Trump goes blank for 40 seconds mid-speech during South Dakota event, raising more questions about HIS age and mental acuity as 2024 election approaches

 

Donald Trump went blank, abruptly stopping his speech and staring awkwardly at the audience for about 40 seconds, during a recent event in South Dakota. The incident adds to the mounting evidence that Trump, at age 77, is cognitively impaired, mentally unhinged, or both. That Trump would go silent for about 40 seconds is particularly alarming because this was the same speech where he claimed, as president, he would have the power to prosecute political opponents, even creating phony cases against them. This came about one week before Trump said he would have media organizations and their employees prosecuted for treason if they produced news reports that displeased him -- and he suggested Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, should be put to death for treason because he communicated with his Chinese counterparts (as other Trump staff members had requested) to reassure them that Trump would not invade their country following the events of January 6.

(Note: Video of Trump's 40-second pause can be viewed here.)

Polls continue to show Americans are concerned that President Joe Biden, at age 80, is too old to serve a full second term and might have eroding mental faculties. But Trump, Biden's likely opponent in the 2024 election, keeps providing evidence that his age and declining mental acuity should also be of concern. CNN's Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, analyzes these issues in an opinion piece under the headline "Trump's gaffes should raise questions about his fitness for office":  

A Fox News poll released last week found that 52% of Americans don’t believe 77-year-old Donald Trump has the “mental soundness to serve” as president. That same poll showed 61% of Americans have the same concern about President Joe Biden, who is 80. But while there is extensive media coverage about Biden’s age and gaffes, Trump, for the most part, gets a pass.

For example, at a September 8 rally in South Dakota, the 2024 GOP presidential front-runner abruptly stopped mid-speech for 40 seconds as he awkwardly looked at the audience, his eyes darting around. Some of his supporters online asserted that Trump — who had just said the United States was “the greatest nation in the history of the world” — was overcome with emotion. Have you ever seen Trump overcome with emotion? It’s hard for me to buy that explanation.

Regardless of the reason for the pause, imagine if Biden had abruptly stopped a speech midway through and began looking around the audience for more than half a minute? Much of the media — and I don’t mean just right-wing outlets — would likely ask if Biden had become confused or had fallen ill, or if the teleprompter stopped working and he wasn’t mentally able to fill the time? Such a clip of Biden would probably be played nonstop on cable news and dissected by pundits and even doctors specializing in cognitive issues.

But with Trump, there was no notice, although Frank Bruni took note of his lapses into incoherence in a recent New York Times column with the headline “Trump Is Really Old, Too.”

Trump also went off the rails in a speech, ironically, not far from the White House. Writes Obeidallah: 

Then there was Trump’s gaffe-filled speech Friday at the Washington, DC, Pray Vote Stand Summit that some observers dubbed a “word salad.” But that framing is not close to what happened. Trump — who faces 91 felony charges in four criminal cases — confusingly invoked former President Barack Obama’s name twice and apparently forgot World War II had already happened.

After calling Biden “cognitively impaired” (talk about irony!), Trump claimed the president was leading us into World War II. Of course, that global conflict ended in 1945, a year before Trump was born.

Trump then mistakenly referred to Obama in two instances. First Trump declared, “As you know, crooked Joe Biden and the radical left thugs have weaponized law enforcement to arrest their leading political opponent, and leading by a lot, including Obama — I’ll tell you what.” Obviously, Obama is not running for president in 2024.

Trump later stated, “With Obama, we won an election that everyone said couldn’t be won.” Apparently realizing his mistake, Trump then quickly said, “Hillary Clinton,” who was his opponent in 2016.

The media seems to have a double standard when it comes to coverage of any verbal missteps Biden makes and Trump's over-the-top ravings, And Obeidallah notes that Trump's tendency to lie relentlessly might be a sign of a delusional disorder:

Again, if Biden had made those types of mistakes, many in the media likely would have covered them as part of the narrative that the octogenarian president lacks the mental soundness to do the job for another four years.

Besides these mistakes, there’s another issue unique to Trump, which demands more attention. It’s his assertion that he won the 2020 election. Sure, he could just be claiming he won so his base will not view him as a loser, but there is a good-faith question that needs to be explored of whether such a claim is delusional.

Just last month, Trump again said he won Georgia in 2020 despite that being patently false. Trump continues to make the same claim for the overall 2020 results despite his own officials after the election — including then-Attorney General William Barr — informing him there was no evidence to support his bogus assertions. And the former president must know his 60-plus election challenges in court all failed, including in cases before Trump-appointed judges.

Further undermining Trump’s claims he won in 2020 is something he mentioned in his speech  in Washington, and that is polling. Trump is now touting polls that he’s leading Biden. (In reality, the two are locked in a tight race within the margin of error in a hypothetical match-up.) Well, the polls in the weeks before the 2020 election showed Biden winning by an average of 10 points. A Fox News poll released just days before the 2020 election had Biden up by 8 percentage points. If Trump had been up by that margin and then lost in 2020, perhaps it would have bolstered his claims of election wrongdoing. Instead, the polls predicted Biden would win — and he did.

Trump’s gaffes may simply be mistakes. But his continued false claims that he won the 2020 election warn us that he is either one of the most committed liars we’ve ever seen or his views are delusional. In either case, for the sake of our nation, Trump can never again be trusted to be the commander in chief.

Trump, if re-elected, threatens to prosecute the media and his political enemies, a sure signal this guy is not mentally well and is unfit to serve in the office he seeks

Trump and Smudge, the cat of many memes

 

Donald Trump, if re-elected, is calling for his critics -- including media organizations and their employees, to be prosecuted for treason, according to a report at The New Republic. This came on the same weekend that Trump said Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America's top military officer, deserves to be put to the death for treason. And it comes roughly one week after Trump said during a speech in South Dakota that, as president, he could prosecute his political enemies. 

If this does not convince Americans that Trump is mentally ill, dangerous, unfit to hold any public office (much less president), and -- to put it bluntly -- too ignorant to be allowed anywhere near the White House, it's hard to imagine what will.

