alternet--2020-10-14--It's been one faceplant after another as Trump and the GOP try to recreate 2016's perfect storm

Donald Trump is very , very bad at politics .
In 2016 , he lost the popular vote in both the GOP primaries and the general election .
His net approval rating ( approval minus disapproval ) in FiveThirtyEight 's average went underwater on his 15th day in office , and has remained right around -10 ever since .
He 's hemorrhaged support among women , college-educated whites and even white Evangelicals .
And he 's trailed Biden -- and , during the Democratic primaries , all of Biden 's rivals -- for the entirety of the race .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an incumbent .
In 2016 , he got very , very lucky .
With 45 percent of the GOP primary vote , he beat a fractured , hapless field of establishment candidates who never figured out how to deal with him .
Democrats nominated a woman whom the right had spent 30 years softening up and was widely distrusted by the left flank of the Democratic Party .
A credulous media that thought he had no chance of winning harped on every baseless Clinton controversy his campaign stirred up .
Wikileaks dribbled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final six weeks of the campaign .
And then , 11 days before voters headed to the polls , then-FBI Director James Comey delivered the coup de grâce by violating FBI protocols and announcing that he was reopening an investigation into Clinton 's emails , which proved decisive in the Rustbelt .
It was a perfect storm .
Now , as he seeks re-election amid a historic plague and after losing more jobs than any president on record , Trump and his party are clearly overwhelmed .
They ca n't run on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from reality -- so they 've been trying desperately to get the old band back together and recreate the conditions that snuck them into the White House the last time .
It 's not going well .
Trump and his supporters had pinned their hopes on reprising Comey 's role in 2016 on an investigation into the roots of the Russia probe by US Attorney John Durham yielding arrests before the election .
Last week , Trump was reportedly apoplectic when Attorney General Bill Barr announced that Durham would not wrap up his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was n't alone .
`` This is the nightmare scenario , '' a GOP congressional aide told Axios .
`` Essentially , the year and a half of arguably the number one issue for the Republican base is virtually meaningless if this does n't happen before the election . ''
Then on Wednesday , Rupert Murdoch 's New York Post tried to get the kind of traction former Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer enjoyed with his 2016 book , Clinton Cash , which spawned the now-thoroughly-debunked Uranium One `` controversy . ''
This story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden leveraged his father 's connections for something or another -- something Burisma-related -- comes complete with an email server , or at least a hard-drive .
But while The New York Times , The Washington Post and CNN all laundered and added credibility to Uranium One , this one 's landed with a thud .
The Times ' Maggie Haberman earned so much scorn on social media for credulously tweeting about the story that she later tried to redeem herself by noting some of its obvious flaws and Facebook limit its reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly high-profile faceplant by Sens .
Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley when they tried to weaponize Hunter Biden 's work with Burisma and ended up on the defensive after taking fire for disseminating Russian disinformation .
Also on Wednesday , an investigation into Obama officials `` unmasking '' the identities of Americans caught in foreign surveillance operations that the right has long promised would blow the lid on their silly `` Obamagate '' conspiracy theory ended with a fizzle when John Bash , the US attorney William Barr tapped to oversee the probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , not only failed to bring charges against anyone but did n't issue a report .
That was an unhappy end for a line of attack that the GOP has been developing for years , most famously with Rep. Devin Nunes ' infamous `` memo '' that was chock full of nonsense and widely greeted with appropriate derision .
The big difference in how these contrived scandals played out is that in 2016 , they were treated like legitimate controversies while in 2020 , the regime 's clumsy attempts to drop contrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it originating with adversarial foreign actors , has become a persistent storyline in itself .
And of course , all of this follows Trump 's impeachment for attempting to coerce the Ukrainian government to lend weight to a line of attack that has gone nowhere .
That 's a big difference from 2016 , when he asked Russia to produce Clinton 's emails , they obliged and he won the Electoral College .
The efforts by Trump and his allies to recreate the conditions that allowed him to sneak into the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes than Clinton were always doomed to fail .
Voting for Trump in 2016 was an experiment .
Many believed he 'd take the job seriously , and be constrained by his staff and Republican lawmakers .
Some bought his promises on trade and immigration .
This time , he is a known quantity .
Even before the pandemic , voters had seen what Trump 's style of governance looked like and most of them do n't like it .
Now , with the death toll resulting from his bungling of Covid-19 approaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already supporting him could even care about investigations stemming from the last election or Joe Biden 's son acting like a typical child of DC 's power elite .
Trump needed to reach beyond his base this year , and he 's way behind in this race because it turns out that he does n't have a different set to play and is just recycling his old hits .

Donald Trump is very, very bad at politics. In 2016, he lost the popular vote in both the GOP primaries and the general election. His net approval rating (approval minus disapproval) in FiveThirtyEight's average went underwater on his 15th day in office, and has remained right around -10 ever since. He's hemorrhaged support among women, college-educated whites and even white Evangelicals. And he's trailed Biden--and, during the Democratic primaries, all of Biden's rivals--for the entirety of the race. He's currently by a historic margin for an incumbent.
In 2016, he got very, very lucky. With 45 percent of the GOP primary vote, he beat a fractured, hapless field of establishment candidates who never figured out how to deal with him. Democrats nominated a woman whom the right had spent 30 years softening up and was widely distrusted by the left flank of the Democratic Party. A credulous media that thought he had no chance of winning harped on every baseless Clinton controversy his campaign stirred up. Wikileaks dribbled out his opponents' hacked emails for the final six weeks of the campaign. And then, 11 days before voters headed to the polls, then-FBI Director James Comey delivered the coup de grâce by violating FBI protocols and announcing that he was reopening an investigation into Clinton's emails, which proved decisive in the Rustbelt. It was a perfect storm.
Now, as he seeks re-election amid a historic plague and after losing more jobs than any president on record, Trump and his party are clearly overwhelmed. They can't run on their record--at least not without departing from reality-- so they've been trying desperately to get the old band back together and recreate the conditions that snuck them into the White House the last time.
It's not going well.
Trump and his supporters had pinned their hopes on reprising Comey's role in 2016 on an investigation into the roots of the Russia probe by US Attorney John Durham yielding arrests before the election. Last week, Trump was reportedly apoplectic when Attorney General Bill Barr announced that Durham would not wrap up his work before November 3. And he wasn't alone. "This is the nightmare scenario," a GOP congressional aide told Axios. "Essentially, the year and a half of arguably the number one issue for the Republican base is virtually meaningless if this doesn't happen before the election."
Then on Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post tried to get the kind of traction former Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer enjoyed with his 2016 book, Clinton Cash, which spawned the now-thoroughly-debunked Uranium One "controversy." This story, which alleges that emails prove Hunter Biden leveraged his father's connections for something or another--something Burisma-related--comes complete with an email server, or at least a hard-drive.
But while The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN all laundered and added credibility to Uranium One, this one's landed with a thud. The Times' Maggie Haberman earned so much scorn on social media for credulously tweeting about the story that she later tried to redeem herself by noting some of its obvious flaws and Facebook limit its reach on their platform.
So, let me get this right, a computer shop owner in Delaware saw a Biden sticker on a laptop, went through their customers private correspondence, and turned it over to Rudy Giuliani and the feds? https://t.co/3BcwaWmVas
— Hunter Walker (@hunterw) October 14, 2020
This followed a similarly high-profile faceplant by Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley when they tried to weaponize Hunter Biden's work with Burisma and ended up on the defensive after taking fire for disseminating Russian disinformation.
Also on Wednesday, an investigation into Obama officials "unmasking" the identities of Americans caught in foreign surveillance operations that the right has long promised would blow the lid on their silly "Obamagate" conspiracy theory ended with a fizzle when John Bash, the US attorney William Barr tapped to oversee the probe (who left the DOJ last week), not only failed to bring charges against anyone but didn't issue a report.
That was an unhappy end for a line of attack that the GOP has been developing for years, most famously with Rep. Devin Nunes' infamous "memo" that was chock full of nonsense and widely greeted with appropriate derision.
The big difference in how these contrived scandals played out is that in 2016, they were treated like legitimate controversies while in 2020, the regime's clumsy attempts to drop contrived opposition research into the race, some of it originating with adversarial foreign actors, has become a persistent storyline in itself.
And of course, all of this follows Trump's impeachment for attempting to coerce the Ukrainian government to lend weight to a line of attack that has gone nowhere. That's a big difference from 2016, when he asked Russia to produce Clinton's emails, they obliged and he won the Electoral College.
The efforts by Trump and his allies to recreate the conditions that allowed him to sneak into the White House despite winning almost 3 million fewer votes than Clinton were always doomed to fail. Voting for Trump in 2016 was an experiment. Many believed he'd take the job seriously, and be constrained by his staff and Republican lawmakers. Some bought his promises on trade and immigration.
This time, he is a known quantity. Even before the pandemic, voters had seen what Trump's style of governance looked like and most of them don't like it. Now, with the death toll resulting from his bungling of Covid-19 approaching a quarter-million, nobody who wasn't already supporting him could even care about investigations stemming from the last election or Joe Biden's son acting like a typical child of DC's power elite.
Trump needed to reach beyond his base this year, and he's way behind in this race because it turns out that he doesn't have a different set to play and is just recycling his old hits.


