alternet--2020-10-27--Donald Trump is hardly the ‘Republican Jesus’

It 's yet unknown how U.S. President Donald Trump 's attempts to position himself as the Christian candidate of choice will influence Christian voters in the United States — and how Democrats ' attempts to speak to Christians may sway previous Trump voters or those not publicly declaring their intentions .
“ Dems want to shut your churches down , permanently , '' Trump tweeted in early October .
A few days earlier , his son , Eric Trump , declared that his dad “ literally saved Christianity . ''
These statements fit a wider pattern : Trump has called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proclaimed that God is “ on our side '' and warned that Biden will “ hurt the Bible , hurt God . ''
The Trump administration and its Christian supporters have been using Christianity to draw battle lines in this high-stakes election .
This Republican political strategy that uses Christian language to cast Trump as a divinely appointed protector of Christians warrants more scrutiny than it 's received .
In my book , Republican Jesus , I identify key trends in the way today 's right-wing influencers interpret the Bible : they view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who opposes taxes and is against any regulation that supports social welfare programs , protects workers or prevents discrimination .
The Trump administration and their Christian supporters promote a form of Christianity that scholars call “ Christian nationalism . ''
That 's an ideology that is n't just about religion , but “ includes assumptions of nativism , white supremacy , patriarchy and heteronormativity , along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism , '' according to sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry .
They 've demonstrated with survey data that about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea that America is , and should be , a Christian nation .
Christian nationalists are especially fond of boundaries — not just walls , but also social boundaries that cast liberals as outsiders .
These sociologists say about 20 per cent of Americans are “ ambassadors , '' an overwhelmingly white group that insists the U.S. has always been and must remain Christian .
Another 30 per cent are “ accommodators , '' who lean toward supporting Christian nationalism but hold somewhat more ambivalent views ( for example , they say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society but might allow that non-Christians also advance these values ) .
When pro-Trump Christians use the language of Christianity under siege , their foremost objective is to court the votes of these “ accommodators . ''
As historian Kevin M. Kruse argues , “ the belief that America is fundamentally and formally a Christian nation originated in the 1930s when businessmen enlisted religious activists in their fight against FDR 's New Deal . ''
These corporate-funded conservatives claimed that the social safety net breaks the commandment not to steal — that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the indolent .
They cast Christianity as the free-market antidote to “ pagan stateism '' : a menace they created to conflate progressive forms of Christianity with communism , socialism and Nazism .
Dogmatic adherence to free-market capitalism and limited government is the common thread in the history of the American Christian right .
By this logic , anyone who favours a more regulated form of capitalism attacks Christianity .
In the Civil Rights era , some religious conservatives insisted that the desegregation of public schools was government overreach and a threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they have characterized abortions as the government robbing unborn citizens of their rights .
On Sept. 26 , Rev .
Franklin Graham , son of Billy Graham and among the most influential pro-Trump evangelicals , hosted a massive prayer march that drew thousands to Washington , D.C .
The broadcast 's refrain was “ this is not a political event , but a prayer event . ''
Yet speakers repeatedly invoked the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation as the march proceeded on a path through the National Mall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks ) .
It was scheduled just before Trump 's announcement of a conservative Catholic judge who has ties to a charismatic and secretive Christian group as his Supreme Court nominee later that day .
Every speaker was a vocal Trump supporter , Vice-President Mike Pence made a “ surprise visit , '' and marchers wore both “ Make America Great Again '' and “ Let 's Make America Godly Again '' hats and chanted “ Four more years ! ''
Tony Perkins , president of the Family Research Council , prayed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unleashed '' in America — an indictment of the Black Lives Matter protests .
It may be obvious that American Christian Democrats and some Christians are outraged by pro-Trump Christians .
But as an American teaching Christianity at a public university in Canada , I have noted that a number of my students and colleagues who identify as “ evangelicals '' or “ conservatives '' are similarly outraged by how Trump 's top evangelical advisers cherry-pick and distort biblical verses to justify xenophobic immigration policies and restrictions on the government 's role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control , employment and the social safety net .
Whereas conservative Christians outside the U.S. tend to share the same “ family values '' positions ( traditional marriage , pro-life ) as conservative American Christians , they are less often inclined to agree with their economic conservatism .
The Christian nationalism and economic conservatism advocated by Trump can be perplexing to Christians unfamiliar with the American Christian right 's history of reading the Bible as a blueprint for unfettered free-market capitalism at the expense of the poor .
In the New Testament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rich to sell their possessions and give them to the poor , and speaks of loving one 's neighbours and enemies .
To some who advocate Jesus 's platform of social justice , advancing different views in the language of Christianity can warrant being called a “ fake Christian '' or a deluded devotee of the “ cult of Trump . ''
I caution against these labels , however , since such exclusionary rhetoric diverts attention from how the American right is busy redefining what it means to be “ Christian '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' efforts to challenge the right 's attempt to own Christian identity and values could be critical in the final days of the campaign .
In the vice-presidential debate , Kamala Harris stated : “ Joe Biden and I are both people of faith '' in response to Mike Pence 's insinuation that Democrats are attacking Christianity .
If it were not for the attention the right 's influencers receive , Harris would not have had to make this statement .
The Poor People 's Campaign : A National Call for Moral Revival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confront the interlocking evils of systemic racism , poverty , ecological devastation , militarism and the war economy , and the distorted moral narrative of religious nationalism . ''
Christian activists Rev .
Dr. William J. Barber and Rev .
Dr. Liz Theoharis helm this movement organized on the basis of values .
It 's supported by interfaith bodies like The Islamic Society of North America and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism .
Meanwhile , the mainstream media , politically moderate and liberal Christian leaders and progressives on the whole must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusionary doublespeak and their highly selective readings of the Bible and American history .