It's hard to rank Trump's nutty statements, but for purposes of this post, we will stipulate that his threat to prosecute the media for engaging in Constitutionally protected speech (by, you know, the First Amendment) is No. 1. Of all people, a president should understand the rights to free speech and a free press; after all, it's called the First Amendment for a reason -- many scholars see it as the most important provision in our founding documents, a building block of what it means to live in our democracy. That Trump doesn't get that  indicates he is too dim-witted and hard-headed to serve in the office he seeks.

How alarming are Trump's statements of the past 8-10 days? The New Republic (TNR) gives an idea with this headline: "Trump Goes Full Deranged, Suggests Charging People He Doesn't Like With Treason." If that is not clear enough, TNR adds this sub-headline: "This is not a joke. Donald Trump is stating very plainly what he would do if re-elected." Torri Otten provides the appropriate tone with these words from an article dated 9/25/23:

Donald Trump went over the edge over the weekend and began calling for his detractors to be prosecuted or even put to death.

“They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-sided and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason,’” he wrote on Truth Social Sunday night.

“I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States … the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” he said. “They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!”

Trump has never been a fan of news outlets that give him the slightest bit of negative or unbiased coverage. He even turned on his once-favorite Fox News after the network confirmed Arizona voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

But the fact that he is threatening to censor news outlets through federal regulatory powers is terrifying, not to mention a huge violation of the Constitution.

Otten is right on target. That polls tell us large swaths of the American electorate do not grasp the reality that Donald Trump is a raving lunatic, and that he probably is incompetent to run a corner lemonade stand . . . well those folks could do us all a huge favor and stay at home on election day.

How does Trump con his MAGA followers into believing he actually is fit to serve as president? Consider his words above: "The LameStream Media . . . are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!" 

Psychologists call this "projection." Trump, of course, is the real threat to Democracy -- a genuine enemy of the people. But he uses projection to lull the MAGA crowd into a false sense of security, providing a distraction from the issues that really cause their fears and anxieties -- and confirms their prejudices. It's a subtle rhetorical device that essentially amounts to saying, "Hey, look over there. Those are your enemies." Trump makes regular use of projection, and it's a big part of his con-man act.

Let's return to Tori Otten's piece, where she provides background on Trump's recent ravings:

Trump’s threat to the news media was actually his second attempt to menace detractors this past weekend alone. On Friday, he slammed Mark Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggesting that perhaps he also committed treason.

“This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States,” Trump said on Truth Social. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”

Trump was referring to two phone calls Milley made to Beijing, one during Trump’s last months in office and the second in the aftermath of the January 6 riot. The calls, which were to assure China that Trump was not planning to attack the country, were done at the direction of other Trump administration officials.

Trump, of course, appointed Milley to his role in 2018—but since then has repeatedly lashed out at the general. His Friday comments came after The Atlantic published a profile of Milley that described how he “protected the Constitution from Donald Trump.”

It should go without saying, but Trump making comments like this is incredibly dangerous. His followers have shown themselves quick to spring to action. Hundreds of January 6 defendants have said they descended on Washington because Trump personally called on them.

Republican lawmakers too quickly follow the former president’s commands. Another Trump supporter, Arizona Representative Paul Gosar, has also called for Milley to face death. In his newsletter Sunday, Gosar baselessly claimed that Milley and then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had worked to delay the National Guard’s response to the January 6 riot, to make Trump look bad.

“In a better society … General Milley would be hung,” Gosar wrote. “How this traitor remains in office is a question we need answered.”

(If it’s any consolation for Gosar, Milley retires on October 1.)

Gosar has shown himself remarkably willing to take up Trump’s call, even on the most extreme behavior. In December, Gosar posted on X, then called Twitter, backing Trump’s call to terminate the U.S. Constitution and overturn the 2020 election. He deleted the post an hour later, after it sparked backlash.

Gosar is the goofball that Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander claimed helped plan the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol. Alexander has strong ties to Alabama, and at last report, was the subject of a police report in Colorado, alleging he had attempted to obtain "d--k pics" from teen boys. In a post dated 5/2/23, the communications manager for the Johnstown, CO, Police Department said the allegations against Alexander were under investigation. Our research indicates Alexander could face 2-6 years in prison and a $500,000 fine if prosecuted and convicted for "online solicitation of a minor" in Colorado.

On top of that, Alexander has a well-documented criminal history from the days when he was known as Ali Akbar. He also has a history of seeking gay sex via the Grindr online app.

(Note: I've included a meme of Trump and Smudge the Cat in an effort to add some levity to this post. But there is nothing amusing about the subject matter. If you are an American, Republican or Democrat, Trump is a threat to your way of life. I pray we get that before it's too late.)

Donald Trump's assertion that, as president, he could make up charges to prosecute political opponents runs contrary to 40-plus years of U.S. policy on justice

Donald Trump takes questions from the press

 

Polls indicate Americans are concerned that President Joe Biden, at age 80, is too old and has shaky mental acuity that might not allow him to serve a full second term if re-elected. Garbled attempts at public speaking involving Biden's likely opponent, Republican Donald Trump, suggest Americans are worried about the wrong candidate. That is particularly true when you consider the content of Trump's speeches -- on those occasions when you can make out what he is trying to say.

Consider a speech Trump gave at a campaign rally in South Dakota on Sept. 8. Trump was relatively coherent, but what he said -- not the way he said it -- should scare the bejeebers out of anyone who cares about the rule of law and America's democracy. Trump stated that, if elected in 2024, he would have the capacity to prosecute his political opponents, even suggesting he could make up criminal charges against them. This is from a report at meidastouch.com on the event:

Trump mused about the possibility of indicting opponents even when they did nothing wrong, claiming that he would ask his attorney general to "indict him on income tax evasion" and that the Attorney General will just "figure it out."

This is from a report on the event at CNN:

In his remarks in South Dakota – where he accepted the endorsement of Gov. Kristi Noem, a potential vice presidential pick if he is the GOP nominee – Trump complained that he was the victim of “corrupt and blatant” victimization and “election interference.” He said the cases filed against him would “allow” him, if elected president, to call up his attorney general and demand an investigation into his political adversaries. “Indict my opponent, he’s doing well,” Trump said, implying that was exactly what Biden had done. The ex-president used a sarcastic tone in the raucous atmosphere of a campaign rally, so context is important. But given his history of following through on threats, his comments may end up being predictive if he wins in 2024. 

