alternet--2020-11-16--Obama on Trump: 'Complaining, lying, doesn’t-take-responsibility-for-anything type of figure'

One thing I 'll never understand until the day I die is how so many people ascribe `` toughness '' and `` manliness '' to Donald Trump .
( I 'll also never quite get how someone who clearly looks more like an adobe hut than a human being could garner so much support , but hey , one thing at a time . )
Trump is the whiniest , tiniest chirping baby bird who 's ever held public office — on any level .
And yet people seem to think he 's a tough guy .
And while I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how men and women `` should '' behave ( I never quite fit in with preconceived notions about masculinity , as I 'm just as likely to watch Glee as I am a Green Bay Packers game ) , even by conventional and outdated notions of manly behavior , Trump does n't come close to fitting the bill .
Well , I 'm not the only one who 's noticed .
Our 44th president is hardly impressed with his successor on this score .
In a new interview with The Atlantic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among men , and he appears to be just as perplexed as I am : I can only assume Obama is trying to get Trump to burst a blood vessel in his neck so he stops tweeting nonsense and gets the fuck out of Joe Biden 's chair .
And while Obama did n't mention Trump specifically here — well , it 's pretty obvious who he 's talking about .
And , hey , I sure would n't mind if he keeps it up .

One thing I'll never understand until the day I die is how so many people ascribe "toughness" and "manliness" to Donald Trump. (I'll also never quite get how someone who clearly looks more like an adobe hut than a human being could garner so much support, but hey, one thing at a time.)
Trump is the whiniest, tiniest chirping baby bird who's ever held public office — on any level. And yet people seem to think he's a tough guy. And while I'd prefer we dispense entirely with stereotypes about how men and women "should" behave (I never quite fit in with preconceived notions about masculinity, as I'm just as likely to watch Glee as I am a Green Bay Packers game), even by conventional and outdated notions of manly behavior, Trump doesn't come close to fitting the bill.
Well, I'm not the only one who's noticed. Our 44th president is hardly impressed with his successor on this score.
In a new interview with The Atlantic, President Barack Obama assesses Trump's appeal among men, and he appears to be just as perplexed as I am:
Trump, Obama noted, is not exactly an exemplar of traditional American manhood. "I think about the classic male hero in American culture when you and I were growing up: the John Waynes, the Gary Coopers, the Jimmy Stewarts, the Clint Eastwoods, for that matter. There was a code … the code of masculinity that I grew up with that harkens back to the '30s and '40s and before that. There's a notion that a man is true to his word, that he takes responsibility, that he doesn't complain, that he isn't a bully—in fact he defends the vulnerable against bullies. And so even if you are someone who is annoyed by wokeness and political correctness and wants men to be men again and is tired about everyone complaining about the patriarchy, I thought that the model wouldn't be Richie Rich—the complaining, lying, doesn't-take-responsibility-for-anything type of figure."
Ouch.
I can only assume Obama is trying to get Trump to burst a blood vessel in his neck so he stops tweeting nonsense and gets the fuck out of Joe Biden's chair.
And while Obama didn't mention Trump specifically here — well, it's pretty obvious who he's talking about.
And, hey, I sure wouldn't mind if he keeps it up.


alternet--2020-11-16--Pro-Putin Russia media are echoing Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud: report

Many European leaders , from U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron , were quick to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden on his victory over President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election — and it is n't hard to see that Johnson , Merkel and Macron all believe that U.S. voters made the right choice .
But one leader who has yet to congratulate Biden is Russian President Vladimir Putin .
And writer Cathy Young , in an article for the conservative website The Bulwark , stresses that Russian media pundits have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the election was stolen from Trump because of widespread voter fraud .
In Russia , Young notes , media pundits have been describing the 2020 election as evidence of the failure of U.S. democracy .
`` So far , Putin is the only major national leader to have held back on congratulating Joe Biden on his victory , '' Young explains .
`` Meanwhile , the Russian state-run or state-friendly media have alternated mostly between open gloating over an American election in chaos and equally open sympathy for Trump . ''
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , discussions of America 's election drama on Russian airwaves eclipsed a patriotic holiday at home , Russian Unity Day , and the pro-Trump cheerleading grew more heavy-handed .
That evening 's edition of the political talk show 'Big Game ' on TV-1 , Russia 's main federal channel , was almost entirely dominated by pro-Trump voices . ''
Young observes that `` Big Game '' host Andranik Migranyan , a staunch Putin supporter , told Russian viewers , `` The majority of American voters want law and order , and today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law and order . ''
Migranyan , according to Young , joined Trump in saying that Democratic governors and mayors in the U.S. are allowing rioters and looters to run amok — and Migranyan also made the offensive and racist comment that Democrats `` get down on their knees and kiss the feet of Blacks . ''
Another Russian program that has been promoting Trump 's baseless claims of widespread voter fraud , according to Young , is `` Evening With Vladimir Solovyov , '' which airs on Russia 's Rossiya-1 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump supporters in the U.S. , claiming that Republican observers were kept away from vote-counting facilities .
Solovyov scoffed , `` Some precincts simply barred observers… .
It 's just brilliant .
This is what they call an electoral system . ''
One of Solovyov 's guests , pundit Sergei Stankevich , told him , `` Most likely , the Democrats will be able to torture the arithmetic until they get a win — that is , Biden will be declared president of the United States .
But he will be a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doubt will hang over his presidency for many Americans .
Millions of his votes came from mail-in ballots , and no one will ever know how many of those votes were from real people . ''
Young observes , `` The only anti-Trump voices in Putin 's Russia came from the dissidents .
Opposition activist Alexei Navalny , currently in Germany recovering from a poisoning widely blamed on Kremlin agents , congratulated Biden and ( Vice President-elect ) Kamala Harris on their victory in a 'free and fair election . '
'' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how quick pro-Putin pundits in Russia believed pro-Trump conspiracy theories that were invented in the United States .
`` For less discerning people in Russia and elsewhere , '' Young writes , `` the claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election will surely undermine not only America 's moral authority , but that of her democratic institutions .
And that 's on the people who have spread or condoned these toxic fictions . ''

Many European leaders, from U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, were quick to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden on his victory over President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election — and it isn't hard to see that Johnson, Merkel and Macron all believe that U.S. voters made the right choice. But one leader who has yet to congratulate Biden is Russian President Vladimir Putin. And writer Cathy Young, in an article for the conservative website The Bulwark, stresses that Russian media pundits have been tirelessly promoting the bogus conspiracy theory that the election was stolen from Trump because of widespread voter fraud.
In Russia, Young notes, media pundits have been describing the 2020 election as evidence of the failure of U.S. democracy.
"So far, Putin is the only major national leader to have held back on congratulating Joe Biden on his victory," Young explains. "Meanwhile, the Russian state-run or state-friendly media have alternated mostly between open gloating over an American election in chaos and equally open sympathy for Trump."
According to Young, "On November 4, discussions of America's election drama on Russian airwaves eclipsed a patriotic holiday at home, Russian Unity Day, and the pro-Trump cheerleading grew more heavy-handed. That evening's edition of the political talk show 'Big Game' on TV-1, Russia's main federal channel, was almost entirely dominated by pro-Trump voices."
Young observes that "Big Game" host Andranik Migranyan, a staunch Putin supporter, told Russian viewers, "The majority of American voters want law and order, and today, alas, only Trump symbolizes the idea of law and order." Migranyan, according to Young, joined Trump in saying that Democratic governors and mayors in the U.S. are allowing rioters and looters to run amok — and Migranyan also made the offensive and racist comment that Democrats "get down on their knees and kiss the feet of Blacks."
Another Russian program that has been promoting Trump's baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, according to Young, is "Evening With Vladimir Solovyov," which airs on Russia's Rossiya-1. Host Solovyov echoed the talking points of Trump supporters in the U.S., claiming that Republican observers were kept away from vote-counting facilities.
Solovyov scoffed, "Some precincts simply barred observers…. It's just brilliant. This is what they call an electoral system."
One of Solovyov's guests, pundit Sergei Stankevich, told him, "Most likely, the Democrats will be able to torture the arithmetic until they get a win — that is, Biden will be declared president of the United States. But he will be a president without legitimacy, because a thick cloud of doubt will hang over his presidency for many Americans. Millions of his votes came from mail-in ballots, and no one will ever know how many of those votes were from real people."
Young observes, "The only anti-Trump voices in Putin's Russia came from the dissidents. Opposition activist Alexei Navalny, currently in Germany recovering from a poisoning widely blamed on Kremlin agents, congratulated Biden and (Vice President-elect) Kamala Harris on their victory in a 'free and fair election.'"
Young wraps up her article by noting how quick pro-Putin pundits in Russia believed pro-Trump conspiracy theories that were invented in the United States.
"For less discerning people in Russia and elsewhere," Young writes, "the claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election will surely undermine not only America's moral authority, but that of her democratic institutions. And that's on the people who have spread or condoned these toxic fictions."


alternet--2020-11-16--Did Democrats really 'underperform' down-ballot?