Tony Keddie , Assistant Professor of Early Christian History and Literature , University of British Columbia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Tony Keddie, University of British Columbia
It's yet unknown how U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to position himself as the Christian candidate of choice will influence Christian voters in the United States — and how Democrats' attempts to speak to Christians may sway previous Trump voters or those not publicly declaring their intentions.
“Dems want to shut your churches down, permanently," Trump tweeted in early October. A few days earlier, his son, Eric Trump, declared that his dad “literally saved Christianity."
These statements fit a wider pattern: Trump has called himself “the chosen one," proclaimed that God is “on our side" and warned that Biden will “hurt the Bible, hurt God."
The Trump administration and its Christian supporters have been using Christianity to draw battle lines in this high-stakes election. This Republican political strategy that uses Christian language to cast Trump as a divinely appointed protector of Christians warrants more scrutiny than it's received.
In my book, Republican Jesus, I identify key trends in the way today's right-wing influencers interpret the Bible: they view Jesus as a prophet of free-market capitalism who opposes taxes and is against any regulation that supports social welfare programs, protects workers or prevents discrimination.
More than religion
The Trump administration and their Christian supporters promote a form of Christianity that scholars call “Christian nationalism." That's an ideology that isn't just about religion, but “includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism," according to sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry.
They've demonstrated with survey data that about half of Americans support some form of the idea that America is, and should be, a Christian nation. Christian nationalists are especially fond of boundaries — not just walls, but also social boundaries that cast liberals as outsiders.
These sociologists say about 20 per cent of Americans are “ambassadors," an overwhelmingly white group that insists the U.S. has always been and must remain Christian. Another 30 per cent are “accommodators," who lean toward supporting Christian nationalism but hold somewhat more ambivalent views (for example, they say that “Christian values" should influence society but might allow that non-Christians also advance these values).
When pro-Trump Christians use the language of Christianity under siege, their foremost objective is to court the votes of these “accommodators."
Corporate backing
As historian Kevin M. Kruse argues, “the belief that America is fundamentally and formally a Christian nation originated in the 1930s when businessmen enlisted religious activists in their fight against FDR's New Deal." These corporate-funded conservatives claimed that the social safety net breaks the commandment not to steal — that the government steals taxes from individuals to reward the indolent.
They cast Christianity as the free-market antidote to “pagan stateism": a menace they created to conflate progressive forms of Christianity with communism, socialism and Nazism.
Dogmatic adherence to free-market capitalism and limited government is the common thread in the history of the American Christian right. By this logic, anyone who favours a more regulated form of capitalism attacks Christianity.
In the Civil Rights era, some religious conservatives insisted that the desegregation of public schools was government overreach and a threat to religious freedom. Since Roe vs. Wade, they have characterized abortions as the government robbing unborn citizens of their rights.
Politics of exclusion
On Sept. 26, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and among the most influential pro-Trump evangelicals, hosted a massive prayer march that drew thousands to Washington, D.C.
The broadcast's refrain was “this is not a political event, but a prayer event." Yet speakers repeatedly invoked the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation as the march proceeded on a path through the National Mall (with no social distancing and limited masks).
It was scheduled just before Trump's announcement of a conservative Catholic judge who has ties to a charismatic and secretive Christian group as his Supreme Court nominee later that day.
Every speaker was a vocal Trump supporter, Vice-President Mike Pence made a “surprise visit," and marchers wore both “Make America Great Again" and “Let's Make America Godly Again" hats and chanted “Four more years!" Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, prayed for law enforcement because “lawlessness has been unleashed" in America — an indictment of the Black Lives Matter protests.
A political strategy
It may be obvious that American Christian Democrats and some Christians are outraged by pro-Trump Christians. But as an American teaching Christianity at a public university in Canada, I have noted that a number of my students and colleagues who identify as “evangelicals" or “conservatives" are similarly outraged by how Trump's top evangelical advisers cherry-pick and distort biblical verses to justify xenophobic immigration policies and restrictions on the government's role in regulating health care, environmental protection, gun control, employment and the social safety net.
Whereas conservative Christians outside the U.S. tend to share the same “family values" positions (traditional marriage, pro-life) as conservative American Christians, they are less often inclined to agree with their economic conservatism.
The Christian nationalism and economic conservatism advocated by Trump can be perplexing to Christians unfamiliar with the American Christian right's history of reading the Bible as a blueprint for unfettered free-market capitalism at the expense of the poor. In the New Testament, after all, Jesus calls on the rich to sell their possessions and give them to the poor, and speaks of loving one's neighbours and enemies.
To some who advocate Jesus's platform of social justice, advancing different views in the language of Christianity can warrant being called a “fake Christian" or a deluded devotee of the “cult of Trump." I caution against these labels, however, since such exclusionary rhetoric diverts attention from how the American right is busy redefining what it means to be “Christian" for their own political agenda.
Shaping the election?
Democrats' efforts to challenge the right's attempt to own Christian identity and values could be critical in the final days of the campaign. In the vice-presidential debate, Kamala Harris stated: “Joe Biden and I are both people of faith" in response to Mike Pence's insinuation that Democrats are attacking Christianity. If it were not for the attention the right's influencers receive, Harris would not have had to make this statement.
The Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival is calling for “coming together to confront the interlocking evils of systemic racism, poverty, ecological devastation, militarism and the war economy, and the distorted moral narrative of religious nationalism." Christian activists Rev. Dr. William J. Barber and Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis helm this movement organized on the basis of values. It's supported by interfaith bodies like The Islamic Society of North America and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media, politically moderate and liberal Christian leaders and progressives on the whole must hold the Christian right accountable for their exclusionary doublespeak and their highly selective readings of the Bible and American history.
Tony Keddie, Assistant Professor of Early Christian History and Literature, University of British Columbia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-27--The feeling of powerlessness and despair felt many voters is emblematic of a much deeper problem in

