Here are 11 times Trump obeyed the extremist group behind Project 2025

 

Surrounded by miners from Rosebud Mining, Donald Trump signs the Energy Independence Executive Order at the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters on March 28, 2017. The order reversed Obama-era climate change policies.   (PHOTO: AFP via Getty Images)

By Morgan Stephens 

Daily Kos Staff 

Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 5:00:06p MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

By Morgan Stephens Daily Kos Staff  Former President Donald Trump denies ties to the extremist government blueprint known as Project 2025, a policy road map for a second Trump administration drafted by a consortium of conservative groups led by The Heritage Foundation. But new data shows he had a lot of love for the group’s far-right policies during his first turn in the White House. 

Analysis by the American Bridge 21st Century super PAC found 87 policies adopted by Trump at the suggestion of The Heritage Foundation. In 2018, the conservative think tank announced that Trump had already embraced and implemented 64% of its suggestions. 

“President Trump is a conservative president. He’s adopted many of these recommendations and pushed them forward and accomplished many of them,” Heritage Foundation director Thomas Binion told Fox Business in 2018. “Yes, they’re conservative and yes, they’re good for the country,” he added.

Heritage Foundation representatives likes to boast about how they successfully pushed Trump to leave the Paris Climate Accord, repeal net neutrality, and increase military spending when speaking about the group’s victories during the Trump administration. Here are 11 more of their dubious triumphs:

1. Trump cut child nutrition programs.

In the group’s 2018 “Blueprint for Balance,” The Heritage Foundation encouraged Trump to “inhibit funding for national school meal standards and the community eligibility provision.”

The Trump administration’s 2019 budget plan called for cutting federal child nutrition programs by $1.7 billion over 10 years. According to the Food Research and Action Center, the cuts “reduce the number of schools eligible to implement the Community Eligibility Provision, a wildly successful option that dramatically reduces the administrative work of operating the school nutrition programs for high poverty schools and school districts, and increases student participation in school breakfast and lunch.”

2. Trump banned transgender persons from the military.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for a New Administration: Priorities for the President” said the military should “make armed forces personnel policy on the basis of military readiness, not a social agenda.” The document said “the President should reverse the transgender policy decision announced June 30, 2016, and restore the prior policy, which allowed persons with gender dysphoria to serve.”

In April 2019, President Trump banned transgender personnel from serving in the military, causing much confusion and chaos. 

“The current version of the ban prohibits new military recruits from transitioning and also allows the military to discharge those currently serving if they do not present as their birth gender,” Axios reported. “This policy battle started before Trump took office.”

3. Trump eliminated grants to prevent violence against women.

In its 2017 Blueprint, The Heritage Foundation urged the president to cut funding for a federal program that helped 7 million women per year escape domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 

“Recommendation: Eliminate Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants,” The Heritage Foundation wrote. “This proposal saves $83 million in FY 2018.”

From 2016 to 2017, Trump’s budget proposals included reducing such grants by $2 million.

“These programs offer technical support and training to community groups serving victims; provide collaboration among law enforcement and judicial entities; support indigenous and tribal communities affected by violence; address sexual assault on college campuses; ensure access to transitional housing; assist children and youth exposed to violence; identify and prevent gender bias; and provide access to the National Domestic Violence Hotline,” wrote the Center for American Progress. “While women of all backgrounds can experience violence, low-income women and women of color are disproportionately affected.”

This is in line with Project 2025’s new goals, including a disbandment of the Gender Policy Council created by President Joe Biden. It suggests eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the federal government and strives to remove these terms from every federal rule and regulation: sexual orientation and gender identity, DEI, gender, gender identity, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, and reproductive rights. 

4. Trump slashed the Department of Justice’s civil rights divisions.

At the urging of The Heritage Foundation, Trump reduced funding for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and the Department Of Education Office For Civil Rights. Trump’s 2017 budget was poised to eliminate 10% of employees from critical civil rights offices across the federal government.

This is in line with the Project 2025 blueprint, which proposes moving Department of Justice investigations from its civil rights division to the criminal division.

“Otherwise, voter registration fraud and unlawful ballot correction will remain federal election offenses that are never appropriately investigated and prosecuted,” Project 2025 states. 

5. Trump revoked an Obama-era order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prohibited any agency from regulating emissions.

In its 2016 “Blueprint for a New Administration: Priorities for the President,” The Heritage Foundation suggested Trump should “revoke the [Obama administration’s] Executive Order on global warming and green energy mandates for federal agencies.” 2017’s blueprint recommended that “Congress should prohibit any agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal has no estimated savings in FY 2018.” 