alternet--2020-10-14--How capitalism is leading us to instability, inequality, and fascism

The looming election has brought forward intensifying debates over a capitalism in crisis , rising nationalism and state power , and the possibility of a renewed fascism .
Polarized politics and ideologies alongside long-accumulated social problems and movements shape the objects and tones of debate .
Can fascism happen here ; is it underway ?
Or can current capitalism avoid a return to fascism ?
Such questions reflect the high stakes of the election and this moment in history .
Should the state—the institution that organizes , enforces , and adjudicates the rules governing our behavior in society—exist in capitalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for certain ideologues who defend capitalism .
Their major idea is that the problems of modern society are caused by the state .
They are not caused by the employer-employee structure of capitalist enterprises or the markets , unequal distributions of wealth , and other institutions those enterprises support .
Those ideologues imagine a pure , perfect , or good capitalism undistorted by any state apparatus .
The capitalism they seek to achieve is very utopian .
They conclude that by reducing the state ( bad by definition ) , modern capitalism 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminating the state , a thereby purified capitalism will solve those problems .
From libertarians to Republican Party hacks , this ideology serves to deflect the justified resentment and anger of capitalism 's victims away from capitalism and onto the state .
A contrary view holds that the state always existed throughout the history of societies in which the capitalist economic system prevailed .
In them , the state—like other institutions—reflected each society 's particular conditions , conflicts , and movement .
The capitalist economy rested on a foundation of enterprises whose internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( employers ) and a majority ( employees ) .
The minority owned and operated the enterprises , making all of its basic decisions : what , how , and where to produce and what to do with output .
The majority sold its labor power to the minority , owned little or nothing of the enterprise , and was excluded from the basic enterprise decisions .
One result of that basic economic structure was the existence of a state .
Another result was a pattern of state interventions in society that reproduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employers ' dominant position within it .
Of course , the many internal contradictions of societies in which capitalism prevailed also influenced and shaped the state .
Employees , for example , could and often did press the state for interventions that employers did not want .
Struggles over the state and its interventions ensued .
Individual outcomes varied , but the pattern that emerged over time was a state that reproduced capitalism .
Likewise , in pre-capitalist societies such as slavery and feudalism , parallel patterns characterized their states .
For considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class structures : masters and slaves in slavery and lords and serfs in feudalism .
Usually , when a state no longer reproduced a particular class structure , its end was near .
The evolving conditions and conflicts in each society determined the size , activities , and history of its state .
This includes determining whether state power is decentralized , centralized , or a mix of both .
Social conditions and conflicts also determined the closeness , the intensity of collaboration , and even the possible merger between the state apparatus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In European capitalism , initial decentralization gave way to a strong tendency toward state centralization .
In certain extreme conditions , a centralized state merged with a capitalist class of large , concentrated employers into a system called fascism .
The 20th century saw several major examples of fascism rise and fall .
Now again fascism looms as a possible resort of capitalisms in trouble .
Usually , the transition from decentralized to centralized states reflected social conditions in which dominant classes needed strengthened state power to reproduce the system they dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions would provoke a collapse of their system and/or movements to a different economic system .
In either case , their social dominance was at stake .
Because that situation now looms on our historical agenda , so too does fascism .
Slave systems could persist in decentralized conditions .
State power , perhaps localized within each slave master 's hands , oversaw the reproduction of the system 's two production positions : master and slave .
Eventually , when reproduction was threatened—by disruptions to slave markets , slave revolts , or divisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given an apparatus , and strengthened .
It often had slaves of its own ( `` state '' slaves we might differentiate from `` private '' slaves owned by persons outside the state ) .
Such a strengthened state was often more closely integrated with masters in a tighter , more coordinated reproduction of slavery .
Violence by masters and the state conjointly against slaves recurred often .
In decentralized feudalisms , lords wielded state-type powers alongside their economic positions directing production by their subordinated serfs .
Eventually , when pandemics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisive warfare among lords ( as dramatized in Shakespeare 's plays ) threatened feudalism , a centralized state arose from among contending lords .
That state—a supreme lord or king—shared social power with the hierarchy of what we might call `` private '' lords to reproduce feudalism .
In medieval Europe , strengthened feudal states evolved into absolute monarchies .
Those were tight alliances between kings and hierarchies of lords within boundaries defining different nations .
Those tight alliances deployed violence against serfs , serfs ' revolts , rebellious lords , external threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like its slave and feudal predecessors , emerged in small , decentralized units of production .
Capitalist enterprises , like slave and feudal production units ( plantations , manors , or workshops ) , also displayed a system of two basic production positions .
In the case of capitalism , those two positions were employer and employee .
The differences were that in capitalism , no person owned another ( unlike slavery ) , nor did one person owe religiously sanctioned labor obligations to another ( unlike feudalism ) .
Instead , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Employers were buyers and employees were sellers in a market exchange .
When problems eventually threatened the reproduction of early capitalism , it strengthened its state apparatus much as slavery and feudalism had done .
One such problem was opposition by centralized slaveries and feudalisms to the capitalism that had emerged from them .
Likewise , as capitalism grew and expanded across the globe , it disrupted other systems in ways they resisted .
Violent interventions by strengthened state apparatuses subdued and reorganized them into what eventually became capitalism 's formal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong capitalist state and vice versa .
The demands and revolts of employees also drove capitalists to construct state apparatuses that could discipline and suppress them .
Likewise , `` cutthroat '' competition among employers required a powerful arbiter to manage and control them .
Even as capitalism spawned a strong state , there was a remarkable hesitancy in doing so that has confused the history of capitalism to this day .
The hesitancy arose because early capitalism—the period when emerging capitalist enterprises were relatively small and hampered by powerful slave or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Capitalists and their spokespersons wanted the state kept out of the economy , blocked from favoring noncapitalist over capitalist enterprises .
They wanted capitalist enterprises and the markets they increasingly dominated to be left alone by the state .
Hostility to and thus hesitancy about strong states went from advocating `` laissez-faire '' in the 17th century to celebrating `` the free market '' in modern times .
In the latter form , it is utopian , an imaginary construct useful for ideological projects justifying capitalism ( as `` efficient '' ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism in recent centuries ever had a free market without state interventions and regulations .
From the 18th through the 20th centuries , capitalism spread globally from its initial centers in western Europe .
The state was crucial to that spread via warfare ( `` opening '' regions to trade ) and colonizations .
Conflicts among capitalists , especially the endemic struggles between competitive and monopoly capitalists and between capitalists from different nations , necessitated state interventions .
Capital-labor conflicts and battles were always goads to state strengthening and interventions .
Massive standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ II , generated military-industrial complexes .
Those complexes , especially in the leading capitalist and military power after 1945 , were just the kind of mergers of state and big capitalists that became models for parallel mergers among other industries and the state .
In the United States , one such parallel merger yielded the medical-industrial complex .
There the role of the state was to protect a monopoly shared among four industries : doctors , hospitals , drugmakers and medical device-makers , and health insurance companies .
The government enabled and sustains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It does so in multiple ways .
It exempts the complex from antitrust action .
Government-subsidized Medicare and Medicaid—public health insurance for the elderly and the poor—carefully leave the younger , healthier , and more profitable clientele to the private health insurance companies .
The government avoids buying pharmaceuticals in bulk and passing savings onto the public .
Finally , the government has usually blocked and mostly denounced genuinely progressive reforms of this privately profitable medical system as `` socialism . ''
De facto , if not de yet de jure , mergers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth of state power alongside the concentration and centralization of capital .
Now we have much the same happening in finance .
Central banks—largely state institutions—long marched in close formations with major private banks in capitalist countries .
The Federal Reserve has responded to the three capitalist crashes so far this century by not only greatly increasing its money creation and interest rate reductions but also by extending credit to nonfinancial corporations .
The Fed buys corporate bond exchange-traded funds , corporate bonds in the secondary market , and asset-backed securities based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owns a third of residential mortgages .
Government credit becomes ever more important relative to private credit .
The government will soon coordinate its decisions on who gets how much government credit with other government policies including which Chinese companies get banned and which European companies get sanctioned .
These financial developments mark more milestones on the road to state-capitalist merger .
Behind the racism , nationalism , and war-mongering that Hitler championed lay the core economic system of fascism .
That involved a merger of the state and private big capitalists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the latter .
In turn , the capitalists accommodated the running of their enterprises to finance , produce , price , and invest in ways supportive of the fascist state 's policies .
Expropriation of privately owned means of production targeted selected social sub-groups ( such as Jews ) .
Aryanization—not abolition—of private capitalism was the state 's objective .
In contrast , socialists favored the socialization of private capitalists ' enterprises .
It was not the merger of the state with private capitalism that socialists sought ; it was rather the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to seize sole possession of means of production to operate a state capitalism .
Most socialists saw state capitalism as an intermediate stage necessary to enable the transition to communism .
That communism was understood as capitalism 's antithesis : social ( not private ) property in means of production , government planning ( not markets ) to organize distribution of resources and products , workers ' control of and running of enterprises , and distribution of output based on need as socially determined .
Fascism 's economic organization is where economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and U.S. capitalism in particular .
U.S. capitalism now replicates a parallel tendency toward merger with a strong state that characterized slavery and feudalism earlier .
Systemic challenges to capitalism 's reproduction are met with growing state power , growing big capitalist business , and eventually their merger into a fascism .
Exactly how and when capitalism evolves into fascism varies with the particular conditions and challenges of each national context .
Likewise , the internal contradictions of capitalism—for example , its cyclical instability and its tendency toward deepening wealth and income inequality—can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop , or reverse the evolution , at least for a while , or even redirect economic transition to socialism .
But the tendency of capitalism is toward instability ( its cycles ) , inequality ( its upward redistribution of wealth ) , and fascism ( state-capitalist merger ) .
The first 20 years of this new century display these tendencies in stark relief .
This article was produced by Economy for All , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

