Sunday, October 13, 2024

The Convicted Felon grows more desperate

The Convicted Felon remains in the news.  Peter Wade (ROLLING STONE) reports:

Donald Trump proposed deploying military forces against U.S. citizens who oppose him on election day.

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within," the former president told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo when she asked if he expects "chaos on election day" from immigrants. "We have some very bad people, some sick people, radical left lunatics…. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1845469638768972272

Throughout his campaign, Trump has laid out a dystopian vision for America where the military uses violence to detain and deport immigrants, suppress protests, and target criminals. He has used fascistic, violent language and recently repeated his vow to be a "dictator" for "one day" if elected.


Donald is a two-bit dictator who really, really needs the White House to save himself.  As we've noted for months now, he's living on a lot of credit and can't pay his bills.  If the banks start calling in loans, the House of Trump falls like a house of cards.  That's what's behind his call for the US government to give him a military plane to transport him to campaign rallies.  There is no legal basis for the request.  But his campaign's low on funds and he's lower on funds so he wants to soak the US taxpayers with the costs of his travel.  He can't afford to pay the fines that the courts have imposed upon him.  That's why he doesn't just pay them -- he doesn't have the money.  I'd hate to be one of the bankers fretting over Donald declaring bankruptcy yet again -- be kind of hard to explain why someone with is financial history has been allowed to borrow as much money as he has -- and allowed to miss payments on those loans.  A number of banks might see the upper staff replaced as a result of these decisions to okay loans to him that never should have been made.


Kyler Alvord (PEOPLE) reports:


The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives the president power to detain or deport foreign "enemies," could be broadly applied to target any non-citizens that Trump declares a threat.

Donald Trump is vowing to invoke a 226-year-old law to justify mass detainments and deportations in the United States, saying that Election Day will be known as "Liberation Day" if he is handed the keys to the White House.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is a widely condemned immigration law that gives the president sweeping powers to bypass equal protection and due process while targeting foreign citizens. Every time it has been invoked, it has led to a human rights crisis that history looks down upon — but the law has not formally been repealed by Congress.

In a recent social media post after speaking in Aurora, Colo., about immigrants, Trump said, "We are now known, all throughout the world, as OCCUPIED AMERICA...But to everyone here in Colorado and all across our nation, I make you this vow: November 5th, 2024 will be LIBERATION DAY in America."

Referencing a few prominent instances where American people were killed by non-citizens, Trump said he "will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail or kick them the hell OUT OF OUR COUNTRY."


The dangers that even PEOPLE magazine can see somehow escaped the 'journalists' at THE NEW YORK TIMES.  Margaret Sullivan has been a columnist for THE WASHINGTON POST and the public editor of THE NEW YORK TIMES.  At SUBSTACK, she tackled the ongoing bias at THE NEW YORK TIMES:


And the other day, there was a dustup there over two New York Times headlines. One was about Kamala Harris, the other about Donald Trump.

Positioned directly next to each other, as they were on the Times site, they were quickly seen as a microcosm of What the Hell is Wrong with Media Today. “This arrangement and editorial gloss may stand for, capture, the journalism about the entire campaign,” noted Josh Marshall, the founder of Talking Points Memo.

One, on a story about how Harris has avoided specifics in order to stay on message as she does press interviews read: In interviews, Kamala Harris continues to bob and weave.

The other, on a story about Trump’s alarming language about migrants as carriers of supposedly impure bloodlines and genes read: In remarks about migrants, Donald Trump invoked his long-held fascination with genes and genetics.

Commenting on the second headline, the author Stuart Stevens, who writes about how democracies turn into autocracies, suggested: “These two headlines should be studied in journalism classes for decades.”

After I responded, “Not a bad idea,” a prominent voice from the New York Times chimed in. Michael Barbaro, who hosts The Daily podcast, posed a challenge to me: “Care to explain what the issue is with these headlines?”

Barbaro, whom I know from my days as public editor of the Times, is a smart guy, so I’m pretty sure he knows what the issue might be.

But sure, I’ll explain: The Kamala Harris headline is unnecessarily negative, over a story that probably doesn’t need to exist. Politicians, if they are skilled, do this all the time. They answer questions by trying to stay on message. They stay away from specifics that don’t serve their purpose.

“Can you be a political reporter and have perhaps never seen a politician be interviewed before?” Marshall mused. “Is this article even real?”

This is not news, but it fits in with the overhyped concern over how Harris supposedly hasn’t been accessible enough to the media — or if she is accessible, it’s not to interviewers that are serious enough. It doesn’t seem to matter that just days ago, she submitted to an interview with CBS News’s “60 Minutes,” known for its probing style; meanwhile, we know that Trump first agreed to, and then backed out of a 60 Minutes interview, apparently in part because he didn’t want to be fact-checked.

So, it’s a negative headline over a dubious story. By itself, it’s not really a huge deal. Another example of Big Journalism trying to find fault with Harris. More of an eye-roll, perhaps, than a journalistic mortal sin.

But juxtapose it with the Trump headline, which takes a hate-filled trope and treats it like some sort of lofty intellectual interest.

That headline, wrote Stevens, “could apply to an article about a Nobel prize winner in genetic studies.”

The article itself got to the heart of the matter — but not until its 11th paragraph.

Trump, it noted, “has a pattern of using dehumanizing language to describe undocumented immigrants. He has repeatedly referred to immigrants who commit crimes as ‘animals.’”

And later still, it noted that Trump’s insistence that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” evokes “the ideology of eugenics promulgated by Nazis in Germany and white supremacists in the United States.”

This is vile stuff. Cleaning it up so it sounds like an academic white paper is really not a responsible way to present what’s happening.



The following sites updated:






 

Posted by at