alternet--2020-10-25--How hypermasculine narratives in Cold War men's magazines set the stage for fear of America's 'pussi

How hypermasculine narratives in Cold War men's magazines set the stage for fear of America's 'pussification'

Of all the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States—ranging from debates over mask wearing to school closings— perhaps the most bizarre is the suggestion that this deadly disease can be avoided simply through manliness .
Nowhere was this made more explicit than when former US Navy Seal Robert O'Neill shared a photo of himself , unmasked , on a Delta Airlines flight .
`` I 'm not a pussy , '' declared O'Neill on Twitter , as if to suggest that potent , masculine men , like those on Seal Team 6 , would not be cowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind that a passenger sitting one row behind O'Neill , in a US Marine Corps baseball cap , was wearing his mask ) .
O'Neill 's use of the `` P-word '' was far from an outlier ; in fact , it has been employed near and far in recent months .
Adam Corolla stoked public outcry only weeks later when he maintained , incorrectly , that only the `` old or sick or both '' were dying from the virus .
`` How many of you pussy 's [ sic ] got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor were these remarks limited to COVID-19 .
Not to be outdone by such repugnant rhetoric , President Donald Trump—who elevated the word during the 2016 presidential campaign for other reasons—reportedly lambasted senior military leaders , declaring that `` my fucking generals are a bunch of pussies . ''
On the opposite end of the military chain of command , 2nd Lt. Nathan Freihofer , a young celebrity on TikTok , recently gained notoriety for anti-Semitic remarks on the social media platform .
`` If you get offended , '' the young officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it 's a joke… .
Do n't be a pussy . ''
What should we make of these men , young and old , employing the word as a way to shame potential detractors ?
Perhaps the most telling , and least surprising , explanation is that sexism and misogyny are alive and well in Trump 's America .
Yet it would be mistaken to argue that the epithet has regained popularity simply because the president seemingly is so fond of the word .
Rather , such language—and more importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In July , after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) was verbally accosted on the Capitol steps by fellow representative Ted Yoho ( R-FL ) , the congresswoman delivered a powerful speech on the House floor .
The problem with Yoho 's comments , Ocasio-Cortez argued , was not only that they were vile , but that they were part of a larger pattern of behavior toward women .
`` This is not new , and that is the problem , '' she affirmed .
`` It is cultural .
It is a culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of violence and violent language against women , and an entire structure of power that supports that . ''
She 's right .
This `` violent '' language—calling women `` bitches '' and men `` pussies '' —and the understandings that accompany it has a long history in American popular culture .
And few cultural artifacts depict such sexist notions more overtly than Cold War men 's adventure magazines .
These `` macho pulps '' were an outgrowth of earlier men 's periodicals , including Argosy and Esquire .
In the aftermath of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titles like Battle Cry , Man 's Conquest , and True Men , exploded in popularity .
The February 1955 issue of Stag , for example , sold more than 585,00 copies nationwide .
The stories that filled these magazines portrayed the ideal man as physically tough , sexually virile , and unabashedly patriotic .
Women , conversely , were represented either as erotic trophies of conquest or as sexualized villains to be overpowered .
Take , for example , an illustrative story from the March 1963 issue of Brigade .
In `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulp writer Andrew Petersen decried how the `` manly virtues—strength , courage , virility—are becoming rarer every day… .
Femininity is on the march , '' Peterson claimed , `` rendering American men less manly . ''
To put a finer point on the message , Brigade included with the article a photograph of a sullen husband , in floral apron , doing the dishes .
The message seemed clear .
The masculine ideal of sexual conqueror and heroic warrior , touted in nearly every issue of the pulps , was under assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's adventure magazines , `` real men '' were never `` pussies . ''
They courageously defeated former Nazi henchmen and evil communist infiltrators .
They exposed femmes fatale who were engaging in `` sexological warfare , '' using their physical bodies as weapons of war .
And they seduced women across the globe , one navy vet describing himself in the pulps as a virile `` bedroom commando . ''
Yet just below the surface of these hypermasculine narratives , a subtext of anxiety loomed .
Read a different way , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of escapism from deep anxieties about not measuring up in a rapidly changing postwar society .
Fears of being emasculated by Cold War suburbia and a consumeristic society pervaded these men 's magazines .
Pulp writers , as seen in the Brigade article , habitually expressed concerns over American men becoming `` soft . ''
Arguably , these fears of losing one 's masculinity engendered not only hostility toward women but spawned a backlash against those supposedly `` weak '' men who were n't holding the line against supposedly aggressive feminism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mystique ( 1963 ) , male outrage was the result of an `` implacable hatred for the parasitic women '' who apparently were denying husbands and sons a more vigorous , manly lifestyle .
The Vietnam War , at least in the pages of men 's magazines , seemed only to widen the gap between `` real men '' and their `` pussy '' compatriots .
Saga lashed out at members of the `` new left '' and the blatant `` draft dodging underground '' taking hold on college campuses .
Man 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` slackers '' who had worked the system to stay out of uniform .
One antiwar activist recalled hearing epithets of `` faggots '' and `` queers '' as often as `` commies '' or `` cowards . ''
In the pulps , the best American men went to war , while the weaklings stayed home .
Such narratives outlasted the pulps themselves , which died out in the early 1970s .
Stories glorifying war and sexual conquest seemed out of step with the cultural revolutions rippling through the United States in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet the macho pulp storylines retained their attraction enough to resurface only a few years later .
By the mid-1980s , `` re-masculinized '' men returned in full force .
A finely chiseled Rambo deployed back to Vietnam to save American prisoners of war still held captive there .
So too did Chuck Norris 's Colonel Braddock in the Missing in Action films .
Even President Ronald Reagan took his cue from these tough-minded action heroes , quipping in 1985 that he would now `` know what to do '' if faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : First Blood Part II .
Would anyone call Rambo or Braddock a `` pussy '' ?
The militarization of masculinity portrayed in the Stallone and Norris action movies had clear roots in the Cold War macho pulps .
Nor should we be surprised by former Seal team O'Neill 's use of the term `` pussy . ''
Because the veteran had achieved his manhood through military service , especially in an elite unit , he could be secure in demeaning others who did n't meet his masculine ideals—which apparently also inoculated him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only the militarization of the `` P '' word that resonates , but the politicization of it as well .
When Senator Ted Cruz ( R-Tx ) recently claimed that `` many liberal males never grow balls , '' he was purposefully contrasting his own supposed conservative masculinity with the femininity of his political rivals , whether they be male or female .
One wonders , though , if Cruz truly fashions himself as the new archetype for twenty-first-century manhood or simply hopes to score a few cheap political points via social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cruz is channeling what has underscored a decades ' long anxiety over American masculinity : that `` real men '' are on the verge of extinction because of political correctness gone awry or a feminist movement subverting traditional gender norms or any other imagined threat that stokes fears among mostly white , young , angry men .
Perhaps the most revealing expression of these anxieties comes from right-wing , all-male groups like the Proud Boys who see themselves as `` aggrieved , marginalized , and depressed . ''
These traditionalists extol the imagined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being disenfranchised by the left , and have found in Trump 's America a `` place to put [ their ] political resentment . ''
As if to demonstrate their masculinity , the Proud Boys , according to one critic , `` like to spoil for a fight . ''
According to the `` pussy '' narrative , it 's not just the sensibilities of persecuted white men who are under attack , though , but the nation 's security as well .
When I posted to social media a few covers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forthcoming book , one retired colonel who believes conservatives must win the current `` culture war '' replied that we all should focus more on crafting a militarized notion of masculinity `` because a lot of Americans are pussies . ''
Another Twitter respondent claimed that the `` pussification of America 's youth is a matter of national security .
We need a touch of testosterone added to the water with fluoride , '' he argued .
`` No more cavities and fewer softies . ''
By this logic , if only US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hormones , they might have achieved more lasting results in Iraq and Afghanistan .
So , what to make of this perceived `` pussification '' of America ?
Most importantly , we need to accept the fact that real violence stems from imagined grievances and misogynistic language .
A congresswoman being verbally assaulted .
A group of wrathful white men seeing themselves as a `` right-wing fight club . ''
A militarization and polarization of society based on outdated gender norms .
For those who do n't want to examine the violence they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other perceived social or cultural threat—the `` pussification '' of America provides a warped justification for violent means .
Popular narratives of what it means to be a man , to paraphrase Josephine Livingstone , need not rest on connecting `` the vulva with weakness '' for those men who do n't act like chiseled Hollywood action heroes .
In the Cold War men 's adventure magazines , `` real men '' were depicted as heroic warriors and sexual champions .
More than a half century on , such depictions continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It seems well past time to evolve beyond mid-1950s mindsets and begin conversations about alternate models of masculinity .
Chances are , America will survive , even if all men are n't Rambo .