The looming election has brought forward intensifying debates over a capitalism in crisis, rising nationalism and state power, and the possibility of a renewed fascism. Polarized politics and ideologies alongside long-accumulated social problems and movements shape the objects and tones of debate. Can fascism happen here; is it underway? Or can current capitalism avoid a return to fascism? Such questions reflect the high stakes of the election and this moment in history.
Should the state—the institution that organizes, enforces, and adjudicates the rules governing our behavior in society—exist in capitalism? That question has been important chiefly for certain ideologues who defend capitalism. Their major idea is that the problems of modern society are caused by the state. They are not caused by the employer-employee structure of capitalist enterprises or the markets, unequal distributions of wealth, and other institutions those enterprises support. Those ideologues imagine a pure, perfect, or good capitalism undistorted by any state apparatus. The capitalism they seek to achieve is very utopian. They conclude that by reducing the state (bad by definition), modern capitalism's problems can also be reduced. By eliminating the state, a thereby purified capitalism will solve those problems. From libertarians to Republican Party hacks, this ideology serves to deflect the justified resentment and anger of capitalism's victims away from capitalism and onto the state.
A contrary view holds that the state always existed throughout the history of societies in which the capitalist economic system prevailed. In them, the state—like other institutions—reflected each society's particular conditions, conflicts, and movement. The capitalist economy rested on a foundation of enterprises whose internal organization divided participating individuals into a minority (employers) and a majority (employees). The minority owned and operated the enterprises, making all of its basic decisions: what, how, and where to produce and what to do with output. The majority sold its labor power to the minority, owned little or nothing of the enterprise, and was excluded from the basic enterprise decisions. One result of that basic economic structure was the existence of a state. Another result was a pattern of state interventions in society that reproduced its prevailing capitalist economic system and the employers' dominant position within it.
Of course, the many internal contradictions of societies in which capitalism prevailed also influenced and shaped the state. Employees, for example, could and often did press the state for interventions that employers did not want. Struggles over the state and its interventions ensued. Individual outcomes varied, but the pattern that emerged over time was a state that reproduced capitalism. Likewise, in pre-capitalist societies such as slavery and feudalism, parallel patterns characterized their states. For considerable periods, those states also reproduced their class structures: masters and slaves in slavery and lords and serfs in feudalism. Usually, when a state no longer reproduced a particular class structure, its end was near.
The evolving conditions and conflicts in each society determined the size, activities, and history of its state. This includes determining whether state power is decentralized, centralized, or a mix of both. Social conditions and conflicts also determined the closeness, the intensity of collaboration, and even the possible merger between the state apparatus and the dominant class within each society. In European capitalism, initial decentralization gave way to a strong tendency toward state centralization. In certain extreme conditions, a centralized state merged with a capitalist class of large, concentrated employers into a system called fascism. The 20th century saw several major examples of fascism rise and fall. Now again fascism looms as a possible resort of capitalisms in trouble.
Usually, the transition from decentralized to centralized states reflected social conditions in which dominant classes needed strengthened state power to reproduce the system they dominated. They feared that otherwise, social conditions would provoke a collapse of their system and/or movements to a different economic system. In either case, their social dominance was at stake. Because that situation now looms on our historical agenda, so too does fascism.
Slave systems could persist in decentralized conditions. State power, perhaps localized within each slave master's hands, oversaw the reproduction of the system's two production positions: master and slave. Eventually, when reproduction was threatened—by disruptions to slave markets, slave revolts, or divisive struggles among masters—a separate state was created, given an apparatus, and strengthened. It often had slaves of its own ("state" slaves we might differentiate from "private" slaves owned by persons outside the state). Such a strengthened state was often more closely integrated with masters in a tighter, more coordinated reproduction of slavery. Violence by masters and the state conjointly against slaves recurred often.
In decentralized feudalisms, lords wielded state-type powers alongside their economic positions directing production by their subordinated serfs. Eventually, when pandemics, long-distance trade, serf revolts, or divisive warfare among lords (as dramatized in Shakespeare's plays) threatened feudalism, a centralized state arose from among contending lords. That state—a supreme lord or king—shared social power with the hierarchy of what we might call "private" lords to reproduce feudalism. In medieval Europe, strengthened feudal states evolved into absolute monarchies. Those were tight alliances between kings and hierarchies of lords within boundaries defining different nations. Those tight alliances deployed violence against serfs, serfs' revolts, rebellious lords, external threats, and one another.
Capitalism, like its slave and feudal predecessors, emerged in small, decentralized units of production. Capitalist enterprises, like slave and feudal production units (plantations, manors, or workshops), also displayed a system of two basic production positions. In the case of capitalism, those two positions were employer and employee. The differences were that in capitalism, no person owned another (unlike slavery), nor did one person owe religiously sanctioned labor obligations to another (unlike feudalism). Instead, a market in labor power was established over time. Employers were buyers and employees were sellers in a market exchange.
When problems eventually threatened the reproduction of early capitalism, it strengthened its state apparatus much as slavery and feudalism had done. One such problem was opposition by centralized slaveries and feudalisms to the capitalism that had emerged from them. Likewise, as capitalism grew and expanded across the globe, it disrupted other systems in ways they resisted. Violent interventions by strengthened state apparatuses subdued and reorganized them into what eventually became capitalism's formal and informal colonies. Such interventions encouraged a strong capitalist state and vice versa. The demands and revolts of employees also drove capitalists to construct state apparatuses that could discipline and suppress them. Likewise, "cutthroat" competition among employers required a powerful arbiter to manage and control them.
Even as capitalism spawned a strong state, there was a remarkable hesitancy in doing so that has confused the history of capitalism to this day. The hesitancy arose because early capitalism—the period when emerging capitalist enterprises were relatively small and hampered by powerful slave or feudal states—saw those states as its enemy. Capitalists and their spokespersons wanted the state kept out of the economy, blocked from favoring noncapitalist over capitalist enterprises. They wanted capitalist enterprises and the markets they increasingly dominated to be left alone by the state. Hostility to and thus hesitancy about strong states went from advocating "laissez-faire" in the 17th century to celebrating "the free market" in modern times. In the latter form, it is utopian, an imaginary construct useful for ideological projects justifying capitalism (as "efficient") and for libertarian slogans. No actual capitalism in recent centuries ever had a free market without state interventions and regulations.
From the 18th through the 20th centuries, capitalism spread globally from its initial centers in western Europe. The state was crucial to that spread via warfare ("opening" regions to trade) and colonizations. Conflicts among capitalists, especially the endemic struggles between competitive and monopoly capitalists and between capitalists from different nations, necessitated state interventions. Capital-labor conflicts and battles were always goads to state strengthening and interventions. Massive standing military establishments, routinized after World War II, generated military-industrial complexes. Those complexes, especially in the leading capitalist and military power after 1945, were just the kind of mergers of state and big capitalists that became models for parallel mergers among other industries and the state.
In the United States, one such parallel merger yielded the medical-industrial complex. There the role of the state was to protect a monopoly shared among four industries: doctors, hospitals, drugmakers and medical device-makers, and health insurance companies. The government enabled and sustains its merger with the medical-industrial complex. It does so in multiple ways. It exempts the complex from antitrust action. Government-subsidized Medicare and Medicaid—public health insurance for the elderly and the poor—carefully leave the younger, healthier, and more profitable clientele to the private health insurance companies. The government avoids buying pharmaceuticals in bulk and passing savings onto the public. Finally, the government has usually blocked and mostly denounced genuinely progressive reforms of this privately profitable medical system as "socialism."
De facto, if not de yet de jure, mergers of state and capitalist industry punctuated the growth of state power alongside the concentration and centralization of capital.
Now we have much the same happening in finance. Central banks—largely state institutions—long marched in close formations with major private banks in capitalist countries. The Federal Reserve has responded to the three capitalist crashes so far this century by not only greatly increasing its money creation and interest rate reductions but also by extending credit to nonfinancial corporations. The Fed buys corporate bond exchange-traded funds, corporate bonds in the secondary market, and asset-backed securities based on corporate debts. The Fed likewise now owns a third of residential mortgages. Government credit becomes ever more important relative to private credit. The government will soon coordinate its decisions on who gets how much government credit with other government policies including which Chinese companies get banned and which European companies get sanctioned. These financial developments mark more milestones on the road to state-capitalist merger.
Behind the racism, nationalism, and war-mongering that Hitler championed lay the core economic system of fascism. That involved a merger of the state and private big capitalists. The former enforced the conditions of profitability for the latter. In turn, the capitalists accommodated the running of their enterprises to finance, produce, price, and invest in ways supportive of the fascist state's policies. Expropriation of privately owned means of production targeted selected social sub-groups (such as Jews). Aryanization—not abolition—of private capitalism was the state's objective.
In contrast, socialists favored the socialization of private capitalists' enterprises. It was not the merger of the state with private capitalism that socialists sought; it was rather the dispossession of private capitalism. The state was to seize sole possession of means of production to operate a state capitalism. Most socialists saw state capitalism as an intermediate stage necessary to enable the transition to communism. That communism was understood as capitalism's antithesis: social (not private) property in means of production, government planning (not markets) to organize distribution of resources and products, workers' control of and running of enterprises, and distribution of output based on need as socially determined.
Fascism's economic organization is where economic development is now taking capitalism in general and U.S. capitalism in particular. U.S. capitalism now replicates a parallel tendency toward merger with a strong state that characterized slavery and feudalism earlier. Systemic challenges to capitalism's reproduction are met with growing state power, growing big capitalist business, and eventually their merger into a fascism. Exactly how and when capitalism evolves into fascism varies with the particular conditions and challenges of each national context. Likewise, the internal contradictions of capitalism—for example, its cyclical instability and its tendency toward deepening wealth and income inequality—can provoke mass resistances that can slow, stop, or reverse the evolution, at least for a while, or even redirect economic transition to socialism.
But the tendency of capitalism is toward instability (its cycles), inequality (its upward redistribution of wealth), and fascism (state-capitalist merger). The first 20 years of this new century display these tendencies in stark relief.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-10-14--‘Trump's messaging has backfired’: President continues to ‘hemorrhage support’ among suburban women