As soon as Trump was sworn in as president in 2017, his administration removed the page on climate change from the White House website and published a new page suggesting “An America First Energy Plan” that will “refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water,” suggesting the abandonment of regulating greenhouse gasses. 

On March 28, 2017, Trump revoked President Barack Obama’s executive order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce energy use by federal agencies. 

Project 2025 proposes eliminating nearly all federal regulations for carbon emissions. Experts say this would wreak havoc on an already fragile climate at the tipping point. 

6. Trump weakened several efficiency standards for home appliances.

The Heritage Foundation 2016 blueprint said, “Refrain from Developing New Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances and urge Congress to Repeal Energy Conservation Standards Set in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.” 

Over the course of his administration, a New York Times analysis showed that Trump weakened the standards for dishwashers, water heaters, washers and dryers, and other household devices that use green “energy saving thresholds.”

7. Trump ended cost-sharing reduction payments to Affordable Care Act recipients.

According to The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Blueprint, “The new President should instruct the IRS through the Treasury Department to follow the law and immediately cease all Obamacare cost-sharing payments.”

Cost-sharing benefits are grants and subsidies for out-of-pocket health care expenses. These include financial help with copays when you visit the doctor, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums. The less income you bring in, the you qualify for cost-sharing benefits.

Trump eliminated the ACA’s cost-sharing program in 2017. 

CNBC called it “a bombshell move that is expected to spike premium prices and potentially lead many insurers to exit the marketplace. The decision to end the billions of dollars worth of so-called cost-sharing reduction payments came after months of threats by President Donald Trump to do just that.”

8. Trump cut hundreds of millions to the UN relief agency for Palestinian refugees.

In The Heritage Foundation’s 2018 “Blueprint for Balance” said “returning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to its original purpose saves $179 million in FY 2018.”

In 2018, the Trump administration withheld $65 million of its $120 million in aid contributions to the UNRWA. According to Daily News Egypt, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert made clear that the Trump administration “felt that other countries should contribute more significantly to UNRWA and ‘step up to the plate and provide additional money.’”

9. The Trump administration pulled out of the World Health Organization in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 “Blueprint for a New Administration: Priorities for the President,” the organization urged Trump to “review U.S. participation in all International Organizations.”

In 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump abandoned the World Health Organization. 

“The Trump administration has formally notified the United Nations that the United States will withdraw from the World Health Organization,” wrote the New York Times, “a move that would cut off one of the largest sources of funding from the premier global health organization in the middle of a pandemic.”

This led the U.S. to have one of the worst pandemic responses of any developed democracy, resulting in mass casualties and leaving millions of disabled Americans in its wake. 

10. The Trump administration sought to cut funding for PBS and NPR.

A 2018 Blueprint for Balance recommendation “eliminates federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). This proposal saves $486 million in FY 2018.”

The New York Times reported in 2017, “The White House budget office has drafted a hit list of programs that President Trump could eliminate to trim domestic spending, including longstanding conservative targets like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, AmeriCorps and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.” 

Trump went after them again in 2018. 

Project 2025 proposes ending government funding for nonpartisan media funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting such as National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service.

11. Trump’s budget prohibited federal funding to entities that provide abortion care.

According to the Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for a New Administration,” the Trump regime was urged to “disentangle women’s health from funding abortion. The Secretary should allow states to maintain the integrity of their Medicaid systems by clarifying that state governments have the authority to disqualify certain abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements.” 

Trump’s 2021 budget ensured that “federal funds protect life and conscience rights. The budget prioritizes the value of human life by ensuring that Federal funding does not support abortions. The Budget proposes to prohibit Federal funding, such as in the Title X Family Planning and Medicaid programs, for certain entities that provide abortion services. The Budget also protects conscience rights, prohibits coercion in healthcare, and allows private parties to enforce such rights in Federal court. With these protections, the Administration will continue to ensure robust protection of conscience rights and religious liberty.”

Once again, this harkens back to Project 2025. The Center for Reproductive Rights says that implementing the plan’s recommendations would “destroy abortion care” by ending medication abortions, denying life-saving abortion care, prosecuting doctors, harassing patients, and creating a surveillance system.

The Center for Reproductive Rights says that implementing Project 25's recommendations would “destroy abortion care” by ending medication abortions, denying life-saving abortion care, prosecuting doctors, harassing patients, and creating a surveillance system.

