In the near future John McWhorter could justifiably face Federal charges for calling for the murder of am ex-President. I predict that prison time will satisfy John's inexplicability regarding the majority opinin in the USA. John is unlikely to emerge a more informed and critically astute person, but he will know not to commit federal crimes.
As the Zen Master said, "We'll see". We are on the eve of election day and Glenn finally shows his cards. I confidentally assert that in the privacy of the election booth Glenn Loury will vote for the Donald J. Trump & JD Vance ticket. Glenn is far too intelligent and informed, to do anything else. McWhorter is already a vanishing target and slippihg into oblivion. We are in Queensland, Australia, and our future is explicably tied to the MAGA Movement. In contemplation of a a joyful victory, we congratulate our American cousins and reiterate our love of America and Americans.
Now that I have listened to the entire show I have to ask Dr. Loury if he were deliberately playing Devil’s advocate when he asked if Dr. McWhorter didn’t have any imagination regarding the Democratic talking points.
Pretty sure Glenn "The Master of the Universe" Loury has spoken with pride about the speaking fees he commands, his beautiful home, the vacation properties he rents, and the social circles he runs in.
I suspect there may be a hint of envy in that anti-Obama tirade.
If you watch the full clip in context - as opposed to the bad faith edit being gleefully and dopily shared on social media - you’ll see that he was complaining about the mic stand being too low.
Thank you for another brilliant and spirited discussion. I am curious as to why neither Prof. Loury or Prof. McWhorter mentioned—not even once—the serious, real life consequences on women's health care and personal agency post-Dobbs. This issue is one of the most important ones for many, many voters, and it was totally disregarded. Why is that?
That was really bizarre. Professor Loury likes to play games, that's how he comes across. Weak, disappointing yackety yack. Two-words: January 6. I will never vote for Trump because of his actions on that date, and really since, regarding the so-called stolen election. Crazy to think historians will ignore it.
I’m surprised Glenn, as an economist, didn’t bring up Kamala’s price controls on groceries and medicine, helicopter money for housing, or her tax on unrealized gains. These policies would be a disaster for the economy, leading to inflation, stock market collapse, and shortages of vital goods.
A bit perplexed by John’s dismay at the existence of Trump supporters. Trump’s base consists mostly of white men. Consider the experience of white men in America over the past few decades. What has liberal-democratic-capitalistic America—the leader of the free world order that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union—given them?
First, pointless, costly, and embarrassing interventions in the middle east.
Second, mass immigration, mostly from the third-world, which depreciated lower-middle class wages, and changed school and community demographics. Maybe one thinks white Americans should happily welcome their new (sometimes Spanish speaking) neighbors. But show me a society anywhere that has welcomed immigrants with open arms at this scale. Does one exist? I think not. Now consider the prevalence of (often accurate) headlines listing the benefits these “refugees” receive. And maybe some Americans say to themselves, “refugees, really?” This “refugee” framework was developed in the wake of the most catastrophic war in human history, not to provide jobs for those whose countries have lagged behind economically. Some Americans have noticed the (costly) hypocrisy here.
Being told they should celebrate the fact that America’s demographics are rapidly changing is also a bizarre, historically unprecedented suggestion. Bill Maher might think it’s great that London is minority white (as he’s once said), but would anyone ever think to say that Bangalore is lagging behind because it’s got too many Indians, or that what Tegucigalpa really needs is more diversity—maybe more Germans will do the trick? Could one really argue with the cultural value of Bratwurst or Kolsch?
Third, and this can’t be underestimated, is the general feminization of society. Women are quite capable participants in the American workforce. But the sterile office culture which followed the real introduction of women into the workplace, and the mass hysteria which followed MeToo, have been disastrous.
I could go on. But Trump directly addresses one and two, and addresses three by way of his unashamed, direct, and, by today’s standards, blasphemous comportment.
By the way, I italicized “given” above, because I think that’s an un-American way to view the role of the American government. Europeans came here, in part, to escape centralized governments, and many crept west towards the Pacific in order to free themselves from the minimal oversight provided by the local and state governments in the 19th century. But how are white Americans expected to act once they are met with a social order which recognizes ethic and gender based grievances as the basis for creating a better society? Are they to be excluded? Are they really expected not to see Trump as a kind of leveler, the stick-it-to’em cowboy who punishes the media and causes visible consternation in the types of Progressives who were certain that that what America needed to do was cast aside white men in its mission to cosmopolitanize the US?
