alternet--2020-10-28--Trump goes all-in on the 'nightmare scenario' as he openly attacks counting ballots

Repeating his desire for a winner to be declared on the night of November 3 , President Donald Trump told reporters Tuesday that he does n't `` believe '' tallying votes for weeks after Election Day is lawful , a remark observers interpreted as yet another open signal of the president 's intention to challenge the counting of legally submitted ballots .
`` It would be very , very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on November 3 , instead of counting ballots for two weeks , which is totally inappropriate , and I do n't believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Trump said before departing the White House for a campaign rally in Lansing , Michigan .
`` I do n't believe that .
So we 'll see what happens . ''
It is , in fact , perfectly legal for states to count ballots for weeks after the election ; some states allow mail-in ballots to arrive up to two weeks after November 3 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day .
Due to the unprecedented surge in mail-in voting sparked by the pandemic , the process of tallying ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take longer than usual .
`` He wants to throw out legal votes .
That 's what he 's saying here , '' tweeted Garance Franke-Ruta , executive editor of GEN magazine .
Progressive critics and election analysts have long been warning of a `` nightmare scenario '' in which Trump falsely declares himself the winner on November 3 based on an early lead in in-person votes and proceeds to declare all votes counted after Election Day illegitimate .
The president 's comments Tuesday bolstered those fears .
`` Donald Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure your vote does n't count , '' progressive advocacy group Indivisible—part of a coalition planning mass protests should Trump attempt to steal the election—said in response to the president 's remarks Tuesday , which came hours after the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the battleground state of Wisconsin can not extend its Election Day deadline for the arrival of mail-in ballots .
In his concurring opinion in the case , Trump-nominated Justice Brett Kavanaugh parroted the president 's attack on the common state practice of counting ballots that arrive after Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Slate 's Mark Joseph Stern put it , `` open to stealing the election for Trump . ''
The implications of Kavanaugh 's reason could reach beyond Wisconsin .
As Stern pointed out on Twitter , North Carolina Republicans are already citing Kavanaugh 's argument to justify their own push for the Supreme Court to limit the state 's absentee ballot deadline .
`` Brett Kavanaugh 's stunning opinion last night should be a huge story today , '' said Stern .
`` It cast aspersions on mail ballots .
It 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory too radical for the Bush v. Gore majority .
It 's a preemptive attack on our election 's integrity .

Repeating his desire for a winner to be declared on the night of November 3, President Donald Trump told reporters Tuesday that he doesn't "believe" tallying votes for weeks after Election Day is lawful, a remark observers interpreted as yet another open signal of the president's intention to challenge the counting of legally submitted ballots.
"It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on November 3, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that that's by our laws," Trump said before departing the White House for a campaign rally in Lansing, Michigan. "I don't believe that. So we'll see what happens."
It is, in fact, perfectly legal for states to count ballots for weeks after the election; some states allow mail-in ballots to arrive up to two weeks after November 3 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Due to the unprecedented surge in mail-in voting sparked by the pandemic, the process of tallying ballots and determining the election winner is expected to take longer than usual.
"He wants to throw out legal votes. That's what he's saying here," tweeted Garance Franke-Ruta, executive editor of GEN magazine.
Watch Trump's comments:
"It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on Nov. 3, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate, and I don't believe that's by our laws." -- Trump (In fact tallying all the ballots is consistent with the law.) pic.twitter.com/Dlj7DCiCT1
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 27, 2020
Progressive critics and election analysts have long been warning of a "nightmare scenario" in which Trump falsely declares himself the winner on November 3 based on an early lead in in-person votes and proceeds to declare all votes counted after Election Day illegitimate. The president's comments Tuesday bolstered those fears.
"Donald Trump is planning to everything he can to make sure your vote doesn't count," progressive advocacy group Indivisible—part of a coalition planning mass protests should Trump attempt to steal the election—said in response to the president's remarks Tuesday, which came hours after the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the battleground state of Wisconsin cannot extend its Election Day deadline for the arrival of mail-in ballots.
In his concurring opinion in the case, Trump-nominated Justice Brett Kavanaugh parroted the president's attack on the common state practice of counting ballots that arrive after Election Day—a possible indication that Kavanaugh is, as Slate's Mark Joseph Stern put it, "open to stealing the election for Trump."
The implications of Kavanaugh's reason could reach beyond Wisconsin. As Stern pointed out on Twitter, North Carolina Republicans are already citing Kavanaugh's argument to justify their own push for the Supreme Court to limit the state's absentee ballot deadline.
"Brett Kavanaugh's stunning opinion last night should be a huge story today," said Stern. "It cast aspersions on mail ballots. It's riddled with errors. It endorses a theory too radical for the Bush v. Gore majority. It's a preemptive attack on our election's integrity.


alternet--2020-10-28--Justice Barrett is the culmination of the right's five-year misogynist temper tantrum

It was five years and two months ago that candidate Donald Trump became livid that a mere woman — Fox News host Megyn Kelly — had the temerity to talk back to him , and responded with a vile sexist dig .
Kelly is no friend to feminists , but for once in her miserable career as a right-wing troll , she had done the right thing : Standing up to Trump 's sexism .
During a Fox News debate in August of 2015 , Kelly had questioned Trump 's long history of calling women `` 'fat pigs , ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'disgusting animals . '
'' Trump responded by going on a multi-day rampage to silence and punish Kelly , calling her a `` bimbo '' and telling CNN 's Don Lemon that there was `` blood coming out of her eyes '' and `` blood coming out of her wherever . ''
There was loud outcry at this sexist sneering , but it was also clear that Trump gambled correctly in believing that the Republican base would be thrilled at this misogynist outburst and would embrace his candidacy as a weapon against any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking up against sexism .
Now , five-plus years later , Trump and the Republicans are still at it , swearing in Amy Coney Barrett as the newest associate justice of the United States Supreme Court .
Barrett is n't there because she 's especially qualified or intelligent .
No , the entire purpose of her nomination in the last days of the campaign is to get in one more giant fuck-you to feminists before the women 's vote throws Trump out on his butt .
It 's all part of the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's presidency as a weapon to punish women for speaking out against sexism , and to put women in their place .
Of course picking Barrett over any other cookie-cutter right-wing ideologues was about trolling feminists .
The `` joke '' is that they 've replaced a legendary feminist — the recently departed Ruth Bader Ginsburg — with a woman who believes husbands are the `` heads '' of their wives and who refused to agree with the 1965 Supreme Court decision that legalized birth control .
In case there is any lingering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainly as a way to trigger the feminists , the Republican House Judiciary Twitter account announced the confirmation with this tweet : That the first impulse of whoever runs the official account of a House committee 's minority was to snap Clinton 's bra strap , virtually speaking , tells the whole story about how much sexism has pickled right-wing brains .
The entire GOP now exists primarily as a weapon to lash out at liberals for daring to make conservatives feel bad about sexism , racism and other forms of bigotry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ menstrual cycles and Republicans putting Serena Joy on the Supreme Court have been one long , miserable temper tantrum by right-wing men who are furious at feminists for demanding equality , furious at Hillary Clinton for believing that a woman could be president , and furious at the # MeToo movement for demanding women 's right to go through life unmolested by sleazeball men .
It 's impossible to catalog the amount of abuse that has been heaped on American women over the past five years .
There was the `` grab 'em @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` lock her up '' chants .
There 's the way Trump lashes out at any female reporter who challenges him and the way he and his supporters obsessively hate on any woman , from the members of the `` Squad '' to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , who talks back to him .
There 's Trump 's reflexive use of the word `` nasty '' to describe any woman who speaks out .
There 's the utter fury of Brett Kavanaugh at attempts to hold him accountable for an accusation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildfire through the right , as conservatives nationwide screamed in outrage and fear at the very thought that violence against women should ever be held against a white man , especially an upstanding upper-class conservative .
Then there were the policy assaults on women .
Trump 's administration has waged war on contraception access , trying to end coverage by health insurance and cut off funding for clinics that offer birth control at discounted rates .
Republicans took yet another whack at trying to ban abortion with Kavanaugh on the court .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the case , but there 's little doubt that with Barrett on the court , the next pass will succeed .
( Unless , of course , Democrats are able to expand the court ! )
The Department of Education has rolled back protections against sexual harassment and assault , for both college and K-12 students .
The Department of Justice has tried — and so far failed — to argue that taxpayers should fund a legal battle between Trump and one of the two dozen women who has accused him of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid to the role that racism played in the election of Trump , but research shows that misogyny was right up there , too .
Holding sexist beliefs was nearly as strong a predictor of a vote for Trump as holding racist beliefs .
Plenty of feminists saw this coming years ahead of time , sounding the alarm about pre-Trump misogynist movements like Gamergate and the bizarre but loud tantrum many men had about lady Ghostbusters .
There 's also been significant evidence that the neofascist movement uses misogyny as a recruiting tool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men in the door before indoctrinating them with white nationalism .
But those warnings were largely ignored by a mainstream media that was not just male-dominated but run in part by sexual harassers and abusers who were later outed by the # MeToo movement .
It was made worse by those on the left who hated Hillary Clinton , often for reasons that reeked of sexism , and were quick to shame woman who objected to the Hillary hate as `` vagina voters . ''
This whole situation is depressing as hell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than on any other progressive front : American women are extremely angry about all this .
The misogyny of the Trump administration and their supporters has been met with a feminist uprising unlike any that 's been seen since the '70s , from the Women 's March to the # MeToo movement to the 2018 midterms in which a record number of women were elected .
If Trump is defeated at the polls next week , it will largely be because of women , as polls show they support Joe Biden by huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
It 's a bummer it had to get this bad before so many women woke up , of course .
But feminist momentum is real , even if it 's fueled by so many Jill-come-latelys .
With that kind of power , there 's a chance to right this ship .
By being so over-the-top with the misogyny and electing a man who literally brags about how much he enjoys committing sexual assault , Republicans may have pressed their luck too far .
The feminist backlash they 're facing could change @ @ @