The conventional wisdom often coalesces quickly around under examined assumptions , and once it does it can be tough to dislodge .
At present , pretty much everyone across the political spectrum shares the belief that Democrats under-performed in House and state legislative races , taking some of the shine off of their victory over Donald Trump at the top of the ticket , but is that really true ?
It 's certainly the case that they fell far short of expectations , but the problem is that those expectations were mostly shaped by polling , and we know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district level -- was very , very far off this year .
At present , progressives and moderates are trading recriminations based on the assumption that their party failed in some demonstrable way , but if the polling was way off , maybe they performed as well as they should have given the circumstances .
In a normal election , this would be an answerable question .
The key context here is that 2020 followed a huge `` blue wave '' in 2018 .
Dems netted 40 House seats and over 300 seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were highly competitive or even Republican-leaning .
That provided lots of low-hanging fruit for Republicans , who enjoyed record-setting turnout like their Democratic counterparts .
There was clearly some ticket-splitting , with disaffected Republicans voting for Biden at the top of the ticket and GOP candidates further down .
We know the incumbent had a 44.6 percent approval rating in FiveThirtyEight 's average on the day of the election , the challenger was viewed favorably by about the same number who viewed him unfavorably and that a majority of Americans said they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were four years ago .
In theory , one could plug these data into a model without the flawed head-to-head polls and come up with some estimate of what should have been expected in these circumstances .
But that would n't work for 2020 because there really was n't any historical precedent for this election .
The 1918 pandemic was over by the spring of 1920 .
We 've never had a figure like Donald Trump occupying the White House .
And his approval ratings were uniquely over the course of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This has always been a problem for numbers-crunchers and pundits alike this cycle .
One likely explanation for the polls being so far off is that 2020 saw the greatest turnout in the past 120 years , and pollsters ' likely voter models did n't reflect that degree of enthusiasm on both sides .
Biden led Trump by around 8.5 points in FiveThirtyEight 's final polling average , and he is currently ahead in the popular vote by fewer than three percentage points .
That margin will grow to maybe four or five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are tallied , and I suspect that Democrats probably fared as well as they might have been expected to against an incumbent who trailed by four or five points in the national polls with a majority saying they were better off than they had been four years earlier .
This is not to suggest that the consequences of Democrats falling short of the expectations set by those lofty polls are n't disastrous .
They are .
But the finger-pointing probably is n't justified , nor is the narrative that they `` lost '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine that Biden 's outreach to Republicans or activists ' calls to defund the police had much impact on this race , given the unique circumstances in which it was run .
The one decision that one could second-guess would be Democrats ' decision to limit canvassing because of the Coronavirus .
In hindsight , that looks like a mistake .
But in the end , the pandemic , like the faulty polling , was something beyond the party 's control .

The conventional wisdom often coalesces quickly around under examined assumptions, and once it does it can be tough to dislodge. At present, pretty much everyone across the political spectrum shares the belief that Democrats under-performed in House and state legislative races, taking some of the shine off of their victory over Donald Trump at the top of the ticket, but is that really true?
It's certainly the case that they fell far short of expectations, but the problem is that those expectations were mostly shaped by polling, and we know that the polling--especially at the congressional district level--was very, very far off this year. At present, progressives and moderates are trading recriminations based on the assumption that their party failed in some demonstrable way, but if the polling was way off, maybe they performed as well as they should have given the circumstances.
In a normal election, this would be an answerable question. The key context here is that 2020 followed a huge "blue wave" in 2018. Dems netted 40 House seats and over 300 seats in state legislatures, many of which were highly competitive or even Republican-leaning. That provided lots of low-hanging fruit for Republicans, who enjoyed record-setting turnout like their Democratic counterparts. There was clearly some ticket-splitting, with disaffected Republicans voting for Biden at the top of the ticket and GOP candidates further down. We know the incumbent had a 44.6 percent approval rating in FiveThirtyEight'saverage on the day of the election, the challenger was viewed favorably by about the same number who viewed him unfavorably and that a majority of Americans said they were better off prior to the election than they were four years ago. In theory, one could plug these data into a model without the flawed head-to-head polls and come up with some estimate of what should have been expected in these circumstances.
But that wouldn't work for 2020 because there really wasn't any historical precedent for this election. The 1918 pandemic was over by the spring of 1920. We've never had a figure like Donald Trump occupying the White House. And his approval ratings were uniquely over the course of his presidency, seemingly insulated from events. This has always been a problem for numbers-crunchers and pundits alike this cycle.
One likely explanation for the polls being so far off is that 2020 saw the greatest turnout in the past 120 years, and pollsters' likely voter models didn't reflect that degree of enthusiasm on both sides. Biden led Trump by around 8.5 points in FiveThirtyEight's final polling average, and he is currently ahead in the popular vote by fewer than three percentage points. That margin will grow to maybe four or five points as the rest of the ballots are tallied, and I suspect that Democrats probably fared as well as they might have been expected to against an incumbent who trailed by four or five points in the national polls with a majority saying they were better off than they had been four years earlier.
This is not to suggest that the consequences of Democrats falling short of the expectations set by those lofty polls aren't disastrous. They are. But the finger-pointing probably isn't justified, nor is the narrative that they "lost" the election. It's hard to imagine that Biden's outreach to Republicans or activists' calls to defund the police had much impact on this race, given the unique circumstances in which it was run.
The one decision that one could second-guess would be Democrats' decision to limit canvassing because of the Coronavirus. In hindsight, that looks like a mistake. But in the end, the pandemic, like the faulty polling, was something beyond the party's control.


alternet--2020-11-16--Trump slammed for bragging two COVID vaccines 'took place on my watch' — 'so did 246,000 American de

Trump slammed for bragging two COVID vaccines 'took place on my watch' — 'so did 246,000 American deaths'

After a morning filled with tweets falsely insisting `` I won the Election ! ''
which was `` Rigged !
@ @ @ @ @ is now trying to take credit for both the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine and Moderna 's @ @ @ @ @ this morning .
It 's not going well for him .
`` Another Vaccine just @ @ @ @ @ .
`` This time by Moderna , 95 % effective .
For those great 'historians @ @ @ @ @ these great discoveries , which will end the China Plague , all took place on @ @ @ @ @ had nothing to do with the Pfizer vaccine .
The Moderna vaccine was developed in @ @ @ @ @ 's Operation Warp Speed .
But as many reminded the President , his horrific mismanagement @ @ @ @ @ happened on his watch .
More than 11 million Americans have contracted COVID-19 and 250,000 @ @ @ @ @ been killed by the deadly virus .

After a morning filled with tweets falsely insisting "I won the Election!" which was "Rigged!" President Donald Trump Monday is now trying to take credit for both the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine and Moderna's, which was just announced this morning.
It's not going well for him.
"Another Vaccine just announced," Trump tweeted. "This time by Moderna, 95% effective. For those great 'historians', please remember that these great discoveries, which will end the China Plague, all took place on my watch!"
Trump had nothing to do with the Pfizer vaccine. The Moderna vaccine was developed in partnership with the White House's Operation Warp Speed.
But as many reminded the President, his horrific mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic also happened on his watch. More than 11 million Americans have contracted COVID-19 and 250,000 people in the U.S. have been killed by the deadly virus.


alternet--2020-11-16--Corporate Democrats provoked congressional losses — so naturally they’re blaming progressives