Fascism Watch: Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell goes there.

"Hitler analogy is not just apt but necessary."

By Laurence Lewis 

Community

Daily Kos

Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 3:19:35p MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post is a left-leaning but very much Beltway consensus political columnist, which means she's a very mixed bag. Which is why her latest column is so notable.

She begins by explaining Godwin’s Law, underscoring that comparing Trump to Hitler can cause people instantly to close their minds. And then she makes clear:

Problem is, Donald Trump seems intent on making the Hitler comparison happen.

She cites the increasingly inflammatory xenophobic lies spewed by Trump and his wannabe-Goering JD Vance, accurately noting:

It is hard to recall a senator in recent memory who’s done more to endanger the lives of his own constituents than Vance has. I’m not saying he and Trump actually want to start a modern-day pogrom, but if they did, I’m not sure what they’d be doing differently.

She even debunks the right wing gaslighting that the real danger is Democratic warnings about Republican extremism:

Vance is correct that words have power. If not wielded responsibly, they can lead to political violence — which, to be clear, I wholeheartedly condemn. But one can denounce political violence and still be clear-eyed about the historical patterns that Trump evokes and, therefore, the need to defeat him soundly at the ballot box.

And she cites Mike Godwin himself, who last December explicitly stated that his law doesn't apply to Trump, because:

...he agrees the Hitler analogy is not just apt but necessary....

“Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy,” Godwin wrote in December.

And then she brings it home:

And in fact, neither Godwin nor I is anywhere close to being the first to compare Trump with 20th-century fascists. Both of us were beaten out by Vance himself, who in 2016 referred to Trump as “America’s Hitler.”

And she closes with Trump's chilling and increasingly open antisemitism, from accusing Jews of voting for the enemy, agreeing that Doug Emhoff is a "crappy Jew," and sending what was a clear signal to his most extreme supporters by putting a target on Jews' backs if he loses the election.

Not the most eloquent closing argument. But then, as Molly Ivins once quipped, it probably sounded better in the original German.

Remember, Trump's wife said he keeps "the book" on his nightstand.  "The book," of course, is Mein Kampf, the Hitler textbook and probably the only textbook Trump has ever read.

What do Repubs have against Yoga? Is it too woke?

  

Vice President Kamala Harris

Fox News goes to war against Harris for using big words like 'holistic' - really!

 

By Oliver Willis 

Daily Kos Staff

Friday, September 27, 2024 at 11:30:17a MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

In her Wednesday interview with MSNBC, Vice President Kamala Harris provided a detailed, two-minute-long response to a question about housing policy and her plans regarding home affordability if she is elected president. (Watch it here.) But on Fox News the following day, multiple hosts and pundits seized on what they saw to be the most significant aspect of Harris’ response: her use of the term “holistic.”

During the primetime “Hannity” program, host Sean Hannity ranted beside a graphic of Harris’ face and the term “holistically” repeated three times. Hannity also referenced Harris’ marks with a chyron underneath that read, “Kamala Harris’ ‘Holistic’ Word Salad’.”

The segment was a capper on an entire day of Fox taking aim at the vice president’s vocabulary.

Lawrence Jones, co-host of “Fox & Friends,” began Thursday by telling viewers that Harris had “found a new word—holistic.”

On “America’s Newsroom,” anchor Dana Perino played a clip of Harris and mused, “Imagine she got paid a dollar for every time she said it.”

Commentator Joe Concha followed up on “America Reports,” and said, “She said the word holistically three times. That’s really hard to do.”

Fox News’ Sean Hannity led the charge against big words.

In the afternoon, Jesse Watters of “The Five” noted, “She said she is going to give money to state and local governments and it is going to be holistic. What does that mean—she is going to build yoga studios, Jessica? Healing crystals?”

His co-host Greg Gutfeld added that Harris had used “holistic” as a “rhetorical safe word” during her interview.

Laura Ingraham said on her show, “The Ingraham Angle,” that Harris offered “another tired cliché” during her interview and that “holistic” was the candidate’s “favorite new word.”

Watters took another stab at the issue while hosting “Jesse Watters Primetime,” asking, “What’s holistic about housing? A yoga studio?”

Gutfeld also brought up the issue during his program, “Gutfeld!”: “Here I thought [President] Joe [Biden] was the stutterer. She says it like she just learned the word. “

This bizarre attack continued through Friday morning, when, during an appearance on “Fox & Friends First,” Concha asked, “What does holistic mean?”

