Yes, yes, I know that Trump's cult followers won't care about how blatantly he's obvious lying..  But a) that's never at issue, it's a given, and b) that's also not the topic at hand.  You've entered the wrong classroom.

Today's lesson is otherwise, something else entirely.  As the title in the class syllabus says, this a seminar on -- "How to Lie Badly."

Trump says in the video, "Hey, you now have a president that doesn't have to use a TelePrompter."  And his adoring cult crowd cheers.

There are two TelePrompters in clear view in front of him.

This video of Trump the other day has gotten some attention, but not nearly the attention it deserves.  After all, it's the U.S. president taking gleeful pleasure in a member of the press getting SHOT.

That it was a high profile member of the press makes the statement louder, but any member of the press would be just as reprehensible.

And it's not just that Ali Velshi of MSNBC was...SHOT.  Or that Trump lied about what he was shot with -- that it wasn't just "a cannister," but actually a rubber bullet -- since getting SHOT with anything is critical.  Or that this was a member of the press exercising his rights according to the First Amendment to inform the public.  Or that he described it as "a beautiful sight.

No, it's ALL THAT along with -- perhaps most of all -- Trump trying to claim this as "law and order."  

All the rest is despicable enough on its own.  But it's the trying to position this as "law and order" that explains clearly the foundation of Trump's fascism.

Actually, this is doubly fascist -- supporting violence and supporting an attack against a major power base like the press.  But, since Ali Velshi is from Canada and a Muslim, for all I know, based on his past actions, Trump was giving even more xenophobic support to it, making this a trifecta in fascism.

And that's the bottom line:  This from Trump was so utterly horrible -- not because of how thoughtless and cruel it was, but for how much it demonstrates clearly his fascist beliefs.

And it must be repeated, as always -- this is not about Trump, we know who he is.  This is about the elected members of the Republican Party who enable him, are silent in all this, show their support and are complicit.

And 204,118 Americans dead, so far.

On this week’s Al Franken podcast, Al talks with David Axelrod, the political consultant who consulted Barack Obama all the way to the White House.  They discuss the election (Franken adds a “Spoiler Alert: He’s for Biden.”) and focus on “how we get Biden there.”
 

Okay, so Lindsey Graham -- not totally shockingly (though a touch surprisingly for the risk it puts to his election and any last remnant of honor) -- is going back on his pledge of two years ago to not let a nomination go forward. He is saying the situations are different from with Merrick Garland. Though of course, that's beside the point, since what he said between the Garland debacle and now is that the if there is an opening in Trump's last year and if Graham becomes chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- which he is now -- there would be no confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice until after the next inauguration. And then to make the point stronger, he tells everyone that they can use the video of him saying that against him.
I have every confidence that everyone will be using the video of him saying that against him. And it's my hope that Mike Bloomberg takes him up on on that pledge and buys ad time to relentlessly play the ad on TV in South Carolina and on social media.
​
I also suspect it's a hypocritical lie that could back to haunt him big time since the most recent Quinnipiac Poll has him tied with Jaime Harrison, 48-48%. And any undecided voters there aren't undecided because they wonder if he's loyal enough to Trump -- but rather too much a sycophant lap dog who's given up his spine...and honor, like going back on his pledge that he says to use against him.

On so many obvious levels it was so disheartening to hear about the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Near the top is that she deserved the opportunity to retire and enjoy that retirement, especially with her health issues, and had intended to after the 2016 elections. But those election results changed her plans, so she held on even more, to her everlasting credit.

This is a pure guess. But I sense that Lisa Murkowski and Chuck Grassley (who've already said so in August, and Sen. Murkowski reiterated it yesterday) and Mitt Romney and Susan Collins -- *AND* GOP senators in tight races -- won't go along with a Supreme Court vote before a new president is sworn in. And only four are needed. And no, I don't have a clue if I'm right.  Nor do I rely on what  Republican senator says.