As for the feminization of society, who said it was supposed to be ours (I am male) in the first place other than custom? Also, if you’re looking for sex in the workplace I suggest that you need to acquire a hobby of sorts.
1) "America First" as racist? WTF? What could it possibly mean to say "I'm an American, but don't have any particular bias towards America"? I understand the environment we live in makes it a real question, but WOW. Talk about the end of the Republic.
2) Interesting reminder from John about how reviled Reagan was. And GW Bush after him. And Rommey was going to put black people back in chains. The Democrats have cried "wolf" too often. It's *way* too late to say "But Trump *really* *is* Hitler" and expect to be taken seriously. (Granted, he's crass and undignified and ..... But Hitler he's not)
3) WP not endorsing anyone: I gotta go with Glenn. Trust in media is at rock bottom, and it's certainly plausible that Bezos sees "no endorsement" as a tiny baby step towards restoration of that trust. I think they have a *long* way to go, but it's a start.
1) As the libertarian/Federalist, I recall a quote from Reagan: "A govt big enough to give you what you want is also big enough to take it all away". Given how both sides seem terrified of what the other could do, can't we all agree that we have too much concentration of power in the federal govt in general and the President in particular? Why do we insist on giving the President so much power, then wonder why we're at each other's throats over which side might wield the enormous hammer of the Executive Branch?
There is a long history of use of the term "America First" by racists and anti-Semites. Trump himself may or may not be aware of this, but plenty of those in Trump's orbit most definitely are, and they probably use the name because it is not racist on its face but it calls back to racism.
I recall a different quote from Reagan, from his farewell address: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."
That Reagan quote would have been anathema to the misbegotten America Firsters of his youth.
Sorry. I'm going to stick with "America First". Not particularly interested in how "others" may have used it. I'm not using it in a racist or anti-semitic manner.
Tell me, is protesting Israel's actions in Gaza anti-semitic? There is a long history of anti-semites protesting Israel's actions.
And I don't have any problems with that Reagan quote either.
The frustration from one on the Left is: “when do I wake up thinking I want to put America (or my state, my town, my home, myself second?” Uh, answer: never. I think it should be assumed that people will tend to work for their own self interests. So, the phrase “America First” is superfluous at best or it’s intentionally emphasizing “First” to make what sounds to be a radical statement so why not just come out and say what you really mean. But, I agree “American First” is catchier so if that’s what you like by all means go with that one but don’t be naive to think that a slogan like “America First” simply means putting Americans first but because we all do, every day.
I completely agree, neither side should have a monopoly on "America First", that's why I find the whole discussion of it being racist so bizzare.
OTOH, it sure seems like a significant number of far-Left protestors think that the world would be better off without America (witness the parade of evils apparently unique to America). Or, when I see Americans burning American flags, I have to wonder -- do they put "America First"? So, I do question whether everyone (or mostly everyone) really accepts "America First".
2. Abide by the laws of our nation, state, and municipality.
3. Try to give back to our community in some way, shape, or form.
My point is that no political party has a monopoly on the phrase or the concept. Again, if you want to go around saying “America First” by all means do so, it’s a free country - for all Americans.
I was very disappointed by John’s contention that The Washington Post and LA Times declined to endorse was due to fear of what might happen to them if they endorsed Harris. Bezos laid out exactly why he intervened to stop WAPO from endorsing Harris. The so-called “ Grey Lady” has become part of the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity thereby losing any semblance of a news organization. The owner of the LA Times refused to endorse Harris because she would not denounce Israel. I don’t disagree with John that historians will be hard pressed to praise Trump but only because The Party won’t let them.
Reading between the lines, John was obviously right.
The WaPo editoral board had already written their endorsement of Harris, when suddenly word was handed down by the owner not to do it. The timing and the dishonesty involved (before Bezos wrote his op-ed, the post's publisher lied and said the decision was his own) make very clear that the stuff Bezos said in his op=ed was pretectual.
I think it is fine if WaPo and other newspapers want to stop endorsing, but this clearly was motivated by something other than editorial policy.
I'd like Glenn and John to explain why they think there should be a double standard when it comes to things candidates say. They critized Biden (NOT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE) and Harris by analogy for Biden's "garbage" comment, without saying a single word abotu what Harris herself has said about Trump voters, both before and after Biden's remark.
