truthout--2020-09-29--Winner-Take-All Electoral College Could Enable Dreaded Constitutional Crisis

Support for abolishing the Electoral College has reached its highest level in nearly 10 years as calls to reform other minoritarian structures , including the composition of the Senate and the Supreme Court , come under increasing scrutiny after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
A Gallup survey found 61 percent of those surveyed want to get rid of the Electoral College , with 89 percent of Democrats and 23 percent of Republicans favoring picking the president based on the national popular vote .
The findings are similar to levels of support in 2000 after George W. Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular vote .
This comes as poll comparisons show the Electoral College remains President Trump ’ s most likely path to victory again this year .
Comparisons between 2020 and 2016 September polls show Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden up eight points compared to Hillary Clinton ’ s corresponding five-point lead four years ago .
Pollsters note that Clinton was seven points up on Trump just three weeks before losing in 2016 , and warn that support for Trump among white , working-class voters in states like Wisconsin , Pennsylvania and Michigan could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the Electoral College .
The institution is facing even greater pushback after Barton Gellman reported in The Atlantic that the Trump campaign has been discussing “ contingency plans to bypass the election results and appoint local electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.
” Three Republican leaders in Pennsylvania told Gellman they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves , and one of them , Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Lawrence Tabas , said he had discussed it with Trump ’ s national campaign .
Such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , using the president ’ s false claims of voter fraud as cover to completely bypass the popular vote .
It ’ s just one of several vulnerabilities in the electoral system , particularly the Electoral College system , that the Trump campaign is looking to exploit this fall that could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis .
Other moves as laid out by Gellman include legal fights over the language of the Electoral Count Act and declaring absentee ballots fraudulent before they ’ re processed .
In all likelihood , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night before all mail-in ballots are tallied .
In particular , Gellman focuses on the ambiguities of the Electoral Count Act , which lays out and regulates the process for counting states ’ electoral votes when the new Congress meets on January 6 .
The Act also has a provision that provides instructions for how to resolve contested vote counts .
Gellman argues that the Act ’ s unclear language could lead to an electoral crisis in a scenario in which the Pennsylvania state legislature submits a different vote certificate than what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a Republican-controlled Senate disagrees with a Democratic-controlled House about which slate of electors to accept .
John Kowal , vice president of programs at the Brennan Center for Justice , cautions that while the potential for a constitutional crisis is certainly not impossible , the Count Act actually does make pretty clear what would happen even in the case of a disagreement between the Senate and the House .
Firstly , Kowal notes , when there are two contested slates of electors , the law states that Congress should count the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided by the laws of the State , ” referring to laws passed prior to Election Day , he says .
Because every state already provides that presidential electors are decided in the vote on Election Day , Congress must apply those prior statues when counting electoral votes .
Even in a case in which Republicans attempt to push forward with a rogue slate of electors , the Act still specifies that Congress should pick the slate that is certified by a state ’ s governor .
“ [ The Act ] anticipated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s actually less ambiguous than people think , ” Kowal told Truthout .
“ It ’ s very hard to read the law , but this part of the law is pretty crisp , actually.
” No one should be under any illusion that there ’ s no default answer in the Electoral Count Act , he warns .
“ The law was intended to prevent a chaotic situation by making clear that the process has to be governed by law , and Congress should look to prove whether electors have been chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that is , by definition , not a rogue slate of electors , ” he says .
Kowal ’ s legal analysis is backed up by more than 50 election experts with the National Taskforce on Election Crises , which released a report finding that state legislatures can not legally appoint their preferred slate of electors after Election Day or use delays in counting ballots or resolving election disputes as a pretext for usurping the popular vote .
Additionally , Kowal notes , the Supreme Court also validated the principle that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to election processes in regard to state electors , in particular in two decisions this year regarding so-called “ faithless electors.
” In July , the court ruled unanimously that states can require members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for presidential candidates they had pledged to support , limiting electors ’ ability to change their vote when it comes time to actually cast their ballot .
The court resolved disputes in a pair of cases concerning electors in Washington State and Colorado , saying the states have the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring faithful electors .
In states without such penalties , though , electors remain free to change their votes .
The connection with the maneuver being discussed by Republicans in Pennsylvania , Kowal says , is that existing state law ultimately matters .
“ The notion that after an election happens , that based on any kind of ginned-up arguments of fraud or whatever , that state legislatures could take back what they gave to the people in a law without changing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spirit of what the Supreme Court said this year , ” he says .
Still , none of this rules out potential abuse of legal processes and precedents .
Moreover , whether the Electoral Count Act is even constitutional remains a question that looms heavily over the outcome of a potential contested election .
Many legal scholars have argued that it isn ’ t , since a current Congress may lack the authority to bind a future Congress .
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might decide in a politically tense atmosphere defined by social unrest .
Kowal does see a need for ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act to be clarified .
“ There has been a call by many legal scholars and others to update it , to make it clearer , and that ’ s an obvious thing a new Congress should do , ” he says .
“ Relying on a law from 1887 , it ’ s just one of those things where we ’ ve never had the perfect storm where anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve let sleeping dogs lie.
” Meanwhile , the movement to abolish the Electoral College is continuing as state legislatures weigh whether to adopt a measure that would award electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote .
Oregon became the 15th state last year to join the National Popular Vote interstate compact and the fourth state to join the compact after Democratic governors in Colorado , Delaware and New Mexico also signed versions of the model bill .
The model legislation in each state only becomes effective once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 270 electoral votes necessary for a majority .
Once enacted , at least 270 presidential electors will give their vote to the candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia — making that candidate president .
Currently , the compact ’ s 15 states and D.C. account for 196 electoral votes .
The Supreme Court ’ s faithless electors decision was also a boon to the interstate compact effort , affirming that states can govern their electors however they please , and suggesting that their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ’ electors were awarded to the national popular vote winner .
In the 18 states that don ’ t have faithless elector laws , the compact would operate similar to the systems already in place .
In these states , the presidential electors would be chosen by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and D.C. , instead of just the popular votes of that particular state .
The nonprofit behind the compact , National Popular Vote Inc. , recently announced a partnership with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release a map showing their findings each Friday between now and November 3 .
Their first map shows that 54 campaign events during the first four weeks of the 2020 campaign have been concentrated in just 10 battleground states .
Pennsylvania has received the most events and Wisconsin received the second-largest number .
“ Why are [ the presidential candidates ] campaigning in 10 states ?
Well , because of the winner-take-all rules and because , to be blunt , the winners in the other 40 states don ’ t matter , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s why we might be headed for a constitutional crisis … because the current system suddenly makes it critical whether somebody carries Florida by 537 votes or carries Michigan by 11,000 votes , ” he says , referring to Bush ’ s and Trump ’ s vote margins in 2000 and 2016 , respectively .
The compact has largely passed in blue states but is coming under increasingly organized opposition from the right in purple and red states .
The compact ’ s next target is Colorado , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model bill in March 2019 .
After Republicans certified a veto referendum against the measure , it will now be on the ballot in November .
The two committees against the compact , Protect Colorado ’ s Vote and Conservatives vote No on National Popular Vote , reported $ 1.47 million in contributions and $ 1.06 million in expenditures , respectively .
Total spending on the referendum , however , has paled in comparison to the average amount raised for ballot measures across the U.S. in 2018 .
That ’ s why national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party and progressive groups make the compact a national priority and invest and organize in pushing the model bill in state legislatures , the effort could turn a corner and reach its threshold .
Now , a new Supreme Court could potentially change the math , even despite the court ’ s favorable decisions this year .
There are likely to be legal challenges from the right if the compact reached all 270 electoral votes it needs to go into effect — especially in the red states it still needs for ratification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal validation of the maneuver being discussed in Pennsylvania , for instance , would also be ominous for the fate of the compact .
“ The public is becoming more aware of how dangerous [ the Electoral College ] system is .
Never mind whether it ’ s a good way to elect the president or not , ” Koza says .
“ You can talk about philosophy all you want , but it ’ s a terrible way in terms of creating crises because , first of all , election crises are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the reason is you have a single pool of votes when you vote for governor or U.S. senator or congressperson.
