correctly he could be utilized as a useful idiot. He is very dangerous, despite his pea-sized brain.
With learning disabilities which must have ticked him off and helped him develop his deep narcissism.
Sun Tzu pointed out the necessity of knowing one's enemies.
"Trump hates debates not least because his knowledge of political topics is weak...." For Trump to conflate NATO with the UN after having spent four years as POTUS is beyond imagination. That HALF of self identified Republicans still view the idiot in a favorable light is .... beyond description. So my question is this: Should these people be allowed to vote? We requite a written test before even allowing a person to drive a car. How about imposing an IQ test on voters? I would think 85 would be a good cutoff point!
I think his confusion is NATO and the EU, not the UN.
I'll bet he couldn't define what either is or does
Mary do you remember at the Summit when he said that Germany owes the US money because "they haven't paid up". He thought, somehow in his demented mind that NATO was a business for the US. I'll never forget the look on Merkels face. What a buffoon.
Yes! And the look on Merkel's face was priceless (also her grimace when Dubya rubbed her shoulders). She couldn't contain her astonishment. I loved that about her.
Yes, that too. 😆. I do miss her.
"So my question is this: Should these people be allowed to vote?" George - I have thought long and hard on this very thing over the years. And I have concluded that, at the risk of being accused of "both-siderism", many folks who vote progressive also are essentially illiterate on important issues, although they are not as dangerous to democracy. So I think they tend to cancel each other out. Instead, we must focus on free and fair elections, no gerrymandering or voter restriction measures, or other ways to misrepresent the will of the voters. In other words a fair fight. Let's see who comes out on top. I am pretty confident the good guys (progressives) will win every time. And the battle lines will move left, where there is actually sanity on either side.
I know it's tempting to set some kind of "information" standard. But I think there is too much risk of abuse (poll taxes, literacy tests etc used by southern states to get around the 15th ammendment.) When I spoke to a friend of mine from Pakistan about the test he had to take for citizenship, I remember seeing some questions that I wasn't sure I could answer! So for me the work should be around free and fair elections and civics education. And better messaging against the lies and "mis" information! Blessings and Happy Easter, Happy Passover.
And some of my smartest friends are tRumpers. They are allowed to vote.
THIS! It is soooo disconcerting that both some of my kindest but not bright friends and other, very intelligent friends voted for 45, and still believe "he's not that bad, all politicians are corrupt." They disbelieve the FACTS of his cruel and immoral actions, policies, and words!!
Very frustrating to me, so I've had to step back from those former friends for my own sanity.
Yup.
No. That requirement has been misused before and should not be used again. Just WHO decides what someone should know before voting? I know very educated people with frightening ideas. And I know people who, for various reasons, can barely read, but who pay attention and have good insight on issues. IQ is a poorly defined and badly designed construct for almost anything. And 85 is a number right out of the eugenics movement. Think on THAT for a minute.
Annie,
If " IQ is a poorly defined and badly designed construct for almost anything", how would you characterize an individual's capacity to cast an "intelligent", which is to say "well informed" vote? Within the context of their own logic, of course, unless they don't do "logic". Eugenics? You think I'm a Nazi for dropping a number like "85". OK, you pick one. I think you're playing word games here. My only point was that we are are doing ourselves no favor by allowing people who won't be bothered to vote on the basis of anything more than a warm fuzzy feeling (wherever they experience it) when they hear a catchy phrase like "Make America Great Again".
IQ is a number standing in for a wide range of possible definitions of intelligence, George. There are many kinds of intelligence, and the number assigned from assessments or tests are limited in their ability to judge a person's capacity in even the areas they are designed for. No, I am not playing word games. I am pointing out that your understanding of what IQ stands for seems to derive from the 1940s. As for "85", you might understand that better if you undertook to read the history of IQ testing and their purpose. You read something into what I said that wasn't there.
I’m afraid, to be fair, we do have to allow them to vote. It’s a pity, though, that we have to allow them to breathe.
Thanks for the levity. Actually, most of the "voter fraud" was committed by dead Republicans.
Or Mark Meadows in a couple of states no less.
Remember, we used to have "tests," especially in the South, where to qualify to vote you'd have to answer convoluted questions, look at a jar of jellybeans and guess the number, or provide other "proof of intelligence." That these hoops were required for Black people to jump through is immaterial in this instance. It would be a slippery slope to reinstate these qualification requirements.
Your point's well taken, Nancy. However, how about a very fundamental test that might be multiple choice? Not so much about intelligence test per se as basic literacy and civics knowledge? It might consist of questions like "How many Supreme Court Justices are there usually sitting on the US Supreme Court? A) 3, B) 6 C) 9 D) 12 or How many states are there currently in the USA? A) 48, B) 49 C) 50 D) the number varies with the census each ten years. OK, offer the test in Spanish as an option. From what I've read, most adults in this country couldn't score 80% on such a test, which is pitiful. Should these people be voting? Or do we accept the current situation in which a sizeable portion of the electorate is unequipped to understand the most basic issues facing our nation, so incurious that they couldn't state even the most fundamental facts about their government, so incapable of any level of critical thinking that their vote can be secured with the most catchy sound bite, or all of the above?
