MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America
By David French
Opinion Columnist
Feb. 18, 2024
Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?
Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”
He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.
Don’t think for a moment that this is unusual today. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted, as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.
The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats after it ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.
Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.
Nor is the challenge confined to national politics. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”
My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.
And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.
But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.
The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.
But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.
My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house.
Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”
I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”
The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”
I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.
David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator.
A year or so ago I posted a piece I described as satire about the US’ march (slide?) into theocracy. There is nothing satirical anymore. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court argued in a recent concurring opinion that Alabama had put into law a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and that destroying that life — as in the disposal of fertilized eggs — would incur “the wrath of a holy God.”
Starting with Alabama, the Christian Bible has the effect of established legal precedent.
Thoughts on the predictable outcome but surprising overreach of the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump?
As is often the case, the concurrences have the better argument, imo.
@klezman The court has abandoned all pretense of impartiality or of being apolitical. They clearly went further than they needed to in reaching their decision so as to protect Trump should he be re-elected. Also amazing is the speed with which this decision came down as opposed to say, the toe-dragging on the perpetual presidential immunity issue.
I wonder if the “conservative” (read: “Trumplican”) justices drew straws to see who would write a token concurrence to try to put some lipstick on the pig.
@davirom It was lipstick on a pig, for sure. Barrett’s plea for seeing the agreement ahead of the disagreement was kind of disingenuous. They would have been far better off to just say, without much explanation (because it’s all muddled anyway) that states can’t unilaterally exclude a federal office nominee.
The so-called reasoning that only Congress can figure it out and must legislate for the 14th amendment to take effect was just crazy.
Term limits and the 18-year seat plan needs to be implemented.
@davirom@rjquillin I’m less concerned about term limits for Congress, actually. Even though it doesn’t happen as often as it should, we do get the chance to vote them out every 2 or 6 years.
The Supreme Court, running amok as it is right now (I know, ymmv, and you may think their rulings of late are all straightforward applications of settled law) and their lack of accountability to the public leads me to want their terms limited. That’s why I also like the 18-year plan. It creates enough responsiveness to the leader who gets to nominate while giving the kind of stability the law requires. (Stability, I might note, that the current right wing justices seem to not care one whit about.)
@klezman At least there’s oxygen. My friend just said she should pick Kennedy to run with her and I just can’t believe his name recognition is so much stronger than any of the words that have come out of his mouth.
@canonizer Kennedy’s thinking abilities were suspect before the worm-in-brain thing, though. And when I watched him interview with Bill Maher my concerns were amplified rather than reduced. So I really hope he’s nowhere near the levers of power. Ever.
I also doubt picking the running mate will matter all that much. Trump picked a total asshole as his, but it’s on brand. Hopefully Harris will pick somebody uplifting and future-looking.
@Mark_L I know, right? Just today in an op-ed in the LA Times, Scott Jennings, a former GWB White House advisor called out Democrats for failing to “respect the will of the voters”. No Republican would ever do that!
@davirom I would be overwhelmingly overjoyed (no matter what party is in power) if term limits could be imposed on every level of politics. In most cases, “problem solved”.
It’s exciting but is it Constitutional? Can the Presidential nominee drop out simply because he doesn’t see a path to victory? The people voted for him in the Primary. Obama seems to be the only one checking unbridled enthusiasm at the door, saying (sic) “I’m sure our leaders will come up with a process to choose a qualified candidate”. Is he, as a Constitutional scholar, worried about the legality of the process? Or does he just not like Harris?
@chipgreen Isn’t the party primary nothing more than a construct of the party, and not addressed in any Federal document? The parties can pretty much do what they want to for a nomination.
I’d be interested if the process is constitutionally documented differently somewhere.
@chipgreen@rjquillin what Ron said. There is also no legal mechanism to require delegates to the DNC to vote for the person who won the primary in their state. I’m not sure about the Republican rules, but as Ron said it’s up to the party.
I think it’d be much more difficult if, say, Trump dropped out now that he’s the official nominee. No idea what the party rules state or what the rules are for ballot access in the individual states that would then be in play.