It was five years and two months ago that candidate Donald Trump became livid that a mere woman — Fox News host Megyn Kelly — had the temerity to talk back to him, and responded with a vile sexist dig. Kelly is no friend to feminists, but for once in her miserable career as a right-wing troll, she had done the right thing: Standing up to Trump's sexism.
During a Fox News debate in August of 2015, Kelly had questioned Trump's long history of calling women "'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals.'"
Trump responded by going on a multi-day rampage to silence and punish Kelly, calling her a "bimbo" and telling CNN's Don Lemon that there was "blood coming out of her eyes" and "blood coming out of her wherever."
There was loud outcry at this sexist sneering, but it was also clear that Trump gambled correctly in believing that the Republican base would be thrilled at this misogynist outburst and would embrace his candidacy as a weapon against any women who injured their sensitive-snowflake feelings by speaking up against sexism.
Now, five-plus years later, Trump and the Republicans are still at it, swearing in Amy Coney Barrett as the newest associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Barrett isn't there because she's especially qualified or intelligent. No, the entire purpose of her nomination in the last days of the campaign is to get in one more giant fuck-you to feminists before the women's vote throws Trump out on his butt.
It's all part of the same project: The right is using Trump's presidency as a weapon to punish women for speaking out against sexism, and to put women in their place.
Of course picking Barrett over any other cookie-cutter right-wing ideologues was about trolling feminists. The "joke" is that they've replaced a legendary feminist — the recently departed Ruth Bader Ginsburg — with a woman who believes husbands are the "heads" of their wives and who refused to agree with the 1965 Supreme Court decision that legalized birth control.
In case there is any lingering doubt that Republicans view Barrett's nomination mainly as a way to trigger the feminists, the Republican House Judiciary Twitter account announced the confirmation with this tweet:
That the first impulse of whoever runs the official account of a House committee's minority was to snap Clinton's bra strap, virtually speaking, tells the whole story about how much sexism has pickled right-wing brains. The entire GOP now exists primarily as a weapon to lash out at liberals for daring to make conservatives feel bad about sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry.
The years between Trump mocking women's menstrual cycles and Republicans putting Serena Joy on the Supreme Court have been one long, miserable temper tantrum by right-wing men who are furious at feminists for demanding equality, furious at Hillary Clinton for believing that a woman could be president, and furious at the #MeToo movement for demanding women's right to go through life unmolested by sleazeball men.
It's impossible to catalog the amount of abuse that has been heaped on American women over the past five years. There was the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape and the "lock her up" chants. There's the way Trump lashes out at any female reporter who challenges him and the way he and his supporters obsessively hate on any woman, from the members of the "Squad" to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who talks back to him. There's Trump's reflexive use of the word "nasty" to describe any woman who speaks out. There's the utter fury of Brett Kavanaugh at attempts to hold him accountable for an accusation of sexual assault, which spread like wildfire through the right, as conservatives nationwide screamed in outrage and fear at the very thought that violence against women should ever be held against a white man, especially an upstanding upper-class conservative.
Then there were the policy assaults on women. Trump's administration has waged war on contraception access, trying to end coverage by health insurance and cut off funding for clinics that offer birth control at discounted rates. Republicans took yet another whack at trying to ban abortion with Kavanaugh on the court. That effort failed because of the legal sloppiness of the case, but there's little doubt that with Barrett on the court, the next pass will succeed. (Unless, of course, Democrats are able to expand the court!) The Department of Education has rolled back protections against sexual harassment and assault, for both college and K-12 students. The Department of Justice has tried — and so far failed — to argue that taxpayers should fund a legal battle between Trump and one of the two dozen women who has accused him of sexual assault.
Much attention has been paid to the role that racism played in the election of Trump, but research shows that misogyny was right up there, too. Holding sexist beliefs was nearly as strong a predictor of a vote for Trump as holding racist beliefs.
Plenty of feminists saw this coming years ahead of time, sounding the alarm about pre-Trump misogynist movements like Gamergate and the bizarre but loud tantrum many men had about lady Ghostbusters. There's also been significant evidence that the neofascist movement uses misogyny as a recruiting tool, to get bitter and insecure young men in the door before indoctrinating them with white nationalism.
But those warnings were largely ignored by a mainstream media that was not just male-dominated but run in part by sexual harassers and abusers who were later outed by the #MeToo movement. It was made worse by those on the left who hated Hillary Clinton, often for reasons that reeked of sexism, and were quick to shame woman who objected to the Hillary hate as "vagina voters."
This whole situation is depressing as hell, but there is hope, possibly more than on any other progressive front: American women are extremely angry about all this.
The misogyny of the Trump administration and their supporters has been met with a feminist uprising unlike any that's been seen since the '70s, from the Women's March to the #MeToo movement to the 2018 midterms in which a record number of women were elected. If Trump is defeated at the polls next week, it will largely be because of women, as polls show they support Joe Biden by huge margins, while more men still support Trump.
It's a bummer it had to get this bad before so many women woke up, of course. But feminist momentum is real, even if it's fueled by so many Jill-come-latelys. With that kind of power, there's a chance to right this ship. By being so over-the-top with the misogyny and electing a man who literally brags about how much he enjoys committing sexual assault, Republicans may have pressed their luck too far. The feminist backlash they're facing could change the world.


alternet--2020-10-28--Trump is the conspiracist-in-chief — but the culture that fuels QAnon is of our own making