Of all the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States—ranging from debates over mask wearing to school closings— perhaps the most bizarre is the suggestion that this deadly disease can be avoided simply through manliness.
Nowhere was this made more explicit than when former US Navy Seal Robert O'Neill shared a photo of himself, unmasked, on a Delta Airlines flight. "I'm not a pussy," declared O'Neill on Twitter, as if to suggest that potent, masculine men, like those on Seal Team 6, would not be cowed into wearing cowardly protective gear (Never mind that a passenger sitting one row behind O'Neill, in a US Marine Corps baseball cap, was wearing his mask).
O'Neill's use of the "P-word" was far from an outlier; in fact, it has been employed near and far in recent months. Adam Corolla stoked public outcry only weeks later when he maintained, incorrectly, that only the "old or sick or both" were dying from the virus. "How many of you pussy's [sic] got played?" the comedian asked.
Nor were these remarks limited to COVID-19. Not to be outdone by such repugnant rhetoric, President Donald Trump—who elevated the word during the 2016 presidential campaign for other reasons—reportedly lambasted senior military leaders, declaring that "my fucking generals are a bunch of pussies." On the opposite end of the military chain of command, 2nd Lt. Nathan Freihofer, a young celebrity on TikTok, recently gained notoriety for anti-Semitic remarks on the social media platform. "If you get offended," the young officer proclaimed, "get the fuck out, because it's a joke…. Don't be a pussy."
What should we make of these men, young and old, employing the word as a way to shame potential detractors? Perhaps the most telling, and least surprising, explanation is that sexism and misogyny are alive and well in Trump's America. Yet it would be mistaken to argue that the epithet has regained popularity simply because the president seemingly is so fond of the word. Rather, such language—and more importantly, what it insinuates—is far from new.
In July, after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was verbally accosted on the Capitol steps by fellow representative Ted Yoho (R-FL), the congresswoman delivered a powerful speech on the House floor. The problem with Yoho's comments, Ocasio-Cortez argued, was not only that they were vile, but that they were part of a larger pattern of behavior toward women. "This is not new, and that is the problem," she affirmed. "It is cultural. It is a culture of lack of impunity, of accepting of violence and violent language against women, and an entire structure of power that supports that."
She's right. This "violent" language—calling women "bitches" and men "pussies"—and the understandings that accompany it has a long history in American popular culture. And few cultural artifacts depict such sexist notions more overtly than Cold War men's adventure magazines.
These "macho pulps" were an outgrowth of earlier men's periodicals, including Argosy and Esquire. In the aftermath of World War II, magazines with suggestive titles like Battle Cry, Man's Conquest, and True Men, exploded in popularity. The February 1955 issue of Stag, for example, sold more than 585,00 copies nationwide. The stories that filled these magazines portrayed the ideal man as physically tough, sexually virile, and unabashedly patriotic. Women, conversely, were represented either as erotic trophies of conquest or as sexualized villains to be overpowered.
Take, for example, an illustrative story from the March 1963 issue of Brigade. In "Castration of the American Male," pulp writer Andrew Petersen decried how the "manly virtues—strength, courage, virility—are becoming rarer every day…. Femininity is on the march," Peterson claimed, "rendering American men less manly." To put a finer point on the message, Brigade included with the article a photograph of a sullen husband, in floral apron, doing the dishes. The message seemed clear. The masculine ideal of sexual conqueror and heroic warrior, touted in nearly every issue of the pulps, was under assault.
Indeed, in Cold War men's adventure magazines, "real men" were never "pussies." They courageously defeated former Nazi henchmen and evil communist infiltrators. They exposed femmes fatale who were engaging in "sexological warfare," using their physical bodies as weapons of war. And they seduced women across the globe, one navy vet describing himself in the pulps as a virile "bedroom commando."
Yet just below the surface of these hypermasculine narratives, a subtext of anxiety loomed. Read a different way, the pulps might also be seen as a form of escapism from deep anxieties about not measuring up in a rapidly changing postwar society. Fears of being emasculated by Cold War suburbia and a consumeristic society pervaded these men's magazines. Pulp writers, as seen in the Brigade article, habitually expressed concerns over American men becoming "soft."
Arguably, these fears of losing one's masculinity engendered not only hostility toward women but spawned a backlash against those supposedly "weak" men who weren't holding the line against supposedly aggressive feminism. As Betty Friedan argued in The Feminine Mystique (1963), male outrage was the result of an "implacable hatred for the parasitic women" who apparently were denying husbands and sons a more vigorous, manly lifestyle.
The Vietnam War, at least in the pages of men's magazines, seemed only to widen the gap between "real men" and their "pussy" compatriots. Saga lashed out at members of the "new left" and the blatant "draft dodging underground" taking hold on college campuses. Man's Illustrated condemned the "cardburners" and "slackers" who had worked the system to stay out of uniform. One antiwar activist recalled hearing epithets of "faggots" and "queers" as often as "commies" or "cowards." In the pulps, the best American men went to war, while the weaklings stayed home.
Such narratives outlasted the pulps themselves, which died out in the early 1970s. Stories glorifying war and sexual conquest seemed out of step with the cultural revolutions rippling through the United States in the immediate aftermath of a failed overseas war. Yet the macho pulp storylines retained their attraction enough to resurface only a few years later.
By the mid-1980s, "re-masculinized" men returned in full force. A finely chiseled Rambo deployed back to Vietnam to save American prisoners of war still held captive there. So too did Chuck Norris's Colonel Braddock in the Missing in Action films. Even President Ronald Reagan took his cue from these tough-minded action heroes, quipping in 1985 that he would now "know what to do" if faced with a hostage crisis after watching Rambo: First Blood Part II. Would anyone call Rambo or Braddock a "pussy"?
The militarization of masculinity portrayed in the Stallone and Norris action movies had clear roots in the Cold War macho pulps. Nor should we be surprised by former Seal team O'Neill's use of the term "pussy." Because the veteran had achieved his manhood through military service, especially in an elite unit, he could be secure in demeaning others who didn't meet his masculine ideals—which apparently also inoculated him from deadly viruses.
Yet it's not only the militarization of the "P" word that resonates, but the politicization of it as well. When Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) recently claimed that "many liberal males never grow balls," he was purposefully contrasting his own supposed conservative masculinity with the femininity of his political rivals, whether they be male or female. One wonders, though, if Cruz truly fashions himself as the new archetype for twenty-first-century manhood or simply hopes to score a few cheap political points via social media name-calling.
Or, conceivably, Cruz is channeling what has underscored a decades' long anxiety over American masculinity: that "real men" are on the verge of extinction because of political correctness gone awry or a feminist movement subverting traditional gender norms or any other imagined threat that stokes fears among mostly white, young, angry men.
Perhaps the most revealing expression of these anxieties comes from right-wing, all-male groups like the Proud Boys who see themselves as "aggrieved, marginalized, and depressed." These traditionalists extol the imagined superiority of western culture, believe they are being disenfranchised by the left, and have found in Trump's America a "place to put [their] political resentment." As if to demonstrate their masculinity, the Proud Boys, according to one critic, "like to spoil for a fight."
According to the "pussy" narrative, it's not just the sensibilities of persecuted white men who are under attack, though, but the nation's security as well. When I posted to social media a few covers from the macho pulps to promote my forthcoming book, one retired colonel who believes conservatives must win the current "culture war" replied that we all should focus more on crafting a militarized notion of masculinity "because a lot of Americans are pussies." Another Twitter respondent claimed that the "pussification of America's youth is a matter of national security. We need a touch of testosterone added to the water with fluoride," he argued. "No more cavities and fewer softies." By this logic, if only US soldiers and marines were equipped with more hormones, they might have achieved more lasting results in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, what to make of this perceived "pussification" of America? Most importantly, we need to accept the fact that real violence stems from imagined grievances and misogynistic language. A congresswoman being verbally assaulted. A group of wrathful white men seeing themselves as a "right-wing fight club." A militarization and polarization of society based on outdated gender norms.
For those who don't want to examine the violence they perpetrate—against women or minorities or immigrants or any other perceived social or cultural threat—the "pussification" of America provides a warped justification for violent means.
Popular narratives of what it means to be a man, to paraphrase Josephine Livingstone, need not rest on connecting "the vulva with weakness" for those men who don't act like chiseled Hollywood action heroes. In the Cold War men's adventure magazines, "real men" were depicted as heroic warriors and sexual champions. More than a half century on, such depictions continue to resonate far too widely across American society. It seems well past time to evolve beyond mid-1950s mindsets and begin conversations about alternate models of masculinity. Chances are, America will survive, even if all men aren't Rambo.


alternet--2020-10-25--This Democrat is beating his GOP opponent — so the right-wing is lying about him dressing up as Hitl

This Democrat is beating his GOP opponent — so the right-wing is lying about him dressing up as Hitler

Arizona senatorial candidate Mark Kelly is currently beating his Republican challenger Martha McSally by about 5 percentage points .
So a right-wing media outlet decided to try and take Kelly down by posting a photo and lying about him dressing up as Nazi leader Adolf Hitler during his school days at the Merchant Marine Academy .
On Friday , the right-wing website the National File shared photographic `` proof '' that Kelley had dressed as Hitler , and the post quickly went viral .
But Kelly 's former classmates Jennifer Boykin , Peter Lindsey , Mark Baden and Ed McDonald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't of Kelly .
Lindsey in particular said someone contacted him with the image via the professional social network LinkedIn asked `` and asked if the person in the costume was Mark Kelly .
I told them no , and want to say again , Mark is not in those photos .
I have spoken to numerous classmates about this evening , and they concur that he is not in any of these pictures .
The people spreading these lies should stop . ''
`` The person who reached out to Lindsey was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consultant for a super political action committee aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-K.Y.
, that is spending millions of dollars to help defeat Kelly , '' AZCentral.com reports .