But I note two of those "GOP senators in tight races."   One is incumbent Martha McSally in the Arizona Senate race against Democrat challenger Mark Kelly.  What's overlooked is that that race is actually a Special Election, since she was appointed to temporarily replace John McCain.  At the moment, polls show Kelly with a solid lead, though it's a competitive race.  On the one hand, she might know she can't afford to offend independents.  On the other hand, because this is a Special Election, election experts say that if Kelly wins he could be sworn in to the Senate as early as November 30. That would create an additional tightening if Mitch McConnell tries to push for a confirmation vote during a possible lame duck session.

But I note, too, that most notably among those "GOP senators in tight races" is Lindsey Graham, who is also chair of the Judiciary Committee.

I know full well that he'll sycophantically do most anything for Trump. But I also know he's aware that he risks his own reelection (in a race now 48-48%) if he pushes a nomination forward, most especially with a video of him on C-SPAN saying in October, 2018 that he won't.

In fact, he goes further.  In yet another video Graham says, "“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

While I don't trust him keeping his word in the slightest, I do put weight on political self-interest.  And I suspect that the C-SPAN video (posted at the very bottom of the page here) will run A LOT in South Carolina ads.  What would be nice is if Mike Bloomberg bought some ads that relentlessly played this in the state....

​​On this past Sunday, the Doonesbury strip didn't have a story like usual, but was just a collection of drawings of supposed "tweets" from the cartoon's longtime reporter, Roland B. Hedley Jr.  They were very funny, like the one which read, "Can confirm that POTUS 'barely knew' John Bolton.  Official list of people he knows well is down to three of his five children."

Each tweet said it was sent from "@realRBHJr."  And a thought eventually occurred to me -- I wondered if Garry Trudeau had registered that name as a Twitter handle and was using the Sunday strip as a way to promote it.  So, I decided to check it out and --

Sure enough, there is a very real Twitter page for the very fictitious "Roland B. Hedley, Jr."!!

As you can see above, the account has been active for a while.  But this is a prominent way to bring attention to it.  At first glance, it's certainly a bit but.  But then, since Trudeau only does a new Doonesbury cartoon once a week on Sunday, this clearly is a way that lets him comment on the news of the day immediately, and also in as easy a way as possible.  You can Follow it here.

I've read through a bunch of "Roland B. Hedley Jr.'s" tweets,, and they're very funny, such as one that dealt with professional football players taking a knee during the National Anthem.  In his tweet, Hedley reported that an emergency meeting of NFL officials to address the crisis from Trump's "Idiot Second Son" saying that football was dead to him -- "won't be happening anytime soon."   

And this is Roland's pinned tweet at the top of the page.

Since yesterday was Constitution Day, and the Trump administration celebrated by Trump giving one of the weirdest, darkest, most lie-filled, low-energy, slurred, fascist speech by a president in U.S. history (among other things, repeating his insane charge that Democrats want to "tear down Mt. Rushmore," though at least this time he didn't say "blow up."  Though he did say "immortable.") And the Washington Post reported that the administration considered a fascist plan to use a long-developed military "heat ray" against peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.  And Attorney General Barr looked into finding a fascist justification to arrest the mayor of Seattle and charge protesters with sedition.  And Trump pushed a fascist plan to indoctrinate school children with a federal education program rewriting the founding of America.  And Attorney General Barr  suggested the fascist idea that all FBI agents report only to him (never mind that he, of course, reports to the president, which would give the president his own personal police force) and that outside of slavery, a stay-at-home order during a pandemic that has thus far killed 202,213 Americans was "the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."  And Trump made the fascist observation that if you ignored the 100,000 people who died in Democratic states and took them out of consideration, we were doing well with Republicans left over.  (Never mind that that would still leave 90,000 Americans dead.  So far.  Or as Sen. Tammy Baldwin noted, if you took out the people who died in Blue states on 9/11, few Americans died then, too.)   And...and...

And since all that was only yesterday -- on Constitution Day! (Happy Constitution Day, by the way) -- and it doesn't even include another woman charging Trump with sexual assault in the past, and she had a photo of them together.  And it wasn't even an especially uncommon day these days, especially when it's only a day after Trump's disastrous town hall appearance (I mean, so much has happened the past week the almost no one is talking about the U.S. president having mini-strokes, though his speech today may revive that...) --

-- I was trying to figure out how to address all this while trying my best to adhere to my "No Outrage" Policy unless something was so profound that it demanded outrage.  (And how loudly does it speak about the Trump administration that none of the above reaches the "Outrage Level" but is just -- not normal, to be clear, but -- fascist business as usual??  And that the elected Republicans in Congress are silent about it all, enabling Trump and complicit.