Using conspiracy theories that include child sex traffickers and restaurants serving human flesh , QAnon has unleashed a modern-day moral panic .
It is now more than 30 years since sociologists proposed moral panic as a way to understand the incitement of fear around a perceived enemy .
In the opening paragraph of his canonical study of popular media from 1972 , Folk Devils and Moral Panics , sociologist Stanley Cohen outlined his basic thesis : In President Donald Trump 's America , those people are queers , racial minorities and Jews .
At the time Cohen was writing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the manipulation of mods and rockers as moral degenerates .
He argued that those in positions of authority used sensationalized headlines to enforce what they saw as threats to social order .
We find ourselves in a similar place today .
The media in question is social , but the targets are as old as journalism itself .
When Trump refused to call out QAnon in his Oct. 15 town hall , preferring to show sympathy for its purported fight against pedophilia , he tapped into a moral panic with deep historical roots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that it 's endorsed by the president .
It 's the way it speaks to long-festering hatreds that transcend political affiliation .
During a news conference on Aug. 20 , 2020 , Trump responds to a journalist asking him to comment on QAnon .
QAnon was born digital in the age of “ platformed antagonism , '' where social media breathes new life into racist stereotypes .
But its appeal owes to a longer history of animosity towards sexual and racial minorities at critical points in their quest for rights and recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the modern-day blood libel accusation .
Charges of ritual murder were frequently waged against Europe 's Jewish populations as an effort to reinforce the exclusionary logic of ethnic nationalism .
Jews were accused of kidnapping and murdering gentile children so as to boil their blood and make matzo .
Ritual murder accusations could result in mob violence , as it was in 1901 in the case of a local Jewish butcher in the West Prussian town of Koenitz .
Jews were also slandered for their role in the so-called white slave trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into prostitution .
This mix of sexual excess and ritualistic fervour went hand-in-hand with Jewish emancipation , visibility and new-found claims to equal citizenship .
Both the Pizzagate and Cannibal Club conspiracies in QAnon share roots with the blood libel accusation .
Suggestions that Hillary Clinton and financier George Soros were part of a global sex ring have long permeated social media networks .
In 2018 , these claims morphed in a new direction : children were not just being lured into a sexual underground , they were considered sources of adrenochrome , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satanic rituals .
A cabal of elites did n't just harvest children 's blood , they consumed the flesh itself : as proof , conspiracy theorists pointed to a website that falsely claimed that Raven Chan — Mark Zuckerberg 's sister-in-law — was involved with a fake restaurant called the Cannibal Club .
Although the story has since been debunked , it 's alive and well on social media , surfacing most recently in the hashtags used by Twitterers in the wake of the Trump town hall , linking Hollywood to human sacrifice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral panics accompanied the pursuit of equality by gays and lesbians , with fears around the seduction of minors frequently used as an argument against criminal justice reform .
The new-found visibility of the Gay Liberation Front and lesbian , feminist and Black power movements unleashed a preoccupation with adolescence , childhood sexuality and age of consent .
While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — used to define and classify mental disorders — removed homosexuality from its list of paraphilias in 1973 , conservatives lamented the legalization of same-sex sexuality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in societal values .
Anti-gay rights activist Anita Bryant 's “ Protect America 's Children '' campaign gave this moral panic a celebrity face .
The AIDS epidemic , scandals within the Catholic Church , trans rights and , most recently , the Jeffrey Epstein assaults have all cast renewed attention on the history of changing social and sexual mores brought about by the sexual revolution .
At its core , the preoccupation with pedophilia and childhood sexuality is an attempt to protect the heterosexual family as the bedrock of society , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are too many examples to list , from Pope Benedict blaming homosexual “ cliques '' for the general collapse of morality in the late 20th century to opponents of the 2015 Obergefell decision legalizing gay marriage , a cause célèbre in the conservative media linking gay , lesbian , and trans rights with pedophilia as a leftist plot against the family .
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci — a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force — was not immune from conspiracy theorists who falsely linked his wife to Epstein handler Ghislaine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together anti-Semitism , sexual excess , homophobia and race-baiting in a modern-day moral panic .
They resonate because they have a place in the contemporary zeitgeist as products of long-standing animosity against change .
De-platforming QAnon is not enough .
For while Trump is proving himself to be conspiracist-in-chief , the culture of folk devils and fear is of our own making .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Jennifer Evans, Carleton University
Using conspiracy theories that include child sex traffickers and restaurants serving human flesh, QAnon has unleashed a modern-day moral panic.
It is now more than 30 years since sociologists proposed moral panic as a way to understand the incitement of fear around a perceived enemy. In the opening paragraph of his canonical study of popular media from 1972, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, sociologist Stanley Cohen outlined his basic thesis:
Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.
In President Donald Trump's America, those people are queers, racial minorities and Jews.
At the time Cohen was writing, his focus was on popular media and the manipulation of mods and rockers as moral degenerates. He argued that those in positions of authority used sensationalized headlines to enforce what they saw as threats to social order.
We find ourselves in a similar place today. The media in question is social, but the targets are as old as journalism itself.
Rights and recognition
When Trump refused to call out QAnon in his Oct. 15 town hall, preferring to show sympathy for its purported fight against pedophilia, he tapped into a moral panic with deep historical roots. The danger that QAnon poses is not that it's endorsed by the president. It's the way it speaks to long-festering hatreds that transcend political affiliation.
During a news conference on Aug. 20, 2020, Trump responds to a journalist asking him to comment on QAnon.
QAnon was born digital in the age of “platformed antagonism," where social media breathes new life into racist stereotypes. But its appeal owes to a longer history of animosity towards sexual and racial minorities at critical points in their quest for rights and recognition. It does this through the use of the modern-day blood libel accusation.
Murder, matzo and mayhem
Charges of ritual murder were frequently waged against Europe's Jewish populations as an effort to reinforce the exclusionary logic of ethnic nationalism. Jews were accused of kidnapping and murdering gentile children so as to boil their blood and make matzo. Ritual murder accusations could result in mob violence, as it was in 1901 in the case of a local Jewish butcher in the West Prussian town of Koenitz.
Jews were also slandered for their role in the so-called white slave trade, the luring of young white women into prostitution. This mix of sexual excess and ritualistic fervour went hand-in-hand with Jewish emancipation, visibility and new-found claims to equal citizenship.
Both the Pizzagate and Cannibal Club conspiracies in QAnon share roots with the blood libel accusation.
Suggestions that Hillary Clinton and financier George Soros were part of a global sex ring have long permeated social media networks. In 2018, these claims morphed in a new direction: children were not just being lured into a sexual underground, they were considered sources of adrenochrome, a chemical with hallucinogenic qualities harvested for satanic rituals. A cabal of elites didn't just harvest children's blood, they consumed the flesh itself: as proof, conspiracy theorists pointed to a website that falsely claimed that Raven Chan — Mark Zuckerberg's sister-in-law — was involved with a fake restaurant called the Cannibal Club.
Although the story has since been debunked, it's alive and well on social media, surfacing most recently in the hashtags used by Twitterers in the wake of the Trump town hall, linking Hollywood to human sacrifice, secret societies and pedophilia.
Panic at the movements
Similar moral panics accompanied the pursuit of equality by gays and lesbians, with fears around the seduction of minors frequently used as an argument against criminal justice reform. The new-found visibility of the Gay Liberation Front and lesbian, feminist and Black power movements unleashed a preoccupation with adolescence, childhood sexuality and age of consent.
While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — used to define and classify mental disorders — removed homosexuality from its list of paraphilias in 1973, conservatives lamented the legalization of same-sex sexuality for what they saw as a sea change in societal values. Anti-gay rights activist Anita Bryant's “Protect America's Children" campaign gave this moral panic a celebrity face.
The AIDS epidemic, scandals within the Catholic Church, trans rights and, most recently, the Jeffrey Epstein assaults have all cast renewed attention on the history of changing social and sexual mores brought about by the sexual revolution.
At its core, the preoccupation with pedophilia and childhood sexuality is an attempt to protect the heterosexual family as the bedrock of society, a salve against degeneration and excess. There are too many examples to list, from Pope Benedict blaming homosexual “cliques" for the general collapse of morality in the late 20th century to opponents of the 2015 Obergefell decision legalizing gay marriage, a cause célèbre in the conservative media linking gay, lesbian, and trans rights with pedophilia as a leftist plot against the family.
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci — a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force — was not immune from conspiracy theorists who falsely linked his wife to Epstein handler Ghislaine Maxwell.
The QAnon conspiracy theory draws together anti-Semitism, sexual excess, homophobia and race-baiting in a modern-day moral panic. They resonate because they have a place in the contemporary zeitgeist as products of long-standing animosity against change.
De-platforming QAnon is not enough. For while Trump is proving himself to be conspiracist-in-chief, the culture of folk devils and fear is of our own making.
Jennifer Evans, Professor of Modern European History, Carleton University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-28--It’s time for the US to help put an end to the nuclear age