Anyone with a third-grade education should know that's not how our government works -- not even close. But recent reports indicate Trump is not concerned about how government in the U.S. is supposed to work -- in fact, he shows signs of not being interested in governance at all.

Rather he intends to become "president for life," turning his administration into a dictatorship. In fact, Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, says Trump is running for president only because he hopes it will help him stay out of prison. Should that alarm the American electorate? Absolutely, according to the CNN report: 

[Trump] frequently argued as president that he had all but unfettered constitutional power, which is an attitude that is clearly in evidence in three of his indictments – over attempts to overthrow the 2020 election and over his hoarding of classified documents after leaving the White House.

So, when Trump issues threats on the campaign trail, it’s worth listening.

How wildly unlawful is Trump's vision of being able to prosecute his political opponents, even concocting bogus charges against perceived foes who had not violated the law in any way? Here is the short answer: Since the late 1970s, during the post-Watergate era when our country still was reeling from Richard Nixon's scandal-riddled administration, U.S. policy has been that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will operate independently of the White House -- that the president will have no say in the DOJ's charging or non-charging decisions. The Jimmy Carter administration produced the first memorandum spelling out this policy -- and it has been followed by almost every president (of both political parties). From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, every president has signed off on the idea that the White House should not influence DOJ decision-making. The only exception might be Donald Trump; it is unclear if the Trump White House followed the law on DOJ independence during his first term -- and he clearly has no intention of following the law during a second term. Here is a memorandum on the subject from the current attorney general, Merrick Garland.  

A 2017 report from protectdemocracy.org spells out the history of DOJ independence from the White House and also addresses reports that the Trump administration might have violated the law:

The promise that every American will be treated equally under the law and that none is above the law is a bedrock principle of American democracy. The freedom from political influence — real or perceived — on law enforcement underpins all of our other freedoms. By contrast, political influence or interference in law enforcement has been a clear hallmark distinguishing authoritarian regimes from true democracies around the globe.¹

For decades, to prevent even the appearance of political meddling in federal law enforcement, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written policies governing White House contacts with agencies and offices within the executive branch that have investigatory and enforcement responsibilities. To ensure the impartial application of the laws, these policies have extended to White House contacts with any executive branch agency or office regarding investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory decisions, grants and contracts involving specific parties.

To date, the Trump Administration has not articulated publicly a White House policy on agency contacts. Further, multiple reported contacts between senior political staff at the White House and enforcement officers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) appear to have violated 40 years of accepted, bipartisan policy. In light of the questions that its actions have raised, and in order to demonstrate its commitment to upholding the rule of law, the Trump White House must release and abide by an agency contacts policy that is consistent with accepted, bipartisan norms.

In recent weeks, a number of reports have raised questions regarding whether the White House has in place and is abiding by an agency-contacts policy like ones that have governed White House agency contacts for the past 40 years in both Democratic and Republican administrations. This past weekend, The New York Times reported that White House Counsel Donald McGahn “was working to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates.”² (The White House later attempted to walk back claims of such an effort). Last month, multiple publications reported that the White House asked the FBI to refute reports that Trump campaign advisors had contacts with Russia during the presidential campaign.³ A week prior to that, the New York Daily News reported that White House senior Adviser Stephen Miller, who is not a lawyer, called the home of Robert Capers, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, to dictate how he should defend the Administration’s travel ban.⁴

There is a long-standing and bipartisan belief that the laws of the United States should be administered and enforced in an impartial manner and, accordingly, that there should not be an appearance that politics plays any part in the Department of Justice’s investigative and enforcement operations.⁵ This is because the effectiveness of the Department of Justice rests on the public’s confidence — and the reality — that DOJ is above ideology and partisanship in its enforcement of the law.⁶

The need for the Department of Justice to be insulated from the reality and the appearance of politics is reinforced in federal law. The Hatch Act places restrictions on the political participation of government employees in certain agencies where it is particularly important that there is no appearance of politicization, like the military and intelligence agencies.⁷ These restrictions apply to career and political appointees in the Department of Justice and FBI.⁸

Stemming from this basic principle that the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the DOJ should be free of partisan influence, it has been consistent policy for 40 years to limit communications between the White House and the DOJ, including the FBI.

As for details about the Trump administration's possible violation of U.S. policy, they can be found at this Time magazine article, under the headline "The FBI Talked to the White House About Its Russia Probe. That Was Probably Against the Rules":

FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may have violated multiple existing Justice Department rules controlling contacts between the bureau and White House officials when they spoke earlier this month with White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus about their ongoing investigation into Russia’s influence operation against the 2016 U.S. presidential election, according to several former senior Justice Department officials. 

The first questionable contact came when McCabe spoke with Priebus for five minutes after a 7:30 a.m. meeting at the White House on Feb. 15 on an unrelated intelligence issue. The day before, the New York Times had reported that Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had multiple contacts with known agents of Russian intelligence in the year before the election.

At the White House meeting, McCabe told Priebus, ‘I want you to know story in NYT is BS,” according to senior Administration officials who briefed reporters on Feb. 24.

Priebus asked McCabe what could be done to push back, saying the White House was “getting crushed” on the story. McCabe demurred, and then later called back to say, “We’d love to help but we can’t get into the position of making statements on every story.”

FBI Director James Comey later called Priebus himself and repeated McCabe’s statements about The New York Times story. Comey also said he was unwilling to speak publicly about the piece but agreed to let Priebus cite senior intelligence officials in his pushback, the officials said.

The back-and-forth may have broken internal rules in place for decades, according to former officials.

While serious, the Comey-Priebus interactions appear to be relatively minor compared to Trump's notion of making up charges to prosecute political opponents.

For one thing, US. policy has been clear for roughly four decades: The president is just that -- the president, and he is not a prosecutor. He is not to play any role in DOJ prosecutions or operations. His staff members are not to play any role.

Trump clearly does not grasp this, and his public statements indicate he has no intention of learning about it. 

Does this suggest a second Trump administration would be even more lawless than the first? The answer almost certainly is yes.