What I decided was that rather than be outraged, I'd just re-post an article from 2-1/2 years ago which explains what fascism literally is by book definition, and how Trump and his administration fit that precisely, and it isn't ranting hyperbole just to make a political point.  

This was written on April 9, 2018.  And what stands out is how reluctant I was to call Trump a fascist, but felt that he'd finally cross the line where it wasn't possible to avoid it.  And that was 2-1/2 years ago, and I haven't changed a word, but all the evidence is there, and it's only gotten profoundly more egregious -- and blatantly fascist -- since then. 

(You can fill in the blanks with all the updates, like calling in the U.S. military to attack American citizens peacefully protesting, and using federal agents to separate parents from their children, putting children in cages, trying to strong-arm world leaders and getting impeached for it, wanting to arrest mayors, praising a minor who illegally possessed a semi-automatic rifle and was indicted for "intentional homicide," defending police indicted for murdering unarmed citizens, featuring a married couple as speakers at the GOP convention who are indicted for threatening the public safety with rifles, and...well, no, that's enough as a starter.  You take over and make this a joint-participation exercise.)

So...no, not outraged.  Only, in the quiet, monotone words of Dragnet -- "The facts, just the facts ma'am." 

So that if anyone is up-in-arms at you for calling Trump and his administration fascist, you can politely say, oh, no, you mean it exactly, and here's why...

​Since the early days of Trump's candidacy after he became the Republican nominee, a great many epithets were thrown his way, some of which fit, others hyperbolic.  Most notable among the later were comparisons of him to Hitler.  I've long avoided that, and continue to.  While I understand the anger behind the references, and know that there are overlaps in sensibility and and even some positions, the reality is that "sensibility and even some positions" are not how history defines Hitler.  He is vilified as evil because of the Holocaust and Final Solution, and his efforts to take over the world through war.  I hate Trump, but as reprehensible as his positions, sensibility and divisiveness is, most especially towards minorities and more, he isn't that.

I say all this to make clear that for all my harsh criticism of Trump -- as a misogynist, racist, psychopath, congenital liar and worse -- I don't easily paint him with that most critical brush as do many.

That said, I do now feel very comfortable in saying -- after having believed it for a long while at this point -- that among his other many characteristics Trump is a fascist.  I

I don't mean that as an exaggerated description of indignation, but in the most literal sense.

I remember during the presidential campaign flipping channels and being surprised to see a Democrat I liked as a guest on Tucker Carlson's TV show on "Fox News," and stopping long enough to see him presciently describe Trump even back then as a fascist.  Carlson's hair almost burst in flames.  He was almost bouncing out of his seat, "How can you call him that??  How can you call him that?!!!"  The guest -- I wish I could remember who he was -- was trying to answer, but the cries of Carlson and his other panelists of "How can you say that???!!" and "That's just shameful!" and angst, moans and tsk-tsking drowned out any effort, so the question never got answered.  At the time, it was an early call of Trump's fascism, and although I wasn't personally convinced yet of it, I understood the position, and was hoping the guest would get a chance to explain.  But when a TV host has imploded and having an emotional meltdown, some things get pushed to the background.

But that guest was far ahead of the game in his certainty, and it remains so today.  Trump is a fascist.

There are three basic tenets that define fascism:  one is a push to eliminate any voices of opposition sources of authority and leadership.  Another is an intense use of xenophobia and overt reliance on patriotism to demonize foreigners.  And finally, there is the use of force and brutality.

It's difficult to not see those words painted over the fullness that is Trump.  Even acolytes most devoted to him, while crying out at the label, would be hard-pressed to deny the description, especially since so many revel in it.  Indeed support him specifically for those reasons.  But when you proudly wear the definition, it comes with the badge.