” The Brennan Center ’ s Kowal notes , however , that Republican opposition based of the current blue-state , red-state divide could change based on demographic and electoral shifts .
“ Texas is poised to become a purple battleground state .
Once that happens , then I think Republicans clinging to the current Electoral College system might start being more open to something different because they might realize that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral College , ” he says .
Still , the current questions being raised about potential scenarios involving swing states ’ Republican legislatures appointing Trump-loyal electors and problems with the Electoral Count Act that could produce unprecedented constitutional crises all stem from a single minoritarian structure , as National Popular Vote ’ s Koza puts it .
“ I think the country ’ s in big trouble , and it flows from the winner-take-all rule , ” he says .
“ We have made a handful of votes in a handful of states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , you invite shenanigans .
”

Part of the Series Voting Wrongs
Support for abolishing the Electoral College has reached its highest level in nearly 10 years as calls to reform other minoritarian structures, including the composition of the Senate and the Supreme Court, come under increasing scrutiny after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
A Gallup survey found 61 percent of those surveyed want to get rid of the Electoral College, with 89 percent of Democrats and 23 percent of Republicans favoring picking the president based on the national popular vote. The findings are similar to levels of support in 2000 after George W. Bush won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote.
This comes as poll comparisons show the Electoral College remains President Trump’s most likely path to victory again this year. Comparisons between 2020 and 2016 September polls show Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden up eight points compared to Hillary Clinton’s corresponding five-point lead four years ago.
Pollsters note that Clinton was seven points up on Trump just three weeks before losing in 2016, and warn that support for Trump among white, working-class voters in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan could once again plot his path to victory through the Electoral College.
The institution is facing even greater pushback after Barton Gellman reported in The Atlantic that the Trump campaign has been discussing “contingency plans to bypass the election results and appoint local electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.”
Three Republican leaders in Pennsylvania told Gellman they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one of them, Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Lawrence Tabas, said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.
Such a maneuver would amount to a coup attempt, using the president’s false claims of voter fraud as cover to completely bypass the popular vote. It’s just one of several vulnerabilities in the electoral system, particularly the Electoral College system, that the Trump campaign is looking to exploit this fall that could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis.
Other moves as laid out by Gellman include legal fights over the language of the Electoral Count Act and declaring absentee ballots fraudulent before they’re processed. In all likelihood, the president will pronounce himself the winner on election night before all mail-in ballots are tallied.
In particular, Gellman focuses on the ambiguities of the Electoral Count Act, which lays out and regulates the process for counting states’ electoral votes when the new Congress meets on January 6. The Act also has a provision that provides instructions for how to resolve contested vote counts.
“[The Electoral Count Act] anticipated exactly this scenario, so it’s actually less ambiguous than people think.”
Gellman argues that the Act’s unclear language could lead to an electoral crisis in a scenario in which the Pennsylvania state legislature submits a different vote certificate than what the state’s Democratic governor submits, and a Republican-controlled Senate disagrees with a Democratic-controlled House about which slate of electors to accept.
John Kowal, vice president of programs at the Brennan Center for Justice, cautions that while the potential for a constitutional crisis is certainly not impossible, the Count Act actually does make pretty clear what would happen even in the case of a disagreement between the Senate and the House.
Firstly, Kowal notes, when there are two contested slates of electors, the law states that Congress should count the votes of the electors “in the mode provided by the laws of the State,” referring to laws passed prior to Election Day, he says. Because every state already provides that presidential electors are decided in the vote on Election Day, Congress must apply those prior statues when counting electoral votes.
Even in a case in which Republicans attempt to push forward with a rogue slate of electors, the Act still specifies that Congress should pick the slate that is certified by a state’s governor. “[The Act] anticipated exactly this scenario, so it’s actually less ambiguous than people think,” Kowal told Truthout. “It’s very hard to read the law, but this part of the law is pretty crisp, actually.”
No one should be under any illusion that there’s no default answer in the Electoral Count Act, he warns. “The law was intended to prevent a chaotic situation by making clear that the process has to be governed by law, and Congress should look to prove whether electors have been chosen legally under the statutes of every state, and that is, by definition, not a rogue slate of electors,” he says.
Kowal’s legal analysis is backed up by more than 50 election experts with the National Taskforce on Election Crises, which released a report finding that state legislatures cannot legally appoint their preferred slate of electors after Election Day or use delays in counting ballots or resolving election disputes as a pretext for usurping the popular vote.
Additionally, Kowal notes, the Supreme Court also validated the principle that state law takes precedent when it comes to election processes in regard to state electors, in particular in two decisions this year regarding so-called “faithless electors.”
In July, the court ruled unanimously that states can require members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for presidential candidates they had pledged to support, limiting electors’ ability to change their vote when it comes time to actually cast their ballot.
The court resolved disputes in a pair of cases concerning electors in Washington State and Colorado, saying the states have the right to fine or remove electors who went rogue. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring faithful electors. In states without such penalties, though, electors remain free to change their votes.
“The notion that, based on any kind of ginned-up arguments of fraud, that state legislatures could take back what they gave to the people in a law without changing the law seems to run counter to the spirit of what the Supreme Court said this year.”
The connection with the maneuver being discussed by Republicans in Pennsylvania, Kowal says, is that existing state law ultimately matters. “The notion that after an election happens, that based on any kind of ginned-up arguments of fraud or whatever, that state legislatures could take back what they gave to the people in a law without changing the law … seems to run counter to the spirit of what the Supreme Court said this year,” he says.
Still, none of this rules out potential abuse of legal processes and precedents. Moreover, whether the Electoral Count Act is even constitutional remains a question that looms heavily over the outcome of a potential contested election. Many legal scholars have argued that it isn’t, since a current Congress may lack the authority to bind a future Congress. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, and it’s unclear how a newly composed court might decide in a politically tense atmosphere defined by social unrest.
Kowal does see a need for ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act to be clarified. “There has been a call by many legal scholars and others to update it, to make it clearer, and that’s an obvious thing a new Congress should do,” he says. “Relying on a law from 1887, it’s just one of those things where we’ve never had the perfect storm where anyone had to worry about it, so we’ve let sleeping dogs lie.”
Meanwhile, the movement to abolish the Electoral College is continuing as state legislatures weigh whether to adopt a measure that would award electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
Oregon became the 15th state last year to join the National Popular Vote interstate compact and the fourth state to join the compact after Democratic governors in Colorado, Delaware and New Mexico also signed versions of the model bill.
The model legislation in each state only becomes effective once enacted by enough states to possess the 270 electoral votes necessary for a majority. Once enacted, at least 270 presidential electors will give their vote to the candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia — making that candidate president. Currently, the compact’s 15 states and D.C. account for 196 electoral votes.
The Supreme Court’s faithless electors decision was also a boon to the interstate compact effort, affirming that states can govern their electors however they please, and suggesting that their power wouldn’t be limited if states’ electors were awarded to the national popular vote winner.
In the 18 states that don’t have faithless elector laws, the compact would operate similar to the systems already in place. In these states, the presidential electors would be chosen by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and D.C., instead of just the popular votes of that particular state.
“Relying on a law from 1887, it’s just one of those things where we’ve never had the perfect storm where anyone had to worry about it, so we’ve let sleeping dogs lie.”
The nonprofit behind the compact, National Popular Vote Inc., recently announced a partnership with FairVote to track presidential campaign visits and release a map showing their findings each Friday between now and November 3. Their first map shows that 54 campaign events during the first four weeks of the 2020 campaign have been concentrated in just 10 battleground states. Pennsylvania has received the most events and Wisconsin received the second-largest number.
“Why are [the presidential candidates] campaigning in 10 states? Well, because of the winner-take-all rules and because, to be blunt, the winners in the other 40 states don’t matter,” says National Popular Vote Chairman John Koza. “That’s why we might be headed for a constitutional crisis … because the current system suddenly makes it critical whether somebody carries Florida by 537 votes or carries Michigan by 11,000 votes,” he says, referring to Bush’s and Trump’s vote margins in 2000 and 2016, respectively.