Corporate Democrats got the presidential nominee they wanted , along with control over huge campaign ad budgets and nationwide messaging to implement `` moderate '' strategies .
But , as the Washington Post noted , Joe Biden 's victory `` came with no coattails down ballot . ''
Democratic losses left just a razor-thin cushion in the House , and the party failed to win a Senate majority .
Now , corporate Democrats are scapegoating progressives .
The best members of Congress are pushing back—none more forcefully or eloquently than Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan who just won her second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorest districts .
She was the most outspoken against an anti-progressive pile-on during a Nov. 5 conference call of House Democrats .
And she continues to hold high a shining lantern of progressive principles .
Tlaib has pointed out that `` Democratic candidates in swing districts who openly supported progressive policies , like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal , won their races . ''
And she refuses to retreat .
`` We 're not going to be successful if we 're silencing districts like mine , '' she told Politico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to speak on behalf of many of my neighbors right now , many of which are black neighbors , means me being silenced .
I ca n't be silent . ''
Politico reported that Tlaib was `` choking up as she expressed frustration '' near the end of an interview as she said : `` If [ voters ] can walk past blighted homes and school closures and pollution to vote for Biden-Harris , when they feel like they do n't have anything else , they deserve to be heard .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to be quiet . ''
In an email to supporters , Tlaib was clear : `` We 've got to focus on working class people .
We are done waiting to be heard or prioritized by the federal government .
I wo n't let leaders of either party silence my residents ' voices any longer . ''
Tlaib offers the kind of clarity that should guide progressive forces no matter how much `` party unity '' smoke is blown in their direction : `` We are not interested in unity that asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights any longer .
And if we truly want to unify our country , we have to really respect every single voice .
We say that so willingly when we talk about Trump supporters , but we do n't say that willingly for my black and brown neighbors and from LGBTQ neighbors or marginalized people . ''
When Tlaib talks about `` pushing the Democratic Party to represent the communities that elected them , '' she actually means what she says .
That 's quite a contrast with the usual discourse coming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Committee .
Let 's face it : Most of the nearly 100 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are not reliable when corporate push comes to shove , assisted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
What has been startling and sometimes disturbing to entrenched Democrats is that Tlaib—along with House colleagues Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar , Ro Khanna and some others—repeatedly make it clear that they 're part of progressive movements .
And those movements are serious about fundamental social change , even if it means polarizing with Democratic Party leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values should be aware that Republican lawmakers are anathema to those values .
But that reality should n't blind us to the necessity of challenging—and , when feasible , organizing to unseat—elected Democrats who are more interested in maintaining the status quo that benefits moneyed interests than fighting for social justice .
While satisfying their impulses to blame the left for centrist failures , corporate Democrats and their mildly `` progressive '' enablers—inside and outside of Congress—are striving to paper over basic fault lines .
The absence of a functional public-health system , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency , the widening and deadly realities of income inequality , the systemic racism , the runaway militarism and so many other ongoing catastrophes are results of social structures that constrict democracy and serve oligarchy .
Those who denounce the fight for a progressive agenda are telling us that , in essence , they do n't want much to change .

Corporate Democrats got the presidential nominee they wanted, along with control over huge campaign ad budgets and nationwide messaging to implement "moderate" strategies. But, as the Washington Postnoted, Joe Biden's victory "came with no coattails down ballot." Democratic losses left just a razor-thin cushion in the House, and the party failed to win a Senate majority. Now, corporate Democrats are scapegoating progressives.
The best members of Congress are pushing back—none more forcefully or eloquently than Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan who just won her second term in one of the nation's poorest districts. She was the most outspoken against an anti-progressive pile-on during a Nov. 5 conference call of House Democrats. And she continues to hold high a shining lantern of progressive principles.
Tlaib has pointed out that "Democratic candidates in swing districts who openly supported progressive policies, like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, won their races." And she refuses to retreat.
"We're not going to be successful if we're silencing districts like mine," she toldPolitico last week. "Me not being able to speak on behalf of many of my neighbors right now, many of which are black neighbors, means me being silenced. I can't be silent."
Politico reported that Tlaib was "choking up as she expressed frustration" near the end of an interview as she said: "If [voters] can walk past blighted homes and school closures and pollution to vote for Biden-Harris, when they feel like they don't have anything else, they deserve to be heard. I can't believe that people are asking them to be quiet."
In an email to supporters, Tlaib was clear: "We've got to focus on working class people. We are done waiting to be heard or prioritized by the federal government. I won't let leaders of either party silence my residents' voices any longer."
Tlaib offers the kind of clarity that should guide progressive forces no matter how much "party unity" smoke is blown in their direction: "We are not interested in unity that asks people to sacrifice their freedom and their rights any longer. And if we truly want to unify our country, we have to really respect every single voice. We say that so willingly when we talk about Trump supporters, but we don't say that willingly for my black and brown neighbors and from LGBTQ neighbors or marginalized people."
When Tlaib talks about "pushing the Democratic Party to represent the communities that elected them," she actually means what she says. That's quite a contrast with the usual discourse coming from dominant Democrats and outfits like the Democratic National Committee.
Let's face it: Most of the nearly 100 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are not reliable when corporate push comes to shove, assisted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. What has been startling and sometimes disturbing to entrenched Democrats is that Tlaib—along with House colleagues Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna and some others—repeatedly make it clear that they're part of progressive movements. And those movements are serious about fundamental social change, even if it means polarizing with Democratic Party leaders.
Anyone with a shred of humane values should be aware that Republican lawmakers are anathema to those values. But that reality shouldn't blind us to the necessity of challenging—and, when feasible, organizing to unseat—elected Democrats who are more interested in maintaining the status quo that benefits moneyed interests than fighting for social justice.
While satisfying their impulses to blame the left for centrist failures, corporate Democrats and their mildly "progressive" enablers—inside and outside of Congress—are striving to paper over basic fault lines. The absence of a functional public-health system, the feeble government response to the climate emergency, the widening and deadly realities of income inequality, the systemic racism, the runaway militarism and so many other ongoing catastrophes are results of social structures that constrict democracy and serve oligarchy. Those who denounce the fight for a progressive agenda are telling us that, in essence, they don't want much to change.


alternet--2020-11-16--'At what point does this get ridiculous?' Judges are fed up with Team Trump’s frivolous election law

'At what point does this get ridiculous?' Judges are fed up with Team Trump’s frivolous election lawsuits

Even though the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has described the 2020 presidential election as `` the most secure in American history , '' President Donald Trump and his supporters continue to baselessly claim that he was the victim of widespread voter fraud — and Team Trump is hoping that its lawsuits in different states will prevent President-elect Joe Biden from replacing him in the White House on January 20 , 2021 .
But according to ABC News reporters Matthew Mosk , Olivia Rubin and Alex Hosenball , judges are growing more and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuits .
In an article published on ABC News ' website on November 16 , the reporters point to U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of Nevada as one of the frustrated judges .
Gordon , in response to the Trump campaign 's claims that Republicans were not close enough to poll workers in Clark County ( which includes Las Vegas ) to hear everything they were saying , asked Trump 's lawyers , `` at what point does this get ridiculous ? ''
before dismissing a lawsuit in Nevada .
With Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wisconsin and Michigan — all of which Trump won in 2016 — the president-elect now has 306 electoral votes , which is exactly how many Trump won four years ago .
But unlike Trump in 2016 , Biden has also won the popular vote .
Biden has defeated Trump by more than 5 million in the popular vote .
Nonetheless , ABC News reports that Trump 's campaign has filed at least 18 lawsuits in battleground states .
Expressing his frustration on November 13 , District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after judge has asked , in essence , 'where is the beef ?
'… .
we have seen numerous instances where affidavits have been filed.… only to be immediately pulled back once tested in state and federal court .
I would not be surprised that if these baseless allegations continue , judges will begin to threaten and indeed issue sanctions . ''
Judge Cynthia Stephens , frustrated over one of the Trump campaign 's frivolous lawsuits in Michigan , told attorneys , `` what I have , at best , is a hearsay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that affidavit that would indicate that ( a witness ) observed activity that would be a depravation of the rights of poll watchers , I want you to please focus my attention on that .
... ' I heard somebody else say something ' — tell me why that 's not hearsay .
Come on now . ''
At a hearing on November 4 , Judge Timothy Savage addressed a Trump lawsuit that was designed to get cured ballots thrown out and said , `` I do n't understand how the integrity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's lawyers , in one of their Michigan lawsuits , have claimed that Republican poll watchers were kept too far away at a vote-counting facility at the TCF Center in Detroit — and Judge Timothy M. Kenny told the president 's lawyers , `` where 's the facts about that ?
... .
Plaintiffs rely on numerous affidavits from election challengers who paint a picture of sinister fraudulent activities occurring both openly in the TCF Center and under the cloak of darkness . ''
Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to Trump 's lawsuits , telling ABC News , `` it is unusual for judges to be chastising litigants .
But the lack of evidence in these cases is unusual .
For the judges to be speaking this way , the gaps need to be fairly significant . ''