In any democratic society, the most significant voices of authority outside of the government are a free press, legal system and the police.  And from the first, Trump has tried to undermine the public's faith and trust in them all.  His near-daily calls of "fake news" have no purpose other than to make the public lose faith in independent news coverage.  Even to the extent of calling for a change in libel laws.  He's gone so far as to call the free press "the enemy."  And just last week, as Forbes magazine (hardly a bastion of liberal thought) reported on Friday, the Department of Homeland Security has outlined "a plan to gather and monitor the public activities of media professionals and influencers" which the author described with an eye on the First Amendment as "enough to cause nightmares of constitutional proportions."  We've seen too Trump's attacks on the judiciary, questioning decisions because of a judge's heritage.  There have been his attacks to undercut decisions for not being made by "elected officials."  Along with continual tweet storms and speeches lashing out to challenge the legitimacy of court rulings and "so-called judges."  And from the first, back during the presidential campaign, were Trump's unrelenting denials in findings by the entire breadth of the intelligence community.  His claims of fictitious "deep state" illegal conspiracies by the FBI are themselves solely intended to strip those law enforcement services of credibility.  Not to mention his firings of FBI and Justice Department officials for reasons of claimed bias -- all the more critical since they are the ones investigating him, most particularly his continual attacks on the man in charge of that very investigation. All to subvert confidence in the legitimacy of any findings of that investigation.

As for xenophobia, the core of the Trump platform has been hatred of others.  His earliest positions centered on building a wall specifically to keep Mexicans out.  And worse, not just Mexicans because it was illegal, but because they were drug-dealers, rapists and criminals and a threat to America.  He ramped up on this -- in a nation whose foundation stems from a First Amendment ob the freedom of speech and religion -- by making those who follow the Muslim faith to be the face of terrorism.  He has gone so far as proposing such actions as the surveillance of mosques, having databases kept of Muslims, and creating travel bans based purely on someone being a Muslim.  If you are are different, if you wear a burka, if your skin is dark, you are suspicious.  Indeed, Trump's rise in the political world was based on inflaming those fears of "others, claiming that the black president was not born in the United States and ineligible to be in office.  And the very foundation of the Trump political universe is America First (a slogan that had been used by white supremacists in an earlier time in U.S. history) and his dream to Make America Great Again -- with the clear implication being that what has stripped America's greatness is the influx of Mexicans, Muslims, a black president and foreigners.  Doing his best to obliterate the mix of cultures being the very melting pot that has actually been what made America great, with the Statue of Liberty lifting its lamp to welcome those onto our shores.

And then the violence, use of force and bullying.  At Trump rallies during the presidential campaign, his ranting against the media grew so strong that press members covering the events had to be roped off and have security to protect them from threats.  (Meanwhile reinforcing that they were different, and had to to separated.)  When supporters in the crowds were taken into custody for punching dissenting voices in the arenas, Trump supported them by promising to pay the bail of anyone who was arrested.  (Something that, given his notoriety for not paying his bills, is unlikely he would have actually done.)  His own campaign manager was charged by a journalist of battery.  When a woman was killed at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Trump's response was to defend neo-Nazis as having some "very fine people."  Indeed, during his presidential campaign, Trump was unable to explain a denunciation of neo-Nazi and white supremacy support.  At best, only when relentlessly pressed, did he make some bland dismissal, but when the moment passed he sent out his dog whistles once again to court them all.  And Trump has regularly and repeatedly pronounced his praise for dictators.  From Russia's Vladimir Putin to Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan to the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte (going so far as not just praising the strongman's policy of killing drug dealers without due process, but adopting aspects of it) and up to China's Xi Jinping, most notably upon that country's laws being changed to reinforces his rule which prompted Trump to quip, "He's now president for life. President for life. And he's great.  And look, he was able to do that.  I think it's great. Maybe we'll give that a shot some day"  Yes, Trump spokesman tried to dismiss it as a joke.  A shame there's all that supporting evidence and history contradicting him.  And the result of all this is that the Trump base sees the actions and hears the words of its hero and thinks that that gives them cover to attack minorities on street, Muslims especially, or anyone who they think maybe even looks "Muslim," ranting at them to go back where they came from -- which is reprehensible and so profoundly against American ideals under any condition, but all the more so when most of those attacked are actually American and home, where they are from -- and we've seen such brutal attacks, physical and verbal, regularly on the rise.