Fox News used the string of attacks to feed into a narrative the network has attempted to build around the vice president, repeatedly telling their audience that she does not provide clear answers and speaks in a “word salad.”

At the same time that Fox News has promoted this line of attack against Harris, the network has been an ardent defender of Donald Trump, who is infamous for nonsensical public speaking.

Trump has compared immigrants to the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, falsely claimed that windmills are mass killers of birds, ranted about sharks and electric batteries, and was mocked for his plan to turn Canadian rivers into faucets for Americans.

But as far as Fox News is concerned, at least he didn’t say “holistic.”

Project 2025’s Climate Change Denialism Will Literally Doom the Planet

  It

Tanner Flynn stands in shallow water near crashing waves as Hurricane Helene passes offshore on Thursday in St. Petersburg, Fla. Were “Project 2025” already in effect, Helene might have caught Floridians by surprise. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty)

 

2025s climate deniers will burn our planet to the ground to protect their wealth

27 september 24

Soleil Ho / San Francisco Chronicle  

27 September 24

On stage at the New York Times’ Climate Forward summit on Wednesday, Heritage Foundation president and Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts boldly declared that “the climate agenda is ending the American dream.”

It’s a sentiment that should strike any thinking person as absurd on its face: What could be more devastating to human life, let alone the American dream, than spikes in extreme weather and disasters like floods and wildfires, lethal heat levels and water and food shortages?

And yet the words of a man with incredible influence over conservative politicians are worth taking seriously. 

Throughout the text of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s Cheesecake Factory-like menu of hopes for the next conservative president, the idea of climate change is repeatedly denigrated as “anti-human”: the ideology of “environmental extremists” eager to sacrifice the American way of life “to the god of nature.” In practice, the recommendations in its text would worsen many of the environmental rollbacks of former president Trump, whose modus operandi was to plug his ears and sing, “Drill, baby, drill!” And the planet would be screwed, to say the least.

When I spoke to David Kieve, president of Environmental Defense Fund Action, he rightfully critiqued Project 2025 as “a grab bag and a wishlist written by polluters for their short-term economic benefit, to the detriment of all of the rest of us.” I thought he was exaggerating until I dug into the list of Project 2025's advisory board.

On the board are several major think tanks devoted to climate denial. There’s the Heartland Institute (most famous for helping Phillip Morris push the idea that cigarettes aren’t harmful) and the Institute for Energy Research, both offspring of the libertarian, oil billionaire-funded Cato Institute. Then there’s California’s own Pacific Research Institute, which recently sprang into a spirited defense of poor, defenseless “energy producers” being sued by state Attorney General Rob Bonta for deceiving the public over the recyclability of plastic. All these entities have been generously funded by oil and gas tycoons and companies like ExxonMobil.

So, what’s on Project 2025’s to-do list? Many of its plans aim to kneecap the government’s ability to do literally anything that has to do with climate change and energy efficiency, including gutting and privatizing research and regulatory agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service. The reliability of weather forecasts and emergency warnings — like, say, for encroaching wildfires or hurricanes — would decline drastically.

It would restrict government-funded climate research; withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement; reverse regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, automobiles and industry; and axe the funding of green jobs in conservation, civil infrastructure and clean energy. Project 2025’s backers aim to dismantle restrictions on coal, oil and natural gas production and reduce fees and accountability for drilling operations on public lands. And perhaps most damaging for long-term government functionality is its plan to replace seasoned civil servants in NOAA and other agencies with political appointees who are “wholly in sync” with the regime’s agenda.

One particularly galling proposal is halting the Environmental Protection Agency’s progress on dealing with and researching PFAS, or “forever chemicals” from manufacturing. PFAS, found in drinking water, soil, fisheries and the human body, have been linked to cancer, developmental impairment and hormonal imbalances. The agency has recently been empowered to hold corporations accountable for PFAS contamination; but unfortunately, that violates Project 2025’s core principles of absolute corporate freedom and deregulation. So, ironically, while Project 2025 aims to roll back reproductive rights under the guise of increasing fertility and spreading pro-life family values, its authors seem to be fine with the proliferation of chemicals that, among many other things, reduce fertility.

Let’s assume conservatives are laser-focused on saving Americans money, and that’s why they advise caution on investing so much in climate initiatives. But how true is that?

San Francisco-based nonpartisan energy and environmental policy firm Energy Innovation gamed out the ramifications of Project 2025’s plan and found that its policies would lead to higher household energy costs, driven by increased reliance on petroleum and rising electricity prices. The analysis predicts an additional increase of $240 per household by 2030, and $150 by 2050 compared to following current policies. Overall, Project 2025’s environmental rollbacks would decrease GDP by $320 billion per year by 2030 and $150 billion per year by 2050.