The feeling of powerlessness and despair felt many voters is emblematic of a much deeper problem in America

Donald Trump is not the central problem in American politics , and neither is the 2020 presidential election , as dire and urgent as those things seem at the moment .
Our real problem is that our democracy is not a democracy , and that many Americans — most of them , I would argue — feel powerless , disenfranchised and despairing , confronted with a dysfunctional system that thrives on massive inequality and serves the interests only of the richest and most powerful .
Those systemic problems made Trump 's presidency possible in the first place , and created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a last-ditch struggle against autocracy .
I 'm here to tell you there are signs of real hope — but they have almost nothing to do with the question of who wins next week 's election .
Do n't get me wrong : I 'm invested in the outcome too .
But I also suspect that in the longer arc of history , it might not matter all that much .
If you 're reading this during the last days of October 2020 , almost anywhere in the world , you do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final stretch of this presidential campaign has been agonizing .
It 's probably closer to the truth to say that the last four or so years of our nation 's history have felt agonizing , not to mention draining and dispiriting , and that the coronavirus-dampened 2020 campaign has distilled all that into its purest form .
Time has simultaneously been stretched and compressed by the surreal theater of the Trump presidency , which has felt endless largely because the same damn things keep happening over and over — disguised as brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with dread , as if we were trapped in some art-student horror movie .
Lenin 's supposed remark that there are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen ( which he almost certainly did not say ) needs reworking : There are days that contain years of turmoil and suffering , and entire years that vanish into memory like bad dreams .
There is just a week to go , as I write this , until we reach the culminating stage ( perhaps ) of an election that we have told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the history of American democracy — but may well be remembered by posterity more in comic or pathetic terms .
It looks from here as if a majority of American voters are poised to deliver a sweeping repudiation of Donald Trump and the psychotic , zombified Republican Party that he nominally rules , quite likely in the form of a `` wave '' election that will reshape the political landscape for years to come .
At least that would be the logical conclusion : As I 've written before , no incumbent president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad news .
But logic and reason have little purchase in America 's dreamscape , and right now nobody much wants to listen to conventional bromides about what could happen or might happen or will probably happen .
Odds are you just want the whole damn thing to be over : the campaign , the pandemic , the rising tide of social unease and constant low-level threats of political violence , the perennial suspension of disbelief of the `` Trump era . ''
Who could blame you ?
You certainly do n't want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that stuff will actually go away , no matter what happens on or after Nov. 3 .
Or that electing Joe Biden and a bunch of Democratic senators wo n't actually fix anything about our broken political system or resolve the deep-rooted social and economic contradictions that got us here .
Democrats and `` liberals , '' of course , remain anguished and haunted by the never-to-be-resolved trauma of 2016 , and by the subsequent years of ineffectual hope that somebody would make it all go away , or make it never have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Congress or the New York Times or Robert Mueller and his posse of establishmentarian white knights .
Trying to stir up drama in a race that has remained virtually stagnant ever since Biden locked down the Democratic nomination in March — at virtually the same moment as the coronavirus shut down the country — the mainstream media keeps gleefully reminding us that it remains possible Trump could win again , by fair means or foul .
There 's something to be said for steeling yourself against bad outcomes , but too many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — as in almost all of us — seem to be obsessed or paralyzed by those possibilities .
We devour the latest polls but tell ourselves not to believe them , casting salt over our shoulders and muttering incantations to the numinous entities of our choosing .
Like frightened children left alone in the dark , we invent bogeymen and invest them with immense power : `` Shy Trump voters '' will come out of the woods and turn the tide ; the Postal Service will delay or destroy millions of votes ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters and appoint their own slates of electors ; Justice Amy Coney Barrett , newly fitted for her robes , will write an eloquent Supreme Court opinion finding that according to the Constitution 's original intent , votes in heavily Democratic precincts simply do n't count .
Somehow or other , Trump will refuse to yield power even after a conclusive defeat , and somehow or other — with the help of Russian propaganda , Bill Barr 's devious machinations and the fine print of the 12th Amendment — he 'll get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that there 's no basis in reality for some or all of those fears , and it 's only human to resort to magical thinking in times of great stress .
As bizarre and unlikely as the outcome of the 2016 election was , it happened — and it did indeed feel like the hand of fate , punishing America for its arrogance and hubris .
Mathematically speaking , it could happen again .
But taken together , all that fear and fatalism have created a paranoid landscape in which ordinary Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insomniac anxiety for the verdict of history to be handed down .
That will happen in just seven or eight days , as I said earlier .
Or perhaps it will be more like 14 or 15 days , when a final vote count should be completed .
Or maybe 40 days , the approximate deadline for the states to send their electoral votes to Washington .
Or , hell , it could take 70 days or so , right up to the moment in early January when the new Congress must count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know , it 's torture , and it feels like it will never go away .
But this waiting , this dread , this feeling of powerlessness and despair are emblematic of a much deeper problem in America 's so-called democracy , next to which the question of President Biden or President Trump is nearly an afterthought .
The real problem , as I said above , is that our democracy is not much of a democracy , a problem that is doubly or trebly multiplied in presidential elections .
( I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president makes literally no difference at all .
There 's better than a two-thirds chance that you do too . )
Voting , the central ritual of American-style democracy , has become the subject of much conflict this year .
It is endlessly fetishized and treated with mournful , religious reverence — both by those who would expand it and those who desperately seek to limit or suppress it .
What neither side says out loud is that voting is always the most minimal and compromised form of political power , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end-all of democracy often distracts people from other , more effective , means .
I 'm not saying that voting is not important .
I 'm not rolling out the old leftist line that both major parties are servants of the same corporate masters and there 's no point even bothering .
That 's a half-truth that has metastasized into a lie , as is especially obvious here and now , and we have seen enough close elections in enough different contexts over the last few years to understand that exercising the franchise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one helpful but minor aspect of democracy — and in a locked-down , binary political system , always involves a set of negotiations and compromises .
It is n't sanctifying or virtuous , and when smug commentators start saying it is , I get that impulse to check whether my wallet is still there .
People who do n't vote because they think it 's pointless and the whole system is bullshit may be overly cynical , but they 've got a point .
National elections in the United States have become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public therapy .
If you donated money to Amy McGrath 's unwinnable Senate race against Mitch McConnell this year , I hope that made you feel better — because it certainly did n't accomplish anything else .
America 's climate of near-permanent electioneering , in which the next presidential campaign starts as soon as the midterm elections are over , is itself a symptom of unhealthy democracy .
Our quadrennial search for a messiah , or for the least bad option — staged as a mediocre , long-running entertainment spectacle — sucks up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy and so much money that it is better understood as an impediment to democracy than as its demonstration or its instrument .
We do n't have to go all the way to Mao Zedong 's famous maxim that political power comes from the barrel of a gun in order to free ourselves from electoral hypnosis — although one could say that the armed militiamen who occupied the Michigan state house earlier this year had absorbed part of Mao 's lesson , without any of his party-building discipline .
Violence and threats of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and can effectuate change far more rapidly than the slow grind of electoral democracy — but in the 21st century more tolerant and tolerable examples are all around us , well short of the guillotine or the Bolshevik Revolution .
Indeed , America 's election hypnosis sometimes conceals the obvious truth that direct action — peaceful or otherwise — is what moves the political process forward , not the other way around .
In their famous White House meeting , Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr. both understood that the constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impending possibility of something more than nonviolent civil disobedience ) was the only force that would compel reluctant Southern Democrats to support the landmark civil rights and voting rights laws that followed .
According to Bill Moyers , the only other person in the room , LBJ told MLK , more or less , `` You 've got to make me do it . ''
Or consider the early to mid-1980s , when gay men and drug users were dying in large numbers from a mysterious illness , and neither political party wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AIDS were treated at best with pity and condescension , and at worst as disgusting sodomites who had brought a divine plague upon themselves .
As Anthony Fauci could tell you , it was the often angry and controversial activism of groups like ACT UP and Gay Men 's Health Crisis that changed the course of that epidemic and ultimately revolutionized the relationship between medical science , pharmaceutical research and the human beings those institutions were supposed to help .
In the late 1990s , the mainstream media was largely mystified or bemused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement , '' a series of confrontational protest actions that sought to unite labor unions , environmentalists and the anti-capitalist left , culminating in the `` Battle of Seattle '' during a 1999 conference of the World Trade Organization .
Those protesters were depicted as '60s throwbacks , unwashed tree-hugging lunatics or ( at times ) violent anarchist radicals , and their movement was generally deemed an incoherent failure .
But it was n't .
Two decades later , both American political parties have largely abandoned neoliberal `` free trade '' agreements — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism , which seemed like a ludicrous dream in the Bill Clinton era , has come to fruition in multiple ways .
That relatively tiny activist moment 20-odd years ago was n't a '60s flashback : It was a new seedling that produced many offshoots and tendrils ; leading more or less directly to Bernie Sanders ' political campaigns and the resurgence of socialism , the more radical strains of climate activism , the street-action tendency now called antifa , Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter .
In our own time and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women 's March emerged as a direct and extraordinary response to Trump 's election — but can anyone doubt that the Democratic `` blue wave '' midterm election of 2018 was a direct result of the Women 's March ?
In terms of restoring a sense of hope and possibility , along with the real potential of democracy , which of those things was more meaningful : Millions of women and men and children in the streets , proclaiming their rejection of an illegitimate misogynist president elected by a political fluke , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political outcomes , the recent explosion of activism among younger adults and teenagers , from the post-Parkland student movement to Greta Thunberg and the climate strikers to the massive Black Lives Matter protests all across America ( and the world ) this past summer , has not actually accomplished anything .
But those are unmistakable expressions of political power that announce the rising consciousness of a new generation .
These younger activists have noticeably shifted the national temperature and the national discourse on guns and the climate crisis and police violence .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric has moved since the beginning of the primary season . )
They have helped create an environment where the widespread popular rejection of Donald Trump and the Republican agenda seems not just possible but nearly inevitable .
There is no way to know what long-term political impact they will have , but they offer far more lasting hope for the renewal of democracy than whatever President Joe Biden and a hypothetical Democratic Congress may accomplish .
This year 's election will come and go — and that ca n't happen soon enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what political power is , and how it works .
Maybe they 'll learn to use it before it 's too late .