Even though the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has described the 2020 presidential election as "the most secure in American history," President Donald Trump and his supporters continue to baselessly claim that he was the victim of widespread voter fraud — and Team Trump is hoping that its lawsuits in different states will prevent President-elect Joe Biden from replacing him in the White House on January 20, 2021. But according to ABC News reporters Matthew Mosk, Olivia Rubin and Alex Hosenball, judges are growing more and more frustrated with the Trump campaign's bogus lawsuits.
In an article published on ABC News' website on November 16, the reporters point to U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of Nevada as one of the frustrated judges. Gordon, in response to the Trump campaign's claims that Republicans were not close enough to poll workers in Clark County (which includes Las Vegas) to hear everything they were saying, asked Trump's lawyers, "at what point does this get ridiculous?" before dismissing a lawsuit in Nevada.
With Biden having flipped Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan — all of which Trump won in 2016 — the president-elect now has 306 electoral votes, which is exactly how many Trump won four years ago. But unlike Trump in 2016, Biden has also won the popular vote. Biden has defeated Trump by more than 5 million in the popular vote. Nonetheless, ABC News reports that Trump's campaign has filed at least 18 lawsuits in battleground states.
Expressing his frustration on November 13, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine told reporters, "judge after judge after judge has asked, in essence, 'where is the beef?'…. we have seen numerous instances where affidavits have been filed.… only to be immediately pulled back once tested in state and federal court. I would not be surprised that if these baseless allegations continue, judges will begin to threaten and indeed issue sanctions."
Judge Cynthia Stephens, frustrated over one of the Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits in Michigan, told attorneys, "what I have, at best, is a hearsay affidavit. If there is something in that affidavit that would indicate that (a witness) observed activity that would be a depravation of the rights of poll watchers, I want you to please focus my attention on that. ... 'I heard somebody else say something' — tell me why that's not hearsay. Come on now."
At a hearing on November 4, Judge Timothy Savage addressed a Trump lawsuit that was designed to get cured ballots thrown out and said, "I don't understand how the integrity of the election was affected."
Trump's lawyers, in one of their Michigan lawsuits, have claimed that Republican poll watchers were kept too far away at a vote-counting facility at the TCF Center in Detroit — and Judge Timothy M. Kenny told the president's lawyers, "where's the facts about that?.... Plaintiffs rely on numerous affidavits from election challengers who paint a picture of sinister fraudulent activities occurring both openly in the TCF Center and under the cloak of darkness."
Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice noted the tone that many judges have had in response to Trump's lawsuits, telling ABC News, "it is unusual for judges to be chastising litigants. But the lack of evidence in these cases is unusual. For the judges to be speaking this way, the gaps need to be fairly significant."


alternet--2020-11-16--Watch: Fox News host expertly debunks Trump’s 'baseless and false' claim of widespread voter fraud

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , `` the November 3 election was the most secure in American history . ''
Regardless , many of President Donald Trump 's boosters in right-wing media continue to promote his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election .
A great deal of debunking has come from MSNBC and CNN , but on November 15 , it also came from a more unlikely source : a Fox News anchor .
The far-right opinion hosts at Fox News and Fox Business — from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ingraham — have n't hesitated to promote Trump 's bogus voter fraud claims .
But the hard news divisions at Fox News and Fox Business , despite having a conservative slant , are less likely to traffic in nonsense conspiracy theories than the opinion hosts .
And Fox News ' Eric Shawn , who is part of Fox News ' hard news division , offered a no-nonsense debunking after Maria Bartiromo devoted an entire show to promoting Trump 's conspiracy theory .
Bartiromo featured two of Trump 's attorneys : Sidney Powell and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both of whom claimed that the election had been stolen from Trump .
Shawn , in contrast , aired video of Ben Hovland , a Trump appointee who chairs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission , saying , `` The reality is , this the most secure election we ever had , and it was one of the most well-run elections we 've ever had… .
The American people made their voice heard , and when we spread conspiracy theories and we do n't back that up with facts , it has an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that his campaign was not allowed to observe the vote-counting process in Philadelphia , airing part of his November 12 interview with Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt — a Republican in a predominantly Democratic city .
Schmidt told Shawn it was `` totally untrue '' that Trump 's campaign was shut out of the vote-counting rooms at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Center City Philadelphia , and when Shawn asked Schmidt if he 's seen any evidence of voter fraud in Philly , the Republican responded , `` I have not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Denver-based company Dominion switched votes for Trump to votes for President-elect Biden , noting that Dominion has no affiliation with the Democratic Party .
And the Fox anchor went on to say , `` election officials across the country insist , as of today : there is no evidence of any widespread fraud affecting the outcome of the presidential election — that our precious democracy was not tampered with , and that such baseless and false claims are an insult to the thousands of elections officials and workers across the country who we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to insure a fair and free election for all of us . ''

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, "the November 3 election was the most secure in American history." Regardless, many of President Donald Trump's boosters in right-wing media continue to promote his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. A great deal of debunking has come from MSNBC and CNN, but on November 15, it also came from a more unlikely source: a Fox News anchor.
The far-right opinion hosts at Fox News and Fox Business — from Sean Hannity to Lou Dobbs to Laura Ingraham — haven't hesitated to promote Trump's bogus voter fraud claims. But the hard news divisions at Fox News and Fox Business, despite having a conservative slant, are less likely to traffic in nonsense conspiracy theories than the opinion hosts. And Fox News' Eric Shawn, who is part of Fox News' hard news division, offered a no-nonsense debunking after Maria Bartiromo devoted an entire show to promoting Trump's conspiracy theory.
Bartiromo featured two of Trump's attorneys: Sidney Powell and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, both of whom claimed that the election had been stolen from Trump.
Shawn, in contrast, aired video of Ben Hovland, a Trump appointee who chairs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, saying, "The reality is, this the most secure election we ever had, and it was one of the most well-run elections we've ever had…. The American people made their voice heard, and when we spread conspiracy theories and we don't back that up with facts, it has an impact."
Shawn addressed Trump's claim that his campaign was not allowed to observe the vote-counting process in Philadelphia, airing part of his November 12 interview with Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt — a Republican in a predominantly Democratic city. Schmidt told Shawn it was "totally untrue" that Trump's campaign was shut out of the vote-counting rooms at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Center City Philadelphia, and when Shawn asked Schmidt if he's seen any evidence of voter fraud in Philly, the Republican responded, "I have not."
Shawn also addressed claims that the Denver-based company Dominion switched votes for Trump to votes for President-elect Biden, noting that Dominion has no affiliation with the Democratic Party. And the Fox anchor went on to say, "election officials across the country insist, as of today: there is no evidence of any widespread fraud affecting the outcome of the presidential election — that our precious democracy was not tampered with, and that such baseless and false claims are an insult to the thousands of elections officials and workers across the country who we have seen dedicating themselves, 24/7, to insure a fair and free election for all of us."


alternet--2020-11-16--Professor of moral theology breaks down what's next for American evangelicals after Trump leaves off

Professor of moral theology breaks down what's next for American evangelicals after Trump leaves office