Taylor Swift's NYC wedding was my favorite July 4 event, but Trump's Mount Rushmore speech, claiming Dems welcome communism, signals new battles ahead

Trump speaks at Mount Rushmore (LA Times)

What was the most newsworthy event in a jam-packed July 4 weekend that included World Cup soccer; Wimbledon tennis; a record-breaking heat wave that caused at least 25 deaths in the U.S.; more drama surrounding Donald Trump's various escapades (including his Reflecting Pool fiasco and failed Great American State Fair on the National Mall), and my personal favorite, Taylor Swift's wedding (and by the way, Swift's hubby, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, was among attendees at Madison Square Garden -- not that many people noticed; Kelce is a pretty accomplished dude in his own right, having made the National Football League's All-Pro team seven times while holding almost every postseason receiving record and is among the all-time leaders in career receptions, receiving yards, and 1,000-yard seasons at the position. Oh, and he has played in five Super Bowls, winning three of them. No wonder many analysts consider Kelce the best tight end in NFL history. But when your wife is one of the wealthiest, most talented, most successful, and most popular people on the planet, you likely will go down as one of the most overlooked grooms in a world full of overlooked grooms.

In Kelce's case, he wasn't just battling his bride for attention. Even at 6-5, 250 pounds, he could get lost amid the swarm of A-list celebrities on hand for the nuptials -- including Brad Pitt, Cindy Crawford, Conan O'Brien, The Chicks (formerly Dixie Chicks), Dakota Johnson, Ed Sheeran, Ethan Hawke, Ice Spice, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, Mariska Hargitay, Michael Strahan, Erin Andrews, Miranda Lambert, Pat Monahan, Peyton Manning, Reese Witherspoon, Robin Roberts, Sabrina Carpenter, Simone Biles, Stephen Colbert, Stephen Spielberg, Tom Brady, Tom Hanks, and Wayne Gretzky. Adam Sandler officiated, and Paul McCartney (I Want to Hold Your Hand")  and Stevie Nicks (no setlist has been released) gave musical performances.

You can see why that was my favorite event over the holiday weekend, and I imagine it got votes from many of you. But most newsworthy? My choice, unfortunately, involves Donald Trump, and the speech he gave at Mount Rushmore on Friday night. Why was that speech newsworthy? Trump used the occasion to warn that communism is an emerging threat for America in the wake of electoral victories by Democratic Socialists -- perhaps most famously by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. 

In his Mount Rushmore speech, Trump was trying to sell the idea that socialism and communism are the same thing. Like much of what Trump says, that isn't true. Here is how Sarah Pruitt, writing at history.com, puts it, under the headline "How are Socialism and Communism Different? Though the terms are often used interchangeably, socialism and communism are different in key ways":

Both socialism and communism are essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods (that is, making money) in a society. Both aim to fix the problems they see as created by a free-market capitalist system, including the exploitation of workers and a widening gulf between rich and poor.

But while socialism and communism share some basic similarities, there are important differences between them. . . . 

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on need. In practice, a strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference between socialism and communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the ruling classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, rather than overthrowing it. 

In his 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Program, [Karl] Marx summarized communist philosophy in this way: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people are compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy. 

In the past week or so, we have seen multiple reports about Republican plans to equate socialism with communism, conduct a coordinated scare campaign leading to the 2026 midterms, and beat Democrats over the head with the idea that Democratic Socialists might as well be called Democratic Communists. 

That means now might be a good time to ask these questions: Was it wise for Democratic Party leadership to allow candidates who self describe as socialists to run under the party banner? Did party leaders not realize socialism is a term that instantly raises negative connotations in the minds of many Americans and makes it ridiculously easy for Republicans to sow confusion by tying Democratic socialists to the "scourge of communism."

One could look at Trump's Mount Rushmore speech as his opening salvo in a GOP plan to inundate the news with horror stories about communism coming to American shores via the Democratic Party. In a holiday setting, when a political speech normally would be expected to unite the country, Trump was -- by his standards -- relatively restrained. But a report from Reuters indicates he is ready to take off the gloves at any moment. Under the headline "Trump extols America, rails at communism in US 250th celebration," Steve Holland writes:

U.S. President Donald Trump called on Americans to protect the freedoms the ​nation's founders envisioned 250 years ago against what he has portrayed as the "communist" threat posed by ‌progressive Democrats, speaking on the eve of Independence Day at Mount Rushmore.

"We stand beneath the monument of these heroes, a true group of unbelievable people, and we rededicate ourselves to being a nation as big, bold, noble, and as great as these American giants, and that's ​not easy to do, but we're going to do it," Trump said at the granite mountain in ​South Dakota where the heads of four American presidents are carved.

"There is now a resurgence of ⁠the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our ​way of life and our great success," he said. "We're not going to let this happen." 

Have Democrats seen this coming? Are they prepared to fight back? The answers had better be yes if America is to have a post-Trump future, which needs to start immediately -- and not in November 2026, and Dear God, not in 2028. We certainly cannot count on a dysfunctional, spineless GOP to govern at this point. The best result would be that the worst among them -- and that numbers a lot of people -- will be detained in some type of military intervention, followed by investigations, prosecutions, and lengthy sentences behind bars where appropriate. Given that Trump's second term likely marks the most grotesque political crime spree in U.S. history, look for the number of enablers, loyalists, money men, sycophants, and incompetents due prison terms to be substantial.

At his speech in Keystone, South Dakota, Trump talked tough about the threat communism poses, but lurking in the background is the Epstein-files story, and if that ever breaks open in our lifetimes it could bring the GOP's criminal enterprise crashing down. Here is more from Steve Holland about Trump's speech:

Trump has been making such points ​about gains by democratic socialists for a week now, but he made his most pointed and prolonged argument on that theme on Friday, coming as Americans grapple with persistent inflation and high gas prices since the start of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

Increasingly uneasy that the conflict ​could cost the party control of at least one chamber of Congress in November's midterm elections, Republican lawmakers have seized ​on a recent string of successes by left-wing Democratic candidates.

Trump said that the threat also came from "newcomers to our country," tying his ‌anti-communist ⁠rhetoric to the anti-immigrant theme that fueled his election and has been historically part of the criticism of communism in the United States. Trump at one point on Friday said the newcomers need to be expelled.