During a MAGA rally in Johnstown , Pennsylvania on Tuesday night , President Donald Trump declared , `` Suburban women , will you please like me ?
I saved your damn neighborhood , OK ? ''
Trump , in many tweets , has referenced `` suburban housewives '' and insisted that former Vice President Joe Biden will ruin the quality of life in suburbia if he wins the presidential election on November 3 .
But journalist Tim Alberta , this week in an article for Politico , emphasizes that Trump continues to struggle with suburban women and points to Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in three Rust Belt states Trump `` improbably won '' in 2016 — Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Biden has the advantage among female voters in suburbia .
In Michigan , Alberta explains , `` The simplest explanation for the president 's trouble… .
is that he 's continuing to hemorrhage support from white , college-educated women in the suburbs of Detroit . ''
Alberta cites Jessica Morschakov , a voter in Brighton , Michigan ( a Detroit suburb ) as a prime example of how badly Trump 's reelection campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Honestly , all the moms I know — we are really nervous about our kids , what kind of future they 're going to have , '' Morschakov told Politico .
`` And Trump is the one making us nervous .
He 's just so angry all the time .
I really believe that he brings out the worst in people , the worst in situations . ''
Trumpism , according to Alberta , is hurting GOP candidates even in suburban areas of Michigan that have leaned Republican — and he notes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a GOP-held seat in Michigan in 2018 , is `` cruising toward reelection . ''
`` According to her campaign 's most recent internal poll , ( Slotkin is ) an eye-popping 35 points above water , in terms of net favorability , with college-educated white women , '' Alberta observes .
`` This came as a shock to Slotkin , a veteran national security official , who was worried that Trump 's law-and-order message was going to scare women away from voting for Democrats this fall .
But what her polling revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state — is that Trump 's messaging has backfired . ''
Although Alberta 's article is mainly about Michigan , his points are certainly applicable in other states .
And the Politico reporter stresses that Morschakov is not an anomaly : she is typical of all the suburban women who do n't want to see Trump reelected .
`` As white suburban women go , so goes ( Michigan 's ) 16 electoral votes , '' Alberta explains .
`` And with the clock ticking down toward Election Day — not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast absentee already — it 's gotten harder and harder to see how Trump stops the bleeding with this one vital voting bloc . ''

During a MAGA rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on Tuesday night, President Donald Trump declared, "Suburban women, will you please like me? I saved your damn neighborhood, OK?" Trump, in many tweets, has referenced "suburban housewives" and insisted that former Vice President Joe Biden will ruin the quality of life in suburbia if he wins the presidential election on November 3. But journalist Tim Alberta, this week in an article for Politico, emphasizes that Trump continues to struggle with suburban women and points to Michigan as a prime example.
Alberta reports that in three Rust Belt states Trump "improbably won" in 2016 — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Biden has the advantage among female voters in suburbia. In Michigan, Alberta explains, "The simplest explanation for the president's trouble…. is that he's continuing to hemorrhage support from white, college-educated women in the suburbs of Detroit."
Alberta cites Jessica Morschakov, a voter in Brighton, Michigan (a Detroit suburb) as a prime example of how badly Trump's reelection campaign is suffering among suburban women.
"Honestly, all the moms I know — we are really nervous about our kids, what kind of future they're going to have," Morschakov told Politico. "And Trump is the one making us nervous. He's just so angry all the time. I really believe that he brings out the worst in people, the worst in situations."
Trumpism, according to Alberta, is hurting GOP candidates even in suburban areas of Michigan that have leaned Republican — and he notes that Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, who flipped a GOP-held seat in Michigan in 2018, is "cruising toward reelection."
"According to her campaign's most recent internal poll, (Slotkin is) an eye-popping 35 points above water, in terms of net favorability, with college-educated white women," Alberta observes. "This came as a shock to Slotkin, a veteran national security official, who was worried that Trump's law-and-order message was going to scare women away from voting for Democrats this fall. But what her polling revealed — consistent with surveys done elsewhere in the state — is that Trump's messaging has backfired."
Although Alberta's article is mainly about Michigan, his points are certainly applicable in other states. And the Politico reporter stresses that Morschakov is not an anomaly: she is typical of all the suburban women who don't want to see Trump reelected.
"As white suburban women go, so goes (Michigan's) 16 electoral votes," Alberta explains. "And with the clock ticking down toward Election Day — not to mention, many thousands of votes being cast absentee already — it's gotten harder and harder to see how Trump stops the bleeding with this one vital voting bloc."


alternet--2020-10-14--Nashville confirms more than 200 new cases of COVID-19 within 24 hours of maskless religious event

Despite increases in COVID-19 cases across the country , some people are committed to large gatherings .
Christian pastor Sean Feucht has once again hosted a prayer protest at which he claims thousands were in attendance .
The Sunday protest entitled `` Let Us Worship '' included live music with no social distancing between packed , unmasked crowds .
Individuals gathered at the city 's Public Square Park to protest safety measures in place in religious institutions in efforts to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus .
Footage of the event has gone viral on social media with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what looks like a concert stage .
`` We had THREE venue changes and so much resistance BUT THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE SILENCED ! ''
Feucht said in a tweet Sunday about the event .
According to The Tennessean , California-based Feucht hosted the event in Nashville despite not having a permit to do so .
As a result , the Metro Public Health Department is investigating the incident .
`` We have worked very hard to slow the spread of COVID by taking a measured approach to protect the community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` The Health Department is very concerned by the actions that took place at the event and we are investigating and will pursue appropriate penalties against the organizer . ''
Nashville has limited gatherings without city approval to 25 people , CBS News reported .
Approved events can have a maximum of 500 people , but masks are required .
Dr. Alex Jahangir , leader of the city 's coronavirus task force , expressed concern about the gathering , especially during a time when the state has seen an increase in cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unaware of the event until Monday morning .
`` Any time there are a lot of people together , without masks , I have concerns , and that holds true in this scenario , '' Jahangir said .
`` From the pictures I saw online , good Lord , did you see people wearing masks ?
I did n't .
That is not helpful to our cause . ''
Police Chief John Drake also noted the irresponsible behavior as the police department was not present at the event .
`` I am greatly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event and those in attendance did not better prioritize their health and the health of others through social distancing and the wearing of face coverings , '' he said Monday , according to NBC News .
`` Personal responsibility is a necessity regardless of the purpose for a public event . ''
Last month Daily Kos reported on other events hosted by Feucht , including an event described as a rock concert in California where thousands attended without COVID-19 precautions .
According to Feucht 's website , he also hosted an event in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to host more in South Carolina , Missouri , and Washington , D.C. Feucht 's `` Let Us Worship '' tour is spreading more than freedom of faith across the country—it 's spreading COVID-19 .
As my colleague Marissa noted , some religious leaders across the country have resorted to ignoring coronavirus regulations .
COVID-19 cases nationwide have been linked to these events , which often violate public health rules , including social distancing , mandatory masks , and limits on those in attendance .
Just a day after the event 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more than 250 cases within 24 hours ; this has resulted in health officials being `` very concerned '' about the increase in numbers this event will bring .
A video from the event shared on YouTube depicts a crowd of all ages gathered at the Nashville courthouse Sunday :