Donald Trump , by his own words and actions , does not appear to be the most religious person .
He has claimed he does n't seek forgiveness from God , and he once tried to put money in a Communion plate .
Apart from his controversial photo op while holding up a Bible in front of St. John 's Episcopal Church , he does n't seem especially concerned with Christian symbolism .
And yet 76 % of white evangelical voters supported him in the 2020 election .
It 's clear American evangelicals value something other than his religious devotion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm especially interested in the ways Christians seek to gain and use political power .
Why did so many Christians vote for Trump ?
And what are they afraid of losing when he leaves ?
Many evangelical Christians are drawn to Trump 's promises to protect religious liberty .
President-elect Biden , meanwhile , has also promised to protect religious liberty .
But it might not be on evangelicals ' terms .
The power of evangelical Christians in the U.S. has never been officially state sanctioned .
The First Amendment to the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , American evangelicals have relied on Christianity 's cultural influence to preserve their vision of public life .
And that influence is not to be underestimated .
In his bestselling book , “ Dominion : How the Christian Revolution Remade the World , '' Tom Holland explains , “ To live in a Western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions . ''
This is why so many refer to America as a “ Christian nation '' even though it has never officially recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian political organizations have been buoyed by Christianity 's cultural capital .
In the late 1970s and 1980s , for example , the Moral Majority formed a broad coalition of Christians to advance conservative social values across the nation .
But that cultural capital has declined as America becomes more diverse .
Today , far fewer Americans identify as Christian than 10 years ago , and only 1 in 4 Americans call themselves evangelical Christian .
American evangelicals , aware that their numbers and influence are in decline , have tried to undercut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest priority is electing leaders whose policies will allow evangelicalism to flourish .
Typically , this means that evangelicals prefer to vote for evangelical candidates .
As Christian conservative leader Beverly LaHaye declared , “ Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in government . ''
But this is why President Trump has been such an anomaly .
He has demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the Bible and basic Christian teachings .
Yet , his religious supporters do n't seem to mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 % believe he is “ very religious . ''
This suggests that today 's evangelicals are unfazed by Trump 's apparent lack of personal piety .
They believe religious liberty is under threat , and they want a president who promises to protect that liberty .
Evangelical Protestants are more likely than any other large U.S. religious denomination to believe their religious freedom is under attack , according to a recent AP-NORC poll .
Many people are puzzled by evangelicals ' anxiety over religious freedom .
While it 's true that government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe , this simply is n't the case in the U.S. As conservative Christian political commentator David French recently argued , “ People of faith in the United States of America enjoy more liberty and more real political power than any faith community in the developed world . ''
He argues that while religious liberty has always been under attack in the U.S. , Christians have no reason to fear that it 's going away anytime soon .
But for many American evangelicals , the threat of attack is enough to create the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And President Trump has been happy to assume that role .
In 2018 , he signed an executive order that established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative .
“ This Initiative is working to remove barriers which have unfairly prevented faith based organizations from working with or receiving funding from the federal government , '' he explained .
President-elect Joe Biden has proposed his own plan for safeguarding religious freedom .
It articulates a number of broad protections that most evangelicals would be likely to support , at least in theory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGTBQ equality , he proposes the very thing many American evangelicals fear : In an essay written just before the election , Al Mohler , president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary , warned , “ The primary front of religious liberty controversy is likely to be related to LGBTQ issues , and both Biden and Harris are eager to advance the sexual revolution on every front . ''
Given what the incoming president and vice president have said on the issue , he is probably right .
American evangelicals ' political power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would likely continue with or without Trump in office .
His Supreme Court appointments have made evangelicals happy and will have a lasting impact .
But changing demographics and a growing number of nonreligious voters mean that evangelicals will need to develop a strategy for the long game .
In light of this , it may be wise for them not to direct all of their energy toward electing a protector in chief .
Perhaps instead they might seek to answer a question posed by Christian ethicist Luke Bretherton : “ In loving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith with my distinctive commitments while also forming a common life with neighbors who have a different vision of life than I do ? ''
[ Deep knowledge , daily .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter . ]
Unless evangelicals can manage some major political victories in the coming years , they may not have much choice .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Stewart Clem, Aquinas Institute of Theology
Donald Trump, by his own words and actions, does not appear to be the most religious person.
He has claimed he doesn't seek forgiveness from God, and he once tried to put money in a Communion plate. Apart from his controversial photo op while holding up a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, he doesn't seem especially concerned with Christian symbolism.
And yet 76% of white evangelical voters supported him in the 2020 election. It's clear American evangelicals value something other than his religious devotion.
As a Christian ethicist, I'm especially interested in the ways Christians seek to gain and use political power. Why did so many Christians vote for Trump? And what are they afraid of losing when he leaves?
Many evangelical Christians are drawn to Trump's promises to protect religious liberty. President-elect Biden, meanwhile, has also promised to protect religious liberty. But it might not be on evangelicals' terms.
Diminishing power?
The power of evangelical Christians in the U.S. has never been officially state sanctioned. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits it.
For over 200 years, American evangelicals have relied on Christianity's cultural influence to preserve their vision of public life. And that influence is not to be underestimated.
In his bestselling book, “Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World," Tom Holland explains, “To live in a Western country is to live in a society still utterly saturated by Christian concepts and assumptions."
This is why so many refer to America as a “Christian nation" even though it has never officially recognized Christianity as the state religion.
Conservative Christian political organizations have been buoyed by Christianity's cultural capital. In the late 1970s and 1980s, for example, the Moral Majority formed a broad coalition of Christians to advance conservative social values across the nation.
But that cultural capital has declined as America becomes more diverse. Today, far fewer Americans identify as Christian than 10 years ago, and only 1 in 4 Americans call themselves evangelical Christian.
Why evangelicals love Trump
American evangelicals, aware that their numbers and influence are in decline, have tried to undercut that decline through political means. Their highest priority is electing leaders whose policies will allow evangelicalism to flourish.
Typically, this means that evangelicals prefer to vote for evangelical candidates. As Christian conservative leader Beverly LaHaye declared, “Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in government."
But this is why President Trump has been such an anomaly. He has demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the Bible and basic Christian teachings. Yet, his religious supporters don't seem to mind. Even among white evangelicals, only 12% believe he is “very religious."
This suggests that today's evangelicals are unfazed by Trump's apparent lack of personal piety. They believe religious liberty is under threat, and they want a president who promises to protect that liberty.
A protector in chief
Evangelical Protestants are more likely than any other large U.S. religious denomination to believe their religious freedom is under attack, according to a recent AP-NORC poll.
Many people are puzzled by evangelicals' anxiety over religious freedom. While it's true that government restrictions on religion are rising across the globe, this simply isn't the case in the U.S.
As conservative Christian political commentator David French recently argued, “People of faith in the United States of America enjoy more liberty and more real political power than any faith community in the developed world." He argues that while religious liberty has always been under attack in the U.S., Christians have no reason to fear that it's going away anytime soon.
But for many American evangelicals, the threat of attack is enough to create the need for a protector in chief. And President Trump has been happy to assume that role.
In 2018, he signed an executive order that established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative. “This Initiative is working to remove barriers which have unfairly prevented faith based organizations from working with or receiving funding from the federal government," he explained.
Biden and religious liberty
President-elect Joe Biden has proposed his own plan for safeguarding religious freedom. It articulates a number of broad protections that most evangelicals would be likely to support, at least in theory.
But in Biden's plan to advance LGTBQ equality, he proposes the very thing many American evangelicals fear:
“Religious freedom is a fundamental American value. But states have inappropriately used broad exemptions to allow businesses, medical providers, social service agencies, state and local government officials, and others to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people … Biden will reverse Trump's policies misusing these broad exemptions and fight so that no one is turned away from a business or refused service by a government official just because of who they are or who they love."
In an essay written just before the election, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, warned, “The primary front of religious liberty controversy is likely to be related to LGBTQ issues, and both Biden and Harris are eager to advance the sexual revolution on every front." Given what the incoming president and vice president have said on the issue, he is probably right.
American evangelicals' political power is in decline, and that decline would likely continue with or without Trump in office. His Supreme Court appointments have made evangelicals happy and will have a lasting impact. But changing demographics and a growing number of nonreligious voters mean that evangelicals will need to develop a strategy for the long game. In light of this, it may be wise for them not to direct all of their energy toward electing a protector in chief.
Perhaps instead they might seek to answer a question posed by Christian ethicist Luke Bretherton: “In loving my neighbor, how can I keep faith with my distinctive commitments while also forming a common life with neighbors who have a different vision of life than I do?"
[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
Unless evangelicals can manage some major political victories in the coming years, they may not have much choice.
Aquinas Institute of Theology is a member of the Association of Theological Schools. The ATS is a funding partner of The Conversation US. The ATS is a funding partner of The Conversation US.
Save
Stewart Clem, Assistant Professor of Moral Theology, Aquinas Institute of Theology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-11-16--Experts explain the economic situations that beget successful coups — and why Trump's attempt won't

Experts explain the economic situations that beget successful coups — and why Trump's attempt won't work

