"Since 2016, an array of little-known conservative intellectuals and think tank sorts have emerged as powerful voices in Trump’s Republican Party."
How are you defining "intellectuals" and "think tank sorts"? Does being hired by Claremont automatically qualify one for such a moniker even if the individual is "little-known"? Most people would consider the noun "intellecual" or "think" to suggests someone with intellect or who thinks deeply about a topic without preconceived notions. OK, one can talk about scientists and mad scientists, but at least there one has an adjective to distinguish between the two.
Since it is abundantly clear that words have meanings and that repeated use of mis-leading buzz words and descriptions can raise the individual described in public esteem, please be more careful in how you describe these individuals.
Today the New York Times ran an article describing "Here’s what’s in Biden’s $1.85 trillion plan." Aside from the $500B for climate change, the bill is utterly boring. Though I count myself to the left of Bernie, I'd vote for ANYONE who succeeded in getting good dental benefits added to Medicare. So would a lot of seniors. Sure, it would cost a lot - but why count the dollars when you're in the business of buying votes with other people's money?
When my daughter was born. I got to hold her for 1 hour before hitting the road for work. I did not see her again for 1 week and then only for 2 days. Boo hoo right? Through history, our men have gone off to wars, work, and maybe that was ok. Eventually women wanted similar rights and that was ok too. But, I think it was ok for me to spend a couple of weeks with my daughter without worrying about a shipment of car parts landing in Norfolk Nebraska that didnt make the shelf. Now, people proved to me that they can last months for things. They dont need everything right now. The fact that you took family leave away from me is whatever. I have a college degree. But, maybe I want to go learn more computer science or how to work on those new electric cars. I can't do that becasue I can't spend more money on the subject. This is because 52 senators does not know what its like to be an average person in America. I like Kasie Hunt and I think Chuck Todd is the most rationale talking head on tv. I would like to know why it was left off? Let me hear the rationale argument or lack thereof. My friends like Louder with Crowder and Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. The status quo is the 10 million views on Nikki Minaj's facebook post.
In your introductory rundown of recent incidents of political violence you are very careful to use terms like "alleged" and "suspected" when describing the status of the instigators. One reason why the situation has worsened is that there are no apparent consequences in real time for taking innocent lives or even threatening them. One wonders if the law enforcement agencies responsible for pursuing these cases are so bereft of talent and/or leadership that they are unable to build an effective case in a reasonable amount of time and see these people publicly tried, convicted if guilty and put away.
If I, or any of your other readers, had appeared on national television and said to a crowd of people "you need to go to the Congress, find Mike Pence and force him to do what is right", I'd have very quickly been involved in a stern conversation with members of the Secret Service and, very probably, not be in a position to write this from home. I don't understand why, while under investigation as he certainly should be, the disgraced former president and failed insurrectionist and his clique of close followers aren't being detained under guard like the rest of us would be. I also don't think that there is an explanation that would make sense to anyone whose career isn't politically driven.
Meanwhile, Kasie Hunt of the lib'rul media is on twitter today saying she is going to grill the 48 democrats that support paid family medical leave for it being left out of the reconciliation bill about why they dropped it while ignoring the 2 democrats and 50 republicans that were actually against it.
This is part of why our country is in such deep shit. Mainstream media are not shills for the Democratic party. They fully support and defend the status quo because their comfortable livelihoods depend upon them not rocking the boat too much. Daytime MSNBC, and any time they have Chuck Todd on, is trash (except for Nicolle Wallace, she is great).
Thank you so much for featuring political violence on this mornings' newsletter. Violence is coming, mostly, but not exclusively, from right extremists who have their minds poisoned by social media. I don't know where this ends. It's frightening.
I also enjoyed yesterday's podcast with Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith. I strongly support the reforms they suggest. However, I have read Bauer and Goldsmith's legal arguments in Lawfare and their other writings suggesting Congress can pass a law to limit the President's power to pardon. In Constitutional Law 101, future lawyers learn that you can't change the parameters of a constitutional power with an ordinary statute. (You actually picked up on this during your interview.) I've talked to other attorneys and I can't find any of them who agree with Bauer/Goldsmith that Congress can change the President's pardon power via statute.