Arizona senatorial candidate Mark Kelly is currently beating his Republican challenger Martha McSally by about 5 percentage points. So a right-wing media outlet decided to try and take Kelly down by posting a photo and lying about him dressing up as Nazi leader Adolf Hitler during his school days at the Merchant Marine Academy.
On Friday, the right-wing website the National File shared photographic "proof" that Kelley had dressed as Hitler, and the post quickly went viral. But Kelly's former classmates Jennifer Boykin, Peter Lindsey, Mark Baden and Ed McDonald have all said that the image isn't of Kelly.
Lindsey in particular said someone contacted him with the image via the professional social network LinkedIn asked "and asked if the person in the costume was Mark Kelly. I told them no, and want to say again, Mark is not in those photos. I have spoken to numerous classmates about this evening, and they concur that he is not in any of these pictures. The people spreading these lies should stop."
"The person who reached out to Lindsey was identified by the campaign as a paid consultant for a super political action committee aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-K.Y., that is spending millions of dollars to help defeat Kelly," AZCentral.com reports.


alternet--2020-10-25--Political scientist dismantles the 'folk theory of democracy': Trump revealed that 'truth and reason

Political scientist dismantles the 'folk theory of democracy': Trump revealed that 'truth and reason' don't matter in politics

Public opinion polls and other data show that Joe Biden has a double-digit lead over Donald Trump , with just over a week to go until the election .
Biden 's campaign also has substantially more money .
As judged by conventional standards , Biden won the two presidential debates .
Nate Silver 's much-cited FiveThirtyEight site gives Joe Biden an 87 percent chance of defeating Trump .
If Biden and the Democrats win by a landslide — an outcome that seems increasingly likely — one of the dominant narratives will be that a multiracial coalition of Americans rose up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bravely in a time of plague , when gathering in public could quite literally be a death sentence .
Trump 's defeat will be heralded as true populism as compared to the authoritarian , white-supremacist faux-populism that won Trump his flukish Electoral College victory in 2016 .
Normalcy will have returned ; the healing can begin .
It will feel good , for a little while .
Of course , matters in the real world are far more complicated .
What if that does not happen ?
What if Trump somehow manages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal and illegal means , combining foreign interference , voter suppression and intimidation , and perhaps even a usurpation of the public 's will by the Supreme Court ?
America will slide further into the abyss of full-on fascism and an authoritarian `` managed democracy . ''
A good many Americans , already afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder because of Donald Trump and his allies ' collective assaults , will come to feel that resistance is futile .
Both `` people power '' and the normal operation of electoral politics will appear impotent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either outcome , dangerous myths about American political culture will remain unchallenged , left as assumed truths and conventional wisdom created by throwing uncomfortable facts down the memory hole .
These myths are numerous , but perhaps begin and end with American exceptionalism , the delusional idea that the United States is fundamentally different from all other nations , and not subject to the laws and patterns of history .
Beneath that overarching belief , we find these dogmas : America 's democratic institutions , norms and values are strong and permanent ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guardian of the country 's democracy ; the American people are fundamentally decent and American society is healthy ; Americans will always reject authoritarianism and fascism , along with large-scale political violence and terrorism are rejected ; white supremacy , nativism , misogyny and other antisocial values are largely things of the past ; our multiracial democracy , whatever its flaws , is a settled fact .
It is these myths that helped to create the disaster of American fascism in the form of Donald Trump and his movement .
Even if Trumpism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these uninterrogated myths almost guarantee that American fascism will spring forth again .
These myths are tied together by an assumption on the part of American political elites and other influentials that the American people are reasonable , rational , politically engaged and at least somewhat ideologically consistent .
There is no basis in logic or fact for any of those assumptions .
How does this folk theory of democracy lead to incorrect understandings and conclusions about American politics in general , and about the Age of Trump and its aftermath ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and authoritarianism in voting and other political behavior in American politics ?
What does the data actually reveal about the fabled voters of the `` white working class '' voters and their support of Trump and the Republican Party ?
Do American voters actually factor in disasters such as the coronavirus in how they assess presidents ?
In an effort to answer these questions , I recently spoke with political scientist Larry Bartels , who holds the May Werthan Shayne Chair of Public Policy and Social Science at Vanderbilt University .
Bartels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including `` Unequal Democracy : The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age '' and `` Democracy for Realists : Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government '' ( with Christopher Achen ) .
His commentaries and other writing have appeared in the Washington Post , the New York Times and other leading publications .
Bartels is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Philosophical Society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bartels shares his thoughts on the reliability of the various models offered by historians , political scientists and others who claim to be able to predict the outcome of presidential elections and the likely defeat of Donald Trump .
( I will not spoil his remarks for you here . )
As usual , this interview has been edited for length and clarity .
What are some of the major assumptions about American democracy that Donald Trump 's time in office has shattered ?
Among people who think and write about politics for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of assumption that truth and reason , especially in American democracy , are the driving forces of people 's behavior .
These years with Donald Trump have stripped away some of those assumptions .
In 2016 , I predicted that Trump would win the election .
I argued that the average American voters is not rational or sophisticated .
There was an incredulous response to my conclusion .
In these four years of Trump , it took a long time for prominent people to state plainly that he is an authoritarian if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveal that to be true , there is deep anger at the truth and a profound denial among many in the commentariat and among the American people more generally .
Why the anger ?
It almost seems like a type of narcissistic injury .
I believe that we all have , in some way or another , an attachment to what my co-author Christopher Achen and I describe as the `` folk theory of democracy . ''
That framework and narrative is a reassuring and comforting way of thinking about politics in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the political views that people espouse and then who they should vote for , there was this assumption that political views are causing political behavior , when in fact our research shows that it is probably more the reverse .
Other variables are also involved in political decision-making as well , which are outside of many traditional rationalizations and explanations .
I was surprised by Donald Trump 's election , not because I expect voters to be ideological , but because I viewed the identities that he was appealing to as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised by the extent of loyalty among everyday Republicans , for whom white identity may be an inclination to their behavior and decision-making but is not a part of their identity on a day-to-day basis .
Sheer partisanship motivated many people to vote for Trump who otherwise might have been put off by him and what he stands for .
Why does Donald Trump have such a stable and deep level of unwavering support among Republicans ?
It endures to this late date , no matter what he does .
Partisanship is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has become increasingly important in the last 10 or 20 years in American politics .
One reason that partisanship has become more important is that is it more strongly correlated with many other identities , of which race is an important one , but certainly not the only one .
In some new research , I examined attachment to democratic values .
I included prompts such as `` The president should take the law into their own hands , '' `` The results of elections ca n't be trusted , '' `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to save the American way of life '' and other such items .
We were surprised by how much agreement with those items there was among Republicans .
In trying to understand the data , I applied an index for `` ethnic antagonism . ''
This consists of questions about immigrants having too much access to government resources , the political influence of black people , `` discrimination '' against whites and questions of a similar theme .
Ethnic antagonism was by far the most powerful predictor of these anti-democratic attitudes .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiasm in the Republican Party for Trump , although not all Republicans exhibit high levels of `` ethnic antagonism , '' is basically grounded in a kind of ethnic panic that some people have about the possibility that `` their way of life '' or `` their America '' may be swamped by demographic changes .
`` White working-class '' voters are still being obsessed over by the mainstream news media and too many Democratic political strategists .
What do we know empirically about the white working class and its political behavior ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out is what people mean by white working class .
`` Working class '' is usually understood to be `` people without college degrees , '' which is the majority of white voters .
They did disproportionately switch to Trump in 2016 , but those numbers were pretty small .
It is easy to exaggerate the numbers and to imagine that these people who made an important difference at the margins are representative of Trump 's supporters more generally .
That is not the case .
Donald Trump 's supporters were generally more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton 's supporters .
The typical Republican is someone who did not go to college but did pretty well in life despite that fact .
He or she attributes that success to hard work and expects other people to be able to do the same thing .
I believe that most such voters were already Republicans before 2016 .
But the people who switched to Trump in 2016 were disproportionately that person .
Education has a role in Trump 's rise in another way as well .
Donald Trump 's behavior is unappealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and internalized a particular set of norms and values about American political culture .
The New York Times kept running these long pieces where they would explain to the readers how Donald Trump was violating some cultural and political norm , with the assumption that if readers understood that fact then the public would turn against Trump .
For many people in the United States , those norms are not very salient .
Their allegiance to what we understood to be `` democratic norms '' is pretty shallow .
People who respected Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is '' and not being restrained by `` political correctness '' are disproportionately people who were less educated , although not less affluent .
What are some of your largest frustrations in terms of how supposed `` political experts '' in the news media analyze the country 's politics ?
Many professional political observers in the news media and elsewhere want to interpret politics in terms of ideology .
They also want to interpret politics in the country by focusing on the most intense people on each side , as though they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One of the main arguments about Trump 's voters and racism is that he appealed to a fragment of the American public that had been underserved by racism and related values , even as compared to Republican politicians , before he came along .
There is evidence in support of that conclusion .
Prior to Trump there was a concerted effort among Republican elites to try to appeal to racism , but not in overt terms .
They tried to appeal to anti-immigration sentiment , but not in a way that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among immigrant communities .
One of the other common narratives is that Trump 's election is a function of some huge upswing in racism .
But if you track these measures of racial resentment over time , the big shift in the last decade has been that the public as a whole has become less racist and racially resentful .
But this is largely because Democrats have increasingly learned what they are supposed to say in response to questions from pollsters and other researchers about race and racial inequality .
Republicans have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American politics in terms of media coverage than there are in reality .
Every time there is some major announcement about shifts in attitudes , one should be skeptical .
However , public attitudes and values do sometimes change fairly rapidly .
In terms of race and politics , my intuition would be that what has changed in the Age of Trump is mostly a verbal attachment to one position or another , rather than people 's deep-seated feelings about race .
How ideological is the average American ?
And how does ideology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The folk theory of democracy is a belief that America is a representative democracy , and that we the voters decide on who the political leaders are and basically give them a mandate to pursue some set of policies .
If these elected officials do not live up to expectations , then they are voted out and replaced by someone else .
There are some elements of that story which are true .
But most Americans do not have a very well-developed or sophisticated political ideology .
Their views about politics are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more subject to self-contradiction than people who spend their careers thinking about politics would likely be able to to imagine .
Now , this does not mean that the average American is without meaningful attitudes about politics and related topics .
They are not a blank slate .
But the average American thinks about American politics sporadically , when they are forced to or when there is something happening in terms of political life that they can not easily ignore .
In all , journalists and scholars of politics think about politics much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we know about how the average American factors in calamities and disasters such as the coronavirus pandemic in terms of their voting behavior ?
There are many debates about that question among political scientists and others who study politics .
One view , which our book `` Democracy for Realists '' adopts , is that people are not very critical about assessing the responsibility of elected officials for certain kinds of calamities .
In `` Democracy for Realists '' , Achen and I wrote about shark attacks in New Jersey and also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floods .
There is some existing and still in-progress research on the American people 's reaction to the Spanish flu pandemic [ of 1918 ] .
We examined that work and it was surprising , because one would imagine a large backlash .
But we did not see that in the data .
[ President ] Woodrow Wilson was not punished .
State governors were also not being punished by the public .
One of the explanations is that no one of public prominence at the time was constructing the Spanish flu as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected officials .
By comparison , when the coronavirus pandemic was taking hold and people were asking me about the political implications , I told them there that there is no way that it is not going to be politicized , and that once it becomes politicized , people are going to associate it with Donald Trump .
The alternative view is that voters attempt to assess the quality of elected officials ' response , and that the backlash against Donald Trump is not simply a reaction to the pain of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an assessment of Trump 's performance .
Therefore , if Donald Trump were performing better than average in terms of his response to the coronavirus pandemic , then he would have been rewarded rather than punished for the pandemic .
We will need to do more research in the future , of course , but my sense is that someone has to be blamed and held responsible for the failures of the pandemic response — and for the public that is Trump .
There are various models from historians , political scientists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of presidential elections in this country .
Is there a consensus on how accurate these models are ?
There are a number of these predictive models .
My first observation is that if there are seven factors , for example , then an intervention could be made so that the model is made to fit the data which the researcher already has .
But there are in fact models that have a pretty good track record in terms of accounting for election outcomes over time .
In these predictions and models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of the economy in the election year and how long the incumbent party has been in power .
Those two things appear to work well in terms of predictive power .
In 2016 they predicted an outcome which was not much different from what happened .
Many of the people responsible for these models said at the time , `` This is what the models predict , but it certainly will not apply to Donald Trump because he is such an unusual candidate . ''
Nevertheless , the models did turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I interpret that outcome to be a statement about the extent to which partisan behavior was shaped by the usual partisan factors , rather than by anything specific about Trump or the 2016 election .
Those same models now predict that Donald Trump is going to lose substantially .
Here is a qualifier : There has been an increase in partisan polarization in this country .
That probably means there are fewer people who are sufficiently undecided to be swayed by the state of the economy in the election year .
Therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if he does in fact lose , will be less than one would predict based on the historical record .