Donald Trump is not the central problem in American politics, and neither is the 2020 presidential election, as dire and urgent as those things seem at the moment. Our real problem is that our democracy is not a democracy, and that many Americans — most of them, I would argue — feel powerless, disenfranchised and despairing, confronted with a dysfunctional system that thrives on massive inequality and serves the interests only of the richest and most powerful. Those systemic problems made Trump's presidency possible in the first place, and created the circumstances that make this election seem like a last-ditch struggle against autocracy.
I'm here to tell you there are signs of real hope — but they have almost nothing to do with the question of who wins next week's election. Don't get me wrong: I'm invested in the outcome too. But I also suspect that in the longer arc of history, it might not matter all that much.
If you're reading this during the last days of October 2020, almost anywhere in the world, you don't need me to tell you that the final stretch of this presidential campaign has been agonizing. It's probably closer to the truth to say that the last four or so years of our nation's history have felt agonizing, not to mention draining and dispiriting, and that the coronavirus-dampened 2020 campaign has distilled all that into its purest form.
Time has simultaneously been stretched and compressed by the surreal theater of the Trump presidency, which has felt endless largely because the same damn things keep happening over and over — disguised as brand new outrages — in an atmosphere suffused with dread, as if we were trapped in some art-student horror movie. Lenin's supposed remark that there are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen (which he almost certainly did not say) needs reworking: There are days that contain years of turmoil and suffering, and entire years that vanish into memory like bad dreams.
There is just a week to go, as I write this, until we reach the culminating stage (perhaps) of an election that we have told ourselves is a crucial turning point in the history of American democracy — but may well be remembered by posterity more in comic or pathetic terms. It looks from here as if a majority of American voters are poised to deliver a sweeping repudiation of Donald Trump and the psychotic, zombified Republican Party that he nominally rules, quite likely in the form of a "wave" election that will reshape the political landscape for years to come.
At least that would be the logical conclusion: As I've written before, no incumbent president can reasonably hope to survive this much bad news. But logic and reason have little purchase in America's dreamscape, and right now nobody much wants to listen to conventional bromides about what could happen or might happen or will probably happen. Odds are you just want the whole damn thing to be over: the campaign, the pandemic, the rising tide of social unease and constant low-level threats of political violence, the perennial suspension of disbelief of the "Trump era." Who could blame you?
You certainly don't want me to tell you that none of that stuff will actually go away, no matter what happens on or after Nov. 3. Or that electing Joe Biden and a bunch of Democratic senators won't actually fix anything about our broken political system or resolve the deep-rooted social and economic contradictions that got us here.
Democrats and "liberals," of course, remain anguished and haunted by the never-to-be-resolved trauma of 2016, and by the subsequent years of ineffectual hope that somebody would make it all go away, or make it never have happened in the first place: God or Congress or the New York Times or Robert Mueller and his posse of establishmentarian white knights.
Trying to stir up drama in a race that has remained virtually stagnant ever since Biden locked down the Democratic nomination in March — at virtually the same moment as the coronavirus shut down the country — the mainstream media keeps gleefully reminding us that it remains possible Trump could win again, by fair means or foul. There's something to be said for steeling yourself against bad outcomes, but too many people in the left-liberal quadrant of politics — as in almost all of us — seem to be obsessed or paralyzed by those possibilities. We devour the latest polls but tell ourselves not to believe them, casting salt over our shoulders and muttering incantations to the numinous entities of our choosing.
Like frightened children left alone in the dark, we invent bogeymen and invest them with immense power: "Shy Trump voters" will come out of the woods and turn the tide; the Postal Service will delay or destroy millions of votes; Republican legislatures in swing states will defy the voters and appoint their own slates of electors; Justice Amy Coney Barrett, newly fitted for her robes, will write an eloquent Supreme Court opinion finding that according to the Constitution's original intent, votes in heavily Democratic precincts simply don't count. Somehow or other, Trump will refuse to yield power even after a conclusive defeat, and somehow or other — with the help of Russian propaganda, Bill Barr's devious machinations and the fine print of the 12th Amendment — he'll get away with it.
I'm not saying that there's no basis in reality for some or all of those fears, and it's only human to resort to magical thinking in times of great stress. As bizarre and unlikely as the outcome of the 2016 election was, it happened — and it did indeed feel like the hand of fate, punishing America for its arrogance and hubris. Mathematically speaking, it could happen again. But taken together, all that fear and fatalism have created a paranoid landscape in which ordinary Americans feel powerless, waiting in finger-chewing, insomniac anxiety for the verdict of history to be handed down. That will happen in just seven or eight days, as I said earlier. Or perhaps it will be more like 14 or 15 days, when a final vote count should be completed. Or maybe 40 days, the approximate deadline for the states to send their electoral votes to Washington. Or, hell, it could take 70 days or so, right up to the moment in early January when the new Congress must count those votes and certify the victor.
I know, it's torture, and it feels like it will never go away. But this waiting, this dread, this feeling of powerlessness and despair are emblematic of a much deeper problem in America's so-called democracy, next to which the question of President Biden or President Trump is nearly an afterthought. The real problem, as I said above, is that our democracy is not much of a democracy, a problem that is doubly or trebly multiplied in presidential elections. (I live in a state where my vote for president makes literally no difference at all. There's better than a two-thirds chance that you do too.)
Voting, the central ritual of American-style democracy, has become the subject of much conflict this year. It is endlessly fetishized and treated with mournful, religious reverence — both by those who would expand it and those who desperately seek to limit or suppress it. What neither side says out loud is that voting is always the most minimal and compromised form of political power, and that treating it as the be-all and end-all of democracy often distracts people from other, more effective, means.
I'm not saying that voting is not important. I'm not rolling out the old leftist line that both major parties are servants of the same corporate masters and there's no point even bothering. That's a half-truth that has metastasized into a lie, as is especially obvious here and now, and we have seen enough close elections in enough different contexts over the last few years to understand that exercising the franchise can be crucial.
But voting is just one helpful but minor aspect of democracy — and in a locked-down, binary political system, always involves a set of negotiations and compromises. It isn't sanctifying or virtuous, and when smug commentators start saying it is, I get that impulse to check whether my wallet is still there. People who don't vote because they think it's pointless and the whole system is bullshit may be overly cynical, but they've got a point. National elections in the United States have become a bizarre form of symbolic theater or public therapy. If you donated money to Amy McGrath's unwinnable Senate race against Mitch McConnell this year, I hope that made you feel better — because it certainly didn't accomplish anything else.
America's climate of near-permanent electioneering, in which the next presidential campaign starts as soon as the midterm elections are over, is itself a symptom of unhealthy democracy. Our quadrennial search for a messiah, or for the least bad option — staged as a mediocre, long-running entertainment spectacle — sucks up so much time, so much psychic energy and so much money that it is better understood as an impediment to democracy than as its demonstration or its instrument.
We don't have to go all the way to Mao Zedong's famous maxim that political power comes from the barrel of a gun in order to free ourselves from electoral hypnosis — although one could say that the armed militiamen who occupied the Michigan state house earlier this year had absorbed part of Mao's lesson, without any of his party-building discipline. Violence and threats of violence are certainly expressions of political power — and can effectuate change far more rapidly than the slow grind of electoral democracy — but in the 21st century more tolerant and tolerable examples are all around us, well short of the guillotine or the Bolshevik Revolution.
Indeed, America's election hypnosis sometimes conceals the obvious truth that direct action — peaceful or otherwise — is what moves the political process forward, not the other way around. In their famous White House meeting, Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr. both understood that the constant ground-level pressure of protests (and the impending possibility of something more than nonviolent civil disobedience) was the only force that would compel reluctant Southern Democrats to support the landmark civil rights and voting rights laws that followed. According to Bill Moyers, the only other person in the room, LBJ told MLK, more or less, "You've got to make me do it."
Or consider the early to mid-1980s, when gay men and drug users were dying in large numbers from a mysterious illness, and neither political party wanted to touch the issue. People with AIDS were treated at best with pity and condescension, and at worst as disgusting sodomites who had brought a divine plague upon themselves. As Anthony Fauci could tell you, it was the often angry and controversial activism of groups like ACT UP and Gay Men's Health Crisis that changed the course of that epidemic and ultimately revolutionized the relationship between medical science, pharmaceutical research and the human beings those institutions were supposed to help.
In the late 1990s, the mainstream media was largely mystified or bemused by what was called the "anti-globalization movement," a series of confrontational protest actions that sought to unite labor unions, environmentalists and the anti-capitalist left, culminating in the "Battle of Seattle" during a 1999 conference of the World Trade Organization. Those protesters were depicted as '60s throwbacks, unwashed tree-hugging lunatics or (at times) violent anarchist radicals, and their movement was generally deemed an incoherent failure.
But it wasn't. Two decades later, both American political parties have largely abandoned neoliberal "free trade" agreements — and the vision of a new left activism, which seemed like a ludicrous dream in the Bill Clinton era, has come to fruition in multiple ways. That relatively tiny activist moment 20-odd years ago wasn't a '60s flashback: It was a new seedling that produced many offshoots and tendrils; leading more or less directly to Bernie Sanders' political campaigns and the resurgence of socialism, the more radical strains of climate activism, the street-action tendency now called antifa, Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
In our own time and a far more mainstream register, the Women's March emerged as a direct and extraordinary response to Trump's election — but can anyone doubt that the Democratic "blue wave" midterm election of 2018 was a direct result of the Women's March? In terms of restoring a sense of hope and possibility, along with the real potential of democracy, which of those things was more meaningful: Millions of women and men and children in the streets, proclaiming their rejection of an illegitimate misogynist president elected by a political fluke, or Nancy Pelosi?
In terms of conventional political outcomes, the recent explosion of activism among younger adults and teenagers, from the post-Parkland student movement to Greta Thunberg and the climate strikers to the massive Black Lives Matter protests all across America (and the world) this past summer, has not actually accomplished anything. But those are unmistakable expressions of political power that announce the rising consciousness of a new generation.
These younger activists have noticeably shifted the national temperature and the national discourse on guns and the climate crisis and police violence. (Consider how far the Biden campaign's rhetoric has moved since the beginning of the primary season.) They have helped create an environment where the widespread popular rejection of Donald Trump and the Republican agenda seems not just possible but nearly inevitable. There is no way to know what long-term political impact they will have, but they offer far more lasting hope for the renewal of democracy than whatever President Joe Biden and a hypothetical Democratic Congress may accomplish.
This year's election will come and go — and that can't happen soon enough. But Americans are beginning to understand what political power is, and how it works. Maybe they'll learn to use it before it's too late.