"We resolve and swear for all to hear that the citizens of the United States of America will vanquish communism quickly ... We will send them ​quickly away, and we will ​continue to build our country ⁠bigger and better, stronger than ever before. America will never be a communist country!" Trump said, before seguing immediately into the issue at hand.

"We can only lose the midterms if ​we allow ourselves to lose the midterms."

Four progressive candidates, including three democratic socialists, won ​competitive Democratic primaries in ⁠New York City last week and in Colorado on Tuesday. Progressive candidates have also won contests in Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Trump last week called their victories “the greatest threat to our country since its founding."

Given Donald Trump's recent struggles to speak coherently, should Americans be concerned more about HIS age and mental faculties than Biden's?

Donald Trump speaks at an event in South Dakota

 

President Joe Biden's age has become a significant news story as campaign activities for the 2024 election move toward high gear. Polls indicate a significant number of Americans are concerned that Biden's mental acuity, at age 80, is slipping, and he might not be able to carry out his duties for a full second term. It turns out, however, that Americans might be worried about the mental sharpness of the wrong candidate. After all, Biden's likely opponent, Republican Donald Trump, has made statements in recent days that indicate he believes he is running against Barack Obama in 2024. (Obama's presidency ended on Jan. 20, 2017, and he has never run against Trump.) Trump also apparently believes Biden, if re-elected, could lead the U.S. into World War II. (WWII ended in September 1945, roughly one year before Trump was born.)

Are voters concerned about Trump's age and mental acuity? Maybe they should be, several political observers noted after what has been called Trump's "word salad" performance at recent campaign events. Writes The Independent's Oliver O'Connell under the title "Trump serves up chaotic ‘word salad’ about Biden sparking ‘World War Two’ and running against Obama;’ I can only imagine the headlines if 80-year-old Biden had said this’." (The post includes a video of Trump's jumbled speech.):

In his latest gaffe-laden speech, Donald Trump appeared to suggest former President Barack Obama was running in 2024 as he warned that “cognitively impaired” President Joe Biden could lead the country into “World War Two” if he wins re-election.

During his remarks at the Washington DC Pray Vote Stand Summit on Friday, the former president said: “We have a man who is totally corrupt and the worst president in the history of our country, who is cognitively impaired, in no condition to lead, and is now in charge of dealing with Russia and possible nuclear war.”

“Just think of it. We would be in World War Two very quickly if we’re going to be relying on this man, and far more devastating than any war,” he continued as dramatic music swelled in the background.

“There will never be a war if that happens— there will never be a war like this. It will obliterate everything there is, everybody, it will obliterate every country.”

Trump has made this kind of statement before, but his words were even more tangled than usual this time, O'Connell reports:

In the past, Mr Trump has frequently said that Mr Biden would lead the country into the Third World War, and the gaffe may have gone unnoticed had he not continued to stumble over his words confusing his political opponents with each other.

The former president said he was beating Mr Obama, the 44th president, in the 2024 election polls and then appeared to suggest he had beaten him in 2016 before correcting himself that his opponent then was Hillary Clinton.

What was Trump trying to say? Many observers could only guess -- and wonder about his mental status, writes O'Connell:

Commentators on X, formerly known as Twitter, were left unimpressed and agog by Mr Trump’s “word salad” of a speech.

Former NBCUniversal executive Mike Sington posted: “Trump has lost it, he’s demonstrating how cognitively impaired he is. Watch him ramble, stumble on his words, blank out, then turn to reading the teleprompter to save himself, reading it intently. And he still misspeaks.”

The post includes a video, which Sington published on Twitter, showing Trump struggling to speak with any hint of clarity. Sington was not alone in his amazement at Trump's difficulty with a seemingly straightforward speech, writes O'Connell:

MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan tweeted:” 77-year-old Trump last night was so confused and incoherent that he suggested Obama was his opponent in 2024, also suggested he beat Obama in 2016, and seemed to think we were on the verge of Word War *2*.”

He added: “I can only imagine the headlines if 80-year-old Biden had said this.”

Former Trump White House staffer, now co-host of The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin, wrote: “I’ve been outspoken over my concerns about Biden’s age. But being consistent: This is a word-salad mess. Trump seems confused about who he ran against in ‘16. He’s just 3 years younger than Biden.”

“America deserves better,” she concluded.

At another event on Friday, the former president also repeated the bizarre claim that Americans need to show ID to buy a loaf of bread.

Are these the most alarming statements from Trump's recent efforts to speak in public? No, and it is not even close. We will discuss his most troubling statements in an upcoming post.

(To be continued.)

Email from NRA operative shows Jeff Sessions was firmly in the loop on early efforts to build links between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign

Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions, former U.S. Senator (R-AL) and current Trump attorney general, was directly in the loop on plans to form a "back channel" between Russia's Vladimir Putin and the Donald Trump campaign, according to a new report at Rolling Stone (RS)

Building on a Democratic response to the U.S. House Intelligence Committee report on the Trump/Russia alliance, RS focuses on Putin ally Alexander Torshin and his efforts to reach the Trump campaign via the National Rifle Association (NRA). In the process, RS shines significant new light on an email between NRA and Republican operative Paul Erickson and longtime Sessions aide Rick Dearborn.

What is at the heart of the email? It shows Sessions knew about early efforts to build a link between Russia and the Trump campaign -- and it adds to evidence that Sessions lied to Congress on multiple occasions. It also suggests Sessions might wind up in federal prison -- and the NRA could wind up on the scrap heap of history -- before the smoke has cleared on Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump/Russia scandal.

The response from the Democratic minority indicates Republicans on the committee made no serious effort to get at the facts connecting Russia and the Trump campaign. In fact, the majority report might charitably be called a whitewash.

RS reporter Tim Dickinson sets the stage by focusing on Alexander Torshin and his ties to Putin and the NRA:

The Democratic report affirms and amplifies the findings of Rolling Stone's investigation into the NRA's Russia connections. In particular, the Democrats strongly suggest that Putin ally Alexander Torshin was running an op through the NRA: "The Kremlin-linked individual" – Torshin – "appears to have used the group" – the NRA – "to befriend and establish a backchannel to senior Trump campaign associates through their mutual affinity for firearms," the Democrats write, "a strategy consistent with Russian trade craft." (Torshin, a lifetime NRA member, was recently sanctioned by the Treasury Department and can no longer travel to the United States.)