The evidence is a direct rebuke to Heritage president Roberts’ assertion that climate investment will “end the American dream.” Though to be fair, if you define the dream as the freedom to pollute as much as you want to, he’s right. But the dream of opportunity — of a good life — requires a world with breathable air.

Fighting climate change necessitates an all-hands-on-deck approach like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2024, which invests billions in green industries and jobs. Yet the Heritage Foundation has gone full Red Scare on this initiative, calling it an anti-freedom, “centrally planned” Communist takeover of the economy.

It’s clear that the myriad of authors of Project 2025, which, again, will have an incredible amount of influence over the next conservative presidency, Trump or not, are willing to say and do anything — to burn this planet to the ground for the sake of protecting their funders.

It's not between death by sharks or electrocution.  It's between death by drowning or burning - or maybe a combination of the two.  But make no mistake.  Elect Trump and it will happen.  Project 25 guarantees it.

Harris: Gun reform doesn't mean she'll 'take everyone's guns away'

Vice President Kamala Harris and Oprah Winfrey at the "Unite for America" live stream event in Farmington Hills, Michigan, on Sept. 19, 2024.

Harris, Walz are both gun owners!

By Morgan Stephens

Daily Kos Staff

Friday, September 20, 2024 at 4:00:02p MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Vice President Kamala Harris decried bad faith arguments against gun reform Thursday night at a livestream event hosted by Oprah Winfrey in the battleground state of Michigan. Harris spoke candidly at the “Unite for America” forum in light of the mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia that killed two students and two teachers on Sept. 6. 

“I think for far too long on the issue of gun violence, some people have been pushing a really false choice,” said the Democratic presidential nominee. “To suggest you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.”

Throughout her campaign, Harris has pushed back on the cynical GOP stance that if lawmakers aren’t in favor of any and all guns circulating without regulations, that means they want to “take away all our guns.” This black-and-white framing leaves no room for common-sense gun reform at the national level. But reform is a winning policy stance: Research shows that six in 10 Americans favor stricter gun laws. 

Harris reiterated that she is a gun owner in an off-the-cuff remark during the event. 

“If you break into my house, you’re getting shot,” she said, then chuckled. “I probably should not have said that.”

“I’m not trying to take everyone’s guns away,” Harris added. “I believe in the Second Amendment.”

Mass shootings and gun violence are a dismal, unfortunate, and anxiety-inducing reality of American life, and depressingly close to being normalized due to their frequency. The Democratic Party has long advocated for gun reform, while Republicans have fought against any legislation. Campaign contributions from the gun lobby could be at play: The National Rifle Association had a $2.5 million lobbying budget in 2023.

Harris wants to implement legislation that would decrease the number of mass shootings and keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. 

If elected, here’s what she proposes to implement at the federal level:

• An assault weapons ban. 

Assault weapons have high-capacity magazines with the ability to shoot multiple rounds in seconds. These are different from hand guns, which fire single rounds at once, limiting the scope of injury or death. An assault weapons ban would make it illegal to own a high-capacity magazine, and in turn, make mass shootings less lethal. 

• Universal background checks. 

These are laws that require all gun buyers to undergo a background check, regardless of how or where they are purchasing the firearm. This would include private sales, gun shows, and online transactions. A key goal of universal background checks is closing gun show loopholes, which allow purchases to be made on the spot and without a background check.

Data from Oxford University suggests that states with universal background check laws experience lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides.

• Red flag laws. 

Red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders, are legal provisions that allow law enforcement agencies or family members to use the court system to temporarily remove guns from those who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, 21 states including California, Washington, and Maryland have already implemented red flag laws, and Maine activists will soon start collecting signatures to put a provision on the 2025 or 2026 ballot. What Harris proposes would make it federal law. 

Here’s the exact text of the Second Amendment in the Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

None of these gun reforms will take away someone’s right to own a firearm for their protection. These proposed changes aim to decrease the national nightmare that is mass shootings and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those at risk of using them for homicide or suicide. 

That does not infringe on the Second Amendment. 

Remember Kyle Rittenhouse?  Underage.  Purchased gun illegally.  Committed murder.  Acquitted.

Trump vows to be ‘protector’ of women, once they get over his abortion ban

 Donald Trump tells women he will take care of them during a campaign rally Monday in Indiana, Pennsylvania.

