i think we have to add no facial images, no likenesses on any federal property during an administration, only after if approved by the house and senate, of any sitting president. no airports, monuments, ballrooms, kennedy center, stamps, mt rushmore, coins, buildings, golf courses, museums, military property, naval ships, etc etc. and if they are there already, they have to be removed within 24 hrs of law passing. of course satan has to sign this bill, so it has to be part of a larger bill. we never had to do this before, or maybe there even is a law and he is abusing it as usual, but if not, we need one now.
I think a great counter to this is for cities, counties and states throughout America to rename a bunch of sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling centers, psychiatric hospitals and more after Donald J. Trump!
PS. For starters, politicians and the news media should henceforth refer only to "The Trump–Epstein Files".
Yes, exactly right, the Democrats have to push much harder. It is disheartening to see Mr. Jeffries introduce his own stock trading bill, which, if I'm reading it correctly, is not taking the issue of corruption seriously enough
I really like this concept that you propose, Simon: "I think one clear, concrete step would be to turn the House Litigation Take Force into a muscular fully staffed bi-cameral project that works closely with the 23 (soon to be 24) Dem state AGs to forge a comprehensive national strategy to counter Trump’s ongoing and destructive assault on our Constitutional order." This would be very powerful.
On a much less critical front, I think we should be careful about jumping to conclusions, as I feel you do near the top of this post when you say, "They’ve ... covered the faces not of victims, but of the men who committed the crimes." While I agree these redactions are wrong and illegal, we don't yet know that any of these men, other than Epstein, committed crimes. I believe we are more effective when we stick to the facts. Thank you for doing so much to help us get through this and then come back to who we were meant to be as a nation.
We have proof due to credible cases brought against Trump (some dropped due to death threats) by girls as young as 13 describing rape by both Trump and Epstein - in at least one case, both at the same time. Many of these seem credible. Well-placed sources know that Putin has big Epstein kompromat against Trump - and that explains why Trump will do anything Putin demands. Makes sense, if you see how Trump has cowered to Vlad for years. How do we know Trump has done something very bad with underage girls? A number of people in Congress have seen or heard about the photos of Trump with topless underage girls on his lap. There is much more - otherwise, why would they hire FBI agents to work night and day to redact literally EVERYTHING. And that is exactly what Bondi did. They KNOW HE IS GUILTY.
Acknowledged, but nothing you say relates to the men, whose identities we do not know, whose photos are redacted. Let's get them UNredacted and then we can investigate them appropriately. If we want the rule of law and due process to apply to people with black and brown skin suspected of being undocumented then it must apply to all.
Hi John: Actually, we know who many of these men were and, in many cases, disappointedly, who have at least had contact - sometimes a lot of it, with Epstein: Bill Gates, possibly a prime minister of Israel (sorry to say, first-hand reports of his cruelty to Virginia Giuffre in her memoir if true), former Prince Andrew, David Brooks, Sergey Brin, Larry Summers, Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz, Steve Bannon ... the list goes on, unfortunately. We cannot count on Trump's and Bondi's ridiculous release of files to say that we don't know who these people are - and that Trump is not among them. 1. Yes, in some cases, we don't know that all of the men listed actually engaged with Epstein's underage girls or that they went to the island (although we know from flight logs that Bill Clinton NEVER went to the island, although Bondi and Trump would love you to think so and gleefully sent lots of pictures of him). 2. We don't see photos of Trump - although a number of people have seen them, including members of Congress who have grilled Bondi on these specifically - and she WOULD NOT ANSWER DIRECTLY. So yes, we can probably do a bit more than speculate about Trump, who held beauty contests featuring underage girls. Why would they work so hard to hide this? Because it will ruin him. But it would SAVE the country if the truth can actually come out.
Okay, but none of this has to do with the photos that (redacted) were just released which is all I commented on. We know who they were so let’s investigate.
John, I don't think you understand what is happening here. There is in all the files clear evidence of crimes committed by others. We already know this which is why so much is being redacted. We know corrupt prosecutors failed to pursue criminal charges against other men. This is all well understood. We don't need an investigation. That has already happened. We just need to see the evidence which they are covering up.
Of course, I believe I have a decent understanding of what is happening, but I have approached it from a legalistic perspective which may have become totally irrelevant. I tend to see the work "criminal" as having a specific meaning in the criminal justice system. But given our current reality it is likely that the only court left that can render judgment is the court of public opinion, which renders my comments not wrong but irrelevant.
comparing the rich and powerful men who buddied up with a known pedophile to those that suffer from racial persecution is a deeply inappropriate analogy.
I suppose it depends on what the redacted men in the photos are doing. Talking, drinking, and so on are legal. But apparently some of them definitely show crimes. (I haven’t been able to bring myself to look.)
If the faces they redacted are in incriminating images, then we can go ahead and call them criminals. It isn’t like they can ever be criminally charged, so the court of public opinion is the only one left.
I don't agree with this. The sheer volume of the cover up of the men - blanket, across the board - goes way beyond reputational damage. It is covering up of criminal behavior. Simply way to prove one of us right - unredact everything. Simply no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt here. The intensity of the cover up is about criminal behavior and crimes. It is not about reputational harm.
Hi Simon: I agree completely per my comments above. The truth will come out - many people already know what it is - including members of Congress who have seen much more than we have. The truth will ruin Trump - but it will save our nation.
Simon I agree with you. As a retired teacher who was a “mandated reported” for 40 years we were legally bound to report any SUSPECTED abuse. This is about overwhelming & ongoing harm to children! Any one involved in any way or who knew anything about it must be held accountable!
I am a retired RN and also was a mandated reporter. Congress must be the same! I support the idea of a House Litigation Task Force. Documenting all these crimes is vital! A former supervisor of mine once called it "the power of the pen." In other words, document everything!
I totally support unredacting everything in these photos of Epstein friends. Then we can look at what they did. But having your photo taken with someone who, years later, is clearly shown to be a criminal doesn’t make one a criminal. I’m simply pleading that we advocate for a consistent application of the rule of law.
I once had a coworker who was arrested and given a life sentence for inappropriate actions with children. It was heartbreaking. Possibly there is an old office photo in which we both appear. So obviously I don’t think appearing in a photo with someone later revealed to be a criminal is itself incriminating. The Epstein Files are not random snapshots, though, and his associates weren’t just coworkers who happened to be in the same building.
I think everyone understands your point. And of course we should (but clearly don’t) have consistent application of the rule of law.
But this isn’t a court of law. If you are a judge or juror, you have to give the defendant the presumption of innocence. The rest of the world doesn’t.
I think from the DOJ perspective, that is exactly what they did. Bill Clinton's face is shown repeatedly to imply that he is guilty of a crime while dt, barely mentioned. I thought it was interesting on the PBS NewsHour that David Brooks said his photo was in there, and explained.
"So, in 2011, I attended the TED Conference, and there was an adjacent dinner to that conference, which, in my memory, maybe two or three dozen people, different roundtables. And I was at that dinner. And, apparently, Jeffrey Epstein was at that dinner.
As far as I know, I did not ever meet him. I never exchanged a word with him. We must have been at different tables. And, in my life — I went through all my e-mail files — I have never exchanged a word. I have never had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein. The photos are not of me and Epstein. There's one of me alone, because nobody wants to talk to me at a party, and another with me chatting with Sergey Brin, one of the Google co-founders.
And so the bottom line is, I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was in 2011, so I didn't know he was at the party, and I have had no contact with him."
Democrats need to take the SC seat of Lindsey Graham. Who is the best candidate? Annie Andrews seems strong; does she have a shot at beating Senator Graham?
Everything you say is perfectly understandable and acceptable to at least 2/3rds of Americans yearning for the party cohesion you describe. It makes me think, though, that many party leaders, pundits and activists are still jockeying for their factional, marginal and fractured partisan gain in this current debacle. Their allegiance to non-party DSA facing solutions, for example, clutters the party's air and brain waves. THE big tent party has the capacity to be even bigger with increasing numbers of independents and disaffected Republicans. To effectively face the task ahead, the stakes holding up the big tent all need to concentrate their energies on the tent, not their own potential gain. I say pull up the DSA facing stake and reposition the other stakes for the sake of Americans.
it bemuses me when people argue for a big tent and then say that the way to do that is to exclude part of the base. the DSA solutions, also, tend to be far more people-forward than those of centrist dems. it's bizarre to say that that particular wing is uniquely about factionalism, while the others aren't--particularly when some party leaders openly snubbed their own candidate in new york city.
I mean no disrespect to DSA politicians themselves or their people-forward positions, but as long as they remain DSA-forward, I don't believe they have both feet in the Democratic party. It is a dilemma for the Democratic party and you see how conflicted it is by many leaders' reticence. DSA itself has many factions, some of which openly call for a divorce with the Democratic party. We are told there is an existential crisis in the U.S. but as an independent I am not convinced that the Democratic party speaks convincingly to the 2/3rds of the electorate between the fringe left and fringe right. These are the people who will vote for affordability for the bottom 90%, ensure continuation of solidly supported safety nets, cement capitalism that works for all (DSA's platform rejects capitalism, check it out), ensure election reforms, forge a iron-clad path toward citizenship while strengthening borders, keep Americans safer from gun violence as well as urban decay, fund humane homeless and mental health solutions, and so much more. I call for DSA politicians, pundits and activists on the right edge of their non-party to put both feet into the Democratic party as progressives and to take themselves out of the anti-capitalist camp instead of conveniently distancing themselves from their own non-party platform depending on their stump speech or tough interview question.
I should also add that party "base" as I see it is determined mostly on undue influence by the loudest politicians, pundits and activists. I'm a simple independent with much to learn, but along with so many other learners not at all centrist, and the Democratic party has much to learn about us in order to keep on its almost completely non-DSA-facing winning streak.
What can we do to activate the bicameral strategy to half Trump's assault on the constitutional order? It sounds like a great idea but how do we make it happen?
We want our $80 trillion back!! (see HCR today). Tax the bloated rich and restore the money we earned and were cheated of. 45 years of thievery is enough.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a peaceful, joyful holiday season without having to worry about the next part of our country and its laws that Trump is destroying? Sadly, we do not have that luxury. Like Washington's army hunkering down at Valley Forge. Like the 101st Airborne freezing to hold Bastogne. Like so many other examples of American fortitude, we are forced to spend this holiday season clawing with all our might to defend our country and the vital principles on which it was founded. We shall overcome.
We have a sick, demented, man with malignant narcotism in office and 1/3 of his base believe him. We have to ask why? Are these people stupid? What in their minds makes them believe his lies, when there is perfectly clear proof that he is lying? Is it racism? What cognitive feature are they lacking? I think the DNC needs to figure that out and address that.
We have to accept that a certain percentage of Trump's base is unreachable. Many at the margins are stepping away from Trumpism. Those January healthcare premiums will be a wake-up call for more. The DNC doesn't need to message towards the Trumpy faithful. They need to denigrate Trump AND provide a clear message about how they will begin to clean up the mess once they are back in power. As Simon messages us today, we all (and that includes the DNC) just have to continue to raise our game, to be louder and more forceful and more creative in resisting Trump's actions
They fundamentally refuse to believe that he is evil. They might acknowledge that he is flawed, but they argue away anything that points to him being evil. I kind of get it. I refused to believe any of the stories about Clinton abusing women because I liked what he was selling. I wanted to believe that he was a loving husband who would never dream of abusing women. It made me uneasy, so I just stopped listening/reading/watching stories that made me uncomfortable and instead read the reports that trashed the victims. I still felt uneasy, but didn't want to believe that I was someone who could support a rapist, so I just pushed down my disquiet and moved on. I'm not proud of that and now have a much more nuanced view of Clinton, whom I do believe was a great president. Of course, Clinton wasn't evil. He wasn't a sociopath, and he wasn't set on destroying the American way of life. Today's right-wing media sphere is much stronger than the forces that were trashing the women accusing Clinton. We didn't have algorithms pushing us into certain beliefs. All of this is to say that I recognize how I suffered from cognitive dissonance in the Clinton era and set aside a deeply held belief (Believe the accusers!) for political expediency. I think it's possible that 10 years from now, a lot of current MAGA supporters will look back and wonder what the hell happened to them.
What should the DNC do? Keep on chipping away! Push the narrative of corruption (Erica Chenowith says that it is corruption that usually results in the downfall of authoritarian regimes). Keep talking about Epstein and demanding the truth. Keep on filing legal cases. Keep widening the cracks. We are making progress. -- And some MAGA folks are all in because they like the sociopathy, maybe because they are kindred spirits, but I don't believe that's the majority of them.
And to make it clear, I'm not suggesting anything about Clinton and Epstein. I haven't heard any allegations against Clinton by any of the Epstein victims and don't believe he was involved in any crimes there. If he did, then he absolutely deserves to be held accountable for those crimes in a court of law. But I now do believe the women who accused him back in the 90s (who were women, not girls).
Thanks Simon for your incredible insights and cheerleaders! It's not a criticism but one of the most important commissions I'm finding interesting checklist to keep in front of our elected officials is voting rights and maintaining the security and sacrity of our voting information. Also, your headline is spot on! The FFOTUS has obviously confused his name Don with a criminal role he sees himself fulfilling!
Brian I am taking this post down for it is pointless doomerism. Thank you.
i think we have to add no facial images, no likenesses on any federal property during an administration, only after if approved by the house and senate, of any sitting president. no airports, monuments, ballrooms, kennedy center, stamps, mt rushmore, coins, buildings, golf courses, museums, military property, naval ships, etc etc. and if they are there already, they have to be removed within 24 hrs of law passing. of course satan has to sign this bill, so it has to be part of a larger bill. we never had to do this before, or maybe there even is a law and he is abusing it as usual, but if not, we need one now.
No president should be able to build a monument to themselves
I think a great counter to this is for cities, counties and states throughout America to rename a bunch of sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling centers, psychiatric hospitals and more after Donald J. Trump!
PS. For starters, politicians and the news media should henceforth refer only to "The Trump–Epstein Files".
Ha ha— great idea!
Great Expectations!
"This ain''t a presidency, its a crime spree" - with apologies to Fall Out Boy. 😀
Yes, exactly right, the Democrats have to push much harder. It is disheartening to see Mr. Jeffries introduce his own stock trading bill, which, if I'm reading it correctly, is not taking the issue of corruption seriously enough
I really like this concept that you propose, Simon: "I think one clear, concrete step would be to turn the House Litigation Take Force into a muscular fully staffed bi-cameral project that works closely with the 23 (soon to be 24) Dem state AGs to forge a comprehensive national strategy to counter Trump’s ongoing and destructive assault on our Constitutional order." This would be very powerful.
On a much less critical front, I think we should be careful about jumping to conclusions, as I feel you do near the top of this post when you say, "They’ve ... covered the faces not of victims, but of the men who committed the crimes." While I agree these redactions are wrong and illegal, we don't yet know that any of these men, other than Epstein, committed crimes. I believe we are more effective when we stick to the facts. Thank you for doing so much to help us get through this and then come back to who we were meant to be as a nation.
We have proof due to credible cases brought against Trump (some dropped due to death threats) by girls as young as 13 describing rape by both Trump and Epstein - in at least one case, both at the same time. Many of these seem credible. Well-placed sources know that Putin has big Epstein kompromat against Trump - and that explains why Trump will do anything Putin demands. Makes sense, if you see how Trump has cowered to Vlad for years. How do we know Trump has done something very bad with underage girls? A number of people in Congress have seen or heard about the photos of Trump with topless underage girls on his lap. There is much more - otherwise, why would they hire FBI agents to work night and day to redact literally EVERYTHING. And that is exactly what Bondi did. They KNOW HE IS GUILTY.
Acknowledged, but nothing you say relates to the men, whose identities we do not know, whose photos are redacted. Let's get them UNredacted and then we can investigate them appropriately. If we want the rule of law and due process to apply to people with black and brown skin suspected of being undocumented then it must apply to all.
Hi John: Actually, we know who many of these men were and, in many cases, disappointedly, who have at least had contact - sometimes a lot of it, with Epstein: Bill Gates, possibly a prime minister of Israel (sorry to say, first-hand reports of his cruelty to Virginia Giuffre in her memoir if true), former Prince Andrew, David Brooks, Sergey Brin, Larry Summers, Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz, Steve Bannon ... the list goes on, unfortunately. We cannot count on Trump's and Bondi's ridiculous release of files to say that we don't know who these people are - and that Trump is not among them. 1. Yes, in some cases, we don't know that all of the men listed actually engaged with Epstein's underage girls or that they went to the island (although we know from flight logs that Bill Clinton NEVER went to the island, although Bondi and Trump would love you to think so and gleefully sent lots of pictures of him). 2. We don't see photos of Trump - although a number of people have seen them, including members of Congress who have grilled Bondi on these specifically - and she WOULD NOT ANSWER DIRECTLY. So yes, we can probably do a bit more than speculate about Trump, who held beauty contests featuring underage girls. Why would they work so hard to hide this? Because it will ruin him. But it would SAVE the country if the truth can actually come out.
Okay, but none of this has to do with the photos that (redacted) were just released which is all I commented on. We know who they were so let’s investigate.
John, I don't think you understand what is happening here. There is in all the files clear evidence of crimes committed by others. We already know this which is why so much is being redacted. We know corrupt prosecutors failed to pursue criminal charges against other men. This is all well understood. We don't need an investigation. That has already happened. We just need to see the evidence which they are covering up.
Of course, I believe I have a decent understanding of what is happening, but I have approached it from a legalistic perspective which may have become totally irrelevant. I tend to see the work "criminal" as having a specific meaning in the criminal justice system. But given our current reality it is likely that the only court left that can render judgment is the court of public opinion, which renders my comments not wrong but irrelevant.
comparing the rich and powerful men who buddied up with a known pedophile to those that suffer from racial persecution is a deeply inappropriate analogy.
I suppose it depends on what the redacted men in the photos are doing. Talking, drinking, and so on are legal. But apparently some of them definitely show crimes. (I haven’t been able to bring myself to look.)
If the faces they redacted are in incriminating images, then we can go ahead and call them criminals. It isn’t like they can ever be criminally charged, so the court of public opinion is the only one left.
I don't agree with this. The sheer volume of the cover up of the men - blanket, across the board - goes way beyond reputational damage. It is covering up of criminal behavior. Simply way to prove one of us right - unredact everything. Simply no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt here. The intensity of the cover up is about criminal behavior and crimes. It is not about reputational harm.
Hi Simon: I agree completely per my comments above. The truth will come out - many people already know what it is - including members of Congress who have seen much more than we have. The truth will ruin Trump - but it will save our nation.
Simon I agree with you. As a retired teacher who was a “mandated reported” for 40 years we were legally bound to report any SUSPECTED abuse. This is about overwhelming & ongoing harm to children! Any one involved in any way or who knew anything about it must be held accountable!
I am a retired RN and also was a mandated reporter. Congress must be the same! I support the idea of a House Litigation Task Force. Documenting all these crimes is vital! A former supervisor of mine once called it "the power of the pen." In other words, document everything!
I totally support unredacting everything in these photos of Epstein friends. Then we can look at what they did. But having your photo taken with someone who, years later, is clearly shown to be a criminal doesn’t make one a criminal. I’m simply pleading that we advocate for a consistent application of the rule of law.
I once had a coworker who was arrested and given a life sentence for inappropriate actions with children. It was heartbreaking. Possibly there is an old office photo in which we both appear. So obviously I don’t think appearing in a photo with someone later revealed to be a criminal is itself incriminating. The Epstein Files are not random snapshots, though, and his associates weren’t just coworkers who happened to be in the same building.
I think everyone understands your point. And of course we should (but clearly don’t) have consistent application of the rule of law.
But this isn’t a court of law. If you are a judge or juror, you have to give the defendant the presumption of innocence. The rest of the world doesn’t.
Thank you. I find this conversation so upsetting.
I think from the DOJ perspective, that is exactly what they did. Bill Clinton's face is shown repeatedly to imply that he is guilty of a crime while dt, barely mentioned. I thought it was interesting on the PBS NewsHour that David Brooks said his photo was in there, and explained.
"So, in 2011, I attended the TED Conference, and there was an adjacent dinner to that conference, which, in my memory, maybe two or three dozen people, different roundtables. And I was at that dinner. And, apparently, Jeffrey Epstein was at that dinner.
As far as I know, I did not ever meet him. I never exchanged a word with him. We must have been at different tables. And, in my life — I went through all my e-mail files — I have never exchanged a word. I have never had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein. The photos are not of me and Epstein. There's one of me alone, because nobody wants to talk to me at a party, and another with me chatting with Sergey Brin, one of the Google co-founders.
And so the bottom line is, I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was in 2011, so I didn't know he was at the party, and I have had no contact with him."
well brooks is right about one thing....nobody wants to talk to him.
Democrats need to take the SC seat of Lindsey Graham. Who is the best candidate? Annie Andrews seems strong; does she have a shot at beating Senator Graham?
She is a great candidate but as of now it does not appear to be a competitive race.
Everything you say is perfectly understandable and acceptable to at least 2/3rds of Americans yearning for the party cohesion you describe. It makes me think, though, that many party leaders, pundits and activists are still jockeying for their factional, marginal and fractured partisan gain in this current debacle. Their allegiance to non-party DSA facing solutions, for example, clutters the party's air and brain waves. THE big tent party has the capacity to be even bigger with increasing numbers of independents and disaffected Republicans. To effectively face the task ahead, the stakes holding up the big tent all need to concentrate their energies on the tent, not their own potential gain. I say pull up the DSA facing stake and reposition the other stakes for the sake of Americans.
it bemuses me when people argue for a big tent and then say that the way to do that is to exclude part of the base. the DSA solutions, also, tend to be far more people-forward than those of centrist dems. it's bizarre to say that that particular wing is uniquely about factionalism, while the others aren't--particularly when some party leaders openly snubbed their own candidate in new york city.
Well stated, Anne.
ditto
I mean no disrespect to DSA politicians themselves or their people-forward positions, but as long as they remain DSA-forward, I don't believe they have both feet in the Democratic party. It is a dilemma for the Democratic party and you see how conflicted it is by many leaders' reticence. DSA itself has many factions, some of which openly call for a divorce with the Democratic party. We are told there is an existential crisis in the U.S. but as an independent I am not convinced that the Democratic party speaks convincingly to the 2/3rds of the electorate between the fringe left and fringe right. These are the people who will vote for affordability for the bottom 90%, ensure continuation of solidly supported safety nets, cement capitalism that works for all (DSA's platform rejects capitalism, check it out), ensure election reforms, forge a iron-clad path toward citizenship while strengthening borders, keep Americans safer from gun violence as well as urban decay, fund humane homeless and mental health solutions, and so much more. I call for DSA politicians, pundits and activists on the right edge of their non-party to put both feet into the Democratic party as progressives and to take themselves out of the anti-capitalist camp instead of conveniently distancing themselves from their own non-party platform depending on their stump speech or tough interview question.
I should also add that party "base" as I see it is determined mostly on undue influence by the loudest politicians, pundits and activists. I'm a simple independent with much to learn, but along with so many other learners not at all centrist, and the Democratic party has much to learn about us in order to keep on its almost completely non-DSA-facing winning streak.
What can we do to activate the bicameral strategy to half Trump's assault on the constitutional order? It sounds like a great idea but how do we make it happen?
Mr. Rosenberg I would like to get your emails covering what you put on sub stack.
I can’t easily copy sections of sub stack. It doesn’t allow me to do that.
If I can’t copy sections, I can’t send my own emails as easily or be as effective as a donor.
This is the Last time I’m asking.
If you don’t send me emails on all of your sub stack posts, I will donate less to causes we care about, because it’s hard to do so.
Thanks
Jeff Wincentsen
I don't understand what you are asking me to do. All these posts go as emails.
Mr. Wincentsen, using a computer (not phone or tablet), have you checked your Hopium settings?
We want our $80 trillion back!! (see HCR today). Tax the bloated rich and restore the money we earned and were cheated of. 45 years of thievery is enough.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a peaceful, joyful holiday season without having to worry about the next part of our country and its laws that Trump is destroying? Sadly, we do not have that luxury. Like Washington's army hunkering down at Valley Forge. Like the 101st Airborne freezing to hold Bastogne. Like so many other examples of American fortitude, we are forced to spend this holiday season clawing with all our might to defend our country and the vital principles on which it was founded. We shall overcome.
We have a sick, demented, man with malignant narcotism in office and 1/3 of his base believe him. We have to ask why? Are these people stupid? What in their minds makes them believe his lies, when there is perfectly clear proof that he is lying? Is it racism? What cognitive feature are they lacking? I think the DNC needs to figure that out and address that.
We have to accept that a certain percentage of Trump's base is unreachable. Many at the margins are stepping away from Trumpism. Those January healthcare premiums will be a wake-up call for more. The DNC doesn't need to message towards the Trumpy faithful. They need to denigrate Trump AND provide a clear message about how they will begin to clean up the mess once they are back in power. As Simon messages us today, we all (and that includes the DNC) just have to continue to raise our game, to be louder and more forceful and more creative in resisting Trump's actions
They fundamentally refuse to believe that he is evil. They might acknowledge that he is flawed, but they argue away anything that points to him being evil. I kind of get it. I refused to believe any of the stories about Clinton abusing women because I liked what he was selling. I wanted to believe that he was a loving husband who would never dream of abusing women. It made me uneasy, so I just stopped listening/reading/watching stories that made me uncomfortable and instead read the reports that trashed the victims. I still felt uneasy, but didn't want to believe that I was someone who could support a rapist, so I just pushed down my disquiet and moved on. I'm not proud of that and now have a much more nuanced view of Clinton, whom I do believe was a great president. Of course, Clinton wasn't evil. He wasn't a sociopath, and he wasn't set on destroying the American way of life. Today's right-wing media sphere is much stronger than the forces that were trashing the women accusing Clinton. We didn't have algorithms pushing us into certain beliefs. All of this is to say that I recognize how I suffered from cognitive dissonance in the Clinton era and set aside a deeply held belief (Believe the accusers!) for political expediency. I think it's possible that 10 years from now, a lot of current MAGA supporters will look back and wonder what the hell happened to them.
What should the DNC do? Keep on chipping away! Push the narrative of corruption (Erica Chenowith says that it is corruption that usually results in the downfall of authoritarian regimes). Keep talking about Epstein and demanding the truth. Keep on filing legal cases. Keep widening the cracks. We are making progress. -- And some MAGA folks are all in because they like the sociopathy, maybe because they are kindred spirits, but I don't believe that's the majority of them.
And to make it clear, I'm not suggesting anything about Clinton and Epstein. I haven't heard any allegations against Clinton by any of the Epstein victims and don't believe he was involved in any crimes there. If he did, then he absolutely deserves to be held accountable for those crimes in a court of law. But I now do believe the women who accused him back in the 90s (who were women, not girls).
It’s basically what LBJ said: you convince a white person that they are better than minorities, and they’ll empty their pockets for you
Pox News. That propaganda is all they know.
"What else can and should our leaders be doing now? A more formal alliance with the blue states and blue AGs? "
Speaking as someone in a state with a very good Dem AG and an awful MAGA Governor--please do ally with the blue AGs!
they're the ones that have been there from the beginning
Simon — it’s Rep. Delia Ramirez, not Salazar.
Yes! She makes us proud!
Her takedown of Noem was superb!
I fixed it Had to run to get my son at the airport and didn't do that last edit!
Thanks Simon for your incredible insights and cheerleaders! It's not a criticism but one of the most important commissions I'm finding interesting checklist to keep in front of our elected officials is voting rights and maintaining the security and sacrity of our voting information. Also, your headline is spot on! The FFOTUS has obviously confused his name Don with a criminal role he sees himself fulfilling!