alternet--2020-10-27--Michael Bloomberg to spend $15 million on TV ads for Biden in Texas and Ohio after seeing tight poll

Michael Bloomberg to spend $15 million on TV ads for Biden in Texas and Ohio after seeing tight polling

Sign up for The Brief , our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news .
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is funding a last-minute ad blitz on behalf of Joe Biden in Texas and Ohio , providing a boost to the former vice president as polls and a flutter of late campaign activity continue to show that the Lone Star State might be in play .
A Bloomberg spokesperson told The Texas Tribune on Tuesday morning that the former mayor of New York City and Democratic presidential candidate will use his super PAC , Independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth of statewide ads in both Texas and Ohio .
The ads begin running Wednesday and will go through Election Day , or Nov. 3 .
In Texas , the ads will focus on “ [ President Donald ] Trump 's mismanagement of COVID-19 crisis , '' according to a Bloomberg spokesperson .
The commercials will run in both English and Spanish .
The decision by Bloomberg is further fodder for Democrats that for the first time in decades , Texas is not a foregone conclusion .
The move comes as some polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and , in some surveys , ahead — in the traditionally Republican state .
The Bloomberg spokesperson confirmed earlier reports from the New York Times that the former mayor asked his team to run a round of polls across multiple states and based its spending decisions on survey results .
The team came away convinced that Texas and Ohio were prime pickup opportunities for Democrats , despite both going for Trump in 2016 , and Bloomberg later gave “ the go-ahead to invest additional money to support Joe Biden , '' the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both Biden and President Donald Trump have avoided general election campaigning in Texas .
Trump has n't visited the state since the summer , while Biden 's last appearance was in March .
In the last month , however , Biden has sent a flurry of surrogates to the state to campaign on his behalf .
His running mate , U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California , is planning to visit Texas on Friday .
Until now , Bloomberg had focused his general-election activities in Florida — where he pledged to spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg spokesperson told the Tribune on Tuesday that Bloomberg also plans to increase the size of his television ad buys in Florida over the next week .
But this is not the first time Bloomberg has waded into Texas politics .
Before spending a gusher of cash in the state during his own failed presidential campaign , his super PAC spent $ 2.8 million to help Democratic U.S. Reps. Colin Allred , of Dallas , and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher , of Houston , in their respective 2018 congressional races .
More recently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.6 million to the Democratic nominee for railroad commissioner , Chrysta Castañeda , providing a massive fundraising boost in a race for the oil and gas regulatory board that usually does not see such big money .
A Biden win in Texas this year would be seismic in American politics and end the decadeslong Republican dominance in the nation 's most populous red state .
The last Democrat to win the state 's Electoral College votes was Jimmy Carter in 1976 .
Still , Biden nor Trump has invested serious resources in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Over the weekend , Trump 's campaign dismissed the possibility that Texas could flip to Democrats ; Rick Perry , the former energy secretary and governor of Texas , told reporters that it was “ not a battleground state . ''
Polls paint a different picture : The latest survey from the University of Texas/Texas Tribune , released Oct. 9 , gave Trump a 5-point lead over Biden in the state .
A Quinnipiac University poll last week showed a tie ; a Dallas Morning News/University of Texas at Tyler poll released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a New York Times/Siena College poll on Monday gave Trump a 4-point lead .
Another nonpartisan Texas poll released Monday , from the Hobby School for Public Affairs at the University of Houston , gave Trump a 5-point lead .
Disclosure : New York Times and University of Houston have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune , a nonprofit , nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members , foundations and corporate sponsors .
Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune 's journalism .
Find a @ @ @ @ @ @

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is funding a last-minute ad blitz on behalf of Joe Biden in Texas and Ohio, providing a boost to the former vice president as polls and a flutter of late campaign activity continue to show that the Lone Star State might be in play.
A Bloomberg spokesperson told The Texas Tribune on Tuesday morning that the former mayor of New York City and Democratic presidential candidate will use his super PAC, Independence USA, to fund $15 million worth of statewide ads in both Texas and Ohio.
The ads begin running Wednesday and will go through Election Day, or Nov. 3. In Texas, the ads will focus on “[President Donald] Trump's mismanagement of COVID-19 crisis," according to a Bloomberg spokesperson. The commercials will run in both English and Spanish.
The decision by Bloomberg is further fodder for Democrats that for the first time in decades, Texas is not a foregone conclusion. The move comes as some polls show the Biden-Harris ticket within striking distance — and, in some surveys, ahead — in the traditionally Republican state.
The Bloomberg spokesperson confirmed earlier reports from the New York Times that the former mayor asked his team to run a round of polls across multiple states and based its spending decisions on survey results. The team came away convinced that Texas and Ohio were prime pickup opportunities for Democrats, despite both going for Trump in 2016, and Bloomberg later gave “the go-ahead to invest additional money to support Joe Biden," the spokesperson said.
For the most part, both Biden and President Donald Trump have avoided general election campaigning in Texas. Trump hasn't visited the state since the summer, while Biden's last appearance was in March. In the last month, however, Biden has sent a flurry of surrogates to the state to campaign on his behalf. His running mate, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, is planning to visit Texas on Friday.
Until now, Bloomberg had focused his general-election activities in Florida — where he pledged to spend $100 million supporting Biden. The Bloomberg spokesperson told the Tribune on Tuesday that Bloomberg also plans to increase the size of his television ad buys in Florida over the next week.
But this is not the first time Bloomberg has waded into Texas politics. Before spending a gusher of cash in the state during his own failed presidential campaign, his super PAC spent $2.8 million to help Democratic U.S. Reps. Colin Allred, of Dallas, and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, of Houston, in their respective 2018 congressional races.
More recently, he made a late donation of $2.6 million to the Democratic nominee for railroad commissioner, Chrysta Castañeda, providing a massive fundraising boost in a race for the oil and gas regulatory board that usually does not see such big money.
A Biden win in Texas this year would be seismic in American politics and end the decadeslong Republican dominance in the nation's most populous red state. The last Democrat to win the state's Electoral College votes was Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Still, Biden nor Trump has invested serious resources in the state in the lead-up to Election Day. Over the weekend, Trump's campaign dismissed the possibility that Texas could flip to Democrats; Rick Perry, the former energy secretary and governor of Texas, told reporters that it was “not a battleground state."
Polls paint a different picture: The latest survey from the University of Texas/Texas Tribune, released Oct. 9, gave Trump a 5-point lead over Biden in the state. A Quinnipiac University poll last week showed a tie; a Dallas Morning News/University of Texas at Tyler poll released Sunday showed Biden up 2 points, and a New York Times/Siena College poll on Monday gave Trump a 4-point lead. Another nonpartisan Texas poll released Monday, from the Hobby School for Public Affairs at the University of Houston, gave Trump a 5-point lead.
Disclosure: New York Times and University of Houston have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