Despite increases in COVID-19 cases across the country, some people are committed to large gatherings. Christian pastor Sean Feucht has once again hosted a prayer protest at which he claims thousands were in attendance. The Sunday protest entitled "Let Us Worship" included live music with no social distancing between packed, unmasked crowds. Individuals gathered at the city's Public Square Park to protest safety measures in place in religious institutions in efforts to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus. Footage of the event has gone viral on social media with no masks in sight as people gather around what looks like a concert stage. "We had THREE venue changes and so much resistance BUT THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE SILENCED!" Feucht said in a tweet Sunday about the event.
According to The Tennessean, California-based Feucht hosted the event in Nashville despite not having a permit to do so. As a result, the Metro Public Health Department is investigating the incident. "We have worked very hard to slow the spread of COVID by taking a measured approach to protect the community," the health department told The Tennessean. "The Health Department is very concerned by the actions that took place at the event and we are investigating and will pursue appropriate penalties against the organizer."
Nashville has limited gatherings without city approval to 25 people, CBS News reported. Approved events can have a maximum of 500 people, but masks are required. Dr. Alex Jahangir, leader of the city's coronavirus task force, expressed concern about the gathering, especially during a time when the state has seen an increase in cases. Jahangir told The Tennessean he was unaware of the event until Monday morning. "Any time there are a lot of people together, without masks, I have concerns, and that holds true in this scenario," Jahangir said. "From the pictures I saw online, good Lord, did you see people wearing masks? I didn't. That is not helpful to our cause."
Police Chief John Drake also noted the irresponsible behavior as the police department was not present at the event. "I am greatly disappointed that the organizer of Sunday's event and those in attendance did not better prioritize their health and the health of others through social distancing and the wearing of face coverings," he said Monday, according to NBC News. "Personal responsibility is a necessity regardless of the purpose for a public event."
Last month Daily Kos reported on other events hosted by Feucht, including an event described as a rock concert in California where thousands attended without COVID-19 precautions. According to Feucht's website, he also hosted an event in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday and plans to host more in South Carolina, Missouri, and Washington, D.C. Feucht's "Let Us Worship" tour is spreading more than freedom of faith across the country—it's spreading COVID-19.
As my colleague Marissa noted, some religious leaders across the country have resorted to ignoring coronavirus regulations. COVID-19 cases nationwide have been linked to these events, which often violate public health rules, including social distancing, mandatory masks, and limits on those in attendance. Just a day after the event's occurrence, The Tennessean reported an increase of more than 250 cases within 24 hours; this has resulted in health officials being "very concerned" about the increase in numbers this event will bring.
A video from the event shared on YouTube depicts a crowd of all ages gathered at the Nashville courthouse Sunday:
#LETUSWORSHIP - Sean Feucht - Nashville, TN youtu.be


alternet--2020-10-14--Pelosi calls Blitzer GOP 'apologist' on stimulus: 'You really don’t know what you’re talking about'

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , got into a contentious exchange with CNN host Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday after he questioned why she had not accepted President Donald Trump 's stimulus proposal .
House Democrats passed a $ 2.2 trillion proposal before Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin countered with a $ 1.8 trillion offer despite Trump 's claim that he was shutting down negotiations .
Among other measures , the offer includes $ 300 billion in aid for states and local governments , another round of $ 1,200 stimulus payments , $ 400 per week in supplemental federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats said the proposal was insufficient , calling for $ 400 billion in additional relief for states and cities and the unemployment boost to be increased to $ 600 per week .
Democrats have also vowed to oppose the liability protections while pushing to add refundable child tax credits to help working parents .
Many Senate Republicans , pushing for a far lower price tag , called Trump 's proposal a `` betrayal '' of GOP voters .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , said Trump 's proposal was unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on confirming Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
He instead plans to force a vote on a $ 500 billion plan ahead of the election .
Blitzer suggested on Tuesday that Pelosi 's reluctance was preventing the bill from passing , even though McConnell refused to negotiate for months after Democrats passed its first $ 3.4 trillion plan in May and has pushed back on the White House offer .
`` Many Americans are waiting in food lines for the first time in their lives .
Can you look them in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why you do n't want to accept the president 's latest stimulus offer ? ''
Blitzer asked .
`` I hope you 'll ask the same question of the Republicans on why they do n't want to meet the needs of the American people , '' Pelosi replied .
`` But let me say to those people , because all of my colleagues — we represent these people .
.
.
and their needs are not addressed in the president 's proposal .
So when you say to me , 'Why do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't they accept ours ? ''
`` Excuse me for interrupting , Madam Speaker , but they really need the money right now , '' Blitzer pressed .
`` Even members of your own caucus , Madam Speaker , want to accept this deal . ''
Blitzer quoted Rep. Ro Khanna , D-Calif. , the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , who cited the urgent need to get aid to struggling Americans quickly in calling for Democrats to back the proposal .
`` We have a moral obligation to do something , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are the party that stands for the working poor . ''
Pelosi dismissed Khanna 's comments as she accused Blitzer of being a Republican `` apologist . ''
`` What I say to you is : I do n't know if you 're always an apologist — and many of your colleagues — for the Republican position , '' she said .
`` Ro Khanna , that 's nice .
That is n't what we 're going to do . ''
`` People need help now , '' she added .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a false thing just because the president wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail that we should not be doing all we can to help people pay the rent , put food on the table and enhance benefits . ''
`` There are millions of Americans who have lost their jobs .
They ca n't pay their rent .
The kids need the food , '' he said .
`` $ 1.8 trillion , and the president just tweeted , 'stimulus , go big or go home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not work out a deal with him and do n't let the perfect , as they say here in Washington , be the enemy of the good ? ''
`` I will not let the wrong be the enemy of the right , '' Pelosi responded .
`` You know what ?
Do you have any idea what the difference is between the spending that they have in their bill and that we have in our bill ? ''
Pelosi asked .
`` Do you realize that they have come back and said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and earned income tax credits , helping people who have lost their jobs are eliminated in their bill ? ''
Blitzer noted that former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang had also called for Democrats to back the proposal .
`` It 's infuriating that so many Americans are hurting , and we 're still waiting on a relief bill that should have been passed months ago , '' Yang told CNN this week .
Pelosi dismissed the remarks , arguing that neither Yang nor Khanna were not familiar with the bill 's more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you really — I ca n't get over it , because Andrew Yang is lovely .
Ro Khanna — he 's lovely .
They are not negotiating this situation , '' she said .
`` They have no idea of the particulars .
They have no idea of what the language is here . ''
Blitzer continued to press Pelosi on why she would not negotiate a deal directly with the president .
`` With all due respect — and we 've known each other a long time — you really do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Pelosi said , arguing that Blitzer did not `` even know '' how the money in the proposal would be spent .
Blitzer again cited Democrats who `` want a deal , because so many people right now are suffering . ''
`` You evidently do not respect the chairman of the committees who wrote these bills , and I wish you would respect the knowledge that goes into meeting the needs of the American people , '' Pelosi replied , accusing the host of `` defending the administration all this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between our two bills . ''
`` Madam Speaker , these are incredibly difficult times right now , and we 'll leave it on that note , '' Blitzer said , trying to go to break .
`` No , we 'll leave it on the note that you are not right on this , Wolf .
And I hate to say that to you , '' Pelosi interjected .
`` But I feel confident about it , and I feel confident about my colleagues and I feel confidence in my chairs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about me '' but struggling Americans .
`` And we represent them , '' Pelosi said .
`` Every day is critically , critically important , '' Blitzer said , again trying to end the interview .
`` Thanks so much for your sensitivity to our constituents ' needs , '' Pelosi said sarcastically .
`` I am sensitive to them , because I see them on the street begging for food , begging for money , '' Blitzer said .
`` Have you fed them ? ''
the speaker asked .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
You can watch the interview below via YouTube : Pelosi interview gets heated : You don ’ t know what you ’ re talking about