Throughout history , coups and coup attempts are more often than not linked to economic distress : the coup 's leaders side with one group of industrialists or power-brokers , and opposition groups are supported by another .
Now , Trump 's own refusal to concede in the 2020 presidential election after a legitimate election loss , and his machinations to remain in power , have led to public debate over whether he is trying to perform a coup — or if that 's even possible given the political and economic climate .
Salon reached out to economists who explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic struggles have , and have not , created the climate in which Trump 's coup attempt is possible .
The verdict ?
The situation may not be quite right for Trump to be successful — with some caveats .
Because of Trump 's political disposition , his coup d'etat would epitomize a right-wing coup — in which an authoritarian seizes control to consolidate their power on behalf of the ruling classes , from which Trump originates .
Disregarding the legal and ( possibly ) military elements required for success , Trump could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base were he to seize power .
Indeed , polls show that 70 percent of Republicans accept Trump 's disinformation about the election not being `` free and fair , '' and seem willing and ready to turn against the concept of democracy .
`` As for the broader question , there are tensions , '' Dr. Ioana Marinescu , assistant professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania 's School of Social Policy & Practice , wrote to Salon .
`` Rising inequality and stagnation of wages among the less educated should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left has increasingly become the party of the educated elites so they were not able to fully capitalize on this . ''
Marinescu noted that economist Dr. Thomas Piketty explored these themes last year in his book `` Capital and Ideology , '' then added that `` the populist or conservative right has then been able in some cases to speak to disaffected workers ( those for example who lost their jobs to the China shock ) by showing more respect for them and their values , and by promising a return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring back manufacturing , something that is pretty hopeless given the economics ) . ''
Dr. Richard D. Wolff , professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst , talked to Salon about how economic factors can usually be found in coups and attempted coups , although it would be a mistake to assume they are the only relevant variables .
`` These are always multi-causal , multi-dimensional events , '' Wolff told Salon .
`` We can talk about the economics , but the economic aspects — and that 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or are never the only significant factor .
.
.
.
Economics always contributes to the attempt to make a coup , whether or not it 's successful , and economics are always affected by a coup — again , whether it 's successful or not .
It 's part of the story , but it 's never some kind of dominating part , at least not in my experience .
.
.
.
but it 's never absent either , and it would n't be here in the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the United States `` is in an extreme economic turmoil situation , fraught with enormous suffering coming at the end of a period of very profound changes and confronting [ t ] he upsurge in coronavirus cases all over the country . ''
He noted that these conditions can make people either more politically active or resign themselves to political inactivity .
The last occasion when America faced levels of unemployment , income inequality and lack of economic opportunity for young people was during the Great Depression in the 1930s , Wolff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Great Depression , the reaction of the mass of people was to become more politically active , not less so , '' Wolff said .
`` What struck so many of us was that , already at the period in 2008 and 2009 when we had the so-called Great Recession , was the level of non-activism .
The fact that you did n't have the rise of a massive union organizing movement , the way you did in the 1930s with the CIO .
You did n't have a mass upsurge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party this time .
You did have a bump up with the Democratic Socialists of America , but it was much smaller , much more modest , much more isolated , than what you had in the 1930s . ''
He added , `` Now we have record-breaking inequality before and during the COVID-19 crisis , at least since it hit in March .
The Bezoses of the world have gotten way richer , the mass of people the opposite , et cetera , et cetera .
I think you 've had pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , with the exception of a few signs , but I do n't think they 've congealed yet to give you the mass progressive upsurge that you had in the 1930s . ''
By contrast , America is finding itself in a situation now where a far right-winger like Trump is able to undermine the core institutions of democracy , although Wolff stopped short of saying that it will amount to a full-fledged coup .
`` The bottom line of what I 'm telling you is that the things that make coups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traction , do n't seem to me to be present here , '' Wolff said , pointing out how American right-wingers misread public sentiment when attempting to pull off recent coups in other countries like Venezuela and Bolivia .
`` My reading of the United States — and I 'm frightened by it all too , so I 'm not sitting on some pedestal of of self-assuredness — but I do n't read a situation that would allow [ Trump ] to get away with anything more than either a quiet exit or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a blustery exit , '' Wolff explained .
`` If he 's not smart enough to see that 's his best option , some kind of coup-type event about which Stephen Colbert will have a lot of fun . ''
Dr. Karl Widerquist , a professor of philosophy at Georgetown University–Qatar who has doctorates in political theory and economics , told Salon that economic factors were probably a `` wash '' in terms of the 2020 election , with some American voters likely blaming Trump for the current bad economy ( and correctly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 lockdowns and supported Trump 's opposition to them .
`` He 's taken advantage of being president to further his white nationalism , but I do n't think that 's his main goal , '' Wilderquist told Salon .
`` I think Trump 's main goal for his entire life is to convince as many people as possible that he 's a winner that he wins and wins and wins , and that he 's the world 's biggest winner .
And like a lot of us , he does n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to step down without feeling like a loser is to convince his echo chamber that he did n't lose .
He won and that it was stolen from him .
He does n't need a coup to do that .
He just needs to complain a lot . ''

Throughout history, coups and coup attempts are more often than not linked to economic distress: the coup's leaders side with one group of industrialists or power-brokers, and opposition groups are supported by another. Now, Trump's own refusal to concede in the 2020 presidential election after a legitimate election loss, and his machinations to remain in power, have led to public debate over whether he is trying to perform a coup — or if that's even possible given the political and economic climate.
Salon reached out to economists who explained the ways in which current America's economic struggles have, and have not, created the climate in which Trump's coup attempt is possible. The verdict? The situation may not be quite right for Trump to be successful — with some caveats.
Because of Trump's political disposition, his coup d'etat would epitomize a right-wing coup — in which an authoritarian seizes control to consolidate their power on behalf of the ruling classes, from which Trump originates. Disregarding the legal and (possibly) military elements required for success, Trump could very well have popular support from his base were he to seize power. Indeed, polls show that 70 percent of Republicans accept Trump's disinformation about the election not being "free and fair," and seem willing and ready to turn against the concept of democracy.
"As for the broader question, there are tensions," Dr. Ioana Marinescu, assistant professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Policy & Practice, wrote to Salon. "Rising inequality and stagnation of wages among the less educated should have empowered the left, but the left has increasingly become the party of the educated elites so they were not able to fully capitalize on this."
Marinescu noted that economist Dr. Thomas Piketty explored these themes last year in his book "Capital and Ideology," then added that "the populist or conservative right has then been able in some cases to speak to disaffected workers (those for example who lost their jobs to the China shock) by showing more respect for them and their values, and by promising a return to the prior state of the world (bring back manufacturing, something that is pretty hopeless given the economics)."
Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, talked to Salon about how economic factors can usually be found in coups and attempted coups, although it would be a mistake to assume they are the only relevant variables.
"These are always multi-causal, multi-dimensional events," Wolff told Salon. "We can talk about the economics, but the economic aspects — and that's what they are — are never alone, or are never the only significant factor. . . . Economics always contributes to the attempt to make a coup, whether or not it's successful, and economics are always affected by a coup — again, whether it's successful or not. It's part of the story, but it's never some kind of dominating part, at least not in my experience. . . . but it's never absent either, and it wouldn't be here in the United States."
Wolff proceeded to explain to Salon that the United States "is in an extreme economic turmoil situation, fraught with enormous suffering coming at the end of a period of very profound changes and confronting [t]he upsurge in coronavirus cases all over the country." He noted that these conditions can make people either more politically active or resign themselves to political inactivity. The last occasion when America faced levels of unemployment, income inequality and lack of economic opportunity for young people was during the Great Depression in the 1930s, Wolff pointed out.
"Interestingly, during that Great Depression, the reaction of the mass of people was to become more politically active, not less so," Wolff said. "What struck so many of us was that, already at the period in 2008 and 2009 when we had the so-called Great Recession, was the level of non-activism. The fact that you didn't have the rise of a massive union organizing movement, the way you did in the 1930s with the CIO. You didn't have a mass upsurge of people joining two socialist and one communist party this time. You did have a bump up with the Democratic Socialists of America, but it was much smaller, much more modest, much more isolated, than what you had in the 1930s."
He added, "Now we have record-breaking inequality before and during the COVID-19 crisis, at least since it hit in March. The Bezoses of the world have gotten way richer, the mass of people the opposite, et cetera, et cetera. I think you've had pretty much the resignation of the mass of people, with the exception of a few signs, but I don't think they've congealed yet to give you the mass progressive upsurge that you had in the 1930s."
By contrast, America is finding itself in a situation now where a far right-winger like Trump is able to undermine the core institutions of democracy, although Wolff stopped short of saying that it will amount to a full-fledged coup.
"The bottom line of what I'm telling you is that the things that make coups happen, that have any kind of traction, don't seem to me to be present here," Wolff said, pointing out how American right-wingers misread public sentiment when attempting to pull off recent coups in other countries like Venezuela and Bolivia.
"My reading of the United States — and I'm frightened by it all too, so I'm not sitting on some pedestal of of self-assuredness — but I don't read a situation that would allow [Trump] to get away with anything more than either a quiet exit or, if that's not available, a blustery exit," Wolff explained. "If he's not smart enough to see that's his best option, some kind of coup-type event about which Stephen Colbert will have a lot of fun."
Dr. Karl Widerquist, a professor of philosophy at Georgetown University–Qatar who has doctorates in political theory and economics, told Salon that economic factors were probably a "wash" in terms of the 2020 election, with some American voters likely blaming Trump for the current bad economy (and correctly so) while others may have blamed the COVID-19 lockdowns and supported Trump's opposition to them.
"He's taken advantage of being president to further his white nationalism, but I don't think that's his main goal," Wilderquist told Salon. "I think Trump's main goal for his entire life is to convince as many people as possible that he's a winner that he wins and wins and wins, and that he's the world's biggest winner. And like a lot of us, he doesn't want to be a loser. The way to step down without feeling like a loser is to convince his echo chamber that he didn't lose. He won and that it was stolen from him. He doesn't need a coup to do that. He just needs to complain a lot."