alternet--2020-10-27--Ocasio-Cortez: Republicans don't think Democrats 'have the stones to play hardball'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had just three initial words to say Monday night after Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as the latest Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court following her confirmation by a 52 to 48 margin in the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate earlier in the evening .
`` Expand the court , '' tweeted Ocasio-Cortez , a sentiment widely shared as the only just recourse after the GOP under President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rammed through the third justice for the nation 's highest court in less than four years .
`` Republicans do this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stones to play hardball like they do , '' the New York Democrat added subsequently .
`` And for a long time they 've been correct .
But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response is n't .
There is a legal process for expansion . ''
Ocasio-Cortez is correct .
Democrats—if they are able to regain control of the Senate and the White House , and also retain the House , in next week 's national elections—would have the power to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including increasing the number of seats from the current nine .
As MarketPlace recently noted : `` Nine is n't a number that 's set in stone—the Constitution does n't state how many justices must be on the Supreme Court .
There were originally six justices on the court , with that number fluctuating throughout the country 's history . ''
Shortly after Ocasio-Cortez 's tweet , her House colleague and fellow progressive Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) re-shared the message .
`` Remember that Republicans have lost 6 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have appointed 6 of the last 9 justices , '' added Omar .
`` By expanding the court we fix this broken system and have the court better represent the values of the American people . ''
Author and activist Naomi Klein joined about 350,000 others ( as of this writing ) by sharing , commenting on , or liking the message on the social media platform .
And other progressives with similar messages followed .
`` If the current batch of Democrats wo n't pack the court , we 're going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' said radio host Benjamin Dixon .
Winnie Wong , political strategist and former advisor to the Bernie Sanders president campaign , tweeted : `` Pack the court .
Abolish the filibuster . ''
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
said that while Republicans `` are popping champagne tonight to celebrate how they for shoved aside the wishes of the American people to steal a Supreme Court seat and impose their radical agenda on the country , '' Democrats are not about to give up the fight .
`` Every option needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court 's credibility and integrity , '' said Warren .
`` Every option to expand our democracy .
Every option to ensure that all Americans have equal justice in our courts and representation in our institutions . ''
Following Barrett 's confirmation vote , progressive groups vowed to mobilize en masse nationwide to win the November elections and begin the immediate work of undoing the untold damage wrought by the Trump presidency and GOP control of Congress .
`` By ramming through a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic , Senate Republicans have once again shown that they care more about power than people 's lives and livelihoods , '' said Sean Eldridge , founder and president of Stand Up America .
`` Now , they will answer to the voters . ''
`` The only way to protect our health care , our democracy , and our fundamental rights is to elect Joe Biden and flip the Senate in eight days , '' Eldridge said .
`` This illegitimate power grab leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts next year , including enacting term limits and expanding the number of seats to restore balance to the judiciary . ''
Demand Justice , which has focused on stopping the rightward shift of the judiciary under Trump , vowed to fight back with a bold set of progressive reforms to the courts—including expansion : '' Amy Coney Barrett is a threat to the health and safety of millions of Americans , '' said Meagan Hatcher Mays , director of democracy policy at Indivisible , the progressive advocacy group .
`` Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the health and safety of our very democracy .
And despite what McConnell may claim from the Senate floor , this is n't over .
If he thinks that we 'wo n't be able to do much about this , ' he should think again .
We can and will defeat his disastrous agenda and restore balance to the courts .
It all starts on November 3 . ''

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had just three initial words to say Monday night after Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as the latest Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court following her confirmation by a 52 to 48 margin in the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate earlier in the evening.
"Expand the court," tweeted Ocasio-Cortez, a sentiment widely shared as the only just recourse after the GOP under President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rammed through the third justice for the nation's highest court in less than four years.
"Republicans do this because they don't believe Dems have the stones to play hardball like they do," the New York Democrat added subsequently. "And for a long time they've been correct. But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isn't. There is a legal process for expansion."
Ocasio-Cortez is correct. Democrats—if they are able to regain control of the Senate and the White House, and also retain the House, in next week's national elections—would have the power to make sweeping changes to the Supreme Court, including increasing the number of seats from the current nine. As
MarketPlace recently noted: "Nine isn't a number that's set in stone—the Constitution doesn't state how many justices must be on the Supreme Court. There were originally six justices on the court, with that number fluctuating throughout the country's history."
Shortly after Ocasio-Cortez's tweet, her House colleague and fellow progressive Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) re-shared the message.
"Remember that Republicans have lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes, but have appointed 6 of the last 9 justices," added Omar. "By expanding the court we fix this broken system and have the court better represent the values of the American people."
Author and activist Naomi Klein joined about 350,000 others (as of this writing) by sharing, commenting on, or liking the message on the social media platform.
And other progressives with similar messages followed.
"If the current batch of Democrats won't pack the court, we're going to replace them and do it ourselves," said radio host Benjamin Dixon.
Winnie Wong, political strategist and former advisor to the Bernie Sanders president campaign, tweeted: "Pack the court. Abolish the filibuster."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that while Republicans "are popping champagne tonight to celebrate how they for shoved aside the wishes of the American people to steal a Supreme Court seat and impose their radical agenda on the country," Democrats are not about to give up the fight.
"Every option needs to be on the table to restore the Supreme Court's credibility and integrity," said Warren. "Every option to expand our democracy. Every option to ensure that all Americans have equal justice in our courts and representation in our institutions."
Following Barrett's confirmation vote, progressive groups vowed to mobilize en masse nationwide to win the November elections and begin the immediate work of undoing the untold damage wrought by the Trump presidency and GOP control of Congress.
"By ramming through a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court that could be the deciding vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic, Senate Republicans have once again shown that they care more about power than people's lives and livelihoods," said Sean Eldridge, founder and president of Stand Up America. "Now, they will answer to the voters."
"The only way to protect our health care, our democracy, and our fundamental rights is to elect Joe Biden and flip the Senate in eight days," Eldridge said. "This illegitimate power grab leaves Democrats no choice but to reform our courts next year, including enacting term limits and expanding the number of seats to restore balance to the judiciary."
Demand Justice, which has focused on stopping the rightward shift of the judiciary under Trump, vowed to fight back with a bold set of progressive reforms to the courts—including expansion:
"Amy Coney Barrett is a threat to the health and safety of millions of Americans," said Meagan Hatcher Mays, director of democracy policy at Indivisible, the progressive advocacy group. "Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate are a threat to the health and safety of our very democracy. And despite what McConnell may claim from the Senate floor, this isn't over. If he thinks that we 'won't be able to do much about this,' he should think again. We can and will defeat his disastrous agenda and restore balance to the courts. It all starts on November 3."


alternet--2020-10-27--CBS hires 24-hour security for Lesley Stahl after she receives death threats following Trump intervi

CBS hires 24-hour security for Lesley Stahl after she receives death threats following Trump interview

The CBS News network has reportedly hired full-time security for `` 60 Minutes '' correspondent Lesley Stah following a death threat one of her family members received after her exclusive interview with President Donald Trump .
The network 's decision came shortly after an unidentified suspect called Stahl and threatened her and her family saying `` something about neo-Nazis , '' according to TMZ .
The mysterious call came just hours before Trump leaked his own copy of the interview via Facebook .
The Los Angeles Police Department has not confirmed whether or not an investigation has been launched into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed that the 78-year-old news correspondent now has full security at her home and when she goes out publicly .
The interview caught the attention of viewers everywhere after it was reported that the president abruptly ended his sit-down discussion with Stahl amid complaints of `` tough '' questions .
Shortly after Trump released the footage , CBS also released a statement .
According to the network , Trump 's decision to upload the 37-minute video prior to the official release date would not `` deter '60 Minutes ' from providing its full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have participated in for decades . ''
Despite Trump leaking the video , CBS News still received record-breaking viewership when the official interview aired .
More than 17 million viewers tuned it , which marked CBS ' largest audience since the network aired its Stormy Daniels segment in 2018 .

The CBS News network has reportedly hired full-time security for "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stah following a death threat one of her family members received after her exclusive interview with President Donald Trump.
The network's decision came shortly after an unidentified suspect called Stahl and threatened her and her family saying "something about neo-Nazis," according to TMZ. The mysterious call came just hours before Trump leaked his own copy of the interview via Facebook.
The Los Angeles Police Department has not confirmed whether or not an investigation has been launched into the call. However, the publication confirmed that the 78-year-old news correspondent now has full security at her home and when she goes out publicly.
The interview caught the attention of viewers everywhere after it was reported that the president abruptly ended his sit-down discussion with Stahl amid complaints of "tough" questions.
Shortly after Trump released the footage, CBS also released a statement. According to the network, Trump's decision to upload the 37-minute video prior to the official release date would not "deter '60 Minutes' from providing its full, fair and contextual reporting which presidents have participated in for decades."
Despite Trump leaking the video, CBS News still received record-breaking viewership when the official interview aired. More than 17 million viewers tuned it, which marked CBS' largest audience since the network aired its Stormy Daniels segment in 2018.


alternet--2020-10-27--Conservative lays out 3 possible Biden victory scenarios — including a Herbert Hoover-like ‘repudiat

Conservative lays out 3 possible Biden victory scenarios — including a Herbert Hoover-like ‘repudiation' of Trump