Public opinion polls and other data show that Joe Biden has a double-digit lead over Donald Trump, with just over a week to go until the election. Biden's campaign also has substantially more money. As judged by conventional standards, Biden won the two presidential debates. Nate Silver's much-cited FiveThirtyEight site gives Joe Biden an 87 percent chance of defeating Trump.
If Biden and the Democrats win by a landslide — an outcome that seems increasingly likely — one of the dominant narratives will be that a multiracial coalition of Americans rose up against Donald Trump and did so loudly and bravely in a time of plague, when gathering in public could quite literally be a death sentence. Trump's defeat will be heralded as true populism as compared to the authoritarian, white-supremacist faux-populism that won Trump his flukish Electoral College victory in 2016. Normalcy will have returned; the healing can begin. It will feel good, for a little while. Of course, matters in the real world are far more complicated.
What if that does not happen? What if Trump somehow manages to steal another implausible victory through both legal and illegal means, combining foreign interference, voter suppression and intimidation, and perhaps even a usurpation of the public's will by the Supreme Court? America will slide further into the abyss of full-on fascism and an authoritarian "managed democracy." A good many Americans, already afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder because of Donald Trump and his allies' collective assaults, will come to feel that resistance is futile. Both "people power" and the normal operation of electoral politics will appear impotent against the Age of Trump.
With either outcome, dangerous myths about American political culture will remain unchallenged, left as assumed truths and conventional wisdom created by throwing uncomfortable facts down the memory hole.
These myths are numerous, but perhaps begin and end with American exceptionalism, the delusional idea that the United States is fundamentally different from all other nations, and not subject to the laws and patterns of history. Beneath that overarching belief, we find these dogmas: America's democratic institutions, norms and values are strong and permanent; the free press serves as a resolute guardian of the country's democracy; the American people are fundamentally decent and American society is healthy; Americans will always reject authoritarianism and fascism, along with large-scale political violence and terrorism are rejected; white supremacy, nativism, misogyny and other antisocial values are largely things of the past; our multiracial democracy, whatever its flaws, is a settled fact.
It is these myths that helped to create the disaster of American fascism in the form of Donald Trump and his movement. Even if Trumpism in its present form is defeated, these uninterrogated myths almost guarantee that American fascism will spring forth again.
These myths are tied together by an assumption on the part of American political elites and other influentials that the American people are reasonable, rational, politically engaged and at least somewhat ideologically consistent. There is no basis in logic or fact for any of those assumptions.
How does this folk theory of democracy lead to incorrect understandings and conclusions about American politics in general, and about the Age of Trump and its aftermath? What is the role of "ethnic antagonism" and authoritarianism in voting and other political behavior in American politics? What does the data actually reveal about the fabled voters of the "white working class" voters and their support of Trump and the Republican Party? Do American voters actually factor in disasters such as the coronavirus in how they assess presidents?
In an effort to answer these questions, I recently spoke with political scientist Larry Bartels, who holds the May Werthan Shayne Chair of Public Policy and Social Science at Vanderbilt University. Bartels is the author of several books, including "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age" and "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government" (with Christopher Achen). His commentaries and other writing have appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times and other leading publications. Bartels is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.
Toward the end of our conversation, Bartels shares his thoughts on the reliability of the various models offered by historians, political scientists and others who claim to be able to predict the outcome of presidential elections and the likely defeat of Donald Trump. (I will not spoil his remarks for you here.) As usual, this interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What are some of the major assumptions about American democracy that Donald Trump's time in office has shattered?
Among people who think and write about politics for a living, there is a kind of assumption that truth and reason, especially in American democracy, are the driving forces of people's behavior. These years with Donald Trump have stripped away some of those assumptions.
In 2016, I predicted that Trump would win the election. I argued that the average American voters is not rational or sophisticated. There was an incredulous response to my conclusion. In these four years of Trump, it took a long time for prominent people to state plainly that he is an authoritarian if not a fascist. Even as the facts reveal that to be true, there is deep anger at the truth and a profound denial among many in the commentariat and among the American people more generally. Why the anger? It almost seems like a type of narcissistic injury.
I believe that we all have, in some way or another, an attachment to what my co-author Christopher Achen and I describe as the "folk theory of democracy." That framework and narrative is a reassuring and comforting way of thinking about politics in this country. If we study the relationship between the political views that people espouse and then who they should vote for, there was this assumption that political views are causing political behavior, when in fact our research shows that it is probably more the reverse. Other variables are also involved in political decision-making as well, which are outside of many traditional rationalizations and explanations.
I was surprised by Donald Trump's election, not because I expect voters to be ideological, but because I viewed the identities that he was appealing to as being too narrowly focused. I was also surprised by the extent of loyalty among everyday Republicans, for whom white identity may be an inclination to their behavior and decision-making but is not a part of their identity on a day-to-day basis. Sheer partisanship motivated many people to vote for Trump who otherwise might have been put off by him and what he stands for.
Why does Donald Trump have such a stable and deep level of unwavering support among Republicans? It endures to this late date, no matter what he does.
Partisanship is an identity in and of itself, one that has become increasingly important in the last 10 or 20 years in American politics. One reason that partisanship has become more important is that is it more strongly correlated with many other identities, of which race is an important one, but certainly not the only one.
In some new research, I examined attachment to democratic values. I included prompts such as "The president should take the law into their own hands," "The results of elections can't be trusted," "Patriots may have to resort to force to save the American way of life" and other such items. We were surprised by how much agreement with those items there was among Republicans.
In trying to understand the data, I applied an index for "ethnic antagonism." This consists of questions about immigrants having too much access to government resources, the political influence of black people, "discrimination" against whites and questions of a similar theme. Ethnic antagonism was by far the most powerful predictor of these anti-democratic attitudes.
The cutting edge of the strong emotions and enthusiasm in the Republican Party for Trump, although not all Republicans exhibit high levels of "ethnic antagonism," is basically grounded in a kind of ethnic panic that some people have about the possibility that "their way of life" or "their America" may be swamped by demographic changes.
"White working-class" voters are still being obsessed over by the mainstream news media and too many Democratic political strategists. What do we know empirically about the white working class and its political behavior?
I think the first thing to figure out is what people mean by white working class. "Working class" is usually understood to be "people without college degrees," which is the majority of white voters. They did disproportionately switch to Trump in 2016, but those numbers were pretty small. It is easy to exaggerate the numbers and to imagine that these people who made an important difference at the margins are representative of Trump's supporters more generally. That is not the case. Donald Trump's supporters were generally more upscale, for example, than Hillary Clinton's supporters.
The typical Republican is someone who did not go to college but did pretty well in life despite that fact. He or she attributes that success to hard work and expects other people to be able to do the same thing. I believe that most such voters were already Republicans before 2016. But the people who switched to Trump in 2016 were disproportionately that person. Education has a role in Trump's rise in another way as well. Donald Trump's behavior is unappealing to those people who went to college and internalized a particular set of norms and values about American political culture.
The New York Times kept running these long pieces where they would explain to the readers how Donald Trump was violating some cultural and political norm, with the assumption that if readers understood that fact then the public would turn against Trump. For many people in the United States, those norms are not very salient. Their allegiance to what we understood to be "democratic norms" is pretty shallow. People who respected Donald Trump for "saying it like it is" and not being restrained by "political correctness" are disproportionately people who were less educated, although not less affluent.
What are some of your largest frustrations in terms of how supposed "political experts" in the news media analyze the country's politics?
Many professional political observers in the news media and elsewhere want to interpret politics in terms of ideology. They also want to interpret politics in the country by focusing on the most intense people on each side, as though they are representative of the public as a whole. One of the main arguments about Trump's voters and racism is that he appealed to a fragment of the American public that had been underserved by racism and related values, even as compared to Republican politicians, before he came along. There is evidence in support of that conclusion.
Prior to Trump there was a concerted effort among Republican elites to try to appeal to racism, but not in overt terms. They tried to appeal to anti-immigration sentiment, but not in a way that would cut off their chances to build support among immigrant communities.
One of the other common narratives is that Trump's election is a function of some huge upswing in racism. But if you track these measures of racial resentment over time, the big shift in the last decade has been that the public as a whole has become less racist and racially resentful. But this is largely because Democrats have increasingly learned what they are supposed to say in response to questions from pollsters and other researchers about race and racial inequality. Republicans have not.
There are more major shifts in American politics in terms of media coverage than there are in reality. Every time there is some major announcement about shifts in attitudes, one should be skeptical. However, public attitudes and values do sometimes change fairly rapidly. In terms of race and politics, my intuition would be that what has changed in the Age of Trump is mostly a verbal attachment to one position or another, rather than people's deep-seated feelings about race.
How ideological is the average American? And how does ideology relate to the folk theory of democracy?
The folk theory of democracy is a belief that America is a representative democracy, and that we the voters decide on who the political leaders are and basically give them a mandate to pursue some set of policies. If these elected officials do not live up to expectations, then they are voted out and replaced by someone else.
There are some elements of that story which are true. But most Americans do not have a very well-developed or sophisticated political ideology. Their views about politics are shallower, more contingent on circumstances and more subject to self-contradiction than people who spend their careers thinking about politics would likely be able to to imagine.
Now, this does not mean that the average American is without meaningful attitudes about politics and related topics. They are not a blank slate. But the average American thinks about American politics sporadically, when they are forced to or when there is something happening in terms of political life that they cannot easily ignore. In all, journalists and scholars of politics think about politics much more than the average person.
What do we know about how the average American factors in calamities and disasters such as the coronavirus pandemic in terms of their voting behavior?
There are many debates about that question among political scientists and others who study politics. One view, which our book "Democracy for Realists" adopts, is that people are not very critical about assessing the responsibility of elected officials for certain kinds of calamities. In "Democracy for Realists", Achen and I wrote about shark attacks in New Jersey and also how the public reacts to droughts and floods.
There is some existing and still in-progress research on the American people's reaction to the Spanish flu pandemic [of 1918]. We examined that work and it was surprising, because one would imagine a large backlash. But we did not see that in the data. [President] Woodrow Wilson was not punished. State governors were also not being punished by the public. One of the explanations is that no one of public prominence at the time was constructing the Spanish flu as a political issue or attaching blame to elected officials.
By comparison, when the coronavirus pandemic was taking hold and people were asking me about the political implications, I told them there that there is no way that it is not going to be politicized, and that once it becomes politicized, people are going to associate it with Donald Trump.
The alternative view is that voters attempt to assess the quality of elected officials' response, and that the backlash against Donald Trump is not simply a reaction to the pain of the pandemic and resulting economic collapse, but rather an assessment of Trump's performance. Therefore, if Donald Trump were performing better than average in terms of his response to the coronavirus pandemic, then he would have been rewarded rather than punished for the pandemic. We will need to do more research in the future, of course, but my sense is that someone has to be blamed and held responsible for the failures of the pandemic response — and for the public that is Trump.
There are various models from historians, political scientists, economists and others which purport to predict the outcome of presidential elections in this country. Is there a consensus on how accurate these models are?
There are a number of these predictive models. My first observation is that if there are seven factors, for example, then an intervention could be made so that the model is made to fit the data which the researcher already has.
But there are in fact models that have a pretty good track record in terms of accounting for election outcomes over time. In these predictions and models, the two most important factors are the state of the economy in the election year and how long the incumbent party has been in power. Those two things appear to work well in terms of predictive power. In 2016 they predicted an outcome which was not much different from what happened.
Many of the people responsible for these models said at the time, "This is what the models predict, but it certainly will not apply to Donald Trump because he is such an unusual candidate." Nevertheless, the models did turn out to apply to Donald Trump. I interpret that outcome to be a statement about the extent to which partisan behavior was shaped by the usual partisan factors, rather than by anything specific about Trump or the 2016 election. Those same models now predict that Donald Trump is going to lose substantially.
Here is a qualifier: There has been an increase in partisan polarization in this country. That probably means there are fewer people who are sufficiently undecided to be swayed by the state of the economy in the election year. Therefore, the magnitude of Donald Trump's loss, if he does in fact lose, will be less than one would predict based on the historical record.