The compact has largely passed in blue states but is coming under increasingly organized opposition from the right in purple and red states. The compact’s next target is Colorado, whose state legislature passed the compact’s model bill in March 2019. After Republicans certified a veto referendum against the measure, it will now be on the ballot in November.
The two committees against the compact, Protect Colorado’s Vote and Conservatives vote No on National Popular Vote, reported $1.47 million in contributions and $1.06 million in expenditures, respectively. Total spending on the referendum, however, has paled in comparison to the average amount raised for ballot measures across the U.S. in 2018.
“We might be headed for a constitutional crisis because the current system suddenly makes it critical whether somebody carries Florida by 537 votes or carries Michigan by 11,000 votes.”
That’s why national popular vote proponents argue that if the Democratic Party and progressive groups make the compact a national priority and invest and organize in pushing the model bill in state legislatures, the effort could turn a corner and reach its threshold.
Now, a new Supreme Court could potentially change the math, even despite the court’s favorable decisions this year. There are likely to be legal challenges from the right if the compact reached all 270 electoral votes it needs to go into effect — especially in the red states it still needs for ratification. The Supreme Court’s potential legal validation of the maneuver being discussed in Pennsylvania, for instance, would also be ominous for the fate of the compact.
“The public is becoming more aware of how dangerous [the Electoral College] system is. Never mind whether it’s a good way to elect the president or not,” Koza says. “You can talk about philosophy all you want, but it’s a terrible way in terms of creating crises because, first of all, election crises are virtually unknown in [non-presidential] elections, and the reason is you have a single pool of votes when you vote for governor or U.S. senator or congressperson.”
“I think the country’s in big trouble, and it flows from the winner-take-all rule. We have made a handful of votes in a handful of states super important, and when you do that, you invite shenanigans.”
The Brennan Center’s Kowal notes, however, that Republican opposition based of the current blue-state, red-state divide could change based on demographic and electoral shifts. “Texas is poised to become a purple battleground state. Once that happens, then I think Republicans clinging to the current Electoral College system might start being more open to something different because they might realize that they’re suddenly really disadvantaged by the Electoral College,” he says.
Still, the current questions being raised about potential scenarios involving swing states’ Republican legislatures appointing Trump-loyal electors and problems with the Electoral Count Act that could produce unprecedented constitutional crises all stem from a single minoritarian structure, as National Popular Vote’s Koza puts it.
“I think the country’s in big trouble, and it flows from the winner-take-all rule,” he says. “We have made a handful of votes in a handful of states super important, and when you do that, you invite shenanigans.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-30--Trump’s Disorderly Behavior Prompts Debate Commission to Explore Format Changes

The Commission on Presidential Debates ( CPD ) announced on Wednesday that it would seek to make changes to the format of future debates in this year ’ s election cycle in response to the chaos that took place in Tuesday night ’ s debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden .
Trump constantly spoke over both Biden and moderator Chris Wallace during the debate .
At one point , as Wallace tried to rein Trump in , the president complained that he was also being interrupted by Biden at times .
“ Frankly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than he has , ” Wallace said in response .
The disorderly nature of Tuesday night ’ s debate prompted many to dub it the worst debate in United States history .
In response , the CPD said it would try to change how the remaining debates this season are handled in order to provide for a more structured conversation between the two candidates .
“ Last night ’ s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement , adding that it would “ carefully ” consider changes that should come about , announcing them in the near future .
While the CPD has the ability to propose changes to future debates , any alterations they make to their structure would require an agreement from both the Trump and Biden campaigns before they can be implemented .
Biden appeared to welcome the promise for changes while speaking to reporters on Wednesday about the debate .
“ I just hope there ’ s a way in which the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to answer the question without interruption , ” he said .
The president , however , responded to the proposed call for changes in a way that mirrored his demeanor toward Biden and Wallace throughout the debate Tuesday night .
“ Try getting a new Anchor and a smarter Democrat candidate !
” he tweeted out on Wednesday .
The next debate between Trump and Biden will take place on October 15 in Miami , Florida .
It will be moderated by C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully , and will have a town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions for each candidate to answer .
When discussing that debate ’ s format , Biden said he hoped that participants would get to have their questions answered in a proper way .
“ I hope we ’ re able to get a chance to actually answer the questions that are asked by the persons in the room .
But God only knows what he ’ ll do , ” Biden said of Trump .

Any changes that come about, however, will require both campaigns to agree to them first.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) announced on Wednesday that it would seek to make changes to the format of future debates in this year’s election cycle in response to the chaos that took place in Tuesday night’s debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden.
Trump constantly spoke over both Biden and moderator Chris Wallace during the debate. At one point, as Wallace tried to rein Trump in, the president complained that he was also being interrupted by Biden at times.
“Frankly, you’ve been doing more interrupting than he has,” Wallace said in response.
The disorderly nature of Tuesday night’s debate prompted many to dub it the worst debate in United States history.
In response, the CPD said it would try to change how the remaining debates this season are handled in order to provide for a more structured conversation between the two candidates.
“Last night’s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues,” the CPD said in a statement, adding that it would “carefully” consider changes that should come about, announcing them in the near future.
While the CPD has the ability to propose changes to future debates, any alterations they make to their structure would require an agreement from both the Trump and Biden campaigns before they can be implemented.
Biden appeared to welcome the promise for changes while speaking to reporters on Wednesday about the debate. “I just hope there’s a way in which the debate commission can control the ability of us to answer the question without interruption,” he said.
The president, however, responded to the proposed call for changes in a way that mirrored his demeanor toward Biden and Wallace throughout the debate Tuesday night.
“Try getting a new Anchor and a smarter Democrat candidate!” he tweeted out on Wednesday.
The next debate between Trump and Biden will take place on October 15 in Miami, Florida. It will be moderated by C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully, and will have a town hall-style format, with undecided voters posing questions for each candidate to answer.
When discussing that debate’s format, Biden said he hoped that participants would get to have their questions answered in a proper way.
“I hope we’re able to get a chance to actually answer the questions that are asked by the persons in the room. But God only knows what he’ll do,” Biden said of Trump.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-30--White House Overrules “No-Sail Ban” Despite Cruise Ships Being Hotbeds of COVID

Robert Redfield , the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , was overruled by other members of President Trump ’ s coronavirus task force over whether a “ no-sail ban ” on cruise ships should continue for another four months , apparently thwarting a public health expert ’ s understanding and concern about COVID-19 in favor of appeasing the cruise ship industry .
The current no-sail ban was set to expire on Wednesday , although an industry-imposed ban may continue through October 31 .
The decision by the task force appears to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific experts to push for a policy that seeks a return to “ normalcy ” despite there being no signs of the pandemic slowing down .
Some public health officials believe that the lifting of the cruise ban may have been politically motivated , Axios reported , in order to garner support from the cruise ship industry , particularly in Florida , a contentious swing state in this year ’ s presidential race .
The White House has denied that politics played a role in its decision .
An official within the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet soon with the administration in order to hammer out details on how to return to business , to “ describe their transformation and dozens of ways that they will mitigate risk and ensure public health.
” If the administration is not satisfied with that plan , that official explained , the ban will continue on a month-to-month basis .
But it ’ s highly unlikely the Trump administration will thwart the wishes of the cruise ship executives .
Early on in the coronavirus pandemic , when it was clear that cruise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection , industry executives lobbied hard to push against the possibility of a ban , even meeting at the beginning of March with Vice President Mike Pence in Florida to dissuade him from the need for such restrictions .
The CDC eventually imposed a no-sail ban on March 14 .
Cruise ships were deemed largely responsible for the spread of COVID-19 during the early weeks of the pandemic .
One study from the CDC found that , between February 3 and March 13 , 17 percent of all coronavirus cases known in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a cruise .
The current ban set to expire on Wednesday was itself an extension that was implemented last month by the CDC .
A report released by the CDC simultaneously noted that 38,000 hours had been dedicated to dealing with the 99 outbreaks of COVID-19 on 123 cruise liners in U.S. waters .