alternet--2020-11-16--More good news on the COVID vaccine front as Fauci says 'it would be better if we could start workin

More good news on the COVID vaccine front as Fauci says 'it would be better if we could start working with' Biden

The second Monday morning in a row brings good coronavirus vaccine news : Moderna has followed Pfizer in announcing preliminary results for its Phase 3 trial of a vaccine .
Pfizer got a big round of cheers when it reported 90 % efficacy—and Moderna is reporting 94.5 % efficacy so far in its trial .
Of the 95 participants in the trial who contracted COVID-19 , 90 had received the placebo and just five had received the vaccine , and none of the 11 severe cases had gotten the vaccine .
Moderna expects to have 20 million doses—enough for 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two doses—by the end of 2020 .
Pfizer expects to have 50 million doses of its vaccine , which similarly requires two doses , by the end of the year .
That , unfortunately , means early distribution will fall under Donald Trump 's sway .
And Trump 's refusal to admit he has lost the election is creating a problem for continuing vaccine distribution after January 20 , 2021 , when President-elect Joe Biden becomes President Joe Biden .
The Biden administration needs to be able to hit the ground running on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course it would be better if we could start working with them , '' Dr. Anthony Fauci said on CNN 's State of the Union , comparing it to passing the baton in a relay race : `` You do n't want to stop and then give it to somebody , '' he said .
`` You want to just essentially keep going . ''
Trump 's extended refusal to admit the reality of his loss threatens that .
`` We need to be talking to them as quickly as possible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of staff Ron Klain said on Meet the Press .
`` It 's great to have a vaccine , but vaccines do n't save lives : vaccinations save lives .
And that means you 've got to get that vaccine into people 's arms all over this country .
It 's a giant logistical project . ''
Having that giant logistical project administered by the Biden administration , at least after the first month , will be a huge benefit for the nation .
But Trump could throw a wrench into the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thing he 'd enjoy doing .
Moderna 's vaccine does have one significant logistical advantage over Pfizer 's .
While it too needs to be stored at cold temperature , there 's a significant difference in how cold : minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit for Moderna , and minus 94 Fahrenheit for Pfizer .
Moderna 's vaccine can also be refrigerated for 30 days and left at room temperature for 12 hours .
That will make distribution easier , though other vaccines are in trials that do n't require refrigeration at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two .
Good news is on the way , medically and politically .
We need to hunker down , keeping ourselves and others safe through the coming dark , difficult months , and get through to the other side .

The second Monday morning in a row brings good coronavirus vaccine news: Moderna has followed Pfizer in announcing preliminary results for its Phase 3 trial of a vaccine. Pfizer got a big round of cheers when it reported 90% efficacy—and Moderna is reporting 94.5% efficacy so far in its trial. Of the 95 participants in the trial who contracted COVID-19, 90 had received the placebo and just five had received the vaccine, and none of the 11 severe cases had gotten the vaccine.
Moderna expects to have 20 million doses—enough for 10 million people, since the vaccine requires two doses—by the end of 2020. Pfizer expects to have 50 million doses of its vaccine, which similarly requires two doses, by the end of the year. That, unfortunately, means early distribution will fall under Donald Trump's sway. And Trump's refusal to admit he has lost the election is creating a problem for continuing vaccine distribution after January 20, 2021, when President-elect Joe Biden becomes President Joe Biden.
The Biden administration needs to be able to hit the ground running on vaccine distribution—lives depend on it. "Of course it would be better if we could start working with them," Dr. Anthony Fauci said on CNN's State of the Union, comparing it to passing the baton in a relay race: "You don't want to stop and then give it to somebody," he said. "You want to just essentially keep going." Trump's extended refusal to admit the reality of his loss threatens that.
"We need to be talking to them as quickly as possible," Biden's incoming White House chief of staff Ron Klain said on Meet the Press. "It's great to have a vaccine, but vaccines don't save lives: vaccinations save lives. And that means you've got to get that vaccine into people's arms all over this country. It's a giant logistical project."
Having that giant logistical project administered by the Biden administration, at least after the first month, will be a huge benefit for the nation. But Trump could throw a wrench into the process, and that's just the kind of thing he'd enjoy doing.
Moderna's vaccine does have one significant logistical advantage over Pfizer's. While it too needs to be stored at cold temperature, there's a significant difference in how cold: minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit for Moderna, and minus 94 Fahrenheit for Pfizer. Moderna's vaccine can also be refrigerated for 30 days and left at room temperature for 12 hours. That will make distribution easier, though other vaccines are in trials that don't require refrigeration at all, and that require only one dose instead of two.
Good news is on the way, medically and politically. We need to hunker down, keeping ourselves and others safe through the coming dark, difficult months, and get through to the other side.


alternet--2020-11-16--'A disservice': John Bolton and Jeh Johnson slam Trump for refusing to share vital intel with Biden

During a lame-duck session , one of the things that outgoing presidents typically do is share important intelligence and national security matters with the president-elect .
But President Donald Trump is not only refusing to acknowledge that Joe Biden is president-elect — he is also cutting him off from the highly classified President 's Daily Briefing .
And when ABC News ' Martha Raddatz interviewed two national security specialists on `` This Week '' on Sunday , November 15 — first John Bolton , then former Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson — both of them stressed that it is a dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off from vital intel/national security information .
The 71-year-old Bolton , a neocon war hawk who served as Trump 's national security adviser but is now a vehement critic of the outgoing president , told Raddatz that it is `` critical '' for Biden to be up-to-date on intel and national security matters .
`` We need a transition , and we need to proceed with it as soon as we can , '' Bolton told Raddatz .
Bolton discussed Trump 's baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was plagued by rampant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsense .
The former national security adviser told Raddatz , `` Donald Trump lost… .
a free and fair election… .
The Trump camp simply has no evidence ( of voter fraud ) . ''
Bolton went on to say of Trump , `` I do not expect him to go graciously .
I do expect him to go… .
I expect him to make life as difficult as possible for the incoming Biden Administration . ''
When Raddatz asked Bolton to discuss Trump 's refusal to concede , he responded , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would say it 's perfectly in character . ''
After Raddatz interviewed Bolton , she brought on the 63-year-old Johnson — who was equally critical of Trump and warned that the president is endangering the U.S. from a national security standpoint .
Johnson , who served as national secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama , told Raddatz , `` A new government can not start on January 20 from a standing-still position… .
Intelligence briefings are your eyes and ears . ''
Johnson explained that after Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 presidential election , he made a point of going to Trump Tower in New York City to meet with the incoming president and discuss intel and national security matters with him .
Johnson believed it was vitally important that then-President-elect Trump be brought up-to-date on such matters , but regrettably , Johnson told Raddatz , Trump is n't showing that type of courtesy to Biden .
Johnson explained , `` During the transition four years ago , I personally visited Trump Tower to tell him things before he became president that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the secretary of homeland security , and I know he appreciated it .
So , it 's a disservice to the American public , it 's a disservice to our national security to make the incoming government wait until January 20 to actually begin to get up to speed on a myriad of issues . ''
Raddatz asked Johnson if he would consider serving in the incoming Biden Administration in some capacity — perhaps as national security adviser .
The former DHS secretary responded , `` As a patriotic American… .
I 'd @ @ @ @ @ @