alternet--2020-10-25--'We're not going to control the pandemic' Trump chief of staff admits on live TV as COVID cases surg

'We're not going to control the pandemic' Trump chief of staff admits on live TV as COVID cases surge

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said in a Sunday morning appearance on CNN that `` we 're not going to control the pandemic , '' a remark that critics took as an open admission by a top official that the Trump administration has given up trying to stop the spread of a virus that has killed more than 224,000 Americans and counting .
`` So here 's what we have to do : We 're not going to control the pandemic , '' said Meadows , who previously served in Congress as a Tea Party Republican .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we get vaccines , therapeutics , and other mitigation areas . ''
Asked by CNN host Jake Tapper why the U.S. is n't going to bring the pandemic under control , Meadows responded : `` Because it is a contagious virus , just like the flu . ''
`` 'It is what it is ' was n't a randomly tossed off phrase : it 's the official policy , '' tweeted emergency physician Esther Choo as clips of Meadows ' interview began circulating on social media .
Meadows went on to insist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contain '' the virus before falsely claiming that those advocating stricter measures want to `` quarantine all of America . ''
`` Mark Meadows admits on camera , nine days before the election , that the White House has given up trying to control the virus that has killed more than 220,000 Americans , '' tweeted former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer .
Critics of the White House concluded months ago that the president and his top advisers effectively stopped attempting to contain the virus as they advocated premature reopenings , embraced dangerous strategies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly downplayed the severity of the pandemic even as it infected millions and ravaged the nation 's economy .
Others in the federal government , like Dr. Anthony Fauci , have persisted in sounding the alarm as the U.S. sees another alarming surge in cases .
In recent weeks , with the November election approaching , Trump has recklessly held rallies in major states nationwide—campaign events that have since been connected to community outbreaks of Covid-19 .
When Tapper mentioned Sunday that the president is holding crowded in-person rallies despite the public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's correct . ''