The report stated in no uncertain terms that there would be “ substantial unnecessary risk ” to health care workers , port personnel and federal employees if the ban was lifted — not to mention a great deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and crew members working on the ships .
The White House ’ s decision to go against Redfield ’ s recommendations on continuing the cruise ship ban through February next year comes days after the CDC director was reported to have been overheard disparaging Scott Atlas , Trump ’ s most favored and controversial coronavirus adviser .
Atlas , a neuroradiologist and frequent guest on Fox News holds dangerous beliefs about how to best combat the disease and is known for pushing theories about herd immunity and disputing the need for the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of expertise in epidemiology .
“ Everything he says is false , ” Redfield reportedly said on the phone to an unknown listener during a flight from Atlanta to Washington , D.C .

The CDC noted last month that lifting the ban would result in “substantial unnecessary risk” to a number of individuals.
Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was overruled by other members of President Trump’s coronavirus task force over whether a “no-sail ban” on cruise ships should continue for another four months, apparently thwarting a public health expert’s understanding and concern about COVID-19 in favor of appeasing the cruise ship industry.
The current no-sail ban was set to expire on Wednesday, although an industry-imposed ban may continue through October 31. The decision by the task force appears to be the latest example of the Trump administration overruling scientific experts to push for a policy that seeks a return to “normalcy” despite there being no signs of the pandemic slowing down.
Some public health officials believe that the lifting of the cruise ban may have been politically motivated, Axios reported, in order to garner support from the cruise ship industry, particularly in Florida, a contentious swing state in this year’s presidential race. The White House has denied that politics played a role in its decision.
An official within the White House said that industry heads are set to meet soon with the administration in order to hammer out details on how to return to business, to “describe their transformation and dozens of ways that they will mitigate risk and ensure public health.” If the administration is not satisfied with that plan, that official explained, the ban will continue on a month-to-month basis.
But it’s highly unlikely the Trump administration will thwart the wishes of the cruise ship executives. Early on in the coronavirus pandemic, when it was clear that cruise ships were hotspots for the spread of infection, industry executives lobbied hard to push against the possibility of a ban, even meeting at the beginning of March with Vice President Mike Pence in Florida to dissuade him from the need for such restrictions. The CDC eventually imposed a no-sail ban on March 14.
Cruise ships were deemed largely responsible for the spread of COVID-19 during the early weeks of the pandemic. One study from the CDC found that, between February 3 and March 13, 17 percent of all coronavirus cases known in the U.S. involved individuals who had recently been on a cruise.
The current ban set to expire on Wednesday was itself an extension that was implemented last month by the CDC. A report released by the CDC simultaneously noted that 38,000 hours had been dedicated to dealing with the 99 outbreaks of COVID-19 on 123 cruise liners in U.S. waters.
The report stated in no uncertain terms that there would be “substantial unnecessary risk” to health care workers, port personnel and federal employees if the ban was lifted — not to mention a great deal of risk to the health of passengers and crew members working on the ships.
The White House’s decision to go against Redfield’s recommendations on continuing the cruise ship ban through February next year comes days after the CDC director was reported to have been overheard disparaging Scott Atlas, Trump’s most favored and controversial coronavirus adviser. Atlas, a neuroradiologist and frequent guest on Fox News holds dangerous beliefs about how to best combat the disease and is known for pushing theories about herd immunity and disputing the need for the use of masks in public spaces despite his lack of expertise in epidemiology.
“Everything he says is false,” Redfield reportedly said on the phone to an unknown listener during a flight from Atlanta to Washington, D.C.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-30--Anti-Fascists Worked to Keep Portland Community Safe Amid Proud Boys Rally

As hundreds of people flooded into Peninsula Park in Portland , Oregon , last weekend despite the pouring rain , they brought a level of energy that few would expect months into an unending protest in the city .
While the city braced itself for dueling rallies between an influx of far right Proud Boys on the one side and anti-fascists on the other , instead , the latter triumphed in a celebration of the strength they have found in continually taking a stand against the far right and police violence .
The Proud Boys have become a key part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump even ordering them to “ stand by ” in case of accused election interference in November during Tuesday night ’ s presidential debate .
This prompted Proud Boy organizer Joe Biggs to say that Trump basically gave the group the green light to fight anti-fascists .
“ For years , this anti-fascist coalition has built a community of people who pour their creativity into community defense .
And the uprising has built an anti-racist , anti-capitalist community of greater strength and resolve , ” says Evan Burchfield of the Portland chapter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DSA ) , a 1,600-member chapter that has a history of getting involved in anti-fascist coalition efforts in Portland .
Portland DSA was one of several organizations that came together on September 26 to counter a far right rally that threatened to menace the city just three miles away , while tensions remain high during nightly anti-police protests .
September 26 was day 137 of nearly continuous protests in Portland , with protesters heading out into the streets nightly to confront police violence .
The protests began on May 29 in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police , and eventually the federal officers Trump ordered in , attacked protesters , reporters and legal observers with terrific amounts of force , helping demonstrators to make the case that the protests should continue .
Within that dynamic , a third party emerged : the white vigilante .
Around the country , far right groups have made their presence known as they come to attack anti-racist protesters and “ re-establish order.
” This has resulted in dozens of car attacks on protesters , incidents of vigilante patrols and even high-profile extrajudicial killings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin , by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse .
Members of far right groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer have gathered in Portland a number of times since 2016 , culminating in an August 22 “ Back the Blue ” rally , where attendees attacked Black Lives Matter protesters with batons , shields , pepper spray , and pulled firearms , all with impunity while police refused to intervene .
After a Patriot Prayer member was killed during another confrontation on August 29 , the Proud Boys promised to return , citing Kyle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was this flashpoint , and a coalition of Black Lives Matter and anti-fascist organizations had to figure out how to continue the protests against the structural violence of the police and against far right vigilantes .
“ We want to live in a safe community .
The Proud Boys and other far right gangs have used our city as a staging ground for violence for years , ” Burchfield told Truthout .
“ We hold these events to contain them , to keep our city safe , and to demonstrate what kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event Bloom/Pollinate came together : a coalition effort that would bring together those opposed to the presence of the Proud Boys at an afternoon event that included anti-racist organizations from around the city offering a unified message against the far right and police violence .
While counterdemonstrations have become an expected prelude to the arrival of far right groups to Portland , for Bloom/Pollinate , the organizers decided to move it some distance from the Proud Boys rally location .
The Proud Boys first headed to Terry Schrunk Plaza in the center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided the anticipated crowd was too large , the Proud Boys decided to move to Delta Park , a large open area north of the city that does not have the same gun restrictions as Terry Schrunk Plaza .
It is also the original site of Vanport , a historically Black neighborhood that was built during World War II when Black workers came to work at shipyards .
It was destroyed by a flood in 1948 and has continued to serve as a historic reminder of racist policies in a city often touted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Our state ’ s racist exclusion laws kept Black people largely out of Oregon prior to 1940 , but as Vanport became a hub for wartime industries , Black residents migrated to find work in this partially desegregated area , ” says Effie Baum of Pop Mob , a Portland-based anti-fascist group .
“ When Vanport experienced a catastrophic flood , Black residents were abandoned , betrayed , lied to and offered no support .
Vanport remains a poignant reminder of Oregon ’ s racist history .
The silence from Proud Boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or indifference about their presence in this area.
” The dynamics of holding a counterprotest at Delta Park created challenges for anti-fascist organizers , according to one member of Rose City Antifa who wishes to remain anonymous for safety reasons .
Because of few entrances , a lack of visibility and an inability to easily get in and out of the park , it would have created problems for activists if a group of armed Proud Boys decided to engage in violence .
After the August 22 rally , where the police stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with batons and threatened with guns , it did not seem to the demonstrators that this was going to be a particularly safe dynamic .
Instead of holding their counterprotest against the Proud Boys in Vanport , organizers decided to gather at Peninsula Park , three miles away from Delta Park and a frequent starting point for the nightly protests because of the park ’ s proximity to the Portland Police Association office .