 "I will be your protector.  You will no longer be thinking about abortion."

 

By Oliver Willis

Daily Kos Staff

Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 8:00:15a MDT

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Donald Trump complained Monday night at a rally in Indiana, Pennsylvania, that Democrats have continued to emphasize abortion rights, declaring that the issue is no longer relevant. Trump’s comments come as millions are grappling with severe abortion restrictions and deaths have been linked to those bans.

“Everything is wrong with our country and nothing’s right and all they talk about is abortion,” Trump ilamented to the crowd after expressing frustration that “the fake news keeps saying women don’t like me.” Trump was perhaps referencing a new national poll from NBC News that shows Trump faces a 21-point gap in support among women.

“The country is falling apart, we’re going to end up in World War III, and all they can talk about is abortion, that’s all they talk about, and it really no longer pertains because we’ve done something on abortion that nobody thought was possible.”

In June 2022, all three Supreme Court Justices nominated by Trump—Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh—voted with the Republican-nominated majority to overturn Roe v. Wade in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision triggered multiple abortion bans and restrictions put in place by Republican-led state legislatures.

On Monday Trump praised “the three we put in”—along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts—as “brilliant” and praised their “courage” in overturning Roe.

Trump also characterized himself as a protector of women, despite his stance on abortion and his admitted past of sexual assault.

“I am your protector. I want to be your protector,” Trump said. “You will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger—you’re not going to be in danger any longer—you will no longer have anxiety from any of the problems our country has today, you will be protected, and I will be your protector.”

He concluded, “You will no longer be thinking about abortion.”

Trump’s comments come as his Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, has been highlighting deaths connected to abortion bans. Harris visited Georgia on Friday and spoke about the deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller, two Black women who lost their lives in 2022 due to Georgia’s strict laws.

“This is a health care crisis and Donald Trump is the architect of this crisis,” said Harris. “He is proud that women are dying? Proud that doctors and nurses could be thrown in prison for administering care? Proud that young women today have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers? How dare he.”

Thurman died after doctors declined to perform a procedure to clear fetal tissue from her uterus after she took an abortion pill. Miller died at home, fearful that her medical issues during pregnancy would not be treated as doctors feared prosecution under Georgia’s abortion law. Medical experts have said both deaths were preventable.

Despite Trump’s claim, abortion rights continue to be a major issue for voters ahead of the fall election.

Eleven states have abortion rights ballot measures up for a vote in November’s election, with 10 of those measures meant to protect abortion rights and one—in Nebraska—meant to further curtail rights.

Despite Trump’s insistence that “it doesn’t pertain,” voters have frequently told pollsters that abortion rights are among their top issues of concern. In an August New York Times/Siena poll of registered voters in the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, abortion was ranked as the second most important issue—just below the economy and above immigration. 

Here is one of the "women" Trump "protected" during his first term - by "locking her up" away from her family.

Trump’s Hate

"Calling Trump a fascist and a threat to democracy is not inciting violence; it’s telling the truth. American voters need to be made aware, if they aren’t already." 

 

 

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)

 

24 September 24

"Those who wield hate for personal ambition are among the vilest of human beings."

Robert Reich / Robert Reich's Substack

The FBI is investigating the source of suspicious packages sent to election offices in 21 states. Some election offices have been evacuated; staff are frightened.

Suspicious packages, bomb threats, death threats, harassment, assassination attempts, and violence are consequences of the politics of hate, now emanating more ferociously than ever from Trump and his sycophants.

Many explanations have been offered for why two assassination attempts have been made on Trump over the last two months. Some blame easy access to assault weapons; I’m sure that’s part of it.

But the real incitement to violence in America is hatefulness — hate speech, fearsome lies, and dangerous, paranoid rumors — the epicenter of which is Trump.

Trump blames the intensifying climate of violence on Kamala Harris and the Democrats: “Their rhetoric is causing me to be shot at,” he said. “Because of this Communist Left Rhetoric, the bullets are flying, and it will only get worse!” he wrote in a social media post. Trump’s campaign has circulated a list of so-called “incendiary” remarks Democrats have made against Trump and posted video clips from top Democrats calling him a “threat.”

JD Vance says “we cannot tell the American people that one candidate is a fascist and if he’s elected it is going to be the end of American democracy.”

Hello? Calling Trump a fascist and a threat to democracy is not inciting violence; it’s telling the truth. American voters need to be made aware, if they aren’t already.