With the 2020 presidential election only a week away , President Donald Trump is still hoping to pull off a narrow Electoral College victory if he can perform well in enough swing states — and Florida and Pennsylvania are at the top of his list .
But conservative journalist William Kristol , one of Trump 's most blistering critics on the right , is hoping that Trump loses badly .
And Kristol lays out three possible scenarios for a Trump loss in an October 27 article for The Bulwark .
In his article , Kristol argues that a Trump loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden could be Scenario # 1 : Retirement , Scenario # 2 : Rejection or Scenario # 3 : Repudiation .
In Scenario # 1 : Retirement , Kristol writes , the headline on Wednesday , November 4 might be `` Trump Loses Presidency As Midwest Flips ; GOP Holds Senate '' — whereas in Scenario # 2 : Rejection , the headline might be , `` Trump Defeated By Big Margin ; Election Called Early As Florida and North Carolina Go to Biden ; Democrats Win Senate . ''
And for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be the most brutal of the three for Trump — the headline might be , `` Biden Wins By Double Digits in Popular Vote ; Rout Extends to Victory in Texas ; Democrats Control Senate Easily . ''
Delving into U.S. presidential history , Kristol points to the 1932 , 1980 and 1992 elections as possible examples of what Trump might experience on Tuesday , November 3 , 2020 .
President George H.W .
Bush 's loss to Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992 , according to Kristol , was an example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recalls , `` In 1992 , President George H.W .
Bush lost by 5.6 percentage points to Bill Clinton — a defeat , but not a rout .
There was no change in the party composition of the Senate , and Republicans , helped by redistricting , actually picked up nine House seats .
Voters were tired of Republican rule after 12 years of Reagan-Bush , and they were reassured that Clinton was n't seeking to undo the positive aspects of that period . ''
According to Kristol , incumbent Democratic President Jimmy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ronald Reagan in 1980 was an example of Scenario # 2 : Rejection .
`` In 1980 , President Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan by 9.7 percentage points , '' Kristol notes .
`` And Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time in a quarter century , picking up 12 Senate seats , along with 34 House seats .
The 1980 election marked a clear rejection of the Carter presidency .
And the rejection lingered : Reagan and Bush would go on to win the next two presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Scenario # 3 : Repudiation , according to Kristol , occurred during the Great Depression in 1932 — when one-term incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover suffered a colossal defeat at the hands of Democratic challenger Franklin Delano Roosevelt .
`` In 1932 , President Herbert Hoover was defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt by a 17.7 % margin in the popular vote , '' Kristol notes .
`` Republicans also lost 12 Senate seats and 97 House seats .
1932 was a watershed election , one of the three or four big realigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in policy by the New Deal , which fundamentally changed the American political , social and economic compacts . ''
Herbert Hoover , Jimmy Carter and George H.W .
Bush were all voted out of office , but Kristol stresses that the size of their defeats must be taken into consideration .
Although Kristol is right-wing politically , he is supporting Biden and is obviously hoping for Scenario # 3 : Repudiation .
Kristol , like other Never Trumpers , believes that Trump has been so terrible for the GOP and the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffers on November 3 , the better it will be for conservatism in the long run .
`` The initial reactions to these would be very different , '' Kristol explains .
`` But so , probably , would be the lasting effects .
One would be a defeat for Trump , the second a rejection not just of Trump , but perhaps of Trumpism .
The third would open up the possibility for a remaking of the GOP and of conservatism itself… .
Next week , not just the fact of victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will matter . ''

With the 2020 presidential election only a week away, President Donald Trump is still hoping to pull off a narrow Electoral College victory if he can perform well in enough swing states — and Florida and Pennsylvania are at the top of his list. But conservative journalist William Kristol, one of Trump's most blistering critics on the right, is hoping that Trump loses badly. And Kristol lays out three possible scenarios for a Trump loss in an October 27 article for The Bulwark.
In his article, Kristol argues that a Trump loss and a victory for former Vice President Joe Biden could be Scenario #1: Retirement, Scenario #2: Rejection or Scenario #3: Repudiation.
In Scenario #1: Retirement, Kristol writes, the headline on Wednesday, November 4 might be "Trump Loses Presidency As Midwest Flips; GOP Holds Senate" — whereas in Scenario #2: Rejection, the headline might be, "Trump Defeated By Big Margin; Election Called Early As Florida and North Carolina Go to Biden; Democrats Win Senate." And for Scenario #3: Repudiation — which would be the most brutal of the three for Trump — the headline might be, "Biden Wins By Double Digits in Popular Vote; Rout Extends to Victory in Texas; Democrats Control Senate Easily."
Delving into U.S. presidential history, Kristol points to the 1932, 1980 and 1992 elections as possible examples of what Trump might experience on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.
President George H.W. Bush's loss to Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992, according to Kristol, was an example of Scenario #1: Retirement.
Kristol recalls, "In 1992, President George H.W. Bush lost by 5.6 percentage points to Bill Clinton — a defeat, but not a rout. There was no change in the party composition of the Senate, and Republicans, helped by redistricting, actually picked up nine House seats. Voters were tired of Republican rule after 12 years of Reagan-Bush, and they were reassured that Clinton wasn't seeking to undo the positive aspects of that period."
According to Kristol, incumbent Democratic President Jimmy Carter's loss to former California Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1980 was an example of Scenario #2: Rejection.
"In 1980, President Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan by 9.7 percentage points," Kristol notes. "And Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time in a quarter century, picking up 12 Senate seats, along with 34 House seats. The 1980 election marked a clear rejection of the Carter presidency. And the rejection lingered: Reagan and Bush would go on to win the next two presidential elections, easily."
An example of Scenario #3: Repudiation, according to Kristol, occurred during the Great Depression in 1932 — when one-term incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover suffered a colossal defeat at the hands of Democratic challenger Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
"In 1932, President Herbert Hoover was defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt by a 17.7% margin in the popular vote," Kristol notes. "Republicans also lost 12 Senate seats and 97 House seats. 1932 was a watershed election, one of the three or four big realigning elections in U.S. history. It resulted in policy by the New Deal, which fundamentally changed the American political, social and economic compacts."
Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were all voted out of office, but Kristol stresses that the size of their defeats must be taken into consideration.
Although Kristol is right-wing politically, he is supporting Biden and is obviously hoping for Scenario #3: Repudiation. Kristol, like other Never Trumpers, believes that Trump has been so terrible for the GOP and the conservative movement that the worse a defeat he suffers on November 3, the better it will be for conservatism in the long run.
"The initial reactions to these would be very different," Kristol explains. "But so, probably, would be the lasting effects. One would be a defeat for Trump, the second a rejection not just of Trump, but perhaps of Trumpism. The third would open up the possibility for a remaking of the GOP and of conservatism itself…. Next week, not just the fact of victory, but the margin of victory, will matter."


alternet--2020-10-27--McConnell adjourns Senate for recess with no COVID relief in sight after jamming through Barrett con

McConnell adjourns Senate for recess with no COVID relief in sight after jamming through Barrett confirmation