But Trump and his surrogates, on a daily basis say worse things about Dmeocrats. Continuously and repeaterdly. We Democrats are "the enemies within," "vermin," etc. Not 15 minutes ago, JD Vance literally called Kamala Harris "trash."
Glenn, you complain (plausibly, in my view) that the Obamas are not spending their time on high minded pursuits befitting of former residents of the White House. Fair enough. But how on earth can that be your complaint in an episode where you're trying to defend the idea of another Trump presidency? Selling substandard steaks and enrolling suckers in fake college courses passes your test?
What I find so frustrating about hearing Glenn talking about Trump is that he seems completely satisfied to /infer/ Trump's qualities by the reactions that he causes, both good and bad. Glenn always repairs to saying that "How could he be all bad if he was elected president?" Demagogues are not new, but I've never heard any serious thinker point to their success as evidence that maybe they're actually a good thing. Pluto criticized Pericles for spending unsustainably on flashy buildings to please Athens' citizens. I'm sure Hugo Chavez managed to excite the populace with his boneheaded economic plan, at least for a while, but that shouldn't stop any current historian from recognizing that he was a megalomaniac who wrought absolute ruin on a country. (I'm not saying Trump would be as bad, but that's not necessary for my point.) Glenn's response smacks of unthinking power worship. What does Glenn have to say about the *substance* of a president who champions radically increased tariffs, is a profligate big statist, and has managed to align both parties around a strategy of sticking their heads in the sand about America's entitlement insolvency. Those might be popular positions in the short term, but surely there's enough of an economist left in Glenn to realize they at the very least really bad?
On the other hand, Glenn seems to have a strong reaction that any "Democratic talking point" must be wrong. Laying my cards on the table, what I absolutely dread most from a personal perspective, is dealing with the stupid, histrionic shit that the otherwise smart people I'm surrounded with will say about Trump over his second term. But two things can be true at the same time: (1) Trump's critics are prone to yell the sky is falling and (2) Trump is nevertheless really, really, really bad. Did Trump say that there were good white nationalists in NC? No. Was Trump on the Russian payroll? No. *But*, did Trump try to lean on a foreign country for his personal campaign purposes leading to his first impeachment? Yup. Did Trump sit around for a shocking amount of time while bands of terrorists attacked the most important ceremony in our democracy, screaming for the death of VP Pence? Yup. Does Trump often call for using the power of his office to silence his enemies in ways that violate perfectly good norms? Yup. All these are really fucking bad things, which Glenn seems to be incapable of countenancing, and I really can't see why.
Glenn seems to be seeing Trump solely though the reflection from people reacting to him. Come on, Glenn, say what *you* really think about him, and "He was elected, so..." and "He has been subject to so much unfair criticism" is not allowed.
Back from walking my dog and thought of some more inconsistencies in Glenn's approach that drive me to distraction. I share the frustration with the Alvin Bragg prosecution, but I think it's a little ridiculous to dismiss it as mere "lawfare" while I've heard Glenn talk about Trump's post-2020-election legal campaign as though it were just a candidate exercising his legal challenges. I don't think Glenn can have it both ways. If you're going to fault the Dems for bringing a flimsy prosecution against Trump, that's fine, but I think you should also apply the same kind of independent judgment of Trump's obviously pre-planned attempt to use frivolous lawsuits to give cover for his attempt to undermine public trust in the electoral system.
There is no single person in this country who has relied on litigation (or the threat of it) to gain personal advantage the way Trump has. As business owner, he relied on threatened litigation to stiff his contractors. As a former President, the cases where he has been sued or indicted have gotten the media attention, but he himself has filed numeroud frivolous lawsuits for eithe rmessaging purposes or to intimidate people. He and his lawyers were sanctioned $1 million for filing a massive civil RICO conspiracy suit against Hillary CLinton and a number of former government officials for claims that were deficient on their face.
Several weeks ago, 60 Minutes did an episode in which they aired an interview of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Donald Trump and JD Vance were also invited to appear, but they chose not to. Last week, Trump filed a $10 BILLION lawsuit against CBS because he didn't like the way they edited the Harris interview. (Among other things, this shows that he is not a believer in free speech.)
Great episode! Americans, love thy neighbour as thyself whatever the outcome of the election.