Let’s be clear: The most significant cause of the upsurge in political violence — including the two attempts on Trump’s life — is Trump himself, along with his close allies Vance and Elon Musk, and other cranks and crackpots that have come along for the ride.

Trump’s proclivity for violence was evident when he urged his followers to march on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, knowing they were carrying deadly weapons.

He has urged supporters to beat up hecklers; mocked the near-fatal attack on the husband of the Democratic House speaker; suggested that a general he deemed disloyal be executed; threatened to shoot looters and undocumented migrants; warned of “potential death & destruction” if indicted in his New York criminal case; made the ludicrous claim that “Babies are being executed after birth”; and predicted a “bloodbath” if he’s not elected in November.

Trump has never taken responsibility for the consequences of his hatefulness.

He still insists he was not responsible for the attack on the Capitol. Yet since the attack, he has suggested the mob might have been correct in wanting to hang his vice president. And he has called for those arrested in connection with the attack to be released, casting them as “hostages,” “political prisoners,” and “patriots,” whom he will pardon if reelected.

His incendiary rhetoric about immigrants — calling them “vermin,” claiming they’re “poisoning the blood” of America, charging that the United States is “under invasion” from “thousands and thousands and thousands of terrorists” — is worsening the hate and violence.

His baseless claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating people’s pets continues to generate bomb threats and death threats there. Schools and government offices have been closed. After more than 33 such bomb threats, Ohio’s governor has provided state police to conduct daily sweeps of Springfield schools.

“We did not have threats” before the claims, said Springfield Mayor Rob Rue, referring to the accusations made by Trump and JD Vance. “We need peace. We need help, not hate.”

When Trump was asked last week if he denounced the bomb threats, he said, “I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats” and repeated the lie that Springfield had been “taken over by illegal migrants, and that’s a terrible thing that happened.” In fact, Haitian immigrants are in Springfield legally.

The word “hate” has become Trump’s signature utterance.

During the presidential debate, he claimed that President Biden “hates” Harris, that Harris “hates” Israel and also hates Arabs. After Taylor Swift endorsed Harris, he posted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” in capital letters.

Hate is the single most powerful emotion Trump elicits from his followers. Hate fuels his candidacy. Hate gives Trump’s entire MAGA movement its purpose and meaning.

Trump’s closest allies are magnifying Trump’s hate.

Vance has doubled down on the false claim that Haitians are eating pets in Springfield. He also says he’ll continue to describe Haitian residents there as “illegal aliens,” although most have been granted temporary protected legal status in the U.S. because of Haiti’s crisis.

Elon Musk posted to his 198 million followers on X, just hours after the alleged assassination attempt on Trump, that “no one is even trying” to assassinate President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Musk has since deleted the post and said it was intended as a joke, but millions saw it — confirming that Musk is a threat to the nation’s security.

Meanwhile, Musk’s blatant refusal to moderate hateful lies on his X platform — and his descent into reposting many of them — is also contributing to the rise of hate in America and around the world.

Musk’s X blared out lies that caused race riots in the U.K. Musk himself shared lies that the U.K. was going to open detainment camps for rioters. He claimed that the ex-first minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf, a Muslim, “loathes white people.”

When Europe’s Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton reminded Musk of his legal obligation to stop the “amplification of harmful content,” he responded by tweeting out a meme: “Take a big step back and literally, fuck your own face!”

Before Musk bought Twitter and turned it into X, Twitter had suspended Trump from the platform “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” Musk has reinstated Trump.

Hate is a dangerous corrosive. It undermines civility, eats away social trust, dissolves bonds of community and nation.

A week ago Sunday, even before the second attempted assassination of Trump, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire posted on X that “Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero.”

The party deleted the post, but two days later it posted on X a lengthy follow-up referring to historical instances of violence supposedly “necessary to advance or protect freedom,” including the assassination of “past tyrants like Abraham Lincoln,” and stating that “it’s good when authoritarians” (that is, “progressives, socialists, and democrats”) are made to “feel unsafe or uncomfortable.”

Trump, Vance, Musk, New Hampshire’s Libertarian Party, and the neo-Nazis they’ve attracted to Springfield, Ohio show how infectious hate can be as its venom spreads through political bottom-feeders and the swamps of the Internet.

Those who wield hate for personal ambition are among the vilest of human beings.

How to deal with the hate that Trump and his enablers are fueling?

We must call them out for what they’re doing. We must vote against the haters now running for office, from Trump on down, and urge others to join us.

In the case of Musk, we must boycott his products and push the U.S. government to terminate all contracts with him. Musk is a threat to national security.