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said in a Sunday morning appearance on CNN that "we're not going to control the pandemic," a remark that critics took as an open admission by a top official that the Trump administration has given up trying to stop the spread of a virus that has killed more than 224,000 Americans and counting.
"So here's what we have to do: We're not going to control the pandemic," said Meadows, who previously served in Congress as a Tea Party Republican. "We are gonna control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics, and other mitigation areas."
Asked by CNN host Jake Tapper why the U.S. isn't going to bring the pandemic under control, Meadows responded: "Because it is a contagious virus, just like the flu."
"'It is what it is' wasn't a randomly tossed off phrase: it's the official policy," tweeted emergency physician Esther Choo as clips of Meadows' interview began circulating on social media.
Meadows went on to insist that "we are making efforts to contain" the virus before falsely claiming that those advocating stricter measures want to "quarantine all of America."
Watch:
"Mark Meadows admits on camera, nine days before the election, that the White House has given up trying to control the virus that has killed more than 220,000 Americans," tweeted former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer.
Critics of the White House concluded months ago that the president and his top advisers effectively stopped attempting to contain the virus as they advocated premature reopenings, embraced dangerous strategies like "herd immunity," and publicly downplayed the severity of the pandemic even as it infected millions and ravaged the nation's economy.
Others in the federal government, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, have persisted in sounding the alarm as the U.S. sees another alarming surge in cases.
In recent weeks, with the November election approaching, Trump has recklessly held rallies in major states nationwide—campaign events that have since been connected to community outbreaks of Covid-19.
When Tapper mentioned Sunday that the president is holding crowded in-person rallies despite the public health risks, Meadows responded, "That's correct."


alternet--2020-10-25--The 'Q' movement is a pro-terrorist Trumpian cult

Well , we seem to be getting closer to the national realization that this thing that calls itself `` QAnon '' is , at heart , just another partisan iteration of the same far-right conspiracy theories that have plagued conservatives since forever ago .
The New York Times has another look at the growth of `` Q '' nonsense in the Republican mainstream , and while it does n't contain anything new , it does more forcibly connect the batshit conspiracy theorizing of gullible , gullible supporters to the cowardice—and complicity—of Republican leaders .
The most plausible explanation for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed member of the Deep State drools out accusations against anyone deemed to be enemies of Donald Trump in comically performed pseudo-riddles , remains the obvious one : It is the work of chan-style trolls , part of that internet corner 's grand tradition of crafting gaudily improbable hoaxes to distribute for no other purpose than to see who they can draw in .
It may turn out to be the first domestic terrorism group founded for funsies—though at this point , those connected to the movement have focused their claims and targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents of real-world terrorism is , in fact , the current goal .
Like the 2016 proliferation of European `` fake news '' sites aiming to generate advertising traffic by inventing hoax political stories , Q conspiracies have been tailored to American conservative tastes because American conservatives are the richest ( read : most gullible ) targets .
Fox News conservatives have been fed decades of tawdry but false information , all packaged with advertising pitches to buy gold , or `` survival '' equipment , or hyper-expensive pills sold through conservative mailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is an audience of laboratory-grown suckers , people who have been whittled down over the years to a base of the most credulous , and therefore profitable , marks .
But—and this is a big but—there 's an undercurrent here that 's getting more and more ... let 's say blatant , as actual news events slap Q claims back and forth and sideways month after month after month .
The QAnon claim is that most or all of the world 's most famous powerbrokers , including politicians , actors , nonpartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secret ultra-pedophiles and child traffickers .
But the revelation of Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein as precisely that did not make a ripple .
Instead , the `` real '' traffickers are unanimously people who oppose Donald Trump , and most especially those who report what looks to be criminal behavior by Trump .
The QAnon claims burst into Republican popularity after Donald J. Trump was accused of sexual assault by two dozen women , after his taped bragging about committing sexual assaults , and after a long public history of being an eager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top beauty pageant as apparent ticket to ogle nude teenagers or the mysterious and Epsteinesque `` Trump modeling company . ''
Instead , the movement holds Trump up as the mockingly dubious `` hero '' fighting against society 's sex predators .
He is alleged to be doing this secretly , with Good Genes and near-godlike powers , and the movement remains absolutely immune to news cycle after news cycle in which their own predictions prove to be fan-fiction bunk .
This week , Trump ally Rudy Giuliani was revealed to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Borat movie , of all things ) fondling himself in front of a youthful female `` interviewer . ''
Without getting too far into a description of that particular chunk of nightmare fuel , it continues the pattern of 1 ) Republican 2 ) conservative 3 ) Trump-allied 4 ) powerbrokers revealed as tawdry often-sexual-assaulting ultrapervs .
From Wynn to Epstein to Broidy to Falwell to Rudy , there is a very robust claim to be made that the QAnon suspicions of an enormously powerful cabal of sex freaks are indeed well-founded—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee 's finance offices , from Mar-a-Lago , or both .
All these real-world crimes and bizarre improprieties , however , are dismissed by the QAnon faithful .
Nope : They are convinced that the True Pedophiles are `` Democrats '' and `` globalists , '' and that four years of the nation 's top Republican figures getting caught with their pants around their ankles are the fictional part .
It should be obvious from that history , then , that is n't a conspiracy base that gives a damn about pedophilia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the `` movement '' has sabotaged law enforcement 's attempts to pursue sex traffickers by flooding lines with false claims pointing to everyone but the true culprits .
This is a group born to defend criminal acts by the powerful , not combat them .
It does so using the precise playbook Trump himself uses when caught committing apparent tax fraud , foreign extortion , or embezzlement : The projection defense .
It 's not me , it was that other guy .
It has always been that other guy .
No matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , the evidence is mere conspiracy and the truth is its opposite .
As Trump 's charity foundation was revealed to be little more than a passthrough for the Trump family 's personal spending—resulting in the family being barred from future charity boards—an organized effort to portray the Clinton 's own family foundation as corrupt erupted from longtime conservative hoax-peddlers .
As Trump personally profited off the presidency with the aid of his sons and favorite daughter , a new hoax emerged claiming that Actually it was the Biden family that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-right response to revealed Republican wrongdoing .
Even Benghazi !
, a far-right led claim that four American deaths in a terrorist attack were the result of something-something Hillary Clinton ( it was never , even at the end , consistent in what the something-something was supposed to be ) was a cheap version of the inquiries held after 9/11 , probing what the Republican-led government knew in advance and why that information was not processed into action .
In that context , QAnon 's relentlessly partisan far-right claim that a Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump lieutenants and allies being led off in handcuffs for everything from sex trafficking to foreign influence-peddling to election crimes—is `` actually '' a group of heroes working to expose the corruption of their enemies looks less like a coincidence than a pattern .
Is n't this just a more spittle-flecked version of what Fox News personalities have been peddling for years ?
That the news as it is reported by your eyes and ears is false , promoted by `` elites '' in order to deceive you , and that the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite policies that have caused clear ruin , and how malevolent non-conservative figures are for opposing them ?
Is that not the very definition of Sean Hannity 's evening broadcast ?
The theme of every conservative book ?
There 's not a lot of daylight between the QAnon version of reality and that promoted by Glenn Beck 's now-famous chalkboards , or Tucker Carlson 's parade of `` alt-right '' fascist-adjacent guests .
The online versions of each conspiracy are always more vigorous than the versions the Fox hosts themselves provide , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They intertwine more often than not .
Then there is the other , deeper origin of QAnon claims .
The movement 's guides insist not only that there is a secret global cabal of child sex traffickers , but that the ultimate purpose of the plot , run by `` globalist '' figures , is to harvest those children 's fluids for consumption .
There 's not an educated person alive who does n't recognize that theory .
It is the blood libel conspiracy theory that has been promulgated by anti-Semites for literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famous in Nazi Germany for a variation very close to the Q version .
The QAnon claim does not bother to go too far afield from the versions peddled in the 1920s and 30s .
`` Globalists '' is used to mean `` Jewish , '' as it is by most modern neo-Nazi adherents ; rather than `` blood '' of children , a specific compound is named this time around in near-comical pseudoscientific gibberish .
The premise of a secret group of global `` elites '' running the world from the shadows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion ; the omnipresent inclusions of George Soros and `` Hollywood '' as alleged conspirators are lifted directly from neo-Nazi fever dreams , anti-Semitic tropes that were willingly taken in as staples of Republican Party rhetoric long before Q-anything arrived on scene .
So it 's clear that the originators of QAnon are well-versed in neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic propaganda , and are particularly interested in repopularizing it for a modern audience .
Why those messages reverberate so very strongly among the Fox News-watching Republican base , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inextricably linked to Trumpism , is not hard to imagine .
That it would achieve true cult status , with some adherents willing to commit terrorist acts in deluded efforts to prove conspiracies invented in someone else 's head , may only be evidence of the omnipresent undercurrent of good violence that has burrowed itself into the American psyche in a hundred other forms .
If anything , the rise of Q belief as increasingly mainstream Republican phenomenon , complete with its own candidates and in-movement codes , appears to be the natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balled together in one malevolent , hyper-cynical lump : Fox News and conservative talk radio provided a large Republican base already trained to disbelieve news uncomfortable to the party , a base literally willing to deny reality in favor of pleasing fictions .
A set of gullibles that could easily be transformed into deplorables .
The white supremacist and white nationalist movement provided the conspiracy itself , a bog-standard edition of `` evil global cabal that has secretly undermined world governments '' that has been a staple of neo-Nazi movements in this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are providing , in a literal sense , the ammunition : A far-right collection of malcontents who insist that violence against nonright citizens is essential , glorious , and nigh .
The Republican Party 's own widespread embrace of corruption , nearly all of it centered around Trump , has all but required more and more outrageous conspiracy theories as official party defense .
That all of this would combine into kleptocratic fascism is not surprising .
That its enablers did not , at any point along the way , reflect on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It remains vitally important to see QAnon for what it is , and no more .
It is an amateur-led trolling effort based primarily on the same ambiguous nonsense-spewing used by fortune-telling hucksters , but one led by amateurs steeped in anti-Semitic claims and rhetoric popular among neo-Nazi and `` alt-right '' subcommunities .
It is Alex Jones by way of fortune cookie , or Jim Jones by way of sudoku .
It is a scam intended for the most gullible .
Its adherents should be pitied .
It is the fascist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pet rock , a hip new trend that will someday be confined to your parents ' attic , mysterious artifacts of pop culture tremors since vanished .
And mocked .
As racism-embracing nitwits incapable of discerning truth from fiction despite having access to nearly all of human history tucked in the space before a single wandering thumb , its adherents should be mocked .
There is not enough mocking of willful , self-absorbed , self-interested gullibility these days , which is why it spreads so prolifically .
If you willingly listen to Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night and become irate at contrary information , you are a self-built fool and should be treated as such .
If you believe that Donald Trump , serial sex abuser , pedophile-adjacent thug is the good Christian hero who will secretly reveal that everyone aside from him is the dribbling pervert he appears to be , however , you are something closer to a half-sentient wart .
You should be pilloried as one of the true suckers of the planet .
Congratulations , all those willing to fall for transparent anti-Semitic gobbledegook rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeevy lifelong con man .
You certainly have revealed yourselves .