They point out that Congress can pass a law making it a crime for a person to bribe the President to receive a pardon. (I think that's already a crime, but whatever.) Absolutely. And you know what? The President can issue a second pardon to stop the federal bribery prosecution. Not sure how they think that moves the ball forward.
They are on more solid ground when it comes to Congress passing a law making it a crime for a President to solicit or accept a bribe for a pardon. (As they point out, it's not clear existing criminal laws on this subject apply to the President...though I think they do.) This ultimately leads to the question of the self-pardon. Bauer/Goldsmith seems to think Congress can pass a law prohibiting self-pardons. Once again, whether the constitutional pardon power includes self-pardons is up to the courts not Congress.
Don't get me wrong. I very much want to limit the President's pardon powers. People who think the Founders wanted the President to a robust pardon powers miss the fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted the federal criminal code only identified a handful of federal crimes and the Department of Justice didn't exist. The issue of what was a crime and the prosecution of those crimes was left almost entirely to states. The expansion of the federal criminal code, and resulting increase in federal prosecutors and the federal judiciary, has via the back door increased the President's pardon power. (Of course, the President can only issue pardons as to federal matters.) We do need to find a way to limit that pardon power. Unfortunately, Bauer/Goldsmith's suggestion Congress pass a law to limit the President's pardon power does not seem workable.
Tucker is now doing a pure propaganda series on Fox Nation? Dear gawd. I should not be shocked at anything at this point, but here I am.
Living in red Cali, I worry about the violence a great deal. Already well armed pre covid, the stay at home restrictions of the early pandemic produced around the block lines at every gun store in town everyday until Jan 6. (there are many, many here). By this year, several store owners had their seller licenses' revoked by the evil state Governor due to repeated flagrant violations. Local social media posts of how many guns they had were common, along with the literal piles of ammo in their garages. Being a very vocal Republican anti Trumper earned me too many physical threats to count and a blue checkmark painted on my sidewalk. All we have gotten this far is......eggings.
Nevertheless, we found our old 9mm that hasn't been out of it's lockbox since maybe 2009 and had it serviced. Ammo was impossible to find. A friend in the mountains who keeps guns for legit reasons (bears, cougars, mountains lions, wolves) gave me a box. We are seriously looking at self gifting ourselves a second firearm for Christmas. The natives are restless here.
I have been made aware of several areas online where "liberals" (I hate to use that word anymore, but they claim it) have very large communities nationwide where they are educating each other about firearms, how to legally obtain one or two or three, resources on where there are gun stores, trainings and ranges that are not complete nationalists that will throw you out because you wear a mask. Or if you don't look a like a conservative, whatever that means. A large number of gun stores opening to serve liberals, minorities and non cis communities.
Essentially, both sides are arming up and escalating. The rhetoric on the right is causing the rebound effect on the left. This does not end well.
Hey Charlie, Regarding your statement, "And on January 6, five people died during an attack on the nation’s Capitol, in an attempt to overturn a presidential election." I'm not sure 6 people died DURING the attack, did they? Would it be more accurate to say they died "as a result of the attack"?
Please not that Charlie Kirk doesn’t denounce the violence because its, you know, bad. He says that by saying what the guy says it’s playing into “their” hands. Christ in a box! Is this what we’ve come to?
A very good friend of mine (over a 30 year period) has long insisted that the majority of people are idiots. I always countered with enlightenment arguments, and optimism. I now realize he was right. I hate to admit that but short of deep psychological excavation (to determine possible origin of that ignorance) of half the populace, I am going with buddy’s theory; there are a shitload of ignorant idiots in this country.
And not just this country…..
Too many people, too little knowledge, too many grifters, and way too much “religion” (be it of the faith based kind or political, no difference to me) has led us down this road….
Seems we are going for “worst animal in all the animal kingdom” award…..
"Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) appeared to deliver the strongest statement, saying Garland "should resign in disgrace" over the memo."
You could make an argument that Garland should resign, but not for the reasons Senator Cotton may believe. We had a mafioso operation running the government the last four years, culminating in the worst violence on our Capitol doorsteps since 1814, and none of these suit-wearing types have been held to account.
Tom Cotton, Sasse, Cruz, none of them really want Garland to resign. Garland is the best thing that could have happened to Trump post-presidency. There may be some Democrats who'd like to see him go, but I can't imagine any Republicans really do, Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar, Trump and their ilk especially. John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Steve Bannon, none of these folks want to see anybody but Merrick Garland at the head of DOJ.
Two problems with this. First, the GOP is not 'ignoring warnings of violence.' The GOP actively encourages violence towards its political opponents by embracing the people who embrace violent rhetoric, up to and including the former president. Loomer is no longer on the fringe of the party, she is in the dead center of the party. And the dead center actively waits for the moment when they can start murdering people with wild abandon in the name of freedom. It might be hard to claim that your former home is a cesspool of hate and violence, but it is. And the GOP knows exactly what it's doing. It hopes that increased violence and threats will subdue democrats and let the GOP do whatever it wants.
The question will be: after someone commits mass murder again, will the GOP writ large embrace the murderer the way they did Babbitt? That's the question you should be asking. It's not a question of if. It's a question of when.
As for that CRT in Virginia thing, there's a problem. 1. CRT being 'entertained' is not 'CRT is in Virginia.' And also, you cannot 'move towards the center' when the center is actively seeking to unperson people of color. But let's ignore all that for a moment. Where exactly is the 'center' of this issue? Because what the GOP does is demonize and repeat lies and stake out extreme positions, thus moving the 'center' to a place that is not a center at all. Let's take the birth certificate issue, another entirely made up issue that didn't exist. Except the GOP yelled about it long enough, and the 'center' moved to the point where actual media were asking about it, thus legitimizing it. That's where we're at now, yet again. The GOP screams about 'CRT,' a term no one can actually define, and in places like Texas they're banning words from being spoken because that's the 'center.' You cannot kowtow to these people, because these people are absolutists. They will hit you regardless of whether you try to placate them or not, because they are working to destroy you. And this process of 'well, maybe we should move toward the center' as it keeps moving right is how we get things like Loomer being embraced by the GOP.
Here's the truth that no one wants to accept: in order for democrats to win, they need to do things. In order to do things, they need to be unapologetically democrats. That means being liberals. That means actually building enthusiasm. Because the GOP is going to be enthusiastic no matter what, as they view all political races as death struggles with Satan now. So in order to actually defeat them, you need to actually be what you claim to be, none of this Manchin/Sinema 'well I run on it but don't believe it' stuff. The reason democrats are in such a state in VA is because the guy running for governor didn't say what everyone is thinking, which is that CRT is an undefinable term that is being used by bigots to support white supremacy. And if you don't believe that, look at what they do when they pass anti-CRT bills, which ban words like 'equity' from being used in classrooms of any kind. Good luck teaching economics!
Furthermore, let's stop pretending inflation is a plague upon our nation. We've suffered 3% inflation at most. The cause of the inflation is not any policy by the government, but people going back to work and having the ability and confidence to buy things, thus lowering supply before producers have adjusted. It is not a 'tax' as Mona claims in her piece. Inflation is no more a tax than the price of your home going up is a tax. That's nonsense. Beyond that, just a few years ago, the GOP was championing inflation as a GOOD thing, as a lower dollar value makes it easier to invest. All I'm saying is, we're not living through an economic catastrophe at the moment, so the media should stop screaming about inflation.
I've long noticed a pattern to Trump's lies. I'll illustrate with an example: The issue of climate change. Every Republican politician knows the base doesn't believe it is real. If that politician decides to pander to the base, they have a choice of lies to tell. They can claim that there is better science that shows that the science promoted by the media gets it wrong. Or they can follow Trump and claim it's a Chinese hoax. Now Trump's lie does two things: It demonizes China and implicitly makes the claim that American climate scientists are traitors because they are toeing the Chinese line. There is almost always this component to a Trump lie. Someone is demonized.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity?utm_source=pocket-newtab
"Since 2016, an array of little-known conservative intellectuals and think tank sorts have emerged as powerful voices in Trump’s Republican Party."
How are you defining "intellectuals" and "think tank sorts"? Does being hired by Claremont automatically qualify one for such a moniker even if the individual is "little-known"? Most people would consider the noun "intellecual" or "think" to suggests someone with intellect or who thinks deeply about a topic without preconceived notions. OK, one can talk about scientists and mad scientists, but at least there one has an adjective to distinguish between the two.
Since it is abundantly clear that words have meanings and that repeated use of mis-leading buzz words and descriptions can raise the individual described in public esteem, please be more careful in how you describe these individuals.
David Court
Today the New York Times ran an article describing "Here’s what’s in Biden’s $1.85 trillion plan." Aside from the $500B for climate change, the bill is utterly boring. Though I count myself to the left of Bernie, I'd vote for ANYONE who succeeded in getting good dental benefits added to Medicare. So would a lot of seniors. Sure, it would cost a lot - but why count the dollars when you're in the business of buying votes with other people's money?
When my daughter was born. I got to hold her for 1 hour before hitting the road for work. I did not see her again for 1 week and then only for 2 days. Boo hoo right? Through history, our men have gone off to wars, work, and maybe that was ok. Eventually women wanted similar rights and that was ok too. But, I think it was ok for me to spend a couple of weeks with my daughter without worrying about a shipment of car parts landing in Norfolk Nebraska that didnt make the shelf. Now, people proved to me that they can last months for things. They dont need everything right now. The fact that you took family leave away from me is whatever. I have a college degree. But, maybe I want to go learn more computer science or how to work on those new electric cars. I can't do that becasue I can't spend more money on the subject. This is because 52 senators does not know what its like to be an average person in America. I like Kasie Hunt and I think Chuck Todd is the most rationale talking head on tv. I would like to know why it was left off? Let me hear the rationale argument or lack thereof. My friends like Louder with Crowder and Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. The status quo is the 10 million views on Nikki Minaj's facebook post.
In your introductory rundown of recent incidents of political violence you are very careful to use terms like "alleged" and "suspected" when describing the status of the instigators. One reason why the situation has worsened is that there are no apparent consequences in real time for taking innocent lives or even threatening them. One wonders if the law enforcement agencies responsible for pursuing these cases are so bereft of talent and/or leadership that they are unable to build an effective case in a reasonable amount of time and see these people publicly tried, convicted if guilty and put away.
If I, or any of your other readers, had appeared on national television and said to a crowd of people "you need to go to the Congress, find Mike Pence and force him to do what is right", I'd have very quickly been involved in a stern conversation with members of the Secret Service and, very probably, not be in a position to write this from home. I don't understand why, while under investigation as he certainly should be, the disgraced former president and failed insurrectionist and his clique of close followers aren't being detained under guard like the rest of us would be. I also don't think that there is an explanation that would make sense to anyone whose career isn't politically driven.
Gen Flynn namechecked Dr. Mengele and...Dr. Szell? Like, the character from Marathon Man?
Meanwhile, Kasie Hunt of the lib'rul media is on twitter today saying she is going to grill the 48 democrats that support paid family medical leave for it being left out of the reconciliation bill about why they dropped it while ignoring the 2 democrats and 50 republicans that were actually against it.
This is part of why our country is in such deep shit. Mainstream media are not shills for the Democratic party. They fully support and defend the status quo because their comfortable livelihoods depend upon them not rocking the boat too much. Daytime MSNBC, and any time they have Chuck Todd on, is trash (except for Nicolle Wallace, she is great).
Thank you so much for featuring political violence on this mornings' newsletter. Violence is coming, mostly, but not exclusively, from right extremists who have their minds poisoned by social media. I don't know where this ends. It's frightening.
I also enjoyed yesterday's podcast with Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith. I strongly support the reforms they suggest. However, I have read Bauer and Goldsmith's legal arguments in Lawfare and their other writings suggesting Congress can pass a law to limit the President's power to pardon. In Constitutional Law 101, future lawyers learn that you can't change the parameters of a constitutional power with an ordinary statute. (You actually picked up on this during your interview.) I've talked to other attorneys and I can't find any of them who agree with Bauer/Goldsmith that Congress can change the President's pardon power via statute.
They point out that Congress can pass a law making it a crime for a person to bribe the President to receive a pardon. (I think that's already a crime, but whatever.) Absolutely. And you know what? The President can issue a second pardon to stop the federal bribery prosecution. Not sure how they think that moves the ball forward.
They are on more solid ground when it comes to Congress passing a law making it a crime for a President to solicit or accept a bribe for a pardon. (As they point out, it's not clear existing criminal laws on this subject apply to the President...though I think they do.) This ultimately leads to the question of the self-pardon. Bauer/Goldsmith seems to think Congress can pass a law prohibiting self-pardons. Once again, whether the constitutional pardon power includes self-pardons is up to the courts not Congress.
Don't get me wrong. I very much want to limit the President's pardon powers. People who think the Founders wanted the President to a robust pardon powers miss the fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted the federal criminal code only identified a handful of federal crimes and the Department of Justice didn't exist. The issue of what was a crime and the prosecution of those crimes was left almost entirely to states. The expansion of the federal criminal code, and resulting increase in federal prosecutors and the federal judiciary, has via the back door increased the President's pardon power. (Of course, the President can only issue pardons as to federal matters.) We do need to find a way to limit that pardon power. Unfortunately, Bauer/Goldsmith's suggestion Congress pass a law to limit the President's pardon power does not seem workable.
Tucker is now doing a pure propaganda series on Fox Nation? Dear gawd. I should not be shocked at anything at this point, but here I am.
Living in red Cali, I worry about the violence a great deal. Already well armed pre covid, the stay at home restrictions of the early pandemic produced around the block lines at every gun store in town everyday until Jan 6. (there are many, many here). By this year, several store owners had their seller licenses' revoked by the evil state Governor due to repeated flagrant violations. Local social media posts of how many guns they had were common, along with the literal piles of ammo in their garages. Being a very vocal Republican anti Trumper earned me too many physical threats to count and a blue checkmark painted on my sidewalk. All we have gotten this far is......eggings.
Nevertheless, we found our old 9mm that hasn't been out of it's lockbox since maybe 2009 and had it serviced. Ammo was impossible to find. A friend in the mountains who keeps guns for legit reasons (bears, cougars, mountains lions, wolves) gave me a box. We are seriously looking at self gifting ourselves a second firearm for Christmas. The natives are restless here.
I have been made aware of several areas online where "liberals" (I hate to use that word anymore, but they claim it) have very large communities nationwide where they are educating each other about firearms, how to legally obtain one or two or three, resources on where there are gun stores, trainings and ranges that are not complete nationalists that will throw you out because you wear a mask. Or if you don't look a like a conservative, whatever that means. A large number of gun stores opening to serve liberals, minorities and non cis communities.
Essentially, both sides are arming up and escalating. The rhetoric on the right is causing the rebound effect on the left. This does not end well.
Hey Charlie, Regarding your statement, "And on January 6, five people died during an attack on the nation’s Capitol, in an attempt to overturn a presidential election." I'm not sure 6 people died DURING the attack, did they? Would it be more accurate to say they died "as a result of the attack"?
Please not that Charlie Kirk doesn’t denounce the violence because its, you know, bad. He says that by saying what the guy says it’s playing into “their” hands. Christ in a box! Is this what we’ve come to?
A very good friend of mine (over a 30 year period) has long insisted that the majority of people are idiots. I always countered with enlightenment arguments, and optimism. I now realize he was right. I hate to admit that but short of deep psychological excavation (to determine possible origin of that ignorance) of half the populace, I am going with buddy’s theory; there are a shitload of ignorant idiots in this country.
And not just this country…..
Too many people, too little knowledge, too many grifters, and way too much “religion” (be it of the faith based kind or political, no difference to me) has led us down this road….
Seems we are going for “worst animal in all the animal kingdom” award…..
"Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) appeared to deliver the strongest statement, saying Garland "should resign in disgrace" over the memo."
You could make an argument that Garland should resign, but not for the reasons Senator Cotton may believe. We had a mafioso operation running the government the last four years, culminating in the worst violence on our Capitol doorsteps since 1814, and none of these suit-wearing types have been held to account.
Tom Cotton, Sasse, Cruz, none of them really want Garland to resign. Garland is the best thing that could have happened to Trump post-presidency. There may be some Democrats who'd like to see him go, but I can't imagine any Republicans really do, Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar, Trump and their ilk especially. John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Steve Bannon, none of these folks want to see anybody but Merrick Garland at the head of DOJ.
Two problems with this. First, the GOP is not 'ignoring warnings of violence.' The GOP actively encourages violence towards its political opponents by embracing the people who embrace violent rhetoric, up to and including the former president. Loomer is no longer on the fringe of the party, she is in the dead center of the party. And the dead center actively waits for the moment when they can start murdering people with wild abandon in the name of freedom. It might be hard to claim that your former home is a cesspool of hate and violence, but it is. And the GOP knows exactly what it's doing. It hopes that increased violence and threats will subdue democrats and let the GOP do whatever it wants.
The question will be: after someone commits mass murder again, will the GOP writ large embrace the murderer the way they did Babbitt? That's the question you should be asking. It's not a question of if. It's a question of when.
As for that CRT in Virginia thing, there's a problem. 1. CRT being 'entertained' is not 'CRT is in Virginia.' And also, you cannot 'move towards the center' when the center is actively seeking to unperson people of color. But let's ignore all that for a moment. Where exactly is the 'center' of this issue? Because what the GOP does is demonize and repeat lies and stake out extreme positions, thus moving the 'center' to a place that is not a center at all. Let's take the birth certificate issue, another entirely made up issue that didn't exist. Except the GOP yelled about it long enough, and the 'center' moved to the point where actual media were asking about it, thus legitimizing it. That's where we're at now, yet again. The GOP screams about 'CRT,' a term no one can actually define, and in places like Texas they're banning words from being spoken because that's the 'center.' You cannot kowtow to these people, because these people are absolutists. They will hit you regardless of whether you try to placate them or not, because they are working to destroy you. And this process of 'well, maybe we should move toward the center' as it keeps moving right is how we get things like Loomer being embraced by the GOP.
Here's the truth that no one wants to accept: in order for democrats to win, they need to do things. In order to do things, they need to be unapologetically democrats. That means being liberals. That means actually building enthusiasm. Because the GOP is going to be enthusiastic no matter what, as they view all political races as death struggles with Satan now. So in order to actually defeat them, you need to actually be what you claim to be, none of this Manchin/Sinema 'well I run on it but don't believe it' stuff. The reason democrats are in such a state in VA is because the guy running for governor didn't say what everyone is thinking, which is that CRT is an undefinable term that is being used by bigots to support white supremacy. And if you don't believe that, look at what they do when they pass anti-CRT bills, which ban words like 'equity' from being used in classrooms of any kind. Good luck teaching economics!
Furthermore, let's stop pretending inflation is a plague upon our nation. We've suffered 3% inflation at most. The cause of the inflation is not any policy by the government, but people going back to work and having the ability and confidence to buy things, thus lowering supply before producers have adjusted. It is not a 'tax' as Mona claims in her piece. Inflation is no more a tax than the price of your home going up is a tax. That's nonsense. Beyond that, just a few years ago, the GOP was championing inflation as a GOOD thing, as a lower dollar value makes it easier to invest. All I'm saying is, we're not living through an economic catastrophe at the moment, so the media should stop screaming about inflation.
I've long noticed a pattern to Trump's lies. I'll illustrate with an example: The issue of climate change. Every Republican politician knows the base doesn't believe it is real. If that politician decides to pander to the base, they have a choice of lies to tell. They can claim that there is better science that shows that the science promoted by the media gets it wrong. Or they can follow Trump and claim it's a Chinese hoax. Now Trump's lie does two things: It demonizes China and implicitly makes the claim that American climate scientists are traitors because they are toeing the Chinese line. There is almost always this component to a Trump lie. Someone is demonized.