Most fundamentally, we must hold all purveyors of hate accountable for the consequences of their hatefulness.

The word “hate” has become Trump’s signature utterance.

Here are 6 of the wackiest conspiracies to explain Trump's debate debacle

  An obviously harried Donald Trump speaks to the press following the presidential debate in Philadelphia on Sept. 10, 2024. (AFP via Getty Images)

Right floats conspiracy theories to “prove” why their candidate lost

By Oliver Willis 

Daily Kos Staff

Saturday, September 14, 2024 at 5:00:03p MDT

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Vice President Kamala Harris won Tuesday’s debate against GOP nominee Donald Trump. That result can be seen in multiple national polls showing an average of 57% of voters gave the edge to Harris, compared to only 34% who say Trump won. Panels of voters assembled by CNN and The Washington Post show similar results.

But according to Trump and some of his most ardent supporters, the fix was in. More than  67 million viewers watched Harris take Trump to task while he yelled fake stories about migrants eating pets, and the right wasted no time before floating several conspiracies to “prove” why their candidate lost.

1. Biased moderators

The earliest of the conspiracies began forming while the debate unfolded, as commentators like former Fox News host Megyn Kelly fumed on social media.

“These moderators are a disgraceful failure and this is one of the most biased, unfair debates I have ever seen. Shame on you ABC,” she wrote.

The apparent sin committed by moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News? Fact-checking Trump. Because the journalists corrected Trump’s most blatant lies, conservatives began accusing them of being part of a “three-on-one” attack on Trump.

The morning after the debate, Trump complained to Fox News that it was a “rigged deal” and argued that ABC should have its broadcast license pulled for comparing his rhetoric to reality.

2. Harris received the questions in advance

Trump baselessly claimed that Harris received the debate questions in advance, which appeared to explain—in his mind—how the vice president was so prepared to counter him.

“She seems awfully familiar with the questions,” Trump told Fox News.

As the sitting president and a former senator and state attorney general, Harris has a long history of being prepared for major events in her professional life. As The Washington Post reported, she spent four days before the event ensconced in a rigorous “debate camp.” That, and not a fact-free claim that she received a heads-up on the questions, likely explains her superior performance.

No earpieces here … only impeccable fashion sense.

3. Harris used an earpiece

If she didn’t receive the questions ahead of time, conservative activists have now argued that the vice president wore a device in her ear that allowed some offstage figure to transmit the answers to her. This allegation, which was promoted by Trump traveling companion Laura Loomer and others, plays on conservative tropes alleging that Harris lacks intelligence.

In reality, Harris wore a pair of South Sea Pearl Earrings from the Tiffany Hardwear collection.

4. Bright lights!

Conservative activist and serial misinformation poster Matt Wallace posted a video compilation showing a closeup of Trump’s eyes during the debate. In a companion post, he claimed—without a shred of evidence—that ABC News “set up distractive lighting aimed at Trump’s podium” that made him look left to right during the broadcast.

In reality, television broadcasts use high intensity lights so that cameras can pick up the images of what is being shown, or else viewers wouldn’t be able to see anything. 

5. Witchcraft?

According to Lance Wallnau, an activist on the religious right who describes himself as a Christian nationalist, Harris won her debate via witchcraft.

“She can look presidential,” Wallnau said in a video stream. “That’s the seduction of what I would say is witchcraft. That’s the manipulation of imagery that creates an impression contrary to the truth, but it seduces you into seeing it. So that spirit, that occult spirit, I believe is operating on her and through her.”

6. The sorority connection

The New York Post, which is owned by Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, published a story highlighting the fact that Harris and debate moderator Davis are alumni of the historically Black Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority. In its story, the Post compiled complaints about the specious connection from conservative social media posters, including one who said the sorority membership “is relevant with respect to potential bias.”

The sorority’s official website notes there are more than 1,074 Alpha Kappa Alpha chapters with over 360,000 members in 11 countries and every state within the U.S.

Harris went to Howard University and graduated in 1986, while Davis attended the University of Virginia and graduated in 1999. The likelihood that two Black women were both members of the same sorority is not as earth-shattering as the Post appears to believe.

Conservatives love conspiracy theories and tend to push them in response to the success of Democratic politicians. Right-wingers amplified the birther conspiracy about President Barack Obama and pushed the existence of a “death list” in connection to the rise of former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The false stories about Harris put her in presidential company, which is probably not what the right intended.

Case closed.  There is nothing more to say.