George, while you're correct that many voters are woefully ignorant, I believe the real threat is that even more informed voters choose their "tribe" based on emotion and mis/disinformation. Even intelligent people can sometimes fall prey to that. Consider that Ginni Thomas was a member of a cult in her youth, and is now "deprogrammed" but colluded in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate elected government! If any kind of "test" were proposed as a prerequisite to voting, we would add another layer to voter suppression. Even if I despise those who apparently wish for an authoritarian government, regardless of their intellect or lack thereof, giving government permission to decide on a voter's qualifications is dangerous and open to abuse. Imagine what Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, Bryan Kemp, et al. would do with that opportunity.
Nancy, While I have to acknowledge your concerns regarding potential voter suppression I think of the issue in terms of sheer numbers. I have no data on this, but I see people like Ginnie Thomas as outliers. Certainly people like her would have no trouble passing the basic test I've described. And to folks like us, they are dangerous, but you can't deny them the vote. I also have a favorite nephew who hasn't spoken to me in two years due to our differences over Donald Trump. My nephew is extremely bright but I've come to think of him as a paranoid schizophrenic. In his mind, anything including Trump, is preferable to "the deep state". But I live in a deep red state. Perhaps my perception of this issue has been influenced by that experience. Most of the people you interact with here seem to be less interested in discussing real issues than clinging to the last outrageous and inflammatory statement issued by Tucker Carlson on Fox. I grow weary of it. Anyhow, I do appreciate your well expressed points. Take care.
George, yes, Idaho is a deep red state (why my folks left as very young adults). So perhaps your take has indeed been influenced by that exposure. But I know people who live there who seek out a wider lens (there are several here whose posts are beacons of clarity for the rest of us. I can't see that you think things through any more clearly than the people you think should be tested. That frightens me more than anything. I hope you keep coming and keep reading, especially when folks write about things like empathy and finding ways to reach across the breach. That really is the only way to get to where we need to go. Looking down on people will not change anything; it just makes us like Trump.
Thank you, George. Having been raised in suburban Boston, then moving to suburban Atlanta years ago, I've seen both liberals in Boston (with a fair number of racists and now Trumpies) and now slowly emerging, more liberals here in Georgia but still some recalcitrant Marjorie Taylor Greenes in very conservative areas. At times, I've severed ties with those who I consider to be wrong-headed and unreasonable.
I think the problem is largely with folks who blindly follow without bothering to read and research our history, and rely on false narratives. One would think that people would understand that the Biden administration is offering to help everyone, regardless of political persuasion, but even the mainstream news is trashing him. Contrasted with 4 years of Trump and his cohorts, one should be able to see the improvement. A local newscaster was talking about inflation last night, and commented that mortgage interest rates had risen to a "very high 5%." When we built our house 30 years ago, interest rates were above 9%, but we were able to refinance less than a year later at a lower rate, then again when we could get 4% a few years later. How ignorant can information-dispersers be? Regardless of this person's age (under 40), he is the anchor. He should be better informed, and Biden is having to deal with this trash, and worse, daily. As you say, it is wearisome.
Beau of the Fifth Column today suggested since the Republicans are refusing a debate that the Democrats should invite the Libertarians to the debate. I love this idea!
https://youtu.be/MXt8D6N8WyQ
The GOP quitting the debates and claiming media bias is more evidence that they can't articulate a policy plan to help the country and its people. Because they don't have a plan.
The GOP will not make any kind of move without thinking it through. To them regaining power (or remaining in power) is the only thing. The only thing. All things, in their eyes, are fair in support of it. Even they will admit that. The question to ask is "why do they think this will work?". Because it might just work. I believe a large block of Americans believe the progressive agenda is evil and bad for the country in one way or another. So much so as to spawn true hatred, and to counter that at the ballot box is the most important thing to do. It's been there for a long time; Trump helped bring it out into the open. It is an ugly and embarrassing part of the American psyche that needs to go away for good. So the GOP apparently thinks this sentiment is so strong that they can use it to take back power, without a platform other than stop the progressives. So instead of ridiculing the GOP for such a revealing move, I'd like to see action taken to eliminate the cause for such a move. Somehow convince more people that the progressive cause is a good one, not just for progressives but for everyone save the 1%'ers. We need a cushion badly. Having 52% or so on our side isn't good enough. It fails to account for little things not going our way.
Absolutely, Michael. Their plan is "no".
We are on the same page Janice. The position Republicans have taken demonstrates to all that their formula for winning is to refuse to debate the issues. It is an authoritarian position, similar to the "shadow docket" being used by the SCOTUS more and more. It is ominous. Very telling that the Republicans do not even have a platform anymore - they somehow think that they will get enough votes just be being Rethuglican, and enacting strict voter suppression laws. That is pure authoritarianism. And alarmingly they might be right. It is beyond me that such a large part of our electorate is falling for this, such that voter restrictions can tilt the balance. There was a time I was proud to be an American....
Remain proud. And resistant.
He's just a moron with little much between his ears.