In the near future John McWhorter could justifiably face Federal charges for calling for the murder of am ex-President. I predict that prison time will satisfy John's inexplicability regarding the majority opinin in the USA. John is unlikely to emerge a more informed and critically astute person, but he will know not to commit federal crimes.
As the Zen Master said, "We'll see". We are on the eve of election day and Glenn finally shows his cards. I confidentally assert that in the privacy of the election booth Glenn Loury will vote for the Donald J. Trump & JD Vance ticket. Glenn is far too intelligent and informed, to do anything else. McWhorter is already a vanishing target and slippihg into oblivion. We are in Queensland, Australia, and our future is explicably tied to the MAGA Movement. In contemplation of a a joyful victory, we congratulate our American cousins and reiterate our love of America and Americans.
Now that I have listened to the entire show I have to ask Dr. Loury if he were deliberately playing Devil’s advocate when he asked if Dr. McWhorter didn’t have any imagination regarding the Democratic talking points.
Pretty sure Glenn "The Master of the Universe" Loury has spoken with pride about the speaking fees he commands, his beautiful home, the vacation properties he rents, and the social circles he runs in.
I suspect there may be a hint of envy in that anti-Obama tirade.
Don’t hate the player Dr. Loury…
John repeating the Trump Mic Fellatio Hoax? Ugh.
Do better, bro.
What is the rationale calling Trump’s microphone stunt a hoax?
If you watch the full clip in context - as opposed to the bad faith edit being gleefully and dopily shared on social media - you’ll see that he was complaining about the mic stand being too low.
Thank you for another brilliant and spirited discussion. I am curious as to why neither Prof. Loury or Prof. McWhorter mentioned—not even once—the serious, real life consequences on women's health care and personal agency post-Dobbs. This issue is one of the most important ones for many, many voters, and it was totally disregarded. Why is that?
That was really bizarre. Professor Loury likes to play games, that's how he comes across. Weak, disappointing yackety yack. Two-words: January 6. I will never vote for Trump because of his actions on that date, and really since, regarding the so-called stolen election. Crazy to think historians will ignore it.
I’m surprised Glenn, as an economist, didn’t bring up Kamala’s price controls on groceries and medicine, helicopter money for housing, or her tax on unrealized gains. These policies would be a disaster for the economy, leading to inflation, stock market collapse, and shortages of vital goods.
Kamala Harris has not called for price controls on groceries and medicine, though. The policies she has proposed, like them or not, are not that.
A bit perplexed by John’s dismay at the existence of Trump supporters. Trump’s base consists mostly of white men. Consider the experience of white men in America over the past few decades. What has liberal-democratic-capitalistic America—the leader of the free world order that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union—given them?
First, pointless, costly, and embarrassing interventions in the middle east.
Second, mass immigration, mostly from the third-world, which depreciated lower-middle class wages, and changed school and community demographics. Maybe one thinks white Americans should happily welcome their new (sometimes Spanish speaking) neighbors. But show me a society anywhere that has welcomed immigrants with open arms at this scale. Does one exist? I think not. Now consider the prevalence of (often accurate) headlines listing the benefits these “refugees” receive. And maybe some Americans say to themselves, “refugees, really?” This “refugee” framework was developed in the wake of the most catastrophic war in human history, not to provide jobs for those whose countries have lagged behind economically. Some Americans have noticed the (costly) hypocrisy here.
Being told they should celebrate the fact that America’s demographics are rapidly changing is also a bizarre, historically unprecedented suggestion. Bill Maher might think it’s great that London is minority white (as he’s once said), but would anyone ever think to say that Bangalore is lagging behind because it’s got too many Indians, or that what Tegucigalpa really needs is more diversity—maybe more Germans will do the trick? Could one really argue with the cultural value of Bratwurst or Kolsch?
Third, and this can’t be underestimated, is the general feminization of society. Women are quite capable participants in the American workforce. But the sterile office culture which followed the real introduction of women into the workplace, and the mass hysteria which followed MeToo, have been disastrous.
I could go on. But Trump directly addresses one and two, and addresses three by way of his unashamed, direct, and, by today’s standards, blasphemous comportment.