Well, we seem to be getting closer to the national realization that this thing that calls itself "QAnon" is, at heart, just another partisan iteration of the same far-right conspiracy theories that have plagued conservatives since forever ago. The New York Times has another look at the growth of "Q" nonsense in the Republican mainstream, and while it doesn't contain anything new, it does more forcibly connect the batshit conspiracy theorizing of gullible, gullible supporters to the cowardice—and complicity—of Republican leaders.
The most plausible explanation for the Q hokum, in which an anonymous supposed member of the Deep State drools out accusations against anyone deemed to be enemies of Donald Trump in comically performed pseudo-riddles, remains the obvious one: It is the work of chan-style trolls, part of that internet corner's grand tradition of crafting gaudily improbable hoaxes to distribute for no other purpose than to see who they can draw in. It may turn out to be the first domestic terrorism group founded for funsies—though at this point, those connected to the movement have focused their claims and targets enough to make it clear that stoking incidents of real-world terrorism is, in fact, the current goal.
Like the 2016 proliferation of European "fake news" sites aiming to generate advertising traffic by inventing hoax political stories, Q conspiracies have been tailored to American conservative tastes because American conservatives are the richest (read: most gullible) targets. Fox News conservatives have been fed decades of tawdry but false information, all packaged with advertising pitches to buy gold, or "survival" equipment, or hyper-expensive pills sold through conservative mailing lists and on conservative programs relentlessly. It is an audience of laboratory-grown suckers, people who have been whittled down over the years to a base of the most credulous, and therefore profitable, marks.
But—and this is a big but—there's an undercurrent here that's getting more and more ... let's say blatant, as actual news events slap Q claims back and forth and sideways month after month after month.
The QAnon claim is that most or all of the world's most famous powerbrokers, including politicians, actors, nonpartisan government figures and so on, are secret ultra-pedophiles and child traffickers. But the revelation of Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein as precisely that did not make a ripple. Instead, the "real" traffickers are unanimously people who oppose Donald Trump, and most especially those who report what looks to be criminal behavior by Trump.
The QAnon claims burst into Republican popularity after Donald J. Trump was accused of sexual assault by two dozen women, after his taped bragging about committing sexual assaults, and after a long public history of being an eager pervert—whether it be the purchase of a top beauty pageant as apparent ticket to ogle nude teenagers or the mysterious and Epsteinesque "Trump modeling company." Instead, the movement holds Trump up as the mockingly dubious "hero" fighting against society's sex predators. He is alleged to be doing this secretly, with Good Genes and near-godlike powers, and the movement remains absolutely immune to news cycle after news cycle in which their own predictions prove to be fan-fiction bunk.
This week, Trump ally Rudy Giuliani was revealed to have been secretly filmed (as part of a new Borat movie, of all things) fondling himself in front of a youthful female "interviewer." Without getting too far into a description of that particular chunk of nightmare fuel, it continues the pattern of 1) Republican 2) conservative 3) Trump-allied 4) powerbrokers revealed as tawdry often-sexual-assaulting ultrapervs. From Wynn to Epstein to Broidy to Falwell to Rudy, there is a very robust claim to be made that the QAnon suspicions of an enormously powerful cabal of sex freaks are indeed well-founded—and that they radiate from the Republican National Committee's finance offices, from Mar-a-Lago, or both.
All these real-world crimes and bizarre improprieties, however, are dismissed by the QAnon faithful. Nope: They are convinced that the True Pedophiles are "Democrats" and "globalists," and that four years of the nation's top Republican figures getting caught with their pants around their ankles are the fictional part.
It should be obvious from that history, then, that isn't a conspiracy base that gives a damn about pedophilia and child sex trafficking, and if anything the "movement" has sabotaged law enforcement's attempts to pursue sex traffickers by flooding lines with false claims pointing to everyone but the true culprits.
This is a group born to defend criminal acts by the powerful, not combat them. It does so using the precise playbook Trump himself uses when caught committing apparent tax fraud, foreign extortion, or embezzlement: The projection defense. It's not me, it was that other guy. It has always been that other guy. No matter how much the evidence proves it was me, the evidence is mere conspiracy and the truth is its opposite.
As Trump's charity foundation was revealed to be little more than a passthrough for the Trump family's personal spending—resulting in the family being barred from future charity boards—an organized effort to portray the Clinton's own family foundation as corrupt erupted from longtime conservative hoax-peddlers. As Trump personally profited off the presidency with the aid of his sons and favorite daughter, a new hoax emerged claiming that Actually it was the Biden family that was doing that thing. It is the far-right response to revealed Republican wrongdoing. Even Benghazi!, a far-right led claim that four American deaths in a terrorist attack were the result of something-something Hillary Clinton (it was never, even at the end, consistent in what the something-something was supposed to be) was a cheap version of the inquiries held after 9/11, probing what the Republican-led government knew in advance and why that information was not processed into action.
In that context, QAnon's relentlessly partisan far-right claim that a Republican Party visibly awash in corruption—with a series of Trump lieutenants and allies being led off in handcuffs for everything from sex trafficking to foreign influence-peddling to election crimes—is "actually" a group of heroes working to expose the corruption of their enemies looks less like a coincidence than a pattern.
Isn't this just a more spittle-flecked version of what Fox News personalities have been peddling for years? That the news as it is reported by your eyes and ears is false, promoted by "elites" in order to deceive you, and that the real news is how ingenious conservative figures are despite policies that have caused clear ruin, and how malevolent non-conservative figures are for opposing them? Is that not the very definition of Sean Hannity's evening broadcast? The theme of every conservative book?
There's not a lot of daylight between the QAnon version of reality and that promoted by Glenn Beck's now-famous chalkboards, or Tucker Carlson's parade of "alt-right" fascist-adjacent guests. The online versions of each conspiracy are always more vigorous than the versions the Fox hosts themselves provide, but they each grow from similar stock. They intertwine more often than not.
Then there is the other, deeper origin of QAnon claims. The movement's guides insist not only that there is a secret global cabal of child sex traffickers, but that the ultimate purpose of the plot, run by "globalist" figures, is to harvest those children's fluids for consumption.
There's not an educated person alive who doesn't recognize that theory. It is the blood libel conspiracy theory that has been promulgated by anti-Semites for literally hundreds of years, but made most famous in Nazi Germany for a variation very close to the Q version.
The QAnon claim does not bother to go too far afield from the versions peddled in the 1920s and 30s. "Globalists" is used to mean "Jewish," as it is by most modern neo-Nazi adherents; rather than "blood" of children, a specific compound is named this time around in near-comical pseudoscientific gibberish. The premise of a secret group of global "elites" running the world from the shadows is the claim from the Henry Ford-peddled hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the omnipresent inclusions of George Soros and "Hollywood" as alleged conspirators are lifted directly from neo-Nazi fever dreams, anti-Semitic tropes that were willingly taken in as staples of Republican Party rhetoric long before Q-anything arrived on scene.
So it's clear that the originators of QAnon are well-versed in neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic propaganda, and are particularly interested in repopularizing it for a modern audience. Why those messages reverberate so very strongly among the Fox News-watching Republican base, and the merging of these conspiracies to become inextricably linked to Trumpism, is not hard to imagine. That it would achieve true cult status, with some adherents willing to commit terrorist acts in deluded efforts to prove conspiracies invented in someone else's head, may only be evidence of the omnipresent undercurrent of good violence that has burrowed itself into the American psyche in a hundred other forms.
If anything, the rise of Q belief as increasingly mainstream Republican phenomenon, complete with its own candidates and in-movement codes, appears to be the natural culmination of multiple conservative trends, all balled together in one malevolent, hyper-cynical lump:
Fox News and conservative talk radio provided a large Republican base already trained to disbelieve news uncomfortable to the party, a base literally willing to deny reality in favor of pleasing fictions. A set of gullibles that could easily be transformed into deplorables.
The white supremacist and white nationalist movement provided the conspiracy itself, a bog-standard edition of "evil global cabal that has secretly undermined world governments" that has been a staple of neo-Nazi movements in this country and in others.
American militia movements are providing, in a literal sense, the ammunition: A far-right collection of malcontents who insist that violence against nonright citizens is essential, glorious, and nigh.
The Republican Party's own widespread embrace of corruption, nearly all of it centered around Trump, has all but required more and more outrageous conspiracy theories as official party defense.
That all of this would combine into kleptocratic fascism is not surprising. That its enablers did not, at any point along the way, reflect on the likely outcome of the combination is damning.
It remains vitally important to see QAnon for what it is, and no more. It is an amateur-led trolling effort based primarily on the same ambiguous nonsense-spewing used by fortune-telling hucksters, but one led by amateurs steeped in anti-Semitic claims and rhetoric popular among neo-Nazi and "alt-right" subcommunities. It is Alex Jones by way of fortune cookie, or Jim Jones by way of sudoku. It is a scam intended for the most gullible. Its adherents should be pitied. It is the fascist version of the hula hoop or the pet rock, a hip new trend that will someday be confined to your parents' attic, mysterious artifacts of pop culture tremors since vanished.
And mocked. As racism-embracing nitwits incapable of discerning truth from fiction despite having access to nearly all of human history tucked in the space before a single wandering thumb, its adherents should be mocked. There is not enough mocking of willful, self-absorbed, self-interested gullibility these days, which is why it spreads so prolifically. If you willingly listen to Fox News hosts lie to you night after night and become irate at contrary information, you are a self-built fool and should be treated as such. If you believe that Donald Trump, serial sex abuser, pedophile-adjacent thug is the good Christian hero who will secretly reveal that everyone aside from him is the dribbling pervert he appears to be, however, you are something closer to a half-sentient wart. You should be pilloried as one of the true suckers of the planet.
Congratulations, all those willing to fall for transparent anti-Semitic gobbledegook rather than admit you got played by a skeevy lifelong con man. You certainly have revealed yourselves.