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., got into a contentious exchange with CNN host Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday after he questioned why she had not accepted President Donald Trump's stimulus proposal.
House Democrats passed a $2.2 trillion proposal before Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin countered with a $1.8 trillion offer despite Trump's claim that he was shutting down negotiations. Among other measures, the offer includes $300 billion in aid for states and local governments, another round of $1,200 stimulus payments, $400 per week in supplemental federal unemployment benefits and lawsuit protections for businesses.
Democrats said the proposal was insufficient, calling for $400 billion in additional relief for states and cities and the unemployment boost to be increased to $600 per week. Democrats have also vowed to oppose the liability protections while pushing to add refundable child tax credits to help working parents.
Many Senate Republicans, pushing for a far lower price tag, called Trump's proposal a "betrayal" of GOP voters. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Trump's proposal was unlikely to pass with the Senate's focus on confirming Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. He instead plans to force a vote on a $500 billion plan ahead of the election.
Blitzer suggested on Tuesday that Pelosi's reluctance was preventing the bill from passing, even though McConnell refused to negotiate for months after Democrats passed its first $3.4 trillion plan in May and has pushed back on the White House offer.
"Many Americans are waiting in food lines for the first time in their lives. Can you look them in the eye, Madam Speaker, and explain why you don't want to accept the president's latest stimulus offer?" Blitzer asked.
"I hope you'll ask the same question of the Republicans on why they don't want to meet the needs of the American people," Pelosi replied. "But let me say to those people, because all of my colleagues — we represent these people . . . and their needs are not addressed in the president's proposal. So when you say to me, 'Why don't you accept theirs?' Why don't they accept ours?"
"Excuse me for interrupting, Madam Speaker, but they really need the money right now," Blitzer pressed. "Even members of your own caucus, Madam Speaker, want to accept this deal."
Blitzer quoted Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who cited the urgent need to get aid to struggling Americans quickly in calling for Democrats to back the proposal.
"We have a moral obligation to do something," Khanna said this week. "We are the party that stands for the working poor."
Pelosi dismissed Khanna's comments as she accused Blitzer of being a Republican "apologist."
"What I say to you is: I don't know if you're always an apologist — and many of your colleagues — for the Republican position," she said. "Ro Khanna, that's nice. That isn't what we're going to do."
"People need help now," she added. "But it's no use giving them a false thing just because the president wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail that we should not be doing all we can to help people pay the rent, put food on the table and enhance benefits."
Blitzer continued to press the speaker.
"There are millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. They can't pay their rent. The kids need the food," he said. "$1.8 trillion, and the president just tweeted, 'stimulus, go big or go home.' He wants more. Why not work out a deal with him and don't let the perfect, as they say here in Washington, be the enemy of the good?"
"I will not let the wrong be the enemy of the right," Pelosi responded.
"What's wrong with $1.8 trillion?" the CNN host asked.
"You know what? Do you have any idea what the difference is between the spending that they have in their bill and that we have in our bill?" Pelosi asked. "Do you realize that they have come back and said all these things for child tax credits and earned income tax credits, helping people who have lost their jobs are eliminated in their bill?"
Blitzer noted that former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang had also called for Democrats to back the proposal.
"It's infuriating that so many Americans are hurting, and we're still waiting on a relief bill that should have been passed months ago," Yang told CNN this week.
Pelosi dismissed the remarks, arguing that neither Yang nor Khanna were not familiar with the bill's more arcane details.
"Honest to God, you really — I can't get over it, because Andrew Yang is lovely. Ro Khanna — he's lovely. They are not negotiating this situation," she said. "They have no idea of the particulars. They have no idea of what the language is here."
Blitzer continued to press Pelosi on why she would not negotiate a deal directly with the president.
"With all due respect — and we've known each other a long time — you really don't know what you're talking about," Pelosi said, arguing that Blitzer did not "even know" how the money in the proposal would be spent.
Blitzer again cited Democrats who "want a deal, because so many people right now are suffering."
"You evidently do not respect the chairman of the committees who wrote these bills, and I wish you would respect the knowledge that goes into meeting the needs of the American people," Pelosi replied, accusing the host of "defending the administration all this time with no knowledge of the difference between our two bills."
"Madam Speaker, these are incredibly difficult times right now, and we'll leave it on that note," Blitzer said, trying to go to break.
"No, we'll leave it on the note that you are not right on this, Wolf. And I hate to say that to you," Pelosi interjected. "But I feel confident about it, and I feel confident about my colleagues and I feel confidence in my chairs."
Blitzer said it was "not about me" but struggling Americans.
"And we represent them," Pelosi said.
"Every day is critically, critically important," Blitzer said, again trying to end the interview.
"Thanks so much for your sensitivity to our constituents' needs," Pelosi said sarcastically.
"I am sensitive to them, because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money," Blitzer said.
"Have you fed them?" the speaker asked. "We feed them. We feed them."
You can watch the interview below via YouTube:


alternet--2020-10-14--Democratic lawmakers sound alarm over Esper's refusal to rule out deploying troops during election

Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday called on Defense Secretary Mark Esper to definitively declare that U.S. troops wo n't be used to influence the 2020 election after the Pentagon chief was evasive in written answers to questions about the role of the military in a peaceful transition of power .
Politico reports Reps. Elissa Slotkin ( D-Mich. ) and Mikie Sherrill ( D-N.J. ) raised alarm Tuesday after Esper would not explicitly rule out deploying troops to polling places on Election Day .
Esper would only say that `` the U.S. military has acted , and will continue to act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law . ''
The representatives contrasted Esper 's stance to that of Gen. Mark Milley , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , who on Sunday emphatically ruled out such action .
`` We have established a very long 240-year tradition of an apolitical military that does not get involved in domestic politics , '' Milley told NPR .
`` We , the U.S. military , we are sworn to obey the lawful orders of our civilian leadership , and we want to ensure that there is always civilian leadership , civilian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will obey the lawful orders of civilian control of the military . ''
`` This is n't the first time that someone has suggested that there might be a contested election , '' Milley continued .
`` And if there is , it 'll be handled appropriately by the courts and by the U.S .
Congress . ''
`` There 's no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election .
Zero .
There is no role there , '' Milley emphatically declared .
Slotkin , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Milley `` answered in terms of what he would do as a cabinet-level official , but took a serious nod towards what he knows is the apolitical reputation of the military and demonstrated how important that was to him . ''
`` We heard no such thing from Secretary Esper , '' she said .
Sherrill said that Esper `` did not give us the sense that we could believe that he understood that this was such a critical time . ''
The retired naval officer called Esper 's answers `` boilerplate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' concern comes as the nation braces for a potential scenario in which the outcome of the presidential election is contested by President Donald Trump , who has incessantly attacked the legitimacy of the electoral process , especially mail-in voting .
The president has also alarmed many observers by refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses .
`` We 're going to have to see what happens , '' Trump told reporters in September when asked if he would step down after losing .
`` You know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballots , and the ballots are a disaster . ''
Slotkin and Sherrill urged Esper to provide a more robust statement against potential politicization of the military , noting his opposition earlier this year to the possibility of the president invoking the Insurrection Act in response to racial justice protests across the nation .
Esper publicly declared that the 1807 law should be invoked `` only in the most urgent and dire of situations . ''
`` We are not in one of those situations now , '' he added .
Army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not received any requests for either active-duty or National Guard troops to be deployed to deal with possible civil unrest during or after the November 3 election , the Associated Press reports .
`` We do n't police American streets , '' insisted Gen. James McConville , commander of the Army .

Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday called on Defense Secretary Mark Esper to definitively declare that U.S. troops won't be used to influence the 2020 election after the Pentagon chief was evasive in written answers to questions about the role of the military in a peaceful transition of power.
Politicoreports Reps. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) raised alarm Tuesday after Esper would not explicitly rule out deploying troops to polling places on Election Day.
Esper would only say that "the U.S. military has acted, and will continue to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law."
The representatives contrasted Esper's stance to that of Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who on Sunday emphatically ruled out such action.
"We have established a very long 240-year tradition of an apolitical military that does not get involved in domestic politics," Milley told NPR. "We, the U.S. military, we are sworn to obey the lawful orders of our civilian leadership, and we want to ensure that there is always civilian leadership, civilian control of the military, and we will obey the lawful orders of civilian control of the military."
"This isn't the first time that someone has suggested that there might be a contested election," Milley continued. "And if there is, it'll be handled appropriately by the courts and by the U.S. Congress."
"There's no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election. Zero. There is no role there," Milley emphatically declared.
Slotkin, a former Pentagon official and CIA officer, said that Milley "answered in terms of what he would do as a cabinet-level official, but took a serious nod towards what he knows is the apolitical reputation of the military and demonstrated how important that was to him."
"We heard no such thing from Secretary Esper," she said.
Sherrill said that Esper "did not give us the sense that we could believe that he understood that this was such a critical time." The retired naval officer called Esper's answers "boilerplate." She added:
We have not received a direct commitment from Secretary Esper that he will refuse commands from an illegitimate president. Given the fact that the president has used our military for partisan purposes in the past and that the president has suggested he will not concede if he loses, it is incumbent upon the secretary of defense to fulfill his constitutional duties and ensure the apolitical role of the military.
The lawmakers' concern comes as the nation braces for a potential scenario in which the outcome of the presidential election is contested by President Donald Trump, who has incessantly attacked the legitimacy of the electoral process, especially mail-in voting.
The president has also alarmed many observers by refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses.
"We're going to have to see what happens," Trump told reporters in September when asked if he would step down after losing. "You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster."
Slotkin and Sherrill urged Esper to provide a more robust statement against potential politicization of the military, noting his opposition earlier this year to the possibility of the president invoking the Insurrection Act in response to racial justice protests across the nation.
Esper publicly declared that the 1807 law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations."
"We are not in one of those situations now," he added.
Army leaders said on Tuesday that they have not received any requests for either active-duty or National Guard troops to be deployed to deal with possible civil unrest during or after the November 3 election, the Associated Pressreports.
"We don't police American streets," insisted Gen. James McConville, commander of the Army.


alternet--2020-10-14--USPS special agents find massive amount of undelivered mail in raid of QAnon postal workers's home

United States Postal Service ( USPS ) special agents reportedly discovered large amounts of undelivered mail after raiding the home of a mail carrier who aligns with the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon .
A total of eight large garbage bags—believed to be filled with undelivered mail—were confiscated from the home of USPS mail carrier , Sean J. Troesch , according to KDKA .
Following the raid , the USPS Office of Inspector General confirmed agents had retrieved `` several classes of mail , '' some of which were first class mail pieces .
`` Special Agents recovered several different classes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flats , and small amount of first class mail .
We expect to perform a piece count of the mail tomorrow , and make arrangements to have the mail delivered to customers as soon as feasible , '' the statement said .
Troesch 's neighbors also revealed this was not the first time they had seen a large number of garbage bags in front of the home .
Screenshots have also surfaced from a Facebook page belonging to someone who identifies as Sean J. Troesch .
Many of the Facebook posts shared on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per the Pittsburgh City Paper .
In addition to the QAnon posts focused on celebrity pedophilia conspiracies , Troesch is said to have posted an anti-quarantine post back in May .
He also commented on multiple posts in support of QAnon theories .
Allegheny County voter registration records also indicate that a Sean J. Troesch resides at the residence that was raided by USPS special agents .
The Inspector General office 's findings are now being turned over to U.S. Attorney Bill Barr 's office for a criminal investigation .
`` Once USPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case will be presented for federal prosecution to the U.S. Attorney 's Office , '' Special Agent Scott Balfour told CNN .
No criminal charges have been filed against Troesch , as of yet .