@chipgreen@rjquillin not sure what comment you’re reacting to. I know little about Vance, but he does seem to be relatively principle-free, which isn’t a good start.
Obama has remained scrupulously neutral in nominating contests since 2012, so that’s not surprising.
@chipgreen@rjquillin ah, I was looking elsewhere and forgotten I’d said that.
That comment was based on the bunch of quotes I’d seen attributed to him, including things like wanting to make all abortion illegal no matter what and the complete turnabout on his stance on Trump.
As I said, I don’t know much about him. But my initial impressions are not good. But I am always open to new evidence.
@chipgreen@rjquillin I mean, I’d read it. But it has nothing to do with my impression of the things he’s said in the last week or so. Not too mention the “childless cat lady” crap.
Regardless of the insightfulness of his book quite a number of commentaries are also pointing out that he’s not particularly kind to those people he describes in the book either. But as I’ve not read it, this is just repeating what I’ve read elsewhere.
At the end of the day when you have a candidate who amplifies sexism (or racism or anti-Semitism or any other ism) you’re not likely to get me on his side.
@klezman@rjquillin
The “childless cat lady” term was an unfortunate turn of phrase but do you really believe that his point - that people with children are generally more invested in our Nation’s future than those who do not have children - is “crap”? It just seems like common sense to me. It’s a generalization with plenty of exceptions, but it’s a legitimate generalization IMHO.
@chipgreen@rjquillin completely disagree. To me that’s akin to saying that religion inherently makes people more moral.
And even if a point is valid, when delivered in a disrespectful way it has a way of delegitimizing the point since it calls into question whether the point is even being delivered in an honest way and for honest reasons. Maybe put another way, it’s an analogous rule to the Hitler rule in my books.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin Leaving aside morality and cats, what Vance said was that people who can’t or chose not to be parents, specifically VP Harris (who has 2 step kids), are less American. Another divisive battle in the culture wars, pandering to his base.
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin I find it kind of funny that the guy with kids is arguing that it doesn’t make him inherently more invested in the future while the guy with no kids is arguing the opposite. (Unless I’m forgetting about some offspring, that is.)
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin I’m disagreeing that it’s common sense. I think it’s emphatically not true that a person only cares about something in which they have a personal stake in the outcome. If that’s the world we live in we are indeed in big trouble.
@davirom@klezman@rjquillin
Please do not twist my words. It’s not a matter of care or not care. Those who have a vested interest in the future are going to care more about that future than those who do not. You can disagree all you want but that is simply human nature.
I understand what you’re saying, however, just because someone doesn’t have kids doesn’t mean they’re not as vested in the future.
For example: I personally don’t have any children yet, but I care greatly about the future of this planet and our society. (Obviously you don’t know me personally and you don’t have any evidence supporting my claim, but hopefully you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt and take my word for it.)
One could even argue that not having children allows a person more time, flexibility, and resources to focus their efforts on making a positive impact in the world. It’s no secret that raising children (successfully, at that) is no easy endeavor and requires significant time, attention, resources, etc.
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin No intent to twist your words at all. That’s not my jam.
I think your take on the relationship between having a vested interest and the amount one cares about advancing that interest (whatever it is) is rather American. I mean that as a neutral observation, truly. American culture has lionized individualism, and that leads to [some measure of truth] about how much Americans care about the parts of the future they’re not personally invested in.
Given that most people in this country have children, though, I would expect that we’d be much farther ahead on reversing climate change than we are now if your thesis held true. But I suppose that’s a debate for another day. It just seems like indirectly vested interests (like children and grandchildren) have little correlation to actual policy.
I was in the process of making an edit, but then I became busy and the editing window timed out of course.
If one were to play devil’s advocate, take into consideration how many people have children unexpectedly and don’t have the wherewithal and/or desire to provide them an ideal upbringing. As a quick example (without trying to veer the conversation entirely off track) look at the ridiculous number of teens/preteens that are committing crimes and stealing cars made by Kia/Hyundai thanks to the quick and easy “hack” that went viral on social media. How vested in the future are those parents?