“ It seemed appropriate to focus our attention on a celebration of the community that the people of Portland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right incursions , and to not deign to enter whatever trap the Proud Boys think they ’ re setting , ” Baum told Truthout .
At noon , both rallies converged on different sides of North Portland .
The Proud Boys , led by the group ’ s international chair , Enrique Tarrio , descended into the middle of the grassy field of Delta Park , staging people in militia gear at checkpoints entering the space .
Many of the Proud Boys came armed , ranging from baseball bats to firearms , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they began to swarm on media they considered “ antifa.
” This led to hairy moments as they threatened to attack several journalists , often brandishing their weapons and creating a fear of impending beatings or worse .
More than double that crowd gathered in Peninsula Park as a series of anti-fascist speakers led a rally that was surrounded with organizational tents inviting people to get involved in different forms of activism .
In an effort to undermine the presence of the Proud Boys , Pop Mob reinstituted an idea they had started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds into Portland .
Supporters could pledge a certain amount of money per Proud Boy that appeared across town ; the more Proud Boys members that arrived , the more money would be raised for the chosen progressive organization .
Last year , Pop Mob raised money for an immigrant rights organization , and this year , the money went to the Oregon Justice Resource Center ( OJRC ) , a legal organization that provides legal support to marginalized communities .
At last count , there was around $ 70 per Proud Boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 300 people were in attendance at the Proud Boys rally , this equals to around $ 21,000 for OJRC .
“ We know that fascism is not inevitable — never convince yourself of that .
As long as we ’ re fighting , it ’ ll never happen , and we have to keep fighting , ” says Juan Chavez , a project director and attorney with OJRC .
“ We need anti-fascism in our mind every day… .
We need to be an anti-fascist every damn day.
” The OJRC is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault of anti-racist demonstrators on August 22 for over $ 1 million .
Toward the close of the antiracist rally , a caravan snaked through the streets adjacent , each car pasted with the names and faces of people killed by police officers .
“ Things got to change .
My grandson should have been alive today , ” says Donna Hayes , the grandmother of Quanice Hayes , a 17-year-old who was killed by Portland police in 2017 .
“ Until the police change , it ’ s gon na be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] .
” While there was concern in the air that the Proud Boys might head to Peninsula Park , it never materialized , and instead , the anti-fascist rally acted as a positive center for community bonding .
After months of violent dispersals on protests by police , months of lawsuits and criminal charges , and months of violent attacks by far right vigilantes , the approach for healing and support challenged the atmosphere of tension that had started to mark the city .
While the Proud Boys continue to present a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far right vigilantes across the country , anti-fascist organizations will continue to create opposition events and focus on keeping people safe .
That night , as people returned to the streets to protest police brutality , they were met with possibly some of the most aggressive violence of the uprising from law enforcement .
Protesters were shoved and hit with batons , and many demonstrators and members of the press suffered injuries .

As hundreds of people flooded into Peninsula Park in Portland, Oregon, last weekend despite the pouring rain, they brought a level of energy that few would expect months into an unending protest in the city. While the city braced itself for dueling rallies between an influx of far right Proud Boys on the one side and anti-fascists on the other, instead, the latter triumphed in a celebration of the strength they have found in continually taking a stand against the far right and police violence.
The Proud Boys have become a key part of Donald Trump’s base, with Trump even ordering them to “stand by” in case of accused election interference in November during Tuesday night’s presidential debate. This prompted Proud Boy organizer Joe Biggs to say that Trump basically gave the group the green light to fight anti-fascists.
“For years, this anti-fascist coalition has built a community of people who pour their creativity into community defense. And the uprising has built an anti-racist, anti-capitalist community of greater strength and resolve,” says Evan Burchfield of the Portland chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a 1,600-member chapter that has a history of getting involved in anti-fascist coalition efforts in Portland.
Portland DSA was one of several organizations that came together on September 26 to counter a far right rally that threatened to menace the city just three miles away, while tensions remain high during nightly anti-police protests.
Protest Summer
September 26 was day 137 of nearly continuous protests in Portland, with protesters heading out into the streets nightly to confront police violence. The protests began on May 29 in response to the killing of George Floyd. Portland Police, and eventually the federal officers Trump ordered in, attacked protesters, reporters and legal observers with terrific amounts of force, helping demonstrators to make the case that the protests should continue. Within that dynamic, a third party emerged: the white vigilante. Around the country, far right groups have made their presence known as they come to attack anti-racist protesters and “re-establish order.” This has resulted in dozens of car attacks on protesters, incidents of vigilante patrols and even high-profile extrajudicial killings, including two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.
Members of far right groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer have gathered in Portland a number of times since 2016, culminating in an August 22 “Back the Blue” rally, where attendees attacked Black Lives Matter protesters with batons, shields, pepper spray, and pulled firearms, all with impunity while police refused to intervene. After a Patriot Prayer member was killed during another confrontation on August 29, the Proud Boys promised to return, citing Kyle Rittenhouse as their inspiration.
September 26 was this flashpoint, and a coalition of Black Lives Matter and anti-fascist organizations had to figure out how to continue the protests against the structural violence of the police and against far right vigilantes.
“We want to live in a safe community. The Proud Boys and other far right gangs have used our city as a staging ground for violence for years,” Burchfield told Truthout. “We hold these events to contain them, to keep our city safe, and to demonstrate what kind of community we are.”
Flower Park
This was how the event Bloom/Pollinate came together: a coalition effort that would bring together those opposed to the presence of the Proud Boys at an afternoon event that included anti-racist organizations from around the city offering a unified message against the far right and police violence.
While counterdemonstrations have become an expected prelude to the arrival of far right groups to Portland, for Bloom/Pollinate, the organizers decided to move it some distance from the Proud Boys rally location. The Proud Boys first headed to Terry Schrunk Plaza in the center of Portland, but after their leadership decided the anticipated crowd was too large, the Proud Boys decided to move to Delta Park, a large open area north of the city that does not have the same gun restrictions as Terry Schrunk Plaza. It is also the original site of Vanport, a historically Black neighborhood that was built during World War II when Black workers came to work at shipyards. It was destroyed by a flood in 1948 and has continued to serve as a historic reminder of racist policies in a city often touted as a haven for progressive politics.
“Our state’s racist exclusion laws kept Black people largely out of Oregon prior to 1940, but as Vanport became a hub for wartime industries, Black residents migrated to find work in this partially desegregated area,” says Effie Baum of Pop Mob, a Portland-based anti-fascist group. “When Vanport experienced a catastrophic flood, Black residents were abandoned, betrayed, lied to and offered no support. Vanport remains a poignant reminder of Oregon’s racist history. The silence from Proud Boys about this history indicates a deep ignorance or indifference about their presence in this area.”
The dynamics of holding a counterprotest at Delta Park created challenges for anti-fascist organizers, according to one member of Rose City Antifa who wishes to remain anonymous for safety reasons. Because of few entrances, a lack of visibility and an inability to easily get in and out of the park, it would have created problems for activists if a group of armed Proud Boys decided to engage in violence. After the August 22 rally, where the police stood three blocks away as protesters were beaten with batons and threatened with guns, it did not seem to the demonstrators that this was going to be a particularly safe dynamic.
Instead of holding their counterprotest against the Proud Boys in Vanport, organizers decided to gather at Peninsula Park, three miles away from Delta Park and a frequent starting point for the nightly protests because of the park’s proximity to the Portland Police Association office.
“It seemed appropriate to focus our attention on a celebration of the community that the people of Portland have created in opposition to these far right incursions, and to not deign to enter whatever trap the Proud Boys think they’re setting,” Baum told Truthout.
At noon, both rallies converged on different sides of North Portland. The Proud Boys, led by the group’s international chair, Enrique Tarrio, descended into the middle of the grassy field of Delta Park, staging people in militia gear at checkpoints entering the space. Many of the Proud Boys came armed, ranging from baseball bats to firearms, and as people flooded into the space, they began to swarm on media they considered “antifa.” This led to hairy moments as they threatened to attack several journalists, often brandishing their weapons and creating a fear of impending beatings or worse.