By the way, I italicized “given” above, because I think that’s an un-American way to view the role of the American government. Europeans came here, in part, to escape centralized governments, and many crept west towards the Pacific in order to free themselves from the minimal oversight provided by the local and state governments in the 19th century. But how are white Americans expected to act once they are met with a social order which recognizes ethic and gender based grievances as the basis for creating a better society? Are they to be excluded? Are they really expected not to see Trump as a kind of leveler, the stick-it-to’em cowboy who punishes the media and causes visible consternation in the types of Progressives who were certain that that what America needed to do was cast aside white men in its mission to cosmopolitanize the US?
As for the feminization of society, who said it was supposed to be ours (I am male) in the first place other than custom? Also, if you’re looking for sex in the workplace I suggest that you need to acquire a hobby of sorts.
Let me ask you. Would you volunteer to be a refugee?
A bunch of thoughts:
1) "America First" as racist? WTF? What could it possibly mean to say "I'm an American, but don't have any particular bias towards America"? I understand the environment we live in makes it a real question, but WOW. Talk about the end of the Republic.
2) Interesting reminder from John about how reviled Reagan was. And GW Bush after him. And Rommey was going to put black people back in chains. The Democrats have cried "wolf" too often. It's *way* too late to say "But Trump *really* *is* Hitler" and expect to be taken seriously. (Granted, he's crass and undignified and ..... But Hitler he's not)
3) WP not endorsing anyone: I gotta go with Glenn. Trust in media is at rock bottom, and it's certainly plausible that Bezos sees "no endorsement" as a tiny baby step towards restoration of that trust. I think they have a *long* way to go, but it's a start.
1) As the libertarian/Federalist, I recall a quote from Reagan: "A govt big enough to give you what you want is also big enough to take it all away". Given how both sides seem terrified of what the other could do, can't we all agree that we have too much concentration of power in the federal govt in general and the President in particular? Why do we insist on giving the President so much power, then wonder why we're at each other's throats over which side might wield the enormous hammer of the Executive Branch?
There is a long history of use of the term "America First" by racists and anti-Semites. Trump himself may or may not be aware of this, but plenty of those in Trump's orbit most definitely are, and they probably use the name because it is not racist on its face but it calls back to racism.
I recall a different quote from Reagan, from his farewell address: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."
That Reagan quote would have been anathema to the misbegotten America Firsters of his youth.
Sorry. I'm going to stick with "America First". Not particularly interested in how "others" may have used it. I'm not using it in a racist or anti-semitic manner.
Tell me, is protesting Israel's actions in Gaza anti-semitic? There is a long history of anti-semites protesting Israel's actions.
And I don't have any problems with that Reagan quote either.
The frustration from one on the Left is: “when do I wake up thinking I want to put America (or my state, my town, my home, myself second?” Uh, answer: never. I think it should be assumed that people will tend to work for their own self interests. So, the phrase “America First” is superfluous at best or it’s intentionally emphasizing “First” to make what sounds to be a radical statement so why not just come out and say what you really mean. But, I agree “American First” is catchier so if that’s what you like by all means go with that one but don’t be naive to think that a slogan like “America First” simply means putting Americans first but because we all do, every day.
I completely agree, neither side should have a monopoly on "America First", that's why I find the whole discussion of it being racist so bizzare.
OTOH, it sure seems like a significant number of far-Left protestors think that the world would be better off without America (witness the parade of evils apparently unique to America). Or, when I see Americans burning American flags, I have to wonder -- do they put "America First"? So, I do question whether everyone (or mostly everyone) really accepts "America First".
To emphasize my point we both probably:
1. pay taxes.
2. Abide by the laws of our nation, state, and municipality.
3. Try to give back to our community in some way, shape, or form.
My point is that no political party has a monopoly on the phrase or the concept. Again, if you want to go around saying “America First” by all means do so, it’s a free country - for all Americans.
I was very disappointed by John’s contention that The Washington Post and LA Times declined to endorse was due to fear of what might happen to them if they endorsed Harris. Bezos laid out exactly why he intervened to stop WAPO from endorsing Harris. The so-called “ Grey Lady” has become part of the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity thereby losing any semblance of a news organization. The owner of the LA Times refused to endorse Harris because she would not denounce Israel. I don’t disagree with John that historians will be hard pressed to praise Trump but only because The Party won’t let them.
Reading between the lines, John was obviously right.
The WaPo editoral board had already written their endorsement of Harris, when suddenly word was handed down by the owner not to do it. The timing and the dishonesty involved (before Bezos wrote his op-ed, the post's publisher lied and said the decision was his own) make very clear that the stuff Bezos said in his op=ed was pretectual.