I know you said there are plenty of exceptions to the generalization. So how many exceptions can a generalization have until it becomes crap/illegitimate?
Just for clarity… I’m in no way trying to disrespect your opinion. I simply wanted to take part in the conversation and add my thoughts (which may very well be worth merely two cents). In general, I try not to generalize.
Instead of what Vance said in 2021, let’s look at what the top of the ticket said yesterday.
Trump said anyone who does “anything to desecrate” an American flag should be thrown in jail for a year. “Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people,” he said.
He might be saying, ‘People who believe the Constitution guarantees free speech are stupid.’ Or possibly, ‘Only stupid people would raise a Constitutional issue with jailing flag burners.’ Either would suggest that he thinks it is OK to disregard the Constitution. Are there ways to construe his statement that would indicate he supports Constitutional free speech?
Trump also suggested that, on such issues, the U.S. could learn from strongman leaders in other countries.
“All over the world — Putin and President Xi of China — all over the world they’re watching this. Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies,” Trump said. “That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.” (sic)
That is foreshadowing - what we should expect from a Trump presidency. It is a clear endorsement of the persons, policies, and practices of 3 prominent authoritarians and dictators. Coming from someone who still hasn’t acknowledged his loss in 2020 and who, as recently as March 16 in Dayton, called the Jan 6 rioters “unbelievable patriots” and “hostages”, I don’t see how to take his comments lightly. Or why Americans would want to. But I am interested in other interpretations.
@davirom
Your last point about not acknowledging losing the last election, and even actively trying to find a way to overturn/disregard a free and fair election, is the very reason why I could never vote for Trump. That issue alone disqualifies him from holding office again, disregarding his policies (some of which I agreed with), the continuous lying, and playing of the victim card, never taking responsibility for consequences of his own actions. I continue to be shocked that nearly 50% of the country is okay with electing a person that actively tried to find ways to throw out election results when there was no evidence of voter fraud. How many cases were dismissed by judges due to lack of any evidence? But here we are, 45% of the country is saying that is okay, let’s vote for him again. I am truly curious why so many people are able to disregard his actions.
@davirom And also instead of 2021, what about this thought from Tom Friedman?
Ever since President Biden’s Sunday announcement that he would not seek re-election, clearly because of age, I keep thinking about Donald Trump’s and JD Vance’s contemptuous reactions to one of the most difficult personal decisions a president has ever made, and what it says about their character.
“The Democrats pick a candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, he loses the Debate badly, then panics, and makes mistake after mistake, is told he can’t win, and decide they will pick another candidate, probably Harris,” Trump wrote on social media on Monday. He later added: “It’s not over! Tomorrow Crooked Joe Biden’s going to wake up and forget that he dropped out of the race today!”
Not to be out-lowballed by his boss, Vance wrote on social media: “Joe Biden has been the worst President in my lifetime and Kamala Harris has been right there with him every step of the way.”
All they had to say was: “President Biden served his country for five decades and at this moment we thank him for that service. Tomorrow our campaign begins against his replacement. Bring her on.”
The reason I’m so tired is in large part reflected here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html
MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America
By David French
Opinion Columnist
Feb. 18, 2024
Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?
Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”
He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.
Don’t think for a moment that this is unusual today. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted, as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.
The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats after it ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.
Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.
Nor is the challenge confined to national politics. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”
My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.
And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.
But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.
The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.
But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.
My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house.
Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”
I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”
The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”
I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.
David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator.
A year or so ago I posted a piece I described as satire about the US’ march (slide?) into theocracy. There is nothing satirical anymore. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court argued in a recent concurring opinion that Alabama had put into law a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and that destroying that life — as in the disposal of fertilized eggs — would incur “the wrath of a holy God.”
Starting with Alabama, the Christian Bible has the effect of established legal precedent.
@davirom truly scary, isn’t it?
@davirom @klezman yep yep yep!
@davirom American Taliban.
Or rewrite the Declaration of Independence…
@Mark_L I think it’s unlikely that the founders adopted a catholic or evangelical world view tbh to guide their framework.