More than double that crowd gathered in Peninsula Park as a series of anti-fascist speakers led a rally that was surrounded with organizational tents inviting people to get involved in different forms of activism. In an effort to undermine the presence of the Proud Boys, Pop Mob reinstituted an idea they had started last summer when the Proud Boys flooded hundreds into Portland. Supporters could pledge a certain amount of money per Proud Boy that appeared across town; the more Proud Boys members that arrived, the more money would be raised for the chosen progressive organization. Last year, Pop Mob raised money for an immigrant rights organization, and this year, the money went to the Oregon Justice Resource Center (OJRC), a legal organization that provides legal support to marginalized communities. At last count, there was around $70 per Proud Boys participant pledged by supporters, and since around 300 people were in attendance at the Proud Boys rally, this equals to around $21,000 for OJRC.
“We know that fascism is not inevitable — never convince yourself of that. As long as we’re fighting, it’ll never happen, and we have to keep fighting,” says Juan Chavez, a project director and attorney with OJRC. “We need anti-fascism in our mind every day…. We need to be an anti-fascist every damn day.”
The OJRC is currently suing several people for their alleged assault of anti-racist demonstrators on August 22 for over $1 million.
Toward the close of the antiracist rally, a caravan snaked through the streets adjacent, each car pasted with the names and faces of people killed by police officers.
“Things got to change. My grandson should have been alive today,” says Donna Hayes, the grandmother of Quanice Hayes, a 17-year-old who was killed by Portland police in 2017. “Until the police change, it’s gonna be a whole lot of more people [dying].”
While there was concern in the air that the Proud Boys might head to Peninsula Park, it never materialized, and instead, the anti-fascist rally acted as a positive center for community bonding. After months of violent dispersals on protests by police, months of lawsuits and criminal charges, and months of violent attacks by far right vigilantes, the approach for healing and support challenged the atmosphere of tension that had started to mark the city.
While the Proud Boys continue to present a threat to the city, as do far right vigilantes across the country, anti-fascist organizations will continue to create opposition events and focus on keeping people safe. That night, as people returned to the streets to protest police brutality, they were met with possibly some of the most aggressive violence of the uprising from law enforcement. Protesters were shoved and hit with batons, and many demonstrators and members of the press suffered injuries.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-30--That Was Not a Debate. That Was a Warning. This Nation Is Not Well.

In the lost innocence of yesterday morning , I wrote , “ If a thumb-sized Winston Churchill on a spring bursts from Trump ’ s forehead tonight and bellows ‘ Buy War Bonds !
’ at the audience , his base will nod sagely to themselves and say it ’ s all part of The Plan.
” Would that it were so .
Instead , what happened was tantamount to a neo-fascist Proud Boy on a spring bursting from Trump ’ s forehead , tipping a wink at the camera and saying , “ That ’ s our guy !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing their favorite Trump-era parlor game — “ What did you think the worst part was , Snuffie ?
” — the president ’ s pointed refusal to condemn white supremacists and militia groups , while giving what sounded like a call to arms to one of them , will stand out in stark relief .
Part of The Plan , indeed .
“ No one alive has ever seen a presidential debate like Tuesday night ’ s unseemly shout fest between President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden , ” writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding that the “ 90 minutes of invective , interruptions and personal insults … was an insult to the public as well , and a sad example of the state of American democracy five weeks before the election.
” Understatement , thy name is Balz .
Last night ’ s debate was no mere one-off , though I will be astonished if either campaign lets their guy anywhere near another debate stage before November .
The debate was a giant mirror in the middle of the road , placed just so to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utterly obscene .
Trump outdid even his own worst performances by a few orders of magnitude .
Want to know what he will be like if he is re-elected ?
He will be like that .
Maximum Trump .
Chris Wallace followed the well-trodden path of every Republican officeholder and every media personality who has let Trump get away with so much for so long , only to get bulldozed and humiliated for their obsequious , self-interested trouble .
The last time I saw a TV person get worked like that , ironically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a white supremacist smashed Geraldo Rivera in the face with a chair on the set of his own show .
Rivera , to his credit , went toe-to-toe with the chair-chucking fascist and came away with a broken nose and his honor intact .
Chris Wallace only sat there last night , trembling like a rabbit , and did nothing .
There will be a great deal of hindsight poured into what could have been done better last night , if indeed anything could have been done about Trump at all , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Wallace ’ s resume for all time .
As for Joe Biden , well , I defy any critic of his performance last night to get through any simple recitation in public , on camera and on stage under the hot lights , with someone like Trump standing a few feet away interrupting every other sentence with frantic bellowed lies .
No one should be expected to function under such conditions .
All that being said , Biden also did his part to contribute to that bad look in the mirror .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas are not merely possible but utterly necessary as a matter of planetary survival , the Democrats nominated a conservative statesman who skittered away from the Green New Deal last night like a child startled by a spider .
Biden was exactly the right person to take on Paul Ryan in 2012 , when his “ Come on , man !
” brand of folksy glad-handing still fit the times .
Those times have changed , probably forever .
There were a thousand moments last night when a sharper , more prepared candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but one stands out in stark relief : the debate question about systemic racism .
Biden had the moment to say something strong and clear about how systemic racism is literally killing Black people through police violence , health care inequalities , environmental racism , and more — but instead he chose to go haring off after his own sense of victimhood as a white Catholic .
When asked by Wallace about the existence of systemic racism in the U.S. , Biden replied , “ The fact is that there is racial insensitivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what other people feel like , what insults them , what is demeaning to them .
It ’ s important people know .
Many people don ’ t want to hurt other people ’ s feelings , but it makes a big difference .
It makes a gigantic difference in the way a child is able to grow up and have a sense of self-esteem .
It ’ s a little bit like how this guy and his friends look down on so many people .
They look down their nose on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who grow up in Scranton .
They look down on people who don ’ t have money .
They look down on people who are of a different faith .
They looked down on people who are a different color .
In fact , we ’ re all Americans .
The only way we ’ re going to bring this country together is bring everybody together .
There ’ s nothing we can not do , if we do it together .
We can take this on and we can defeat racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carving “ The only way we ’ re going to bring this country together is bring everybody together ” onto stone tablets as we speak .
Recognizing and validating how people feel is a worthy endeavor , but the massive systemic changes that are required to “ defeat racism in America ” are so much larger than a nod toward feelings .
All that being justly said , these disappointments from Biden wither to ash before the blast furnace of Donald Trump ’ s brazen , shameless , racist fascism .
Full stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off now .
Trump doubled down on ending all education on racism because it ’ s bad for the brand to have white children learn their privilege was built by Black people stolen into slavery on land stolen from Indigenous people .
Trump flatly refused to denounce racism and white nationalist violence while blaming such acts on “ antifa , ” which he falsely portrays as a gang like the Proud Boys rather than as a statement of purpose .
He exhorted his followers to flood the polling places with menace and intimidation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to say that he would accept the results of the vote if he lost .
Fully aware that he is behind in the race , Trump used last night as a clarion call to the worst instincts and aspects of the nation .
If he is going down , he seems all too ready to smash everything around him as he goes .
“ That ’ s the only story from Tuesday night : the great , looming , consistent threat emerging from whatever the hell that event became , ” writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was pure fascism , right down to the set of his chin that he stole from Mussolini , but it was fascism at the behest of a career failure who was sending out a call for anyone else with a sense of failure and a long gun .
Continuing to treat this man as a president* , to grant him the privilege of two more debates and , therefore , two more opportunities to gather his forces , is to betray the very idea of democracy .
He wants a race war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He wants to bring it all down and get rich selling off the wreckage.
” Some days ago , a young Sri Lankan named Indi Samarajiva wrote about the experience of watching your country fall apart , as his did after a long and ruinous civil war .
“ America has already collapsed , ” he wrote .
“ What you ’ re feeling is exactly how it feels .
It ’ s Saturday and you ’ re thinking about food while the world is on fire .
This is normal .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chill reading Samarajiva ’ s ominous warning , but ultimately dismissed his thinking .
The U.S. is not Sri Lanka , I told myself , there has been no elongated shooting war here , this is apples and oranges .