After installing right-wing judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court just days ahead of the November presidential election , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell summarily adjourned his chamber for recess late Monday without approving any additional coronavirus relief , effectively signaling that the prospect of an aid package ahead of next week 's contest is dead .
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin are set to continue negotiating the details of a roughly $ 2 trillion relief package as economic suffering intensifies nationwide , the Republican-controlled Senate 's departure late Monday appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the primary obstacles to additional stimulus legislation—has no interest in passing a bill before November 3 .
When the Senate returns on November 9 , nearly a week after the election , its first scheduled vote is on a procedural motion to advance yet another right-wing federal judge .
`` Amid an historic public health crisis that has already taken more than 225,000 lives in the U.S. alone , Trump and his Senate allies have gone full speed ahead on confirming their extremist Supreme Court pick while leaving hurting Americans in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of government watchdog group Accountable.US , said in a statement late Monday .
`` Small business owners , workers , and families are desperate for support—and lawmakers and the president abandoned them in order to focus on jamming through a historically non-transparent and extreme Supreme Court pick , '' Herrig continued .
`` Senators should be ashamed of themselves . ''
Leah Greenberg , co-executive director of progressive advocacy group Indivisible , noted that Barrett 's rapid confirmation process `` demonstrates that the Republican Senate can move incredibly fast when they think something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did n't think Covid relief was important , '' Greenberg tweeted .
Depending on the outcome of the November 3 election—from who wins the presidency to which party emerges with control of the Senate—the failure to approve additional coronavirus relief prior to the contest could delay an additional aid package for months , leaving millions of jobless , hungry , and eviction-prone Americans without desperately needed assistance as the coronavirus continues to spread .
`` We should be voting on a major Covid-19 stimulus package to protect the working people of this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have lost their jobs , '' Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) said before heading to the Senate floor to vote against Barrett 's confirmation .
`` They 're struggling right now as to whether or not they can pay their rent , whether they can get health insurance , whether they can put food on the table to feed their kids . ''
In an appearance on MSNBC Monday night , Pelosi indicated that a deal with the White House on coronavirus relief is far from imminent , pointing to the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand for a national Covid-19 testing strategy .
As it stands , the bill would provide a $ 400-per-week federal boost to unemployment insurance , an additional round of stimulus checks to most Americans , and $ 300 billion in aid to cash-strapped state and local governments .
`` We 've got to crush the virus , '' Pelosi told MSNBC 's Chris Hayes .
`` We 've got to have our children safely in schools .
We 've got to insist that as people are going into poverty , we are asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Child Tax Credit , all these things that take people out of poverty .
They 're insisting on keeping their big tax cut $ 150 billion for the wealthiest people in the country . ''
`` We do not have shared values , '' Pelosi added , `` but we hope that some pragmatism might set in on them that the public would demand that they crush the virus . ''

After installing right-wing judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court just days ahead of the November presidential election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell summarily adjourned his chamber for recess late Monday without approving any additional coronavirus relief, effectively signaling that the prospect of an aid package ahead of next week's contest is dead.
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin are set to continue negotiating the details of a roughly $2 trillion relief package as economic suffering intensifies nationwide, the Republican-controlled Senate's departure late Monday appeared to confirm that McConnell—who has been one of the primary obstacles to additional stimulus legislation—has no interest in passing a bill before November 3.
When the Senate returns on November 9, nearly a week after the election, its first scheduled vote is on a procedural motion to advance yet another right-wing federal judge.
"Amid an historic public health crisis that has already taken more than 225,000 lives in the U.S. alone, Trump and his Senate allies have gone full speed ahead on confirming their extremist Supreme Court pick while leaving hurting Americans in the dust," Kyle Herrig, president of government watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement late Monday.
"Small business owners, workers, and families are desperate for support—and lawmakers and the president abandoned them in order to focus on jamming through a historically non-transparent and extreme Supreme Court pick," Herrig continued. "Senators should be ashamed of themselves."
Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of progressive advocacy group Indivisible, noted that Barrett's rapid confirmation process "demonstrates that the Republican Senate can move incredibly fast when they think something is important."
"They just didn't think Covid relief was important," Greenberg tweeted.
Depending on the outcome of the November 3 election—from who wins the presidency to which party emerges with control of the Senate—the failure to approve additional coronavirus relief prior to the contest could delay an additional aid package for months, leaving millions of jobless, hungry, and eviction-prone Americans without desperately needed assistance as the coronavirus continues to spread.
"We should be voting on a major Covid-19 stimulus package to protect the working people of this country, who by the tens of millions have lost their jobs," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said before heading to the Senate floor to vote against Barrett's confirmation. "They're struggling right now as to whether or not they can pay their rent, whether they can get health insurance, whether they can put food on the table to feed their kids."
In an appearance on MSNBC Monday night, Pelosi indicated that a deal with the White House on coronavirus relief is far from imminent, pointing to the Trump administration's refusal to accept Democrats' demand for a national Covid-19 testing strategy.
As it stands, the bill would provide a $400-per-week federal boost to unemployment insurance, an additional round of stimulus checks to most Americans, and $300 billion in aid to cash-strapped state and local governments.
"We've got to crush the virus," Pelosi told MSNBC's Chris Hayes. "We've got to have our children safely in schools. We've got to insist that as people are going into poverty, we are asking them for Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, all these things that take people out of poverty. They're insisting on keeping their big tax cut $150 billion for the wealthiest people in the country."
"We do not have shared values," Pelosi added, "but we hope that some pragmatism might set in on them that the public would demand that they crush the virus."


alternet--2020-10-27--'My favorite handmaiden': Anti-LGBT NOM co-founder posts smiling photo with Amy Coney Barrett

National Organization For Marriage co-founder Robert P. George just posted a photo of himself with the nation 's newest Supreme Court Justice , Amy Coney Barrett , calling her `` my favorite Handmaiden of the Law . ''
NOM is the anti-LGBTQ anti-marriage equality organization that conservatives had poured millions into in the hope it would stanch the spread of same-sex marriage .
George 's remarks are apparently meant to mock Americans ' deep and dire fears and concerns about Justice Barrett , a far right religious extremist who vehemently opposes abortion , same-sex marriage , equality for LGBTQ people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the most far-right jurist on the Supreme Court , even more extreme than Justice Clarence Thomas .
National Organization For Marriage co-founder Robert P. George just posted a photo of himself with the nation 's newest Supreme Court Justice , Amy Coney Barrett , calling her `` my favorite Handmaiden of the Law . ''
NOM is the anti-LGBTQ anti-marriage equality organization that conservatives had poured millions into in the hope it would stanch the spread of same-sex marriage .
George 's remarks are apparently meant to mock Americans ' deep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a far right religious extremist who vehemently opposes abortion , same-sex marriage , equality for LGBTQ people , and ObamaCare .
She is seen as the most far-right jurist on the Supreme Court , even more extreme than Justice Clarence Thomas .
The `` Handmaiden '' reference is to Margaret Atwood 's 1985 dystopian novel `` The Handmaid 's Tale , '' which is set in what was once New England , now part the fictional totalitarian , Christian nation of Gilead , created after an overthrow of the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a film and a television series , women are not allowed to read or participate in much of society , and are forced to serve men much in the way the Bible commands .
Rape is institutionalized and homosexuality is punishable by death .
George is a Princeton University professor .
He is also the co-founder and a senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute , a conservative think tank that focuses its efforts on opposing same-sex marriage , abortion , and stem cell research .
Barrett was forced through the confirmation process in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far right wing anti-LGBTQ , anti-equality , pro-religious extremism jurist .
She was confirmed by Republican Senators Monday night , and barely hours later sworn in at the White House .

National Organization For Marriage co-founder Robert P. George just posted a photo of himself with the nation's newest Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, calling her "my favorite Handmaiden of the Law." NOM is the anti-LGBTQ anti-marriage equality organization that conservatives had poured millions into in the hope it would stanch the spread of same-sex marriage.
George's remarks are apparently meant to mock Americans' deep and dire fears and concerns about Justice Barrett, a far right religious extremist who vehemently opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, equality for LGBTQ people, and ObamaCare. She is seen as the most far-right jurist on the Supreme Court, even more extreme than Justice Clarence Thomas.
National Organization For Marriage co-founder Robert P. George just posted a photo of himself with the nation's newest Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, calling her "my favorite Handmaiden of the Law." NOM is the anti-LGBTQ anti-marriage equality organization that conservatives had poured millions into in the hope it would stanch the spread of same-sex marriage.
George's remarks are apparently meant to mock Americans' deep and dire fears and concerns about Justice Barrett, a far right religious extremist who vehemently opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, equality for LGBTQ people, and ObamaCare. She is seen as the most far-right jurist on the Supreme Court, even more extreme than Justice Clarence Thomas.
The "Handmaiden" reference is to Margaret Atwood's 1985 dystopian novel "The Handmaid's Tale," which is set in what was once New England, now part the fictional totalitarian, Christian nation of Gilead, created after an overthrow of the United States. In the novel, which is also a film and a television series, women are not allowed to read or participate in much of society, and are forced to serve men much in the way the Bible commands. Rape is institutionalized and homosexuality is punishable by death.
George is a Princeton University professor. He is also the co-founder and a senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank that focuses its efforts on opposing same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.
Barrett was forced through the confirmation process in near-record time, as conservatives praised the far right wing anti-LGBTQ, anti-equality, pro-religious extremism jurist. She was confirmed by Republican Senators Monday night, and barely hours later sworn in at the White House.