Both the bible and founding documents are subject to interpretation
Thoughts on the predictable outcome but surprising overreach of the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump?
As is often the case, the concurrences have the better argument, imo.
@klezman The court has abandoned all pretense of impartiality or of being apolitical. They clearly went further than they needed to in reaching their decision so as to protect Trump should he be re-elected. Also amazing is the speed with which this decision came down as opposed to say, the toe-dragging on the perpetual presidential immunity issue.
I wonder if the “conservative” (read: “Trumplican”) justices drew straws to see who would write a token concurrence to try to put some lipstick on the pig.
@davirom It was lipstick on a pig, for sure. Barrett’s plea for seeing the agreement ahead of the disagreement was kind of disingenuous. They would have been far better off to just say, without much explanation (because it’s all muddled anyway) that states can’t unilaterally exclude a federal office nominee.
The so-called reasoning that only Congress can figure it out and must legislate for the 14th amendment to take effect was just crazy.
Term limits and the 18-year seat plan needs to be implemented.
@davirom @klezman
absolutely agree on term limits for congress;
but the only way you’ll get it is with a convention of the States
@davirom @rjquillin I’m less concerned about term limits for Congress, actually. Even though it doesn’t happen as often as it should, we do get the chance to vote them out every 2 or 6 years.
The Supreme Court, running amok as it is right now (I know, ymmv, and you may think their rulings of late are all straightforward applications of settled law) and their lack of accountability to the public leads me to want their terms limited. That’s why I also like the 18-year plan. It creates enough responsiveness to the leader who gets to nominate while giving the kind of stability the law requires. (Stability, I might note, that the current right wing justices seem to not care one whit about.)
GUYS THIS STUFF IS EXCITING!
@canonizer I KNOW!!!
@klezman At least there’s oxygen. My friend just said she should pick Kennedy to run with her and I just can’t believe his name recognition is so much stronger than any of the words that have come out of his mouth.
@canonizer Kennedy’s thinking abilities were suspect before the worm-in-brain thing, though. And when I watched him interview with Bill Maher my concerns were amplified rather than reduced. So I really hope he’s nowhere near the levers of power. Ever.
I also doubt picking the running mate will matter all that much. Trump picked a total asshole as his, but it’s on brand. Hopefully Harris will pick somebody uplifting and future-looking.
Indeed! To quote something I read this morning: “For the first time, the Democrats have managed to steal an election from their own candidate.”![:laughing:](https://dj5zo597wtsux.cloudfront.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f606.png)
@Mark_L I know, right? Just today in an op-ed in the LA Times, Scott Jennings, a former GWB White House advisor called out Democrats for failing to “respect the will of the voters”. No Republican would ever do that!![:upside_down:](https://dj5zo597wtsux.cloudfront.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f643.png)
@davirom I would be overwhelmingly overjoyed (no matter what party is in power) if term limits could be imposed on every level of politics. In most cases, “problem solved”.
@davirom @Mark_L Agreed. Tired of Schumer and McConnell
It’s exciting but is it Constitutional? Can the Presidential nominee drop out simply because he doesn’t see a path to victory? The people voted for him in the Primary. Obama seems to be the only one checking unbridled enthusiasm at the door, saying (sic) “I’m sure our leaders will come up with a process to choose a qualified candidate”. Is he, as a Constitutional scholar, worried about the legality of the process? Or does he just not like Harris?
@chipgreen Isn’t the party primary nothing more than a construct of the party, and not addressed in any Federal document? The parties can pretty much do what they want to for a nomination.
I’d be interested if the process is constitutionally documented differently somewhere.
@chipgreen @rjquillin what Ron said. There is also no legal mechanism to require delegates to the DNC to vote for the person who won the primary in their state. I’m not sure about the Republican rules, but as Ron said it’s up to the party.
I think it’d be much more difficult if, say, Trump dropped out now that he’s the official nominee. No idea what the party rules state or what the rules are for ballot access in the individual states that would then be in play.