United States Postal Service (USPS) special agents reportedly discovered large amounts of undelivered mail after raiding the home of a mail carrier who aligns with the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon.
A total of eight large garbage bags—believed to be filled with undelivered mail—were confiscated from the home of USPS mail carrier, Sean J. Troesch, according to KDKA. Following the raid, the USPS Office of Inspector General confirmed agents had retrieved "several classes of mail," some of which were first class mail pieces.
"Special Agents recovered several different classes of mail, including business mail, flats, and small amount of first class mail. We expect to perform a piece count of the mail tomorrow, and make arrangements to have the mail delivered to customers as soon as feasible," the statement said.
Troesch's neighbors also revealed this was not the first time they had seen a large number of garbage bags in front of the home. Screenshots have also surfaced from a Facebook page belonging to someone who identifies as Sean J. Troesch. Many of the Facebook posts shared on that page highlighted far-right conspiracy theories, per the Pittsburgh City Paper.
Screenshots from Facebook
In addition to the QAnon posts focused on celebrity pedophilia conspiracies, Troesch is said to have posted an anti-quarantine post back in May. He also commented on multiple posts in support of QAnon theories.
Allegheny County voter registration records also indicate that a Sean J. Troesch resides at the residence that was raided by USPS special agents. The Inspector General office's findings are now being turned over to U.S. Attorney Bill Barr's office for a criminal investigation.
"Once USPS OIG special agents conclude their investigation, the case will be presented for federal prosecution to the U.S. Attorney's Office," Special Agent Scott Balfour told CNN.
No criminal charges have been filed against Troesch, as of yet.


alternet--2020-10-14--Cal Cunningham’s sex scandal isn’t moving the needle in North Carolina Senate race: polls

Republicans have been hoping that the news of Democrat Cal Cunningham sending romantic text messages to a woman other than his wife would hurt him in North Carolina 's U.S. Senate race .
But Politico 's James Arkin is reporting that so far , the scandal has n't hurt him in the polls : Cunningham still has mostly single digit leads over incumbent Republican Sen. Thom Tillis .
Arkin , in an article published on October 13 , notes , `` A trio of public polls in the past two days showed Cunningham ahead… .
including a 48 % -44 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey .
They corroborate what Democrats have said : voters are well aware of the issue but are n't budging from Cunningham . ''
In addition to the Monmouth poll showing Cunningham with a 4 % lead over Tillis , Cunningham is ahead by 6 % in a Morning Consult poll and 10 % in a SurveyUSA poll .
These three polls , according to Arkin , indicate that so far , the scandal `` has n't made a dent . ''
A Reuters/Ipsos poll , released October 13 , found Cunningham ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll released the following day showed Cunningham leading by 2 % .
`` North Carolina is one of the most important Senate races on the map , '' Arkin notes .
`` Spending in the contest is already close to $ 200 million , and it 's on track to be the most expensive Senate election in history .
Republicans have seized on Cunningham 's affair with TV ads bashing him as a hypocrite and unfit for office . ''
Cunningham has had plenty of attack ads of his own , often slamming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Act of 2010 , a.k.a .
Obamacare , overturned during a deadly pandemic .
Wayne Goodwin , chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party , argues that North Carolina voters are more interested in where Cunningham stands on the issues than his personal life .
Goodwin told Politico , `` He has apologized .
He knows that he has disappointed his family and friends and supporters .
But everyone agrees , and that poll further verifies , that the election to the United States Senate and which party has the majority in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on one individual , but where individuals stand on key issues such as health care . ''
In the 2020 election , Democrats are not only hoping that former Vice President Joe Biden will win the presidential election , but also , that they will obtain a majority in the U.S. Senate .
Tillis is among the incumbent GOP senators who is considered vulnerable , along with Maine 's Susan Collins , Arizona 's Martha McSally , Iowa 's Joni Ernst and Colorado 's Cory Gardner .
Hands down , the most vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doug Jones , who was trailing Republican Tommy Tuberville by 12 % in an Auburn University at Montgomery poll released on October 5 .
But even if Jones loses , Democrats will obtain a Senate majority if Tillis , Collins , Ernst , Gardner and McSally all lose .
According to Arkin , Republicans `` face a challenge in moving the needle '' in North Carolina 's U.S. Senate race .
`` Voters already have high awareness of the affair , '' Arkin observes .
`` In the Monmouth survey , 80 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ texts with a woman who is not his wife .
But only 14 % said it disqualified him from office ; 32 % said it called his character into question but did not disqualify him ; and 51 % said it 's an issue for only him and his family . ''

Republicans have been hoping that the news of Democrat Cal Cunningham sending romantic text messages to a woman other than his wife would hurt him in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race. But Politico's James Arkin is reporting that so far, the scandal hasn't hurt him in the polls: Cunningham still has mostly single digit leads over incumbent Republican Sen. Thom Tillis.
Arkin, in an article published on October 13, notes, "A trio of public polls in the past two days showed Cunningham ahead…. including a 48%-44% lead in (a) Monmouth survey. They corroborate what Democrats have said: voters are well aware of the issue but aren't budging from Cunningham."
In addition to the Monmouth poll showing Cunningham with a 4% lead over Tillis, Cunningham is ahead by 6% in a Morning Consult poll and 10% in a SurveyUSA poll. These three polls, according to Arkin, indicate that so far, the scandal "hasn't made a dent."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll, released October 13, found Cunningham ahead by 4%. And a Susquehanna poll released the following day showed Cunningham leading by 2%.
"North Carolina is one of the most important Senate races on the map," Arkin notes. "Spending in the contest is already close to $200 million, and it's on track to be the most expensive Senate election in history. Republicans have seized on Cunningham's affair with TV ads bashing him as a hypocrite and unfit for office."
Cunningham has had plenty of attack ads of his own, often slamming Tillis for hoping to see the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare, overturned during a deadly pandemic.
Wayne Goodwin, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, argues that North Carolina voters are more interested in where Cunningham stands on the issues than his personal life. Goodwin told Politico, "He has apologized. He knows that he has disappointed his family and friends and supporters. But everyone agrees, and that poll further verifies, that the election to the United States Senate and which party has the majority in the United States Senate, rests not on one individual, but where individuals stand on key issues such as health care."
In the 2020 election, Democrats are not only hoping that former Vice President Joe Biden will win the presidential election, but also, that they will obtain a majority in the U.S. Senate. Tillis is among the incumbent GOP senators who is considered vulnerable, along with Maine's Susan Collins, Arizona's Martha McSally, Iowa's Joni Ernst and Colorado's Cory Gardner. Hands down, the most vulnerable incumbent Democratic U.S. senator is Alabama's Doug Jones, who was trailing Republican Tommy Tuberville by 12% in an Auburn University at Montgomery poll released on October 5. But even if Jones loses, Democrats will obtain a Senate majority if Tillis, Collins, Ernst, Gardner and McSally all lose.
According to Arkin, Republicans "face a challenge in moving the needle" in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race.
"Voters already have high awareness of the affair," Arkin observes. "In the Monmouth survey, 80% of voters had heard about Cunningham's texts with a woman who is not his wife. But only 14% said it disqualified him from office; 32% said it called his character into question but did not disqualify him; and 51% said it's an issue for only him and his family."


alternet--2020-10-14--Watch: Dick Durbin expertly details the double standard in Barrett’s refusal to address election del

Watch: Dick Durbin expertly details the double standard in Barrett’s refusal to address election delay

Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) pressed Amy Coney Barrett to explain why she 'd keep an open mind on President Donald Trump hypothetically delaying the election , and said that undercut her guiding legal philosophy .
The Supreme Court nominee has repeatedly refused to say whether she believed the president had the right to change the election date , which the Constitution plainly states is the authority of Congress , and said she would have to consider the facts of any lawsuit brought to challenge such an order .
`` I 've given a response to every hypothetical that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Barrett told Durbin .
`` As I said yesterday , I do that regardless of whether it 's easy or hard .
I do n't do that to try to — whether the question , I mean , would be easy or hard .
I do n't try to do that to signal , but because it would be inappropriate for me to make a comment , and I do n't think I 've answered any legal hypotheticals in keeping with the 'Justice [ Ruth Bader ] Ginsburg rule . '
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett 's explanation .
`` I guess what troubles me is this , '' Durbin said .
`` You style yourself an originalist , textualist , factualist — whatever the term is — which means you go right to the words and try to understand the words in their original meaning .
If I change Sen. [ Dianne ] Feinstein 's question and did n't ask you if the president has the authority to unilaterally delay an election , asked you does the president have the right to deny a person a right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what 's your answer ? ''
Barrett told the senator that the Constitution prohibited the example he suggested .
`` Obviously there are many laws in effect , including the Equal Protection Clause , which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race , including the 15th Amendment , which protects the right to vote against discrimination based on race , '' she said .
`` There 's a principle and constitutional law called external constraints .
Even if one evaluates what the authority a branch might have to act , there are external @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here it 's the 14th and 15th Amendments . ''
`` Of course , the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States on the account of race , '' he agreed .
`` For a textualist , that is clear text as I see it , but when asked whether or not the president has any authority to unilaterally deny that right to vote for a person based on race or even gender , are you saying you ca n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she 'd simply cited the constitutional amendments that addressed his question , and Durbin asked why she would n't do the same with the election delay issue that 's also addressed by the Constitution .
`` But whether a president can unilaterally deny , you 're not going to answer yes or no ? ''
he said .
Barrett told the senator she would n't answer hypotheticals , and Durbin said her refusal contradicted her guiding philosophy .
`` It strains originalism , '' Durbin said , `` if the clear wording @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will not acknowledge it . ''

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) pressed Amy Coney Barrett to explain why she'd keep an open mind on President Donald Trump hypothetically delaying the election, and said that undercut her guiding legal philosophy.
The Supreme Court nominee has repeatedly refused to say whether she believed the president had the right to change the election date, which the Constitution plainly states is the authority of Congress, and said she would have to consider the facts of any lawsuit brought to challenge such an order.
"I've given a response to every hypothetical that I've been asked in the hearings," Barrett told Durbin. "As I said yesterday, I do that regardless of whether it's easy or hard. I don't do that to try to — whether the question, I mean, would be easy or hard. I don't try to do that to signal, but because it would be inappropriate for me to make a comment, and I don't think I've answered any legal hypotheticals in keeping with the 'Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg rule.'"
Durbin was less than satisfied with Barrett's explanation.
"I guess what troubles me is this," Durbin said. "You style yourself an originalist, textualist, factualist — whatever the term is — which means you go right to the words and try to understand the words in their original meaning. If I change Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein's question and didn't ask you if the president has the authority to unilaterally delay an election, asked you does the president have the right to deny a person a right to vote based on their race, what's your answer?"
Barrett told the senator that the Constitution prohibited the example he suggested.
"Obviously there are many laws in effect, including the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, including the 15th Amendment, which protects the right to vote against discrimination based on race," she said. "There's a principle and constitutional law called external constraints. Even if one evaluates what the authority a branch might have to act, there are external constraints from other parts of the Constitution. Here it's the 14th and 15th Amendments."
Durbin continued.
"Of course, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States on the account of race," he agreed. "For a textualist, that is clear text as I see it, but when asked whether or not the president has any authority to unilaterally deny that right to vote for a person based on race or even gender, are you saying you can't answer that question?"
Barrett argued that she'd simply cited the constitutional amendments that addressed his question, and Durbin asked why she wouldn't do the same with the election delay issue that's also addressed by the Constitution.
"But whether a president can unilaterally deny, you're not going to answer yes or no?" he said.
Barrett told the senator she wouldn't answer hypotheticals, and Durbin said her refusal contradicted her guiding philosophy.
"It strains originalism," Durbin said, "if the clear wording of the Constitution establishes a right and you will not acknowledge it."


alternet--2020-10-14--Employees livid at NBC after network ‘rewards’ Trump with solo town hall after debate withdrawal: re

Employees livid at NBC after network ‘rewards’ Trump with solo town hall after debate withdrawal: report

Staffers at NBC , CNBC and MSNBC were said to be angry this week after learning that President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ hold a solo town hall event .
NBC announced on Wednesday that the network will @ @ @ @ @ event for Trump opposite a similar event for Democratic candidate Joe Biden , which will @ @ @ @ @ event was only scheduled after a debate with Biden was cancelled because the president , @ @ @ @ @ , refused to participate virtually .
Reporter Yashar Ali said that he had been contacted @ @ @ @ @ '' staffers at NBC and its sister networks .
`` I 've heard from over @ @ @ @ @ , and CNBC sources ( talent and staff ) and the frustration with and anger @ @ @ @ @ a town hall against Biden is palpable , '' Ali revealed .
Others on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ for `` rewarding '' Trump with a 90-minute event .
Read some of the responses @ @

Staffers at NBC, CNBC and MSNBC were said to be angry this week after learning that President Donald Trump was offered the opportunity to hold a solo town hall event.
NBC announced on Wednesday that the network will host a 90-minute town hall event for Trump opposite a similar event for Democratic candidate Joe Biden, which will air on ABC.
The event was only scheduled after a debate with Biden was cancelled because the president, who tested positive for COVID-19, refused to participate virtually.
Reporter Yashar Ali said that he had been contacted by "over a dozen" staffers at NBC and its sister networks.
"I've heard from over a dozen NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC sources (talent and staff) and the frustration with and anger toward their employer for scheduling a town hall against Biden is palpable," Ali revealed.
Others on Twitter also lashed out at NBC for "rewarding" Trump with a 90-minute event.
Read some of the responses below.


alternet--2020-10-14--Robert Reich: We can save democracy from GOP sabotage — here's how

I keep hearing from progressives who lament that even if Biden wins , Trump and McConnell have tilted the playing field forever .
They point to McConnell 's rush to confirm Trump 's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , after blocking President Obama 's nominee for 293 days because it was `` too close '' to the next election .
And to the fact that Republicans in the Senate represent 11 million fewer Americans than their Democratic counterparts , and are still able to confirm a Supreme Court justice and entrench minority rule .
But that 's not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does n't prevent increasing the size of the Supreme Court in order to balance it .
Or creating a pool of circuit court justices to cycle in and out of it .
In fact , the Constitution says nothing at all about the size of the Court .
I also hear progressives express outrage that this imbalance of power exists in the Electoral College , which made Trump president in 2016 despite having lost the popular vote by 3 million , and made George W. Bush president in 2000 , despite losing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But this does n't have to be the end of the story , either .
From granting statehood to Washington , D.C. to abolishing the Electoral College , nothing should be off the table to strengthen our democracy .
There is no reason to accept the structure of our democracy when it repeatedly empowers a ruthless minority to impose its will over the majority .
Or when it denies full representation to U.S. citizens , as is the case for Puerto Rico , which absolutely deserves self-determination .
Pay no mind to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unfair abuses of power .
Unfair , after what Trump and McConnell have done ?
Abuses of power ?
When Trump is urging his followers to intimidate Biden voters ?
When he wo n't even commit to a peaceful transition of power and refuses to be bound by the results ?
When he 's already claiming the election is rigged against him and will be fraudulent unless he wins ?
When he 's threatening to have states that he loses declare the votes invalid and certify their own slate of Trump electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There 's nothing unfair about making our democracy fairer .
There 's no abuse of power in remedying blatant abuses of power .
How to Beat Republicans at Their Own Game

I keep hearing from progressives who lament that even if Biden wins, Trump and McConnell have tilted the playing field forever.
They point to McConnell's rush to confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, after blocking President Obama's nominee for 293 days because it was "too close" to the next election. And to the fact that Republicans in the Senate represent 11 million fewer Americans than their Democratic counterparts, and are still able to confirm a Supreme Court justice and entrench minority rule.
But that's not the end of the story.
The Constitution doesn't prevent increasing the size of the Supreme Court in order to balance it. Or creating a pool of circuit court justices to cycle in and out of it. In fact, the Constitution says nothing at all about the size of the Court.
I also hear progressives express outrage that this imbalance of power exists in the Electoral College, which made Trump president in 2016 despite having lost the popular vote by 3 million, and made George W. Bush president in 2000, despite losing the popular vote by about half a million.
But this doesn't have to be the end of the story, either. From granting statehood to Washington, D.C. to abolishing the Electoral College, nothing should be off the table to strengthen our democracy.
There is no reason to accept the structure of our democracy when it repeatedly empowers a ruthless minority to impose its will over the majority. Or when it denies full representation to U.S. citizens, as is the case for Puerto Rico, which absolutely deserves self-determination.
Pay no mind to those who argue that these moves would be unfair abuses of power. Unfair, after what Trump and McConnell have done?
Abuses of power? When Trump is urging his followers to intimidate Biden voters? When he won't even commit to a peaceful transition of power and refuses to be bound by the results? When he's already claiming the election is rigged against him and will be fraudulent unless he wins? When he's threatening to have states that he loses declare the votes invalid and certify their own slate of Trump electors in January?
I'm sorry. There's nothing unfair about making our democracy fairer. There's no abuse of power in remedying blatant abuses of power.
Watch: