And a lawyer on the Trump “elite” legal team is calling for Krebs, former head of the federal elections cyber-security division, to be “taken out and shot” or drawn and quartered. Krebs disagreed with Der Fuehrer and must be killed. Classic fascism.
Why isn’t this sort of thing grounds for disbarment? Or is the defense “It’s just a figure of speech”?
Maybe he can get Joe some more votes.
“I am enjoying the turd circling the bowl, even if it refuses to go down”
Can someone please, please make a GIF of a turd with Trump’s face superimposed on it doing just that? Please! It would go viral in a New York minute. .
I don’t know about disbarment, but it likely would be protected speech under the principles set out in the Brandenberg case:
American lawyers can’t say things that ordinary citizens can without facing disciplinary action. Hope someone reports this guy for so outrageous a remark.
For the past 4 years I’ve been expecting a “McCarthy moment” where the dam breaks and trump’s support dries up when the majority of people finally accept what an utterly incompetent, repugnant, cruel, self-serving, grifting piece of shit he actually is. But I’m starting to see I may have been naïve-- even now, with trump’s embarrassing, clearly fictional crybaby tantrums about how the election was rigged, he still seems to have strong support with his base who lap up all the shit he shovels at them like it’s chocolate pudding. Maybe we are in for a future in which every Presidential election is bitterly contested by the loser, no matter how clear-cut the results were.
Only if the loser is a Republican, of course. Because rural counties never have election irregularities - that sort of thing only happens in “Democrat-run” cities, ifyaknowwhattimean.
Ask and you shall receive…
I cannot get the GIF to show here, so here is the link
You’re welcome. It is quite convoluted. And today’s news is that some of Trump’s supporters are looking into the option of using the electoral vote counting act to try to get Trump elected by challenging electoral votes:
My understanding is that it would require both chambers in conference to allow deliberations on the validity of the claims. Fat chance of that happening in the House, where Dems have control.
I could be wrong - it’s a very complicated process obviously.
I think that’s a real concern. Matt Bevin challenged the legitimacy of the governor’s race, no doubt putting into action what Trump started in 2016 by suggesting that his loss could only come as a result of a rigged election. The Republicans are becoming a conspiracy theory party, and they are increasingly engaging in conspiracy theory politics, which is incompatible with democracy.
I said a little bit upthread that I keep expecting a “McCarthy moment” with trump, a “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” callout that finally bursts the bubble of support for him. Here’s a decent article discussing the parallels between McCarthyism and trumpism-- it’s pretty striking, right down to the Roy Cohn connection:
I wonder if establishment Republicans want it going that far. Then they will have to go on record of either supporting Trump’s nonsense or annoying his base.
McCarthyism is nothing like Trumpism - Trumpism is much more dangerous. McCarthyism is “You’re either with us or the terrorists,” or “You either support the troops or you don’t.” We did McCarthyism redux already - that was in Bush/Cheney.
This isn’t 1958 all over again; this is 1858 all over again.
Time to drag out my turd post from twelve years ago. (Non-election related)
Things have a way of going too far before people realize they’ve gone too far - that’s the GOP pretty much since 2015.
McCarthyism is nothing like Trumpism? Really? I agree that trumpism is more dangerous than McCarthyism-- but in degree, not in style. I mean "You’re either with us or the terrorists” is straight out of the trump playbook. The article I linked to reads like a dress rehearsal for trumpism. The difference is, trump is President, not just Senator, and there’s no “have you no sense of decency” moment in sight.
Republicans use violent rhetoric because they like to intimidate others. They don’t seek persuasion; they value coercion instead. I know people hope this goes away, but it won’t. They will keep pushing aggression because they know that they can’t win through persuasion, can’t win with ideas, so they favor force instead.
The problem with asking that of Trump and his cohort is that they’ve already made it very clear what the answer is. And that’s why Trumpism is fundamentally different from McCarthyism.