@klezman @rjquillin
From everything I have seen today, the legality issues do not seem to be a concern but Obama’s hesitancy gave me pause.
Klez, I am not surprised that you do not like JD Vance, but curious as to why your negative feelings are so strong?
@chipgreen @rjquillin not sure what comment you’re reacting to. I know little about Vance, but he does seem to be relatively principle-free, which isn’t a good start.
Obama has remained scrupulously neutral in nominating contests since 2012, so that’s not surprising.
@chipgreen @klezman I can only imagine it was
yet you profess
@chipgreen @rjquillin ah, I was looking elsewhere and forgotten I’d said that.
That comment was based on the bunch of quotes I’d seen attributed to him, including things like wanting to make all abortion illegal no matter what and the complete turnabout on his stance on Trump.
As I said, I don’t know much about him. But my initial impressions are not good. But I am always open to new evidence.
@klezman @rjquillin![:wink:](https://dj5zo597wtsux.cloudfront.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f609.png)
Would you like me to send you a copy of Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis?
THE #1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER
“You will not read a more important book about America this year.”—The Economist
“A riveting book.”—The Wall Street Journal
“Essential reading.”—David Brooks, New York Times
@chipgreen @rjquillin I mean, I’d read it. But it has nothing to do with my impression of the things he’s said in the last week or so. Not too mention the “childless cat lady” crap.
Regardless of the insightfulness of his book quite a number of commentaries are also pointing out that he’s not particularly kind to those people he describes in the book either. But as I’ve not read it, this is just repeating what I’ve read elsewhere.
At the end of the day when you have a candidate who amplifies sexism (or racism or anti-Semitism or any other ism) you’re not likely to get me on his side.
@klezman @rjquillin
The “childless cat lady” term was an unfortunate turn of phrase but do you really believe that his point - that people with children are generally more invested in our Nation’s future than those who do not have children - is “crap”? It just seems like common sense to me. It’s a generalization with plenty of exceptions, but it’s a legitimate generalization IMHO.
@chipgreen @rjquillin completely disagree. To me that’s akin to saying that religion inherently makes people more moral.
And even if a point is valid, when delivered in a disrespectful way it has a way of delegitimizing the point since it calls into question whether the point is even being delivered in an honest way and for honest reasons. Maybe put another way, it’s an analogous rule to the Hitler rule in my books.
@klezman @rjquillin
I don’t think that is an apt analogy but I certainly respect your right to disagree.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin Leaving aside morality and cats, what Vance said was that people who can’t or chose not to be parents, specifically VP Harris (who has 2 step kids), are less American. Another divisive battle in the culture wars, pandering to his base.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin I find it kind of funny that the guy with kids is arguing that it doesn’t make him inherently more invested in the future while the guy with no kids is arguing the opposite. (Unless I’m forgetting about some offspring, that is.)
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
Please quote your source for the “less American” comment. I saw the clip and that’s not what I heard.
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
It’s not my argument but I can’t disagree with common sense.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin I’m disagreeing that it’s common sense. I think it’s emphatically not true that a person only cares about something in which they have a personal stake in the outcome. If that’s the world we live in we are indeed in big trouble.
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
Please do not twist my words. It’s not a matter of care or not care. Those who have a vested interest in the future are going to care more about that future than those who do not. You can disagree all you want but that is simply human nature.
@chipgreen
I understand what you’re saying, however, just because someone doesn’t have kids doesn’t mean they’re not as vested in the future.
For example: I personally don’t have any children yet, but I care greatly about the future of this planet and our society. (Obviously you don’t know me personally and you don’t have any evidence supporting my claim, but hopefully you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt and take my word for it.)
One could even argue that not having children allows a person more time, flexibility, and resources to focus their efforts on making a positive impact in the world. It’s no secret that raising children (successfully, at that) is no easy endeavor and requires significant time, attention, resources, etc.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin No intent to twist your words at all. That’s not my jam.