With all the urgent global crises right now , from climate change to the Covid-19 pandemic , it may seem as though the world is hovering on the edge of destruction .
But despite the odds , humanity just took a major step back from the brink .
On October 24 , the historic U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons ( a.k.a .
the nuclear ban ) , officially received its fiftieth ratification , clearing the threshold to enter into force .
Nuclear weapons make the world less , not more , safe , and with this critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as prohibited weapons of mass destruction .
None of the nuclear-armed nations are parties to this treaty , and although it will carry the force of law , the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world , the United States , has not only announced that it wo n't abide by the treaty but has actively encouraged other nations to withdraw their ratifications .
That should come as no surprise .
The United States remains the only nation in the world to have used nuclear weapons in an act of war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a frightening willingness to risk future nuclear conflict .
It does n't have to be this way .
Now is the perfect time for the United States to recognize the spirit of the nuclear ban treaty and take concrete steps towards not only preventing the future use of nuclear weapons , but also reducing and eliminating our nuclear arsenal .
We 've come within minutes of nuclear war in the past , and we all have a vested interest in preventing the end of humanity as we know it .
Famine and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the event of a nuclear strike would result in the death of millions .
As the late President Ronald Reagan said , `` A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought . ''
Yet , 75 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki , under the Trump administration , we 've withdrawn from most international treaties that reduce or limit the potential for nuclear war and we 're now considering re-engaging in live nuclear testing for the first time in decades .
Like the scheming villain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the destruction of humanity , the United States is happily reheating the Cold War and seeking to further destabilize the precarious hard-won international agreements that have thus far prevented us from engaging in a future nuclear conflict .
Several generations of communities around the United States are still dealing with the fallout of nuclear testing and nuclear storage facilities from our bid to win the nuclear arms race .
Our nation has been locked in the world 's most idiotic game of chicken for decades , and it 's putting all our lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , part of a younger generation that will inherit a world full of nuclear weapons , enough to destroy the earth thousands of times over .
I 'm one of many young people around the world who refuse to accept that status quo , who recognize that nuclear weapons pose one of the gravest existential threats to humanity .
In the past , the United States recognized the horrors that nuclear war could bring and took concrete steps to prevent a future nuclear conflict .
We can do so again .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clock , we 're currently at just 100 seconds to midnight , thanks in part to the Trump administration 's reckless , systematic dismantling and undermining of vital international arms control agreements .
The United States can play a major role in turning back the clock .
Our government owes it to Americans and to other nations to do so Olivia Alperstein is the Media Manager at the Institute for Policy Studies .

by Olivia Alperstein
With all the urgent global crises right now, from climate change to the Covid-19 pandemic, it may seem as though the world is hovering on the edge of destruction. But despite the odds, humanity just took a major step back from the brink.
On October 24, the historic U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (a.k.a. the nuclear ban), officially received its fiftieth ratification, clearing the threshold to enter into force. Nuclear weapons make the world less, not more, safe, and with this critical milestone, they will now be treated as prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
None of the nuclear-armed nations are parties to this treaty, and although it will carry the force of law, the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the United States, has not only announced that it won't abide by the treaty but has actively encouraged other nations to withdraw their ratifications.
That should come as no surprise. The United States remains the only nation in the world to have used nuclear weapons in an act of war, and the current administration has shown a frightening willingness to risk future nuclear conflict.
It doesn't have to be this way. Now is the perfect time for the United States to recognize the spirit of the nuclear ban treaty and take concrete steps towards not only preventing the future use of nuclear weapons, but also reducing and eliminating our nuclear arsenal.
We've come within minutes of nuclear war in the past, and we all have a vested interest in preventing the end of humanity as we know it. Famine and a global plummet in temperatures due to fallout in the event of a nuclear strike would result in the death of millions. As the late President Ronald Reagan said, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
Yet, 75 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, under the Trump administration, we've withdrawn from most international treaties that reduce or limit the potential for nuclear war and we're now considering re-engaging in live nuclear testing for the first time in decades.
Like the scheming villain in a James Bond movie bent on the destruction of humanity, the United States is happily reheating the Cold War and seeking to further destabilize the precarious hard-won international agreements that have thus far prevented us from engaging in a future nuclear conflict. Several generations of communities around the United States are still dealing with the fallout of nuclear testing and nuclear storage facilities from our bid to win the nuclear arms race.
Our nation has been locked in the world's most idiotic game of chicken for decades, and it's putting all our lives at risk.
I'm a millennial, part of a younger generation that will inherit a world full of nuclear weapons, enough to destroy the earth thousands of times over. I'm one of many young people around the world who refuse to accept that status quo, who recognize that nuclear weapons pose one of the gravest existential threats to humanity.
In the past, the United States recognized the horrors that nuclear war could bring and took concrete steps to prevent a future nuclear conflict. We can do so again.
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock, we're currently at just 100 seconds to midnight, thanks in part to the Trump administration's reckless, systematic dismantling and undermining of vital international arms control agreements. The United States can play a major role in turning back the clock. Our government owes it to Americans and to other nations to do so
Olivia Alperstein is the Media Manager at the Institute for Policy Studies.


alternet--2020-10-29--Here's the real reason Trump and Giuliani's 'October surprise' is crashing and burning

There 's a basic problem with the story that Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani have been pushing about Joe Biden 's actions in Ukraine : It 's a lie .
Of course , this is politics , and the fact that the story is simply lacking in any facts is n't necessarily an issue .
The real problem with this lie is that it 's an obvious lie .
An extremely obvious lie .
One that they 've been trying to pass off for more than a year .
After all , the claims now being made are exactly those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president of Ukraine in the scheme that ultimately got Trump impeached .
This is the same scheme that the CIA warned that Russia was going to use in an effort to influence the election .
The scheme the Russian state-owned media has been pushing for a year .
It 's part of the same scheme that Trump confessed back in February .
And it 's being pushed by Rudy Giuliani , the guy at the center of a criminal investigation , whose partners have already been indicted , and who pocketed half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Russian oligarch .
Giuliani started pushing this same story in 2019 which , somehow , turned out to be exactly what he found on the mystery laptop , which was brought into a Trump-supporting repair shop by an anonymous person , and given to a blind shop owner whose security cameras were on the blink .
It is the most amazing coincidence .
In fact , the story is so ridiculous , that not only are social media sites tossing it into the trash , the media outlets that reliably ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are increasingly reluctant to play along .
So Trump and company have now given up trying to defend the actual story .
Instead , they 've moved on to the story about the story … a kind of meta-lie .
Because somehow , they think that 's better .
Just about the only thing that the Trump/Giuliani scheme seems to have accomplished is to get the phrase `` Hunter Biden 's laptop '' repeated with metronomic regularity .
That 's despite the fact that there is no reason to think that the laptop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Joe Biden 's surviving son .
Not only did the laptop come in without an identifiable source , it did so at a time when Hunter Biden was living on the opposite coast .
And a quick examination of the documents on that laptop seems to indicate that several were created after the date on which the shop owner says the laptop was dropped off .
Overall , the whole thing looks like not just a fraud intended to provide Giuliani another opportunity to put forward the same lies , it looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the only thing that keeps it from looking like a Russian set up , is that it all seems so amateurish .
Maybe Team Putin is really this bush league .
It 's almost disappointing .
The claims from Giuliani are so bad , that even the most pro-Trump networks have been hesitant to fully embrace the story .
When you ca n't get OAN to run with your Trump-endorsed conspiracy theory , you 've entered a zone what would make the subterranean lizard people who control the pizza basement child-based pepperoni @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains , that does n't mean Trump is completely ready to let this story drop .
Sure , there 's an understandable reluctance to post unsubstantiated emails that feature Hunter Biden delivering scenes from a mob film—if only because no one believes that Joe Biden would make a good Brando .
Instead , they 've launched a two-part plan B .
Part one is publishing images of a supposed Hunter Biden that supposedly came from the mystery laptop .
Those images are now to be found on `` a Chinese website owned partially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no better way to show that your team is the one sticking it to China , than getting China to help you in smearing Biden .
Part two is something that 's more up Trump 's alley … complaining .
Rather than push the original conspiracy theories that no one , including Trump 's allies , will pick up , Trump 's campaign is pushing the idea that no one will take up the laptop story because they 're all in on it .
Giuliani has even taken to podcasting to complain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to repeat his lies on television .
And if there is anything this nation needs , it 's more free air time for Rudy Giuliani .
Instead of talking directly about Biden , Trump 's team is now busy focusing on the story of how no one will publish their thoroughly debunked material .
For example , Twitter just keeps `` censoring '' Donald Trump , but they never touch Joe Biden 's posts .
The truth is that 's because Trump keeps deliberately breaking the site 's terms of service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` people are censoring Trump '' story is at least something traditional conservative outlets are willing to touch with a 10.5 foot pole .
If the umpteenth coming of the Hunter Biden story was already a limp choice for October surprise , this meta-fiction about that story is incredibly weak .
The planted laptop story has already failed .
The story about how people would n't cover the planted laptop story has n't got enough heat to be detected .
Seriously , if there 's anything you expect from Trump , it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worth being outraged over .