That leads to the email, written about six months before the 2016 election, that ties Sessions to the whole sordid scheme. Reports Dickinson:

The Democratic report also publishes a full excerpt of an infamous May 2016 email from Paul Erickson to the Trump campaign. (Previously, this email had only been reported in snippets by The New York Times.) Erickson is an NRA- and GOP operative who repeatedly visited a Torshin-backed gun-rights group in Moscow. He later started a mysterious business with Torshin's protege, Maria Butina, in South Dakota.

The excerpt is illuminating: Erickson addressed the email – which included a proposed meeting between candidate Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin – to Rick Dearborn, then a top Trump campaign staffer. But the full text suggests Sen. Jeff Sessions was directly in the loop. Erickson wrote:

"I'm now writing to you and Sen. Sessions in your roles as Trump foreign policy experts/advisors. […] Happenstance and the (sometimes) international reach of the NRA placed me in a position a couple of years ago to slowly begin cultivating a back-channel to President Putin's Kremlin. Russia is quietly but actively seeking a dialogue with the U.S. that isn't forthcoming under the current administration. And for reasons that we can discuss in person or on the phone, the Kremlin believes that the only possibility of a true re-set in this relationship would be with a new Republican White House."

Let that last line of the email sink in for a moment. The Russians believe it will be favorable to them if a certain Republican is in the White House, and they want to make sure Jeff Sessions knows about it. Did the email actually make its way to Sessions -- and to others near the top of the Trump food chain? The RS report leaves little doubt:

Did Sessions, now the attorney general, receive a copy of this email directly? The report's footnote, sourcing the email, reveals the document came from "Attorney General Jeff Session [sic] Document Production." Rolling Stone asked for clarification from a spokesperson for Ranking Member Adam Schiff; he replied: "We cannot comment."

That this email was found in Sessions' files is a startling revelation. Sessions previously told House investigators that he did not recall the outreach by Erickson, according to The New York Times. And it may provide new context for why Sessions recused himself from the Justice Department's Russia investigation.

The Democratic report also reveals that Dearborn moved Erickson's message up the chain of command – and amplified when and where Putin hoped to meet with candidate Trump. "Dearborn communicated this request on May 17, 2016 to the highest levels of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Jared Kushner," the Democrats write.

Russia's outreach efforts did result in a meeting with a Trump representative, and there is little doubt Jeff Sessions knew about it. There also is little doubt that Republicans on the intelligence committee tried to cover it up. Writes Dickinson:

Torshin hoped to use the 2016 NRA convention to break the ice, and open a personal line of communication to "someone of high rank in the Trump Campaign," the report continues. "As explained in Dearborn's email, such a meeting would provide Torshin an opportunity “to discuss an offer he claims to be carrying from President Putin to meet with DJT." ("DJT" is a reference to Donald J. Trump.) "They would also like DJT to visit Russia for a world summit on the persecution of Christians at which Putin and Trump would meet.'"

Ultimately, Torshin met the future-President's son, Donald Jr., at the NRA convention. The Democrats upbraid the majority for "conveniently" concluding there was "no evidence that the two discussed the presidential election." The Democrats expand: "this relies solely on the voluntary and self-interested testimony of the individual in question . . . Trump Jr." The report adds: "The Majority refused multiple requests by the Minority to interview witnesses central to this line of inquiry, including Torshin, Butina, Erickson, and others."

How ugly could this get for the NRA -- with Jeff Sessions right in the middle of it? From RS:

The Democrats conclude the NRA section of their report with a litany of questions the GOP majority refused to examine, writing that the GOP majority report "ignores significant outstanding questions about individuals who sought to set up this back channel, including why Torshin and Butina were interested in connecting the Trump campaign to Putin, what they sought to get out of that connection, why they enlisted the support of NRA colleagues, and whether others in the campaign were communicating with Russia through the NRA."

The Democrats also underscore that Republicans took no interest in getting to the bottom of allegations that Russian money illegally boosted Trump's candidacy. "The Majority refused to investigate," Democrats write, "whether Russian-linked intermediaries used the NRA to illegally funnel money to the Trump Campaign, to open lines of communication with or approaches to Trump or his associates, and how those approaches may have informed Russia's active measures campaign as it unfolded throughout 2016."

Donald Trump tries to convince U.S. judges he had absolute immunity but winds up adding to the deluge of evidence that he is unfit to serve as president

Donald Trump leaves Washington hotel after court hearing

 

While his lawyers tried to convince a panel of federal judges yesterday that he, while president, enjoyed absolute immunity, Donald Trump instead provided more evidence -- on top of evidence that we already had -- that he is unfit to serve as president.

How did that happen, in a New York courtroom where arguments on the election-interference criminal case against Trump were being heard? As many of us have suspected for some time -- and you can include me in that crowd -- Trump is utterly clueless about the workings of government in the United States. A reasonably sentient being might ask, "If this guy wants to lead our government, shouldn't he have at least some idea of how it operates?" The answer is yes, but Trump proved yesterday that he is out to lunch on fairly important matters --including the justice system and the electoral process.

Let's first examine Trump's view of the justice system. He has stated on multiple occasions that, as president, he would have the authority to prosecute political opponents -- to even make up bogus cases against them. . .  Raise your hand if you think that's how the U.S. justice system is supposed to work. I don't see many hands, not even in the hard-core MAGA section, so let's move into the real world, as we did in a post from September 2023. This is from a report about a Trump campaign speech in South Dakota:

Trump mused about the possibility of indicting opponents even when they did nothing wrong, claiming that he would ask his attorney general to "indict him on income tax evasion" and that the Attorney General will just "figure it out. . . . "

He said the cases filed against him would “allow” him, if elected president, to call up his attorney general and demand an investigation into his political adversaries. “Indict my opponent, he’s doing well,” Trump said, implying that was exactly what Biden had done.