I read Samarajiva ’ s piece again after enduring last night ’ s debate .
“ Today I assume you went to work , ” he wrote .
“ Bad news was everywhere , clogging up your social media , your conversations .
Maybe it struck close to you .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a thousand people died .
I ’ m sorry for each of them .
A thousand families are grieving tonight .
A thousand more join them every day .
The pain doesn ’ t go away , it just becomes a furniture of bones , in a thousand homes .
But that ’ s exactly how collapse feels.
” That mirror in the road ?
It is being held up by people like Samarajiva , who have seen this show already and know how it ends .
Last night ’ s debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation .
It was the juice you get when you squeeze a rotten lemon , the pain as that juice finds the cuts in your hand and the stench of something gone putrid with decay .
Nobody won last night except chaos , and I fear that chaos has come to stay awhile .

In the lost innocence of yesterday morning, I wrote, “If a thumb-sized Winston Churchill on a spring bursts from Trump’s forehead tonight and bellows ‘Buy War Bonds!’ at the audience, his base will nod sagely to themselves and say it’s all part of The Plan.”
Would that it were so.
Instead, what happened was tantamount to a neo-fascist Proud Boy on a spring bursting from Trump’s forehead, tipping a wink at the camera and saying, “That’s our guy!” As the pundits spend the day playing their favorite Trump-era parlor game — “What did you think the worst part was, Snuffie?” — the president’s pointed refusal to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, while giving what sounded like a call to arms to one of them, will stand out in stark relief. Part of The Plan, indeed.
“No one alive has ever seen a presidential debate like Tuesday night’s unseemly shout fest between President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden,” writes Dan Balz for The Washington Post, adding that the “90 minutes of invective, interruptions and personal insults … was an insult to the public as well, and a sad example of the state of American democracy five weeks before the election.”
Understatement, thy name is Balz. Last night’s debate was no mere one-off, though I will be astonished if either campaign lets their guy anywhere near another debate stage before November. The debate was a giant mirror in the middle of the road, placed just so to make looking unavoidable, and the view was utterly obscene. Trump outdid even his own worst performances by a few orders of magnitude. Want to know what he will be like if he is re-elected? He will be like that. Maximum Trump.
Chris Wallace followed the well-trodden path of every Republican officeholder and every media personality who has let Trump get away with so much for so long, only to get bulldozed and humiliated for their obsequious, self-interested trouble. The last time I saw a TV person get worked like that, ironically enough, was in 1988, when a white supremacist smashed Geraldo Rivera in the face with a chair on the set of his own show.
Rivera, to his credit, went toe-to-toe with the chair-chucking fascist and came away with a broken nose and his honor intact. Chris Wallace only sat there last night, trembling like a rabbit, and did nothing. There will be a great deal of hindsight poured into what could have been done better last night, if indeed anything could have been done about Trump at all, but that debate will be a smoking crater in Wallace’s resume for all time.
Want to know what he will be like if he is re-elected? He will be like that. Maximum Trump.
As for Joe Biden, well, I defy any critic of his performance last night to get through any simple recitation in public, on camera and on stage under the hot lights, with someone like Trump standing a few feet away interrupting every other sentence with frantic bellowed lies. No one should be expected to function under such conditions.
All that being said, Biden also did his part to contribute to that bad look in the mirror. In a time when bold progressive policy ideas are not merely possible but utterly necessary as a matter of planetary survival, the Democrats nominated a conservative statesman who skittered away from the Green New Deal last night like a child startled by a spider. Biden was exactly the right person to take on Paul Ryan in 2012, when his “Come on, man!” brand of folksy glad-handing still fit the times. Those times have changed, probably forever.
There were a thousand moments last night when a sharper, more prepared candidate could have done damage to Trump, but one stands out in stark relief: the debate question about systemic racism. Biden had the moment to say something strong and clear about how systemic racism is literally killing Black people through police violence, health care inequalities, environmental racism, and more — but instead he chose to go haring off after his own sense of victimhood as a white Catholic.
When asked by Wallace about the existence of systemic racism in the U.S., Biden replied, “The fact is that there is racial insensitivity. People have to be made aware of what other people feel like, what insults them, what is demeaning to them. It’s important people know. Many people don’t want to hurt other people’s feelings, but it makes a big difference. It makes a gigantic difference in the way a child is able to grow up and have a sense of self-esteem. It’s a little bit like how this guy and his friends look down on so many people. They look down their nose on people like Irish Catholics, like me, who grow up in Scranton. They look down on people who don’t have money. They look down on people who are of a different faith. They looked down on people who are a different color. In fact, we’re all Americans. The only way we’re going to bring this country together is bring everybody together. There’s nothing we cannot do, if we do it together. We can take this on and we can defeat racism in American.”
I imagine they are carving “The only way we’re going to bring this country together is bring everybody together” onto stone tablets as we speak. Recognizing and validating how people feel is a worthy endeavor, but the massive systemic changes that are required to “defeat racism in America” are so much larger than a nod toward feelings.
Nobody won last night except chaos, and I fear that chaos has come to stay awhile.
All that being justly said, these disappointments from Biden wither to ash before the blast furnace of Donald Trump’s brazen, shameless, racist fascism. Full stop.
The lid is all the way off now.
Trump doubled down on ending all education on racism because it’s bad for the brand to have white children learn their privilege was built by Black people stolen into slavery on land stolen from Indigenous people.
Trump flatly refused to denounce racism and white nationalist violence while blaming such acts on “antifa,” which he falsely portrays as a gang like the Proud Boys rather than as a statement of purpose.
He exhorted his followers to flood the polling places with menace and intimidation on Election Day, and once again refused to say that he would accept the results of the vote if he lost.
Fully aware that he is behind in the race, Trump used last night as a clarion call to the worst instincts and aspects of the nation. If he is going down, he seems all too ready to smash everything around him as he goes.
“That’s the only story from Tuesday night: the great, looming, consistent threat emerging from whatever the hell that event became,” writes Esquire blogger Charles P. Pierce. “It was pure fascism, right down to the set of his chin that he stole from Mussolini, but it was fascism at the behest of a career failure who was sending out a call for anyone else with a sense of failure and a long gun. Continuing to treat this man as a president*, to grant him the privilege of two more debates and, therefore, two more opportunities to gather his forces, is to betray the very idea of democracy. He wants a race war. He wants a civil war. He wants to bring it all down and get rich selling off the wreckage.”
Some days ago, a young Sri Lankan named Indi Samarajiva wrote about the experience of watching your country fall apart, as his did after a long and ruinous civil war. “America has already collapsed,” he wrote. “What you’re feeling is exactly how it feels. It’s Saturday and you’re thinking about food while the world is on fire. This is normal. This is life during collapse.”
I felt a chill reading Samarajiva’s ominous warning, but ultimately dismissed his thinking. The U.S. is not Sri Lanka, I told myself, there has been no elongated shooting war here, this is apples and oranges.
I read Samarajiva’s piece again after enduring last night’s debate. “Today I assume you went to work,” he wrote. “Bad news was everywhere, clogging up your social media, your conversations. Maybe it struck close to you. I’m sorry. Somewhere in your country, a thousand people died. I’m sorry for each of them. A thousand families are grieving tonight. A thousand more join them every day. The pain doesn’t go away, it just becomes a furniture of bones, in a thousand homes. But that’s exactly how collapse feels.”
That mirror in the road? It is being held up by people like Samarajiva, who have seen this show already and know how it ends. Last night’s debate was not the product of a healthy nation. It was the juice you get when you squeeze a rotten lemon, the pain as that juice finds the cuts in your hand and the stench of something gone putrid with decay. Nobody won last night except chaos, and I fear that chaos has come to stay awhile.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-30--Trump’s Refusal to Condemn Proud Boys at Debate Reflects His Electoral Strategy

President Trump once again refused to take a hard stance in condemning white supremacy and white supremacist violence during Tuesday night ’ s tumultuous and bizarre presidential debate with his Democratic challenger Joe Biden .
Trump made many comments disparaging antifa , which is not a formal group but rather a movement of people who are vociferous in their views against fascism .