There's a basic problem with the story that Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani have been pushing about Joe Biden's actions in Ukraine: It's a lie. Of course, this is politics, and the fact that the story is simply lacking in any facts isn't necessarily an issue. The real problem with this lie is that it's an obvious lie. An extremely obvious lie. One that they've been trying to pass off for more than a year.
After all, the claims now being made are exactly those that Trump was trying to extort from the president of Ukraine in the scheme that ultimately got Trump impeached. This is the same scheme that the CIA warned that Russia was going to use in an effort to influence the election. The scheme the Russian state-owned media has been pushing for a year. It's part of the same scheme that Trump confessed back in February. And it's being pushed by Rudy Giuliani, the guy at the center of a criminal investigation, whose partners have already been indicted, and who pocketed half a million for helping out the henchman of a Russian oligarch.
Giuliani started pushing this same story in 2019 which, somehow, turned out to be exactly what he found on the mystery laptop, which was brought into a Trump-supporting repair shop by an anonymous person, and given to a blind shop owner whose security cameras were on the blink. It is the most amazing coincidence. In fact, the story is so ridiculous, that not only are social media sites tossing it into the trash, the media outlets that reliably ran whatever Giuliani brought them in the past are increasingly reluctant to play along.
So Trump and company have now given up trying to defend the actual story. Instead, they've moved on to the story about the story … a kind of meta-lie. Because somehow, they think that's better.
Just about the only thing that the Trump/Giuliani scheme seems to have accomplished is to get the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" repeated with metronomic regularity. That's despite the fact that there is no reason to think that the laptop recovered from the Wilmington store actually belonged to Joe Biden's surviving son. Not only did the laptop come in without an identifiable source, it did so at a time when Hunter Biden was living on the opposite coast. And a quick examination of the documents on that laptop seems to indicate that several were created after the date on which the shop owner says the laptop was dropped off.
Overall, the whole thing looks like not just a fraud intended to provide Giuliani another opportunity to put forward the same lies, it looks like a clumsy fraud. In fact, the only thing that keeps it from looking like a Russian set up, is that it all seems so amateurish. Maybe Team Putin is really this bush league. It's almost disappointing.
The claims from Giuliani are so bad, that even the most pro-Trump networks have been hesitant to fully embrace the story. When you can't get OAN to run with your Trump-endorsed conspiracy theory, you've entered a zone what would make the subterranean lizard people who control the pizza basement child-based pepperoni network blush.
But, as Politico explains, that doesn't mean Trump is completely ready to let this story drop. Sure, there's an understandable reluctance to post unsubstantiated emails that feature Hunter Biden delivering scenes from a mob film—if only because no one believes that Joe Biden would make a good Brando. Instead, they've launched a two-part plan B.
Part one is publishing images of a supposed Hunter Biden that supposedly came from the mystery laptop. Those images are now to be found on "a Chinese website owned partially by Steve Bannon." Because there is no better way to show that your team is the one sticking it to China, than getting China to help you in smearing Biden.
Part two is something that's more up Trump's alley … complaining. Rather than push the original conspiracy theories that no one, including Trump's allies, will pick up, Trump's campaign is pushing the idea that no one will take up the laptop story because they're all in on it. Giuliani has even taken to podcasting to complain that people are refusing to give him time to repeat his lies on television. And if there is anything this nation needs, it's more free air time for Rudy Giuliani.
Instead of talking directly about Biden, Trump's team is now busy focusing on the story of how no one will publish their thoroughly debunked material. For example, Twitter just keeps "censoring" Donald Trump, but they never touch Joe Biden's posts. The truth is that's because Trump keeps deliberately breaking the site's terms of service, while Biden does not. But the "people are censoring Trump" story is at least something traditional conservative outlets are willing to touch with a 10.5 foot pole.
If the umpteenth coming of the Hunter Biden story was already a limp choice for October surprise, this meta-fiction about that story is incredibly weak. The planted laptop story has already failed. The story about how people wouldn't cover the planted laptop story hasn't got enough heat to be detected.
Seriously, if there's anything you expect from Trump, it's more interesting lies. This isn't even worth being outraged over.


alternet--2020-10-29--How Trump's 'catastrophic neediness' makes him dangerous when he's losing

There is agreement among psychologists — and , for that matter , anyone who has been abused by narcissistic personalities — that President Donald Trump fits the psychological profile of a narcissist .
What does that mean for the upcoming election , particularly if Trump loses , as polls suggest ?
Psychologists tell Salon that pathological narcissists who do not get their way tend to react abusively — which could lead to one of several devastating political scenarios for the nation in the election 's aftermath .
`` One does not have to diagnose to recognize pathological or toxic narcissism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a psychiatrist who has taught at Yale and authored the new book `` Profile of a Nation : Trump 's Mind , America 's Soul , '' told Salon by email .
`` This is behavior , not a diagnosis — and the media need not fixate so much on 'the Goldwater rule , ' which applies to only 6 % of practicing mental health professionals ( that is , members of the American Psychiatric Association , the only association in the world with this rule ) . ''
The so-called Goldwater Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement . ''
However , the rule does not apply to describing obvious narcissistic behavior in a public figure , any more than it would disqualify someone from describing celebrities who spend most of their days drinking liquor as having an alcohol problem .
`` Those with pathological narcissism are abusive and dangerous because of their catastrophic neediness , '' Lee explained .
`` Think of a drowning person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just may push you down in order to save one 's own life .
In the manner that the body needs oxygen , the soul needs love , and self-love is what a toxic narcissist is desperately lacking .
This is why he must overcompensate , creating for himself a self-image where he is the best at everything , never wrong , better than all the experts , and a 'stable genius . '
'' Dr. Ramani Durvasula , a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology who is noted for her expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , agrees that Trump is narcissistic and believes this makes him very dangerous .
As Durvasula explained , many of Trump 's seemingly inexplicable actions as president make sense when viewed through the lens of a `` narcissistic or antagonist personality style . ''
These include `` validation and admiration seeking , '' as manifested by his `` endless campaign rallies despite the associated danger , needing to be taken on a ride around the hospital when he had COVID-19 so people could wave to him , repeatedly requiring validation on the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Trump also displays denial , as seen by his response to the pandemic , and vindictiveness , as demonstrated by his obsession with reversing Barack Obama 's legacy `` seemingly just to punish him '' as well as by his threat to `` withhold federal funds from California for wildfire destruction because he perceives the state is against him . ''
In addition , Durvasula pointed out that Trump shows extreme sensitivity to criticism through the erratic and malicious content he frequently posts on Twitter , but at the same time reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discourse about the diverse citizenry of this country – racial and ethnic minorities , specific religious groups ( e.g .
Muslims ) , women , and separating families at the border . ''
Trump , Durvasula said , is also manipulative , as he panders to a constituency that he appears to `` have contempt for . ''
Durvasula cited his gaslighting , too— meaning trying to alter or deny memories of basic facts — is revealed in how `` he has often been caught by fact-checkers in his lies , and denies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most ominous of the symptoms that Durvasula identified , though , is `` triangulation . ''
As she explained , `` this is the infliction of chaos created by turning groups against each other .
Doing this centralizes the power in the narcissist and creates a blind alliance between some of the polarized groups and him ; the country is terribly polarized on numerous dimensions , to the point where families are bearing a toll of divisiveness based on the antagonistic rhetoric . ''
Now , experts and pollsters seem to agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
So what happens when a narcissist does n't get their way ?
Lee explained that narcissists who can not get the love they crave will frequently seek adulation as a substitute .
Because no amount of adulation will ever satisfy them , though , `` the usual course of an unconstrained pathological narcissist is to seek positions of ever greater power and celebrity . ''
Yet , as Lee explains , because `` reality never matches one 's fantasy , dissatisfaction grows at greater pace . ''
Therefore , if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the outcome could be be `` frightening . ''
`` Just as one once settled for adulation in lieu of love , one may settle for fear when adulation no longer seems attainable , '' Dr. Lee told Salon .
`` Rage attacks are common , for people are bound to fall short of expectation for such a needy personality—and eventually everyone falls into this category .
But when there is an all-encompassing loss , such the loss of an election , it can trigger a rampage of destruction and reign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has failed him . ''
She added , `` It is far easier for the pathological narcissist to consider destroying oneself and the world , especially its 'laughing eyes , ' than to retreat into becoming a 'loser ' and a 'sucker ' — which to someone suffering from this condition will feel like psychic death . ''
In a sense , the best analogy is that of a narcissistic family member abusing other family members .
Metaphorically , Trump has already abused America .
`` This personality pattern has taken a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite abusive , '' Durvasula says .
`` It has eroded trust , left a nation confused and unsupported , and deeply divided and insecure .
These same adjectives can be used to describe a marriage or a family which is suffering the challenges of a difficult narcissistic personality in its midst . ''
If Trump loses , Durvasula says it will be like watching a three-year-old refuse to go to bed .
`` They will just stand there , poignantly in their Superman pajamas and say NO , I am NOT going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground and scream , '' she explained .
`` Plan on an adult version of that .
As is often the case when a difficult personality style like this faces disappointment we tend to see a cascade of reactions – oppositionality , denial , rage , despair , paranoia , more rage , entitlement , victimhood , and vindictiveness . ''
The next question , then , is what Trump could actually do in his vindictive rage to punish an America which he may believe has consigned him to `` loser '' status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually regarded as failures — and Trump would be the first one-termer in 28 years ) .
As political activist and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader wrote in August , Trump could pressure the Justice Department to issue bogus subpoenas in order to punish his critics and opponents , pull out of contracts with businesses and individuals who he feels wronged him , refuse to work with Biden 's transition team in handing over power and ( of course ) `` intensify the use of the Justice Department and his personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstructive way the results of the election in selected states , no matter what the margin of his defeat . ''
Trump could also pick winners and losers in terms of who receives federal help during the pandemic and recession , helping those who sided with him and exacting vengeance against those who did not .
He could egg on his supporters into committing acts of violence or , at the very least , do everything in his power to make sure they do not accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to drive up interest rates and stop supporting the stock and corporate bond markets , actions that would tank the American economy ( and which Trump would most likely attempt to blame on Biden ) .
Most ominous of all , a narcissist like Trump could simply refuse to leave office when his term ends on January 20 , 2021 .
America has never had an incumbent president flat-out defy the results of an election — John Adams , John Quincy Adams , Martin Van Buren , Grover Cleveland , Benjamin Harrison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gerald Ford , Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush all overcame their disappointment and accepted that they had lost .
If Trump refuses to leave because of his narcissism , it will be unprecedented .
It will be abnormal .
And it will all have been very , very predictable .

