Who remembers “trickle down economics” and other lies of the right?

Here’s a doozy from the always reliable source of an anonymous far right nobody pontificating on Twitter.

If Trump succeeds in forcing through mass deportations, combined with Elon hacking away at the government, firing people and reducing the deficit – there will be an initial severe overreaction in the economy – this economy propped up with debt (generating asset bubbles) and artificially suppressed wages (as a result of illegal immigration). Markets will tumble. But when the storm passes and everyone realizes we are on a sounder footing, there will be a rapid recovery to a healthier, sustainable economy. History could be made in the coming two years.
Elon Musk says “Sounds about right”

The first part might be right — the economy will be devastated by a Trump victory followed by mass deportations and firings. The last bit? Where the economy will be magically restored by people realizing this will be good for us? That’s pure fantasy, wishful thinking, nothing but moonshine. But hey, the belief in an all-powerful head of state with total control of everyone’s lives worked for North Korea, so maybe we should give it a shot. It’s not as if Republicans haven’t given us sound financial advice since the Reagan years.

There are multiple “C words,” you know

While the Republican Party is busy covering the racism angle, Elon Musk is, in his @America account, making sure the misogynists know to vote for the convicted rapist.

It’s part of a misleading and suggestive ad.

Warning: This ad contains multiple instances of the ‘C Word.’ Viewer discretion is advised. Kamala Harris is a ‘C word.’ You heard that right. A big ole ‘C word.’ In fact, all of the other ‘C words’ think she’s the biggest ‘C word’ of them all. That’s right. She’s a tax-hiking, regulation-loving, gun-grabbing communist. And the worst part? She’s proud of it. Kamala Harris: the ‘C word America simply can’t afford. See you nationwide Tuesday, November 5th.

It ultimately reveals that the “C word” it is talking about isn’t the usual misogynistic slur (but you know you’re supposed to think it). She’s a communist. What stupid nonsense — I know communists, and I have to tell you, Elon, Kamala Harris is no communist.

The ad might be more persuasive if it used the correct “C word”: Kamala Harris is a capitalist, and yes, she is proud of it.

Only one week until the election, and a few months of bickering, lying, and phony lawsuits until we can possibly get down to the business of grabbing guns and imposing regulations, not that I think that will actually happen if the Democrats win.

Who is that jackwad?

Trump had a rally in Madison Square Garden this weekend and it was reminiscent of a Nazi rally. They brought on a ‘comedian’ who made a ‘joke’. I don’t know if you know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.

Ocasio-Cortez said it all in the clip above: this is what the Republican party is, a clique of elitist thugs who willingly insult entire ethnicities because they believe that they, by virtue of their whiteness, are truly superior. The Trump campaign is scrambling to distance themselves from this alienation of part of the electorate, but you know this is what the think, deep down. Notice that the audience laughed at the ‘joke’.

Walz was characteristically pithy: Hinchcliffe is a jackwad.

Hinchcliffe has responded!

Oh. It was just a joke. It was taken out of context. Where have I heard those excuses before?

I think I see the problem here

An ironic slogan

As we get closer to the election, the frenzy of the media becomes increasingly apparent. All the stories about polls, about uncommitted voters, about wild rumors about immigrants, etc., it all has a purpose — to make us increasingly anxious and desperate for more “news”, that is, the stuff the media tells us will help us resolve our uncertainty. Except, of course, it isn’t what we need. I know how I’m going to vote, I informed my opinion on that by seeing what the candidates do and say, and all the caterwauling about how my neighbors will vote or how people a thousand miles away will vote doesn’t matter.

But that is what the media feeds on.

The machine is churning so fast right now that the works have been exposed. Sprockets have sprung, circuits are frayed, the housing is cracked, and the real engines of the news are exposed. It’s billionaires meddling.

The choice in the next election is obvious to every informed citizen, but the Washington Post went full chickenshit and decided this was the year they can’t make an endorsement. The publisher, William Lewis, had to twist himself into knots to justify that act of cowardice.

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

In the name of ethics, the rule of law, and respect for human freedom, the paper nobly refuses to support the candidate who opposes a fascist with no ethics, contempt for the law, who wants to lock up and deport millions of Americans. That is such a chickenshit excuse. You know the real motivation: they are afraid Trump might win, and they are preemptively kneeling before the monster who’d abuse his power to silence media that is critical of him.

And, of course, the Washington Post is owned by a billionaire, Jeff Bezos, who is probably pissed off at the only reasonable (if flawed) candidate who is talking about mild policy that might cost him another yacht. The thumb is on the scales.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, another major newspaper, the LA Times, refused to endorse a candidate who opposes Trump, and has lost the support of much of its staff.

Mariel Garza, who was until days ago the Los Angeles Times’ editorials editor, said she resigned from her post in protest after the paper’s owner, billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked an endorsement the editorial board had planned to make for Harris. Soon-Shiong appeared to push back in a social media post, in which he claimed the editorial board was asked to “draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate” so readers could make an informed decision, but claimed the board did not follow through. Editorial board members Robert Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Karin Klein also resigned in protest, with both citing their disappointment over the blocked endorsement.

Patrick Soon-Shiong is a South African billionaire who bought his way into a position of influence. I can think of another South African billionaire who is poisoning our democracy. Maybe we should deport them all?

There are things we can do — weak, belated things, but it’s something. You can write a letter to the editor of the WaPo. It probably won’t get published, but increasing the tally of people who state their contempt for the editorial cowardice can help. Do like Martin Baron.

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump’s presidency, denounced the decision starkly.

“This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty,” Baron said in a statement to NPR. “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

Or even better, if you are a subscriber, cancel it right now. I did. The darkness approaches. Don’t expect the Washington Post to light a candle.

My political “dilemma”

Here’s the problem. The Democrats think it’s OK to murder Palestinians, but also think trans people should have rights. The Republicans think it’s OK to murder both Palestinians and trans people.

It’s not much of a dilemma, because of course I can’t vote for Republicans, but I can support part of the Democratic position, so I’ve got to vote Democratic party all the way down the line. It would make me much happier, though, if we could see some opposition to Israel’s genocidal actions.

I was surprised to see this evidence that anti-trans rhetoric is a key part of the Republican strategy.

They’ve spent almost $30 million on an ad that says Harris is providing humane social support to trans people in prison, which they think is deplorable, but I think is a point in her favor. Their second biggest focus is on immigration — they’re against it, I’m for it.

Their entire platform is built on hatred for non-white, non-straight people. Again, this is a crappy dilemma, because of course I’m pro-Democrat then.

Except that I wish voting for Harris didn’t also make me feel like I’m giving tacit approval to genocide.

Walz has a way with words

First, it was recognizing that conservative Republicans are “weird,” out of touch with common values. Now he has absolutely perfectly pegged Elon Musk: he’s a dipshit.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz on Tuesday joked that Elon Musk is Trump’s real “running mate,” and mocked him for jumping “like a dipshit” on stage with Donald Trump earlier this month.

“I’m going to talk about his running mate,” Walz said during a campaign rally in Wisconsin. “His running mate Elon Musk.”

“Look, Elon’s on that stage, jumping around, skipping like a dipshit on these things,” the Minnesota governor said. “You know it.”

Oh man, that brought back memories of my father, a bedrock union man and staunch Democrat, because that was one of his favorite words to describe clowns lacking in dignity and publicly making an ass of themselves. That’s Musk in a single word, a dipshit.

Living the dream, I think he should do it full time

I never worked in a fast food joint, but I had lots of friends who did; it’s a common, mundane job experience for a lot of people. It’s not an extraordinary claim at all for someone to say they worked at a McDonald’s in their youth, but to Donald Trump it is some kind of unlikely experience, like claiming to be a UFO abductee. He’s been raging about Kamala Harris claiming to have worked in fast food 40 years ago, and thinks it is a winning argument to deny her experience.

To make his strange point, Trump volunteered to work at a McDonald’s over the weekend.

As Trump put it reporters when he got off his plane: “I’m going for a job right now at McDonald’s,” before adding, “I really wanted to do this all my life.”