alternet--2020-10-25--Every second another American gets COVID as 100,000 new daily cases are predicted by election

On Friday , the U.S. reported its highest ever daily toll of new COVID-19 cases with 83,948 new cases , according to Reuters .
Considering that there are 86,400 seconds in a day , that means that almost every second , a U.S. resident comes down with a new case of COVID-19 , according to New York Times correspondent Mike Baker .
Meanwhile , Dr. Angela Rasumussen , a virologist at Columbia University , has predicted that the U.S. will likely have its highest-ever daily count of newly confirmed cases by Election Day with around 100,000 new cases in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an average of 800 U.S. residents are dying of COVID-19 each week and nationwide there are currently 41,000 hospitalizations related to the ongoing pandemic , reports The Guardian .
At the third and final debate last Thursday , Republican President Donald Trump said we 're `` rounding the corner '' on the epidemic , meaning that we 're improving towards sustainable change .
There are no indicators that is actually happening .
In fact , at a rally on Friday , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden quipped , `` As many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not much he would do differently ?
If this is a success , what 's a failure look like ? ''
In fact , multiple pandemic experts , including Dr. Anthont Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said cases are likely to rise even higher during the cold winter months as people cluster indoors and meet for fall and winter holidays .
As of October 23 , the U.S. has had over 8,535,200 confirmed COVID-19 cases and over 223,900 related deaths .
The epidemic has now killed more Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicts in Vietnam , Korea , Iraq , Afghanistan and World War I combined .
While Trump has promised that a vaccine will appear in a few weeks , Dr. Fauci has said that a majority of Americans wo n't have access to it until deep into 2021

On Friday, the U.S. reported its highest ever daily toll of new COVID-19 cases with 83,948 new cases, according to Reuters. Considering that there are 86,400 seconds in a day, that means that almost every second, a U.S. resident comes down with a new case of COVID-19, according to New York Times correspondent Mike Baker.
Meanwhile, Dr. Angela Rasumussen, a virologist at Columbia University, has predicted that the U.S. will likely have its highest-ever daily count of newly confirmed cases by Election Day with around 100,000 new cases in a single day.
As of October 23, an average of 800 U.S. residents are dying of COVID-19 each week and nationwide there are currently 41,000 hospitalizations related to the ongoing pandemic, reports The Guardian.
At the third and final debate last Thursday, Republican President Donald Trump said we're "rounding the corner" on the epidemic, meaning that we're improving towards sustainable change. There are no indicators that is actually happening. In fact, at a rally on Friday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden quipped, "As many as 210,000 avoidable deaths, and there's not much he would do differently? If this is a success, what's a failure look like?"
In fact, multiple pandemic experts, including Dr. Anthont Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said cases are likely to rise even higher during the cold winter months as people cluster indoors and meet for fall and winter holidays.
As of October 23, the U.S. has had over 8,535,200 confirmed COVID-19 cases and over 223,900 related deaths. The epidemic has now killed more Americans than were killed in the U.S. military conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and World War I combined.
While Trump has promised that a vaccine will appear in a few weeks, Dr. Fauci has said that a majority of Americans won't have access to it until deep into 2021


alternet--2020-10-25--An agency Trump created just debunked his lies about 'massive' mail-in voting fraud

For months , Republican President Donald Trump has been crowing about how expanding mail-in voting during a pandemic will create @ @ @ @ @ though there 's no evidence supporting this .
And the head of an agency Trump @ @ @ @ @ bogus claims as well .
Christopher Krebs , director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security @ @ @ @ @ said on Friday , `` I have confidence that your vote is secure , that @ @ @ @ @ across this country are working day in and day out , 24/7 , that the @ @ @ @ @ as possible . ''
He added that `` bad guys '' are trying to `` @ @ @ @ @ '' about the election 's integrity .
Krebs and CISA are actually directly responsible for @ @ @ @ @ the inevitable voting glitches and delays , '' according to Edge Media .
On Thursday @ @ @ @ @ of millions of votes already cast by mail and early voting have shown no signs @ @ @ @ @ .

For months, Republican President Donald Trump has been crowing about how expanding mail-in voting during a pandemic will create widespread voter fraud, even though there's no evidence supporting this. And the head of an agency Trump created just contradicted Trump's bogus claims as well.
Christopher Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), said on Friday, "I have confidence that your vote is secure, that state and local election officials across this country are working day in and day out, 24/7, that the 2020 election is as secure as possible." He added that "bad guys" are trying to "sow chaos, sow doubt" about the election's integrity.
Krebs and CISA are actually directly responsible for "monitoring the election amid the inevitable voting glitches and delays," according to Edge Media.
On Thursday, Krebs said the tens of millions of votes already cast by mail and early voting have shown no signs of any foreign interference either.


alternet--2020-10-25--Pennsylvania Trump voter is sure president's ‘facts’ aren’t lies: ‘I’m very active on social media s

Pennsylvania Trump voter is sure president's ‘facts’ aren’t lies: ‘I’m very active on social media so I do my research’

A Pennsylvania voter explained to ABC News that she supports President Donald Trump because of `` research '' she has @ @ @ @ @ `` I would say everything , all his policies , I agree with 100 % @ @ @ @ @ Tanya told ABC 's Martha Raddatz in an interview that aired on Sunday .
`` @ @ @ @ @ last four years that has given you pause about Donald Trump ? ''
Raddatz asked @ @ @ @ @ no at this point , '' Tanya replied .
`` Because when I 'm researching @ @ @ @ @ there 's facts backing it up .
I see social media , I 'm very @ @ @ @ @ I do my research . ''
`` Things that he brings up are exactly things @ @ @ @ @ about in our kitchen , '' she added .
`` When we 're sitting around @ @ @ @ @ politics , he 's exactly spot on . ''
Watch the video below from ABC @ @ @ @ @ I 'm very active on social media so I do my research '

A Pennsylvania voter explained to ABC News that she supports President Donald Trump because of "research" she has done on social media.
"I would say everything, all his policies, I agree with 100%," a voter named Tanya told ABC's Martha Raddatz in an interview that aired on Sunday.
"Is there anything over the last four years that has given you pause about Donald Trump?" Raddatz asked.
"I would say no at this point," Tanya replied. "Because when I'm researching what he does say, there's facts backing it up. I see social media, I'm very active on social media so I do my research."
"Things that he brings up are exactly things me and my friends talk about in our kitchen," she added. "When we're sitting around having drinks and talking about politics, he's exactly spot on."
Watch the video below from ABC.