There is agreement among psychologists — and, for that matter, anyone who has been abused by narcissistic personalities — that President Donald Trump fits the psychological profile of a narcissist. What does that mean for the upcoming election, particularly if Trump loses, as polls suggest? Psychologists tell Salon that pathological narcissists who do not get their way tend to react abusively — which could lead to one of several devastating political scenarios for the nation in the election's aftermath.
"One does not have to diagnose to recognize pathological or toxic narcissism," Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist who has taught at Yale and authored the new book "Profile of a Nation: Trump's Mind, America's Soul," told Salon by email. "This is behavior, not a diagnosis — and the media need not fixate so much on 'the Goldwater rule,' which applies to only 6% of practicing mental health professionals (that is, members of the American Psychiatric Association, the only association in the world with this rule)."
The so-called Goldwater Rule holds that "it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement." However, the rule does not apply to describing obvious narcissistic behavior in a public figure, any more than it would disqualify someone from describing celebrities who spend most of their days drinking liquor as having an alcohol problem.
"Those with pathological narcissism are abusive and dangerous because of their catastrophic neediness," Lee explained. "Think of a drowning person gasping for air: a survival instinct just may push you down in order to save one's own life. In the manner that the body needs oxygen, the soul needs love, and self-love is what a toxic narcissist is desperately lacking. This is why he must overcompensate, creating for himself a self-image where he is the best at everything, never wrong, better than all the experts, and a 'stable genius.'"
Dr. Ramani Durvasula, a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology who is noted for her expertise on narcissistic personality disorder and narcissistic abuse, agrees that Trump is narcissistic and believes this makes him very dangerous.
As Durvasula explained, many of Trump's seemingly inexplicable actions as president make sense when viewed through the lens of a "narcissistic or antagonist personality style." These include "validation and admiration seeking," as manifested by his "endless campaign rallies despite the associated danger, needing to be taken on a ride around the hospital when he had COVID-19 so people could wave to him, repeatedly requiring validation on the number of people present at his inauguration." Trump also displays denial, as seen by his response to the pandemic, and vindictiveness, as demonstrated by his obsession with reversing Barack Obama's legacy "seemingly just to punish him" as well as by his threat to "withhold federal funds from California for wildfire destruction because he perceives the state is against him."
In addition, Durvasula pointed out that Trump shows extreme sensitivity to criticism through the erratic and malicious content he frequently posts on Twitter, but at the same time reveals a lack of empathy through "his discourse about the diverse citizenry of this country – racial and ethnic minorities, specific religious groups (e.g. Muslims), women, and separating families at the border." Trump, Durvasula said, is also manipulative, as he panders to a constituency that he appears to "have contempt for." Durvasula cited his gaslighting, too— meaning trying to alter or deny memories of basic facts — is revealed in how "he has often been caught by fact-checkers in his lies, and denies things he actually said."
Perhaps the most ominous of the symptoms that Durvasula identified, though, is "triangulation." As she explained, "this is the infliction of chaos created by turning groups against each other. Doing this centralizes the power in the narcissist and creates a blind alliance between some of the polarized groups and him; the country is terribly polarized on numerous dimensions, to the point where families are bearing a toll of divisiveness based on the antagonistic rhetoric."
Now, experts and pollsters seem to agree that Trump is likely to lose this election. So what happens when a narcissist doesn't get their way?
Lee explained that narcissists who cannot get the love they crave will frequently seek adulation as a substitute. Because no amount of adulation will ever satisfy them, though, "the usual course of an unconstrained pathological narcissist is to seek positions of ever greater power and celebrity." Yet, as Lee explains, because "reality never matches one's fantasy, dissatisfaction grows at greater pace."
Therefore, if Trump loses to Biden, as seems likely, the outcome could be be "frightening."
"Just as one once settled for adulation in lieu of love, one may settle for fear when adulation no longer seems attainable," Dr. Lee told Salon. "Rage attacks are common, for people are bound to fall short of expectation for such a needy personality—and eventually everyone falls into this category. But when there is an all-encompassing loss, such the loss of an election, it can trigger a rampage of destruction and reign of terror in revenge against an entire nation that has failed him."
She added, "It is far easier for the pathological narcissist to consider destroying oneself and the world, especially its 'laughing eyes,' than to retreat into becoming a 'loser' and a 'sucker' — which to someone suffering from this condition will feel like psychic death."
In a sense, the best analogy is that of a narcissistic family member abusing other family members. Metaphorically, Trump has already abused America. "This personality pattern has taken a toll on this country, and been quite abusive," Durvasula says. "It has eroded trust, left a nation confused and unsupported, and deeply divided and insecure. These same adjectives can be used to describe a marriage or a family which is suffering the challenges of a difficult narcissistic personality in its midst."
If Trump loses, Durvasula says it will be like watching a three-year-old refuse to go to bed.
"They will just stand there, poignantly in their Superman pajamas and say NO, I am NOT going to bed, and drop to the ground and scream," she explained. "Plan on an adult version of that. As is often the case when a difficult personality style like this faces disappointment we tend to see a cascade of reactions – oppositionality, denial, rage, despair, paranoia, more rage, entitlement, victimhood, and vindictiveness."
The next question, then, is what Trump could actually do in his vindictive rage to punish an America which he may believe has consigned him to "loser" status. (Indeed, one-term presidents are usually regarded as failures — and Trump would be the first one-termer in 28 years). As political activist and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader wrote in August, Trump could pressure the Justice Department to issue bogus subpoenas in order to punish his critics and opponents, pull out of contracts with businesses and individuals who he feels wronged him, refuse to work with Biden's transition team in handing over power and (of course) "intensify the use of the Justice Department and his personal lawyers to challenge in every frivolous, obstructive way the results of the election in selected states, no matter what the margin of his defeat."
Trump could also pick winners and losers in terms of who receives federal help during the pandemic and recession, helping those who sided with him and exacting vengeance against those who did not. He could egg on his supporters into committing acts of violence or, at the very least, do everything in his power to make sure they do not accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency. He could pressure the Federal Reserve to try to drive up interest rates and stop supporting the stock and corporate bond markets, actions that would tank the American economy (and which Trump would most likely attempt to blame on Biden).
Most ominous of all, a narcissist like Trump could simply refuse to leave office when his term ends on January 20, 2021. America has never had an incumbent president flat-out defy the results of an election — John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush all overcame their disappointment and accepted that they had lost.
If Trump refuses to leave because of his narcissism, it will be unprecedented. It will be abnormal. And it will all have been very, very predictable.


alternet--2020-10-28--'Under a cloud': A stunningly arrogant Supreme Court opinion threatens Pennsylvania ballots

In yet another disturbing U.S. Supreme Court decision , three conservative justices signed on to an opinion clearly suggesting they 're open to arguments that might invalidate some Pennsylvania ballots after the election .
To understand what 's going on , let 's start with the positive news .
The court as a whole rejected a plea from Republicans to reconsider a case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the deadline for mail-in ballots received three days after Election Day , as long as they 're postmarked by Nov. 3 ( or the postmark is absent or unclear ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involve itself on the issue in a 4-4 split decision , leaving the state court 's extension in place .
Newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett , whose nomination was not yet complete at the time of the previous decision , recused herself from the latest case .
According to the Supreme Court 's Public Information Office : `` Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court did not take up the case again , Justice Samuel Alito , one of the court 's staunch conservatives , wrote a statement making it clear that he objected to the state court 's extension and desperately wanted to overturn it .
He also made clear that he would be open to reconsidering the issue after the election — that is , he would be open to throwing out at any mail-in ballots received and counted after Election Day in Pennsylvania , despite the fact that they would be cast and counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas signed on to Alito 's statement .
`` [ The ] Court 's denial of the motion to expedite is not a denial of a request for this Court to order that ballots received after election day be segregated so that if the State Supreme Court 's decision is ultimately overturned , a targeted remedy will be available , '' Alito wrote , in an extreme understatement for such an extraordinary claim .
What he means is he 's leaving open the possibility to later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alito 's position is superbly arrogant .
Whatever one may think of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 's extension of the deadline to receive ballots , it is , in effect , the law of the state — just as the U.S. Supreme Court 's decisions determine the state of federal law .
But rather than recognizing the court 's authority , Alito warns that `` the election in Pennsylvania '' is `` being conducted under a cloud . ''
This claim is based on the idea that Alito himself objects to the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it 's his own statement , which threatens to invalidate ballots after they 're cast and counted , that is putting the state 's election `` under a cloud . ''
Many legal experts argue that it 's clearly the state supreme court 's role to interpret questions of law in their state , and the Supreme Court should n't insert itself to intervene on state law matters .
Alito , along with at least some of the other conservatives on the court , argue instead that because the Constitution grants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Supreme Court can and should step in to uphold the will of the Pennsylvania legislature , which did not want to extend the mail-in deadline .
Regardless of the merits of that debate , however , the legal facts are what they are .
The state supreme court ruled , and a challenge to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court before the election failed .
Voters are currently planning to act under the laws as they 've currently been established .
Alito himself acknowledges that there is not enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case up again , which is why he did not dissent from the decision of his colleagues not take up the case now .
What 's truly arrogant , though , is that in spite those facts on the ground , Alito is continuing to assert that the U.S. Supreme Court should have a say and might overturn the existing rules .
He sees it as so necessary that he and the Supreme Court involve themselves in a case that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided that he 's openly forecasting that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out ballots that were legitimately cast under the rules at the time .
A more small-c conservative or modest justice would recognize that , whatever his objections in the case , his view had n't won the day .
But that 's not how Alito sees it .
This arrogance is especially egregious give the matter at hand .
While the issue , of cours , e has the potential to be highly influential , and thus the stakes are high , the state supreme court 's decision is about the handling of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters and presumably delivered by election day .
Many states conduct elections this way — it 's not as if the change is some extreme or unheard of remedy .
Alito 's extreme threat to disenfranchise people after the fact is not proportionate to the issue .
All that said , Pennsylvania voters with mail-in ballots would be well-advised at this point to not rely on the postal service to deliver their ballot , given the risks .
They should seek out advice from their local election offices and potentially turn in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boxes , if possible .
Now , despite all the legitimate reasons I 've described to be disturbed by Alito 's statement , there are several reasons to think the issue is not particularly dire , as law professor Steve Vladeck explained .
In theory , Alito , along with Gorsuch , Thomas , Justice Brett Kavanaugh , and Barrett , could potentially hear a case after the election and decide to throw out enough ballots in Pennsylvania to swing the presidential race from Biden to Trump .
But that seems quite unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole slew of factors would have to be in place for the move to work .
First , Pennsylvania would have to be the tipping point state in the electoral college .
That 's plausible , but far from guaranteed .
Even more important , though , is that Pennsylvania would have to be the decisive state .
This would mean that Biden only barely won the presidential election , with no extra states .
That would likely mean Biden lost in North Carolina , Florida , Georgia , Arizona , and Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly or running neck-and-neck with Trump .
Again , this is possible , but it probably is n't the most likely scenario .
The Pennsylvania race would also have to be extremely close , close enough for the mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day to make the difference between Biden and Trump .
Again that 's possible , but it does n't seem most likely when the New York Times polling average has Biden leading in the state by 6 points .
Any ballots arriving after Election Day will be split between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially favor Trump — so it 's only the final margin that would matter .
And for the Supreme Court 's intervention to make the difference , Alito would need Barrett and at either Kavanaugh and Roberts to join him .
It 's impossible to give odds on how likely this is , but we can content ourselves by saying at least it 's not a sure thing that a full five of six conservative justices on the court would be interested in going along with this plan after the votes have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken the wise step of planning to segregate any late-arriving ballots from the rest of the ballots it counts .
That should forestall the possibility that the Supreme Court ( or state legislature ) would be inclined to say the state 's whole election has been tainted by the inclusion of late-arriving ballots and try to circumvent the will of the people .

In yet another disturbing U.S. Supreme Court decision, three conservative justices signed on to an opinion clearly suggesting they're open to arguments that might invalidate some Pennsylvania ballots after the election.
To understand what's going on, let's start with the positive news. The court as a whole rejected a plea from Republicans to reconsider a case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the deadline for mail-in ballots received three days after Election Day, as long as they're postmarked by Nov. 3 (or the postmark is absent or unclear). The court had already declined to involve itself on the issue in a 4-4 split decision, leaving the state court's extension in place.
Newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose nomination was not yet complete at the time of the previous decision, recused herself from the latest case. According to the Supreme Court's Public Information Office: "Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties' filings."
But while the Supreme Court did not take up the case again, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court's staunch conservatives, wrote a statement making it clear that he objected to the state court's extension and desperately wanted to overturn it. He also made clear that he would be open to reconsidering the issue after the election — that is, he would be open to throwing out at any mail-in ballots received and counted after Election Day in Pennsylvania, despite the fact that they would be cast and counted in accordance with the rules as they are. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas signed on to Alito's statement.
"[The] Court's denial of the motion to expedite is not a denial of a request for this Court to order that ballots received after election day be segregated so that if the State Supreme Court's decision is ultimately overturned, a targeted remedy will be available," Alito wrote, in an extreme understatement for such an extraordinary claim. What he means is he's leaving open the possibility to later toss out some voters' ballots.
Alito's position is superbly arrogant. Whatever one may think of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's extension of the deadline to receive ballots, it is, in effect, the law of the state — just as the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions determine the state of federal law.
But rather than recognizing the court's authority, Alito warns that "the election in Pennsylvania" is "being conducted under a cloud." This claim is based on the idea that Alito himself objects to the court's ruling and nothing more.
In fact, it's his own statement, which threatens to invalidate ballots after they're cast and counted, that is putting the state's election "under a cloud."
Many legal experts argue that it's clearly the state supreme court's role to interpret questions of law in their state, and the Supreme Court shouldn't insert itself to intervene on state law matters. Alito, along with at least some of the other conservatives on the court, argue instead that because the Constitution grants authority over elections to state legislatures, the U.S. Supreme Court can and should step in to uphold the will of the Pennsylvania legislature, which did not want to extend the mail-in deadline.
Regardless of the merits of that debate, however, the legal facts are what they are. The state supreme court ruled, and a challenge to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court before the election failed. Voters are currently planning to act under the laws as they've currently been established. Alito himself acknowledges that there is not enough time at this point to take the case up again, which is why he did not dissent from the decision of his colleagues not take up the case now.
What's truly arrogant, though, is that in spite those facts on the ground, Alito is continuing to assert that the U.S. Supreme Court should have a say and might overturn the existing rules. He sees it as so necessary that he and the Supreme Court involve themselves in a case that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided that he's openly forecasting that they might overturn an election result and throw out ballots that were legitimately cast under the rules at the time. A more small-c conservative or modest justice would recognize that, whatever his objections in the case, his view hadn't won the day. But that's not how Alito sees it.
This arrogance is especially egregious give the matter at hand. While the issue, of cours,e has the potential to be highly influential, and thus the stakes are high, the state supreme court's decision is about the handling of ballots that would be cast by legitimate voters and presumably delivered by election day. Many states conduct elections this way — it's not as if the change is some extreme or unheard of remedy. Alito's extreme threat to disenfranchise people after the fact is not proportionate to the issue.
All that said, Pennsylvania voters with mail-in ballots would be well-advised at this point to not rely on the postal service to deliver their ballot, given the risks. They should seek out advice from their local election offices and potentially turn in their ballots in person or at official drop boxes, if possible.
Now, despite all the legitimate reasons I've described to be disturbed by Alito's statement, there are several reasons to think the issue is not particularly dire, as law professor Steve Vladeck explained.
In theory, Alito, along with Gorsuch, Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett, could potentially hear a case after the election and decide to throw out enough ballots in Pennsylvania to swing the presidential race from Biden to Trump. But that seems quite unlikely to happen in fact, because a whole slew of factors would have to be in place for the move to work.
First, Pennsylvania would have to be the tipping point state in the electoral college. That's plausible, but far from guaranteed. Even more important, though, is that Pennsylvania would have to be the decisive state. This would mean that Biden only barely won the presidential election, with no extra states. That would likely mean Biden lost in North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and Texas, where he is currently either leading slightly or running neck-and-neck with Trump. Again, this is possible, but it probably isn't the most likely scenario.
The Pennsylvania race would also have to be extremely close, close enough for the mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day to make the difference between Biden and Trump. Again that's possible, but it doesn't seem most likely when the New York Times polling average has Biden leading in the state by 6 points. Any ballots arriving after Election Day will be split between Trump and Biden — they could even potentially favor Trump — so it's only the final margin that would matter.
And for the Supreme Court's intervention to make the difference, Alito would need Barrett and at either Kavanaugh and Roberts to join him. It's impossible to give odds on how likely this is, but we can content ourselves by saying at least it's not a sure thing that a full five of six conservative justices on the court would be interested in going along with this plan after the votes have been cast.
Vladeck also noted that Pennsylvania has taken the wise step of planning to segregate any late-arriving ballots from the rest of the ballots it counts. That should forestall the possibility that the Supreme Court (or state legislature) would be inclined to say the state's whole election has been tainted by the inclusion of late-arriving ballots and try to circumvent the will of the people.