Would you want to live in a nation where the president actually thinks he could get away with such actions? If so, you are living in the wrong country. Let's introduce some reality to this equation, some insight on how the U.S. system actually works. From our post of last September:

How wildly unlawful is Trump's vision of being able to prosecute his political opponents, even concocting bogus charges against perceived foes who had not violated the law in any way? Here is the short answer: Since the late 1970s, during the post-Watergate era when our country still was reeling from Richard Nixon's scandal-riddled administration, U.S. policy has been that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will operate independently of the White House -- that the president will have no say in the DOJ's charging or non-charging decisions. The Jimmy Carter administration produced the first memorandum spelling out this policy -- and it has been followed by almost every president (of both political parties). From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, every president has signed off on the idea that the White House should not influence DOJ decision-making. The only exception might be Donald Trump; it is unclear if the Trump White House followed the law on DOJ independence during his first term -- and he clearly has no intention of following the law during a second term. Here is a memorandum on the subject from the current attorney general, Merrick Garland.  

A 2017 report from protectdemocracy.org spells out the history of DOJ independence from the White House and also addresses reports that the Trump administration might have violated the law:

The promise that every American will be treated equally under the law and that none is above the law is a bedrock principle of American democracy. The freedom from political influence — real or perceived — on law enforcement underpins all of our other freedoms. By contrast, political influence or interference in law enforcement has been a clear hallmark distinguishing authoritarian regimes from true democracies around the globe.

For decades, to prevent even the appearance of political meddling in federal law enforcement, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written policies governing White House contacts with agencies and offices within the executive branch that have investigatory and enforcement responsibilities. To ensure the impartial application of the laws, these policies have extended to White House contacts with any executive branch agency or office regarding investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory decisions, grants and contracts involving specific parties.

To date, the Trump Administration has not articulated publicly a White House policy on agency contacts. Further, multiple reported contacts between senior political staff at the White House and enforcement officers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) appear to have violated 40 years of accepted, bipartisan policy. In light of the questions that its actions have raised, and in order to demonstrate its commitment to upholding the rule of law, the Trump White House must release and abide by an agency contacts policy that is consistent with accepted, bipartisan norms.

Part of the problem is that Trump seems to think he could be both president and prosecutor. But the section above shows that is not the case. Further, Trump seems to think he could do that because President Joe Biden had him prosecuted. But I've yet to find a published report that supplies the slightest evidence Biden is behind any of Trump's four criminal indictments. 

Joyce White Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and current legal analyst for MSNBC, stated in a tweet last month: "Joe Biden didn't indict Trump. Prosecutors must go before a grand jury, made up of citizens, including Republicans & Democrats. These citizens hear evidence & vote on whether a defendant should be charged. Different grand juries have now done that with Trump 91 times."

Trump must have missed that tweet because he started down the "Biden did it to me" path yesterday, stating to the press:

It's very unfair when a political opponent is prosecuted by the Biden DOJ. I think that's how they are going to try to win, and that's not the way it works. I think there will be bedlam in our country. 

Earth to Donald: Check in with Joyce White Vance, who knows a thing or two about such matters, and you will learn that Biden did not, and could not, have you prosecuted.

As for what happened at the Jan. 6 insurrection, Trump now has a novel explanation for that -- more or less claiming he was just doing his job, a statement apparently designed to enhance his immunity argument with judges:

I worked on voter fraud; you have to have strong borders and free elections, above almost everything else. I worked very hard for the country and we found voter fraud. We worked on that, that's what I was doing. We found tremendous voter fraud, determinative voter fraud. we have a list of it, We have some findings.

How did Trump get the idea that issues related to voter fraud are for the president to investigate? Who knows, but he is wrong -- and the statement above likely is false. The truth? Such matters generally come under the authority of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Given that Trump was a candidate for the election in question, it's absurd to think he also could be in charge of investigating alleged fraud. Could even the most avid MAGAphile believe this stuff? I guess most anything is possible in the politics of postmodern America.

Trump's overwhelming victory in Iowa suggests Americans actually "thirst for authoritarianism," which means our democracy could be "hanging by a thread"

Trump does a victory dance in Iowa

 

What did we learn from Donald Trump's overwhelming victory in last night's Iowa caucuses? I don't know about you, but I learned this: Charles Blow, of The New York Times (NYT), was right when he wrote a column last month under the headline "America’s Thirst for Authoritarianism."

Trump has made it clear that, if re-elected in 2024, he intends to act way outside the norms of American democracy -- as we spelled out in a September 2023 post under the title "Donald Trump's assertion that, as president, he could make up charges to prosecute political opponents runs contrary to 40-plus years of U.S. policy on justice." Did Trump resort to mushy language; were his words open to various interpretations? Nope, at a campaign rally in South Dakota, he was right up front about his intentions. From our post on the matter:

Trump stated that, if elected in 2024, he would have the capacity to prosecute his political opponents, even suggesting he could make up criminal charges against them. This is from a report at meidastouch.com on the event:

Trump mused about the possibility of indicting opponents even when they did nothing wrong, claiming that he would ask his attorney general to "indict him on income tax evasion" and that the Attorney General will just "figure it out."

This is from a report on the event at CNN:

Trump complained that he was the victim of “corrupt and blatant” victimization and “election interference.” He said the cases filed against him would “allow” him, if elected president, to call up his attorney general and demand an investigation into his political adversaries. “Indict my opponent, he’s doing well,” Trump said, implying that was exactly what Biden had done.

Ordering investigations of perceived enemies for nothing but pure retribution? Demanding that his attorney general bring bogus indictments that are so weak the actual charges are something they will "figure it out" later?