Even after Biden pointed out that “ antifa is an idea and not an organization , ” the president ’ s remarks made clear that he intended to continue demonizing antifa and to employ baseless scare tactics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a threat to the country .
Debate moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if he ’ d take a similar stance on actual threats from known right-wing hate groups .
“ Almost everything I see is from the left wing , not from the right wing , ” Trump responded .
That comment directly contradicted Trump ’ s own Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) , which considers violence from right-wing groups the greatest terrorist threat to the United States at this time .
Indeed , a whistleblower within DHS has even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees to revise draft documents on the matter to downplay the far right threat in order to match Trump ’ s dubious rhetoric about antifa .
Debate host Wallace and Biden , however , pressed Trump to condemn white supremacist hate groups on national TV , which prompted him to ask for the name of an organization he could make a statement on .
“ Proud Boys , ” Biden chimed in , referencing a white supremacist organization of men in the U.S. that openly endorses and engages in violence toward those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have on several occasions clashed with anti-fascists .
Trump ’ s response — “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by ” — was the opposite of a condemnation of the group .
Indeed , according to The New York Times , members of the far right group celebrated Trump ’ s comment as a tacit endorsement : Trump ’ s reluctance to directly speak out against far right and white supremacist violence immediately came in for criticism , prompting Jason Miller , a senior adviser on the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s comments made “ very clear he wants [ the Proud Boys ] to knock it off.
” However , the Proud Boys clearly indicated that they understood the president ’ s words to mean he was on their side , based on comments on social media and the organization ’ s website .
“ Standing by sir , ” read one user ’ s comment in response to the phrase employed by Trump .
“ President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” read another comment from a Proud Boys member .
Minutes after Trump said “ stand back and stand by , ” the Proud Boys , a self-described “ pro-Western fraternal organization for men , ” considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center , had created a new logo featuring President Trump ’ s words from the debate which was shared widely .
Though the group and its members had been banned on both Facebook and Twitter in 2018 due to their conduct online , they continue to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites .
While many were shocked and outraged by Trump ’ s refusal to take a hard stance against far right violent groups , those who have been following Trump ’ s close ties to the far right were not surprised , given Trump ’ s record in the recent past .
Just last month , for example , Trump refused to speak out against the conspiracy theory-driven movement QAnon , describing it as a group of individuals who “ love America ” in spite of the group spreading beliefs that the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in “ criminal and sometimes violent activity.
” Trump ’ s reticence in decrying the far right has , in fact , long been a staple of his presidency .
In 2017 , following actions by neo-Nazi protesters in Charlottesville , Virginia , which resulted in attacks against counterprotesters ( including the vehicular murder of activist Heather Heyer ) , the president did not take a forceful position on the matter , choosing to condemn instead the violence that happened “ on many sides ” at that event .
“ I wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to condemn the Proud Boys , ” Spencer Sunshine , a counter-far right researcher and activist , said to Truthout regarding the debate on Tuesday night .
“ His administration has long had an unspoken alliance with them .
I would have been more surprised if he had condemned them.
” Mark Bray , a historian of human rights and terrorism , also noted that Trump ’ s refusal to condemn outright the Proud Boys was part of “ what is now indisputably Trump ’ s larger strategy moving into November.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like his comments about how the Proud Boys should ‘ stand by ’ is an effort to ‘ wink ’ at what he imagines is his paramilitary base of support , and to have them at the ready to be some of the muscle for this larger strategy , ” Bray told Truthout .
“ Bearing in mind there has been a significant overlap in membership between groups like the Proud Boys and others [ in ] the military and law enforcement.
” Trump ’ s response on Tuesday will also likely “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ maybe redouble their efforts to mobilize and organize , ” Bray said .
“ But I think this is really primarily about November and beyond .
”

President Trump once again refused to take a hard stance in condemning white supremacy and white supremacist violence during Tuesday night’s tumultuous and bizarre presidential debate with his Democratic challenger Joe Biden.
Trump made many comments disparaging antifa, which is not a formal group but rather a movement of people who are vociferous in their views against fascism. Even after Biden pointed out that “antifa is an idea and not an organization,” the president’s remarks made clear that he intended to continue demonizing antifa and to employ baseless scare tactics in order to errantly posit the movement as a threat to the country.
Debate moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if he’d take a similar stance on actual threats from known right-wing hate groups.
“Almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing,” Trump responded.
That comment directly contradicted Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which considers violence from right-wing groups the greatest terrorist threat to the United States at this time. Indeed, a whistleblower within DHS has even alleged that department leaders had pressured government employees to revise draft documents on the matter to downplay the far right threat in order to match Trump’s dubious rhetoric about antifa.
Debate host Wallace and Biden, however, pressed Trump to condemn white supremacist hate groups on national TV, which prompted him to ask for the name of an organization he could make a statement on. “Proud Boys,” Biden chimed in, referencing a white supremacist organization of men in the U.S. that openly endorses and engages in violence toward those who oppose their blatantly discriminatory and bigoted views and have on several occasions clashed with anti-fascists.
Trump’s response — “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by” — was the opposite of a condemnation of the group. Indeed, according to The New York Times, members of the far right group celebrated Trump’s comment as a tacit endorsement:
Within minutes, members of the group were posting in private social media channels, calling the president’s comments “historic.” In one channel dedicated to the Proud Boys on Telegram, a private messaging app, group members called the president’s comment a tacit endorsement of their violent tactics. In another message, a member commented that the group was already seeing a spike in “new recruits.”
Trump’s reluctance to directly speak out against far right and white supremacist violence immediately came in for criticism, prompting Jason Miller, a senior adviser on the president’s reelection campaign, to wrongly claim that Trump’s comments made “very clear he wants [the Proud Boys] to knock it off.”
However, the Proud Boys clearly indicated that they understood the president’s words to mean he was on their side, based on comments on social media and the organization’s website.
“Standing by sir,” read one user’s comment in response to the phrase employed by Trump.
“President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA…well sir! we’re ready!” read another comment from a Proud Boys member.
Minutes after Trump said “stand back and stand by,” the Proud Boys, a self-described “pro-Western fraternal organization for men,” considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, had created a new logo featuring President Trump’s words from the debate which was shared widely.
Though the group and its members had been banned on both Facebook and Twitter in 2018 due to their conduct online, they continue to have a strong presence on other social media sites.
While many were shocked and outraged by Trump’s refusal to take a hard stance against far right violent groups, those who have been following Trump’s close ties to the far right were not surprised, given Trump’s record in the recent past. Just last month, for example, Trump refused to speak out against the conspiracy theory-driven movement QAnon, describing it as a group of individuals who “love America” in spite of the group spreading beliefs that the FBI has noted could drive some adherents to engage in “criminal and sometimes violent activity.”
Trump’s reticence in decrying the far right has, in fact, long been a staple of his presidency. In 2017, following actions by neo-Nazi protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, which resulted in attacks against counterprotesters (including the vehicular murder of activist Heather Heyer), the president did not take a forceful position on the matter, choosing to condemn instead the violence that happened “on many sides” at that event.
“I wasn’t surprised at all that Trump refused to condemn the Proud Boys,” Spencer Sunshine, a counter-far right researcher and activist, said to Truthout regarding the debate on Tuesday night. “His administration has long had an unspoken alliance with them. I would have been more surprised if he had condemned them.”
Mark Bray, a historian of human rights and terrorism, also noted that Trump’s refusal to condemn outright the Proud Boys was part of “what is now indisputably Trump’s larger strategy moving into November.”
“In that context, it seems like his comments about how the Proud Boys should ‘stand by’ is an effort to ‘wink’ at what he imagines is his paramilitary base of support, and to have them at the ready to be some of the muscle for this larger strategy,” Bray told Truthout. “Bearing in mind there has been a significant overlap in membership between groups like the Proud Boys and others [in] the military and law enforcement.”
Trump’s response on Tuesday will also likely “embolden” groups like the Proud Boys to “maybe redouble their efforts to mobilize and organize,” Bray said. “But I think this is really primarily about November and beyond.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.