alternet--2020-10-28--Ex-Republican explains why he foresees a 'decade of Democratic dominance'

Over the years , veteran conservative columnist George F. Will has had plenty of criticisms of liberals and progressives — and contrary to what many of President Donald Trump 's far-right supporters have claimed , Will is still politically right-wing .
But there is no question that Will , who left the Republican Party and is now supporting former Vice President Joe Biden , has been a blistering critic of Trump .
And this week in his Washington Post column , Will not only predicts that Biden will defeat Trump on November 3 — he predicts that the election will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will dominate the federal government for at least a decade .
`` By a circuitous route to a predictable destination , '' Will predicts , `` the 2020 presidential selection process seems almost certain to end Tuesday with a fumigation election .
A presidency that began with dark words about 'American carnage ' probably will receive what it has earned : repudiation . ''
As Will sees it , Trump has been so toxic for the GOP and the conservative movement that his presidency needs as vehement a `` repudiation '' as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project — a right-wing anti-Trump group that has been airing pro-Biden ads — Will believes that a Democratic landslide on November 3 will encourage the reset that American conservatism needs .
Will writes , `` In defeat , Trump ... will probably say that if not for the pandemic , Americans would have voted their pocketbooks — which would have been bulging because of economic growth — and reelected him .
Americans , however , are more complicated and civic-minded than one-dimensional economy voters . ''
Trump has claimed that he inherited a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Barack Obama , and brought about an economic miracle .
But truth be told , the Great Recession was long gone by the time Obama left office in January 2017 .
Trump inherited an economy that was already in recovery .
Will explains , `` The 4 % growth Trump promised as a candidate and the 3 % he promised as president became , pre-pandemic , 2.5 % during his first three years — a negligible improvement over the 2.4 % of the last three Barack Obama years .
This growth was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 4.4 % of gross domestic product to 6.3 % , by the International Monetary Fund 's calculation . ''
Will goes on to slam Trump for tariffs before segueing into a discussion of demographics — which , the 79-year-old columnist warns , will not work in favor of Republicans during the rest of the 2020s .
`` In Ronald Reagan 's 1984 reelection , voters under 30 were a solidly Republican age cohort ; 2020 , for the fifth consecutive election , it will be the most Democratic , '' Will explains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes this year 's 'generational backlash ' '' against Trump presages for Republicans a dismal decade during which two large and diverse cohorts — Millennials , born between 1981 and 1996 , and Generation Z , born between 1997 and 2012 — become , together , the electorate 's largest bloc in an electorate that , says Brownstein , 'is beginning its most profound generational transition since the early 1980s , ' when Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964 became the largest bloc . ''
Will continues , `` In 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under 30 ; Obama averaged 63 % in two elections .
Furthermore , this will be the first presidential election in which the number of Millennial and Generation Z eligible voters will outnumber eligible Baby Boomers .
Generation Z is 49 % people of color . ''
The Never Trump conservative wraps up his column by offering another reason why he is predicting a Biden victory on Election Day : Americans are feeling fed up and just plain `` exhausted '' during the Trump era .
`` Economic and demographic statistics are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to next Tuesday 's probable outcome , '' Will argues .
`` Novelist John Updike supplied another : ' a healthy male adult bore consumes each year one and a half times his own weight in other people 's patience . '
This nation and its patience are exhausted . ''

Over the years, veteran conservative columnist George F. Will has had plenty of criticisms of liberals and progressives — and contrary to what many of President Donald Trump's far-right supporters have claimed, Will is still politically right-wing. But there is no question that Will, who left the Republican Party and is now supporting former Vice President Joe Biden, has been a blistering critic of Trump. And this week in his Washington Post column, Will not only predicts that Biden will defeat Trump on November 3 — he predicts that the election will be so devastating for Republicans that Democrats will dominate the federal government for at least a decade.
"By a circuitous route to a predictable destination," Will predicts, "the 2020 presidential selection process seems almost certain to end Tuesday with a fumigation election. A presidency that began with dark words about 'American carnage' probably will receive what it has earned: repudiation."
As Will sees it, Trump has been so toxic for the GOP and the conservative movement that his presidency needs as vehement a "repudiation" as possible. And like members of the Lincoln Project — a right-wing anti-Trump group that has been airing pro-Biden ads — Will believes that a Democratic landslide on November 3 will encourage the reset that American conservatism needs.
Will writes, "In defeat, Trump... will probably say that if not for the pandemic, Americans would have voted their pocketbooks — which would have been bulging because of economic growth — and reelected him. Americans, however, are more complicated and civic-minded than one-dimensional economy voters."
Trump has claimed that he inherited a broken economy from his Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama, and brought about an economic miracle. But truth be told, the Great Recession was long gone by the time Obama left office in January 2017. Trump inherited an economy that was already in recovery.
Will explains, "The 4% growth Trump promised as a candidate and the 3% he promised as president became, pre-pandemic, 2.5 % during his first three years — a negligible improvement over the 2.4% of the last three Barack Obama years. This growth was partly fueled by increased deficit spending, from 4.4% of gross domestic product to 6.3%, by the International Monetary Fund's calculation."
Will goes on to slam Trump for tariffs before segueing into a discussion of demographics — which, the 79-year-old columnist warns, will not work in favor of Republicans during the rest of the 2020s.
"In Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection, voters under 30 were a solidly Republican age cohort; 2020, for the fifth consecutive election, it will be the most Democratic," Will explains. "The Atlantic's Ronald Brownstein believes this year's 'generational backlash'" against Trump presages for Republicans a dismal decade during which two large and diverse cohorts — Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012 — become, together, the electorate's largest bloc in an electorate that, says Brownstein, 'is beginning its most profound generational transition since the early 1980s,' when Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964 became the largest bloc."
Will continues, "In 2016, Trump won just 36% of adults under 30; Obama averaged 63% in two elections. Furthermore, this will be the first presidential election in which the number of Millennial and Generation Z eligible voters will outnumber eligible Baby Boomers. Generation Z is 49% people of color."
The Never Trump conservative wraps up his column by offering another reason why he is predicting a Biden victory on Election Day: Americans are feeling fed up and just plain "exhausted" during the Trump era.
"Economic and demographic statistics are not, however, the only ones pertinent to next Tuesday's probable outcome," Will argues. "Novelist John Updike supplied another: 'a healthy male adult bore consumes each year one and a half times his own weight in other people's patience.' This nation and its patience are exhausted."