That is wildly contrary to any notion of democracy that has served America well for almost 250 years. In fact, it is authoritarianism. And last night's results in Iowa indicate large chunks of the American electorate want to toss democracy aside so they can live under a "wannabe dictator" named Donald Trump. Are there any alternative explanations, other than this: Quite a few Americans have developed a distaste for democracy and yearn to live at the whims of an autocrat. I can think of a few alternate explanations -- (1) Last night's brutal winter weather froze a few synapses in Iowa; (2)  Many Iowans are too busy or too distracted to spend time understanding the issues, but they voted anyway; (3) Many Iowans have no idea what it would be like to live under an autocrat, but they don't have time to worry about it being a threat to democracy -- besides, they've got to shovel snow; (4) Many Iowans don't take Trump's words seriously, essentially thinking of him as a liar, and yet, they like the idea of supporting someone they consider a liar; (5) Many Iowans are tired of the peace, sanity, and competence that tends to come with democracy. So they figure, "Let's give a dictator a chance. What could go wrong?" (6) This one comes from a dark place: Many Iowans appreciate the fact Trump has made it cool to be racist again -- or to openly express what I call race-based fears -- just as Ronald Reagan did when he gave a campaign speech on states' rights (code language for "keep your thumb on the Black man -- and the Brown man, too, while you're at it.) in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Sad to say, but No. 6 gets my vote for the real reason Trump is so popular in Iowa and beyond. After all, we have four years of evidence that Trump is a terrible president (see here and here), wildly unfit -- intellectually and temperamentally -- for the most demanding job in the world. People really want to relive Trump's first term -- when his inattention and negligence allowed a relatively minor coronavirus outbreak, which U.S. scientists knew was likely to come, specifically in China, and previous administrations had developed a playbook for dealing with such an event - but Trump apparently ignored it, allowing a viral outbreak to turn into a global COVID pandemic, producing 1.2 million deaths in the U.S., with 16 million to 28.2 million worldwide? Americans really enjoy the thought of seeing refrigerated trucks used to store dead bodies? 

If Americans really give it some thought, I don't think they want to go back to the horrors of Trump's first term. Rather, I suspect Trump brings out something visceral in many Americans -- just as Reagan did in 1980 -- and it probably does not speak well for Trump or his followers. 

By using the term  "America’s Thirst for Authoritarianism," Charles Blow seemed to be warning that some Americans were willing to head down a dangerous path. Blow writes:

Around the world, authoritarianism is ascendant and democracy is in decline.

A 2022 report from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance found that “over the past six years, the number of countries moving toward authoritarianism is more than double the number moving toward democracy” and that nearly half of the 173 countries assessed were “experiencing declines” in at least one metric of democracy.

The United States wasn’t impervious to this trend. The report found that America was “moderately backsliding” on its democracy.

But I fear that we’re now on the precipice of fully turning away from democracy and toward a full embrace of authoritarianism. The country seems thirsty for it; many Americans appear to be inviting it. (last night's results from Iowa suggest Blow is right on target.)

Confidence in many of our major institutions — including schools, big business, the news media — is at or near its lowest point in the past half-century, in part because of the Donald Trump-led right-wing project to depress it. Indeed, according to a July Gallup report, Republicans’ confidence in 10 of the 16 institutions measured was lower than Democrats’. Three institutions in which Republicans’ confidence exceeded Democrats’ were the Supreme Court, organized religion, and the police.

And as people lose faith in these institutions — many being central to maintaining the social contract that democracies offer — they can lose faith in democracy itself. People then lose their fear of a candidate like Trump — who tried to overturn the previous presidential election and recently said that if he’s elected next time, he won’t be a dictator, “except for Day 1” — when they believe democracy is already broken.

Blow sees signs that some Americans just want to try something different, whether it is an improvement on our current system or not. Has democracy been such a success that many Americans are bored with it? Are such "adults" just overgrown adolescents? If it's boredom they want to avoid, maybe Trump should be their logical choice. After all, a second Trump term might be a lot of things, but boring is not one of them. Writes Blow:

In fact, some welcome the prospect of breaking it completely and starting anew with something different, possibly a version of our political system from a time when it was less democratic — before we expanded the pool of participants.

In Tim Alberta’s new book, The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory,he explains that many evangelical Christians have developed, in the words of the rightist Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress, an “under siege” mentality that has allowed them to embrace Trump, whose decadent curriculum vitae runs counter to many of their stated values. It allows them to employ Trump as muscle in their battle against a changing America.

This kind of thinking gives license — or turns a blind eye — to Trump’s authoritarian impulses.

And while these authoritarian inklings may be more visible on the political right, they can also sneak in on the left.

Where does Joe Biden fit in this picture? Blow takes a look at that question:

You could also argue that President Biden, whose approval numbers are languishing, is being punished by some because he isn’t an authoritarian and therefore isn’t able to govern by fiat: Many of his initiatives — voter protections, police reform, student-loan forgiveness — were blocked by conservatives. Could he have fought harder in some of these cases? I believe so. But in the end, legislation is the province of Congress; presidents are bound by constitutional constraints.

Blow suspects many of our citizens are looking for a simple answer:

Trump surely appeals to those who want a president who’ll simply bulldoze through that bureaucracy, or at least expresses contempt for it and is willing to threaten it.

Furthermore, Trump’s chances will probably be helped by the portion of the electorate misjudging the very utility of voting. There are still too many citizens who think of a vote, particularly for president, as something to throw to a person they like rather than being cast for the candidate and party more likely to advance the policies they need.

And there are too many who think that a vote should be withheld from a more preferable candidate as punishment for not delivering every single thing on their wish lists — that choosing not to vote at all is a sensible act of political protest rather than a relinquishing of control to others. Abstinence doesn’t empower; it neuters.

Blow seems to be describing a rudderless, almost infantile society, like a concert-goer who can't decide what kind of music he really likes. "Should I try hard rock, gospel, folk, classical? I'm so confused!)

Blow is not one to dish out easy answers, but he seems to think we are a nation in trouble -- and the Iowa vote totals last night suggest he is right:

If you want a democracy to thrive, the idea that voting is a choice is itself an illusion. Voting is about survival, and survival isn’t a choice. It’s an imperative. It’s an instinct.

It’s a tool one uses for self-advancement and self-preservation. It’s an instrument you use to decrease chances of harm and increase chances of betterment. It is naïve to use it solely to cosign an individual’s character; not to say that character doesn’t count — it does — but rather that its primacy is a fallacy.

Voting isn’t just an expression of your worldview but also a manifestation of your insistence on safety and security.

And to top it off, as Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California told me recently, the Obama coalition that Biden will rely on in 2024 is “under a lot of stress” with the issue of the Israel-Hamas war, and that coalition can be mended by “a foreign policy that is rooted in the recognition of human rights,” which includes “taking seriously the calls for a neutral cease-fire and the end to violence.”

Biden has warned that Israel risks losing international support because of “indiscriminate bombing,” but he has yet to endorse a cease-fire.

With Republicans becoming authoritarian, and without an intact Obama coalition to thwart it, our democracy hangs by a thread.