During a lame-duck session, one of the things that outgoing presidents typically do is share important intelligence and national security matters with the president-elect. But President Donald Trump is not only refusing to acknowledge that Joe Biden is president-elect — he is also cutting him off from the highly classified President's Daily Briefing. And when ABC News' Martha Raddatz interviewed two national security specialists on "This Week" on Sunday, November 15 — first John Bolton, then former Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson — both of them stressed that it is a dangerous situation when an incoming president is cut off from vital intel/national security information.
The 71-year-old Bolton, a neocon war hawk who served as Trump's national security adviser but is now a vehement critic of the outgoing president, told Raddatz that it is "critical" for Biden to be up-to-date on intel and national security matters.
"We need a transition, and we need to proceed with it as soon as we can," Bolton told Raddatz.
Bolton discussed Trump's baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was plagued by rampant voter fraud, denouncing those claims as nonsense.
The former national security adviser told Raddatz, "Donald Trump lost…. a free and fair election…. The Trump camp simply has no evidence (of voter fraud)."
Bolton went on to say of Trump, "I do not expect him to go graciously. I do expect him to go…. I expect him to make life as difficult as possible for the incoming Biden Administration."
When Raddatz asked Bolton to discuss Trump's refusal to concede, he responded, "if he had any character, I would say it's perfectly in character."
After Raddatz interviewed Bolton, she brought on the 63-year-old Johnson — who was equally critical of Trump and warned that the president is endangering the U.S. from a national security standpoint.
Johnson, who served as national secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, told Raddatz, "A new government cannot start on January 20 from a standing-still position…. Intelligence briefings are your eyes and ears."
Johnson explained that after Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, he made a point of going to Trump Tower in New York City to meet with the incoming president and discuss intel and national security matters with him. Johnson believed it was vitally important that then-President-elect Trump be brought up-to-date on such matters, but regrettably, Johnson told Raddatz, Trump isn't showing that type of courtesy to Biden.
Johnson explained, "During the transition four years ago, I personally visited Trump Tower to tell him things before he became president that I thought he'd rather hear directly from the secretary of homeland security, and I know he appreciated it. So, it's a disservice to the American public, it's a disservice to our national security to make the incoming government wait until January 20 to actually begin to get up to speed on a myriad of issues."
Raddatz asked Johnson if he would consider serving in the incoming Biden Administration in some capacity — perhaps as national security adviser. The former DHS secretary responded, "As a patriotic American…. I'd certainly seriously consider it."


alternet--2020-11-16--Pro-mask or anti-mask? The Moral Foundations Theory probably predict your stance

Governments around the world have recommended or mandated various behaviors to slow the spread of COVID-19 .
These include staying at home , wearing face masks and practicing social distancing .
Yet individuals continue to flout these recommendations and ignore explicit rules about wearing face masks .
In the U.S. , U.K. and Australia , crowds have gathered closely together to protest against lockdowns .
All this poses the question : Why are people not following the rules that protect not only their own health but the health of their community and nation ?
And how can policymakers and public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uptake ?
In my latest research , I studied how people perceive the three main recommended behaviors as either “ right '' or “ wrong . ''
I grounded my research on Moral Foundations Theory , which states that people judge the “ rightness '' or “ wrongness '' of behaviors along five different moral concerns or “ foundations . ''
The first is whether an action shows you care ; the second is whether an action upholds standards of equality ; the third is whether it shows loyalty to the group ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to authority ; and the last is whether it conforms to impulses and the natural way of doing things .
Some foundations are relevant to certain behaviors ; others , not so much .
For example , parents who are “ anti-vaxxers '' hold this view because they see vaccines as harming a child 's natural immunological defenses .
Although that is not true , vaccines still challenge their perception of what 's natural .
Likewise , when it comes to charitable giving , people donate because they see it as showing they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ natural '' to do so .
One benefit of exploring which moral foundation is relevant to a certain behavior is that it offers a better understanding of how to encourage or discourage that behavior .
For example , policymakers now understand that to encourage vaccinations for children , messages aimed at hesitant parents need to help them see how vaccinations can actually boost a child 's natural defenses .
But telling these parents that “ it shows you care for your child '' has little effect , because the “ caring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveyed 1,033 Americans during the last week in April 2020 , asking them how relevant each moral foundation is to staying at home , wearing face masks and practicing social distancing .
I found that Americans , on the whole , associated all three behaviors with the “ caring '' and “ equality '' foundations .
Indeed , staying at home when you do n't need to go out shows you care about others – I call this the caring foundation .
But staying at home helps flatten the curve only if everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same can be said for wearing face masks and social distancing .
But I also found important age differences in two other moral foundations .
Younger adults felt that staying at home and wearing face masks go against their nature – what I call the nature foundation .
It would make sense .
Younger adults are more likely to crave social interactions , and so staying at home goes against what they perceive to be natural human behavior .
Meanwhile , wearing face masks not only is uncomfortable but hides one 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how human beings are supposed to socialize .
Older adults , on the other hand , felt that all three behaviors show a greater value placed on communal goals and public health over personal comfort .
Interestingly , the authority foundation did n't relate to any of the three behaviors , regardless of age .
By understanding which moral foundations are relevant , social marketers , public health officials and policymakers can design more effective appeals to get people to stay at home , wear face masks and stay 6 feet apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actions as showing they care , emphasizing how those behaviors show caring will likely increase compliance .
To target younger adults , who see staying at home and wearing face masks as going against the social nature of human beings , messages should suggest how these actions can actually facilitate socialization .
[ Deep knowledge , daily .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter . ]
For example : “ Wearing a mask lets you stay in touch , safely . ''
Common slogans such as “ Staying Apart , Together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on words , are unlikely to increase younger adults ' uptake , since the “ communal '' foundation is a less relevant concern for them .
Those slogans may be more effective for older adults .
If governments and public health officials really want to promote staying at home , wearing face masks and practicing social distancing , they ca n't just say “ it 's moral to do so . ''
They might want to learn to appeal to the relevant moral convictions of the population they are targeting .
This article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Eugene Y. Chan, Purdue University
Governments around the world have recommended or mandated various behaviors to slow the spread of COVID-19. These include staying at home, wearing face masks and practicing social distancing.
Yet individuals continue to flout these recommendations and ignore explicit rules about wearing face masks. In the U.S., U.K. and Australia, crowds have gathered closely together to protest against lockdowns.
All this poses the question: Why are people not following the rules that protect not only their own health but the health of their community and nation? And how can policymakers and public health officials design better messages to encourage uptake?
How morals guide our decisions
In my latest research, I studied how people perceive the three main recommended behaviors as either “right" or “wrong." I grounded my research on Moral Foundations Theory, which states that people judge the “rightness" or “wrongness" of behaviors along five different moral concerns or “foundations."
The first is whether an action shows you care; the second is whether an action upholds standards of equality; the third is whether it shows loyalty to the group; the fourth is whether it shows deference to authority; and the last is whether it conforms to impulses and the natural way of doing things.
Some foundations are relevant to certain behaviors; others, not so much. For example, parents who are “anti-vaxxers" hold this view because they see vaccines as harming a child's natural immunological defenses. Although that is not true, vaccines still challenge their perception of what's natural. Likewise, when it comes to charitable giving, people donate because they see it as showing they care – not because they see it as “natural" to do so.
One benefit of exploring which moral foundation is relevant to a certain behavior is that it offers a better understanding of how to encourage or discourage that behavior.
For example, policymakers now understand that to encourage vaccinations for children, messages aimed at hesitant parents need to help them see how vaccinations can actually boost a child's natural defenses. But telling these parents that “it shows you care for your child" has little effect, because the “caring" foundation is less relevant.
Morality and COVID-19
I surveyed 1,033 Americans during the last week in April 2020, asking them how relevant each moral foundation is to staying at home, wearing face masks and practicing social distancing.
I found that Americans, on the whole, associated all three behaviors with the “caring" and “equality" foundations. Indeed, staying at home when you don't need to go out shows you care about others – I call this the caring foundation. But staying at home helps flatten the curve only if everyone does it – the equality foundation. The same can be said for wearing face masks and social distancing.
But I also found important age differences in two other moral foundations.
Younger adults felt that staying at home and wearing face masks go against their nature – what I call the nature foundation. It would make sense. Younger adults are more likely to crave social interactions, and so staying at home goes against what they perceive to be natural human behavior.
Meanwhile, wearing face masks not only is uncomfortable but hides one's face, which also goes against beliefs about how human beings are supposed to socialize.
Older adults, on the other hand, felt that all three behaviors show a greater value placed on communal goals and public health over personal comfort.
Interestingly, the authority foundation didn't relate to any of the three behaviors, regardless of age.
Policy implications
By understanding which moral foundations are relevant, social marketers, public health officials and policymakers can design more effective appeals to get people to stay at home, wear face masks and stay 6 feet apart.
For example, because Americans see the actions as showing they care, emphasizing how those behaviors show caring will likely increase compliance.
To target younger adults, who see staying at home and wearing face masks as going against the social nature of human beings, messages should suggest how these actions can actually facilitate socialization.
[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
For example: “Wearing a mask lets you stay in touch, safely." Common slogans such as “Staying Apart, Together," while whimsical and a play on words, are unlikely to increase younger adults' uptake, since the “communal" foundation is a less relevant concern for them. Those slogans may be more effective for older adults.
If governments and public health officials really want to promote staying at home, wearing face masks and practicing social distancing, they can't just say “it's moral to do so." They might want to learn to appeal to the relevant moral convictions of the population they are targeting.
Eugene Y. Chan, Associate Professor, Purdue University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.