I think it is fine if WaPo and other newspapers want to stop endorsing, but this clearly was motivated by something other than editorial policy.
Especially when Bezos’s Blue Origin team met with Trump the same day of the announcement: https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/27/bezos-washington-post-non-endorsement-election. Bezos might be in the up and up but it certainly doesn’t look good…
I'd like Glenn and John to explain why they think there should be a double standard when it comes to things candidates say. They critized Biden (NOT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE) and Harris by analogy for Biden's "garbage" comment, without saying a single word abotu what Harris herself has said about Trump voters, both before and after Biden's remark.
But Trump and his surrogates, on a daily basis say worse things about Dmeocrats. Continuously and repeaterdly. We Democrats are "the enemies within," "vermin," etc. Not 15 minutes ago, JD Vance literally called Kamala Harris "trash."
Where “paranoid” and “perplexed” become synonymous!
Glenn, you complain (plausibly, in my view) that the Obamas are not spending their time on high minded pursuits befitting of former residents of the White House. Fair enough. But how on earth can that be your complaint in an episode where you're trying to defend the idea of another Trump presidency? Selling substandard steaks and enrolling suckers in fake college courses passes your test?
What I find so frustrating about hearing Glenn talking about Trump is that he seems completely satisfied to /infer/ Trump's qualities by the reactions that he causes, both good and bad. Glenn always repairs to saying that "How could he be all bad if he was elected president?" Demagogues are not new, but I've never heard any serious thinker point to their success as evidence that maybe they're actually a good thing. Pluto criticized Pericles for spending unsustainably on flashy buildings to please Athens' citizens. I'm sure Hugo Chavez managed to excite the populace with his boneheaded economic plan, at least for a while, but that shouldn't stop any current historian from recognizing that he was a megalomaniac who wrought absolute ruin on a country. (I'm not saying Trump would be as bad, but that's not necessary for my point.) Glenn's response smacks of unthinking power worship. What does Glenn have to say about the *substance* of a president who champions radically increased tariffs, is a profligate big statist, and has managed to align both parties around a strategy of sticking their heads in the sand about America's entitlement insolvency. Those might be popular positions in the short term, but surely there's enough of an economist left in Glenn to realize they at the very least really bad?
On the other hand, Glenn seems to have a strong reaction that any "Democratic talking point" must be wrong. Laying my cards on the table, what I absolutely dread most from a personal perspective, is dealing with the stupid, histrionic shit that the otherwise smart people I'm surrounded with will say about Trump over his second term. But two things can be true at the same time: (1) Trump's critics are prone to yell the sky is falling and (2) Trump is nevertheless really, really, really bad. Did Trump say that there were good white nationalists in NC? No. Was Trump on the Russian payroll? No. *But*, did Trump try to lean on a foreign country for his personal campaign purposes leading to his first impeachment? Yup. Did Trump sit around for a shocking amount of time while bands of terrorists attacked the most important ceremony in our democracy, screaming for the death of VP Pence? Yup. Does Trump often call for using the power of his office to silence his enemies in ways that violate perfectly good norms? Yup. All these are really fucking bad things, which Glenn seems to be incapable of countenancing, and I really can't see why.
Glenn seems to be seeing Trump solely though the reflection from people reacting to him. Come on, Glenn, say what *you* really think about him, and "He was elected, so..." and "He has been subject to so much unfair criticism" is not allowed.
Back from walking my dog and thought of some more inconsistencies in Glenn's approach that drive me to distraction. I share the frustration with the Alvin Bragg prosecution, but I think it's a little ridiculous to dismiss it as mere "lawfare" while I've heard Glenn talk about Trump's post-2020-election legal campaign as though it were just a candidate exercising his legal challenges. I don't think Glenn can have it both ways. If you're going to fault the Dems for bringing a flimsy prosecution against Trump, that's fine, but I think you should also apply the same kind of independent judgment of Trump's obviously pre-planned attempt to use frivolous lawsuits to give cover for his attempt to undermine public trust in the electoral system.
Regarding "lawfare" more broadly.
There is no single person in this country who has relied on litigation (or the threat of it) to gain personal advantage the way Trump has. As business owner, he relied on threatened litigation to stiff his contractors. As a former President, the cases