I think your take on the relationship between having a vested interest and the amount one cares about advancing that interest (whatever it is) is rather American. I mean that as a neutral observation, truly. American culture has lionized individualism, and that leads to [some measure of truth] about how much Americans care about the parts of the future they’re not personally invested in.
Given that most people in this country have children, though, I would expect that we’d be much farther ahead on reversing climate change than we are now if your thesis held true. But I suppose that’s a debate for another day. It just seems like indirectly vested interests (like children and grandchildren) have little correlation to actual policy.
@chipgreen
I was in the process of making an edit, but then I became busy and the editing window timed out of course.
If one were to play devil’s advocate, take into consideration how many people have children unexpectedly and don’t have the wherewithal and/or desire to provide them an ideal upbringing. As a quick example (without trying to veer the conversation entirely off track) look at the ridiculous number of teens/preteens that are committing crimes and stealing cars made by Kia/Hyundai thanks to the quick and easy “hack” that went viral on social media. How vested in the future are those parents?
I know you said there are plenty of exceptions to the generalization. So how many exceptions can a generalization have until it becomes crap/illegitimate?
Just for clarity… I’m in no way trying to disrespect your opinion. I simply wanted to take part in the conversation and add my thoughts (which may very well be worth merely two cents). In general, I try not to generalize.![:sweat_smile:](https://dj5zo597wtsux.cloudfront.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f605.png)
Instead of what Vance said in 2021, let’s look at what the top of the ticket said yesterday.
Trump said anyone who does “anything to desecrate” an American flag should be thrown in jail for a year.
“Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people,” he said.
He might be saying, ‘People who believe the Constitution guarantees free speech are stupid.’ Or possibly, ‘Only stupid people would raise a Constitutional issue with jailing flag burners.’ Either would suggest that he thinks it is OK to disregard the Constitution. Are there ways to construe his statement that would indicate he supports Constitutional free speech?
Trump also suggested that, on such issues, the U.S. could learn from strongman leaders in other countries.
“All over the world — Putin and President Xi of China — all over the world they’re watching this. Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies,” Trump said. “That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.” (sic)
That is foreshadowing - what we should expect from a Trump presidency. It is a clear endorsement of the persons, policies, and practices of 3 prominent authoritarians and dictators. Coming from someone who still hasn’t acknowledged his loss in 2020 and who, as recently as March 16 in Dayton, called the Jan 6 rioters “unbelievable patriots” and “hostages”, I don’t see how to take his comments lightly. Or why Americans would want to. But I am interested in other interpretations.
@davirom
Your last point about not acknowledging losing the last election, and even actively trying to find a way to overturn/disregard a free and fair election, is the very reason why I could never vote for Trump. That issue alone disqualifies him from holding office again, disregarding his policies (some of which I agreed with), the continuous lying, and playing of the victim card, never taking responsibility for consequences of his own actions. I continue to be shocked that nearly 50% of the country is okay with electing a person that actively tried to find ways to throw out election results when there was no evidence of voter fraud. How many cases were dismissed by judges due to lack of any evidence? But here we are, 45% of the country is saying that is okay, let’s vote for him again. I am truly curious why so many people are able to disregard his actions.
@davirom @dirtdoctor Yes, 100x this.
@davirom And also instead of 2021, what about this thought from Tom Friedman?
Ever since President Biden’s Sunday announcement that he would not seek re-election, clearly because of age, I keep thinking about Donald Trump’s and JD Vance’s contemptuous reactions to one of the most difficult personal decisions a president has ever made, and what it says about their character.
“The Democrats pick a candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, he loses the Debate badly, then panics, and makes mistake after mistake, is told he can’t win, and decide they will pick another candidate, probably Harris,” Trump wrote on social media on Monday. He later added: “It’s not over! Tomorrow Crooked Joe Biden’s going to wake up and forget that he dropped out of the race today!”
Not to be out-lowballed by his boss, Vance wrote on social media: “Joe Biden has been the worst President in my lifetime and Kamala Harris has been right there with him every step of the way.”
All they had to say was: “President Biden served his country for five decades and at this moment we thank him for that service. Tomorrow our campaign begins against his replacement. Bring her on.”