So, the Tucker Carlsons of the world can have their hair set on fire when they hear Trump described as a fascist.  But if they want to weep out, "How can you call him that???!!!" -- well, those are just some of the great many reasons why.

The thing is, I don't think most of even Trump's most devout supporters will disagree with my description of him here.  They may detest my "libtard" interpretation of it all, and think that what he's been doing is right and proper and even necessary, needing to be done in order to "Make America Great Again."  But I think they'd agree that I have the facts straight.  And like it or not, cry and scream and moan, those facts and that description is the definition of fascism.

Note:  If you don't like being called a fascist, then don't act like one.  And don't support one.  It's really that simple.

To be clear, I wouldn't say that all those who support Trump are fascists.  Some are.  Some may be too naive to see what they're supporting.  They may see a few of their political positions getting traction and find it politically expedient to ignore the rest.  Some may support him because they don't like Democrats and liberals.  But at best, they are enabling fascism.  Because Trump is a fascist.

Not to worry, because he's still also a misogynist, racist, psychopath, congenital liar con man.

But make no mistake -- Trump is a fascist.

Last night, I put Stephen Colbert’s show on, and they were in the midst of a long piece they'd apparently set up with Robert Smigel and his Triumph the Insult Comic Dog character.  (Unlike most of Smigel's work with Triumph, the dog had very little to do with the actual piece, and mostly had funny side-commentary.)
 
RawStory did an article on the sketch, and talked about how hilarious it was.  And from one perspective, it was hilarious – but I personally found it ghastly and unwatchable, at least with the sound on.  I watched only for Triumph's humorous reactions and only periodically would turn the sound on to check in and get "updates" of a sort on what was happening.  To be very clear, it wasn't that I thought the jokes in the piece were bad or that the people weren't acting in a way highly-deserving of ridicule or that I didn't understand people laughing -- I could absolutely see why many likely found it funny.  And I'm posting it here for that reason.  Everyone here might find it just as funny.  But I'm posting it for my reaction, as well.
 
The premise was that they got the most deeply-devoted Trump supporters into a real focus group at a real research company.  Then, they played audio of a supposedly real Trump recording that was a) clearly to me a Trump impersonator, and b) utterly horrible what he was saying -- and c) knowing it was an impersonator was pretty funny, in a cringing way.  And the researchers also showed some fake campaign ads for Trump that were SO over-the-top and SO gallingly despicable that (knowing they were fake) were, in fact, sort of amusing.  And then the real focus group moderator questioned them afterwards.  And what was the joke of the piece, but what I found the very-opposite of funny was how all the supporters accepted everything and bent themselves in knots to defend even the most appalling things.  (Okay, here's just one example.  Like on the "secret" audio tape, hearing Trump suggest that immigrants be microwaved.  Really.)
 
Was it funny as a bit?  Yes, very.  But was it troubling for the reality of how cult followers would accept the absolute worst from Trump?  It was ghoulish.  I could absolutely see those people literally being okay with Trump shooting someone in cold blood on Fifth Avenue.  And creepy too was that they couldn’t tell it wasn’t actually Trump on the tape or that the “ads” were foolishly over the top.
 
(By the way, to be clear, I’m not judging how fake the Trump impersonation sounded because I knew I was watching Colbert’s show.  I tuned into the sketch halfway through, so I didn’t know exactly what it was at first.  For all I knew they were playing a Woodward tape I hadn’t heard yet, or I also wondered if it was a CBS special after the news, and Colbert’s show was delayed.  So, even under those conditions it was clear to me it was a fake Trump.)
 
As I said, I can see why some found it so funny.  You may, too.  And some of it was funny.  So, I don't begrudge anyone laughing.  (And it may be slightly funnier to me after the General Election, on the presumption that Trump loses.)  Me, I had to have the sound off and was horrified by it.  But loved Triumph’s reactions, especially a couple near the very end.
 
Here’s the whole thing.  It’s about 12 minutes –

By the way, the above story about the Little League is true, not a made-up quip to fit the news.  The kid's team had lost the game something like 10-4, and they'd given up seven runs in one inning.