I wish he had, although it would be unfair to the customers — he’d suck as an employee. But OK, he charged off to pretend to experience the life of a fast food worker.

One catch: he didn’t. The McDonald’s was closed and the streets cordoned off, while he walked in, spent a few minutes shuffling fries, and then handed out a few containers. That was it. It was a photo-op, nothing more.

Police closed the busy streets around the McDonald’s he was visiting and cordoned off the restaurant as a crowd a couple blocks long gathered, sometimes 10- to 15-deep, across the street straining to catch a glimpse of Trump. Horns honked and music blared as Trump supporters waved flags, held signs and took pictures.

It was a notable event to celebrate, the fact that Donald Trump did ten minutes of actual work.

You just know that in his future rambling babbles, he’s going to claim that Kamala Harris never worked in fast food, but he, the lazy phony, did.

Everyone’s views except mine are extremist

Jonathan Chait (fuck that guy) uses a familiar tactic to argue that Democrats should throw trans people under the bus. He points out How Progressive Overreach Gave Trump His Favorite Attack Ad, and argues that we should back off on policies that the Republicans don’t like. He wants to use Republican hate ads as a guide to how we ought to present our principles. Trump is currently using all kinds of divisive hate ads to stir up support, and we ought to avoid advocating for the kinds of things that make Trump and his followers angry.

The Trump ad describes an answer Harris gave on an ACLU candidate questionnaire five years ago. (“As President will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care?” Answer: yes.). I’m sure neither the ACLU nor the Harris staffers who cooperated in this response set out to seed Republican attack ads. Yet a large portion of the work of the progressive nonprofit complex is functionally dedicated to this very outcome. And these kinds of perverse outcomes will continue to occur unless Democrats get wise to the dynamic that continues to produce them.

So reasonable. We need to woo the bigots, so stop alienating the people who hate trans people. Stop standing up for the rights of an oppressed minority because it annoys an oppressive majority. Be more conservative, as if the Democratic party weren’t already a center-right party as it were.

But watch Chait run away from his position: oh my, he’s in favor of trans rights, as long as he isn’t expected to allow them any rights.

The point I’m making here is purely political. I have no moral problem with prisons giving properly run transition care to prisoners who wish to change their sex. I’d also agree that Trump is exploiting the issue in a way designed to spread hatred against all transgender people, rather than to question one small program. (It is so small, indeed, that it went on throughout Trump’s presidency without Trump noticing or caring.) The issue is that political candidates need to think practically about the existing electorate, and the progressive movement is currently designed to ignore pragmatism.

Trump is “exploiting the issue in a way designed to spread hatred against all transgender people,” but don’t you dare support that issue. That’s not pragmatic. It might be a life-or-death issue for trans people, but maybe the Democrats ought to pragmatically allow them to die? For a few more votes from people who want them to suffer and die?

It’s not just trans rights. Chait is unhappy because absolutists on a whole host of issues don’t like the compromises he is willing to make, and oh boy, but Chait is eager to write criticisms of trans people and unions and climate activists, he’d sure like them to sit down and shut up, all in the name of pragmatism.

The groups in the coalition increasingly tend to define agreement with their cause in maximal terms. If you support equality and respect for trans people, but question, say, medicalizing young people, you’re anti-trans. If you support labor unions but oppose some positions they advocate, you’re a scab. Climate activists increasingly use the term “climate denier,” once reserved for those who refuse to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming, for any skeptic of any element of their preferred remedies. The rampant absolutism makes it difficult to acknowledge even the possibility that there are political risks attached to going too far in agreement with the movement.

Only an idiot would refuse to recognize that taking new, bold positions is going to involve political risks. That’s the whole point! You’ll never make any progress if you only support the “safe” position.

I don’t think Chait’s position is pragmatic at all. I call it chickenshittery.

Hey, Jonathan, rather than always complaining about sane, moderate, humane positions that a politician takes on trans issues, why aren’t you focusing on the mad, cruel, pointless bigotries that their opponents trumpet loudly? Do you think that hating gay and trans people, or union-busting, or ignoring climate change are pragmatic policies that we ought to let stand, quietly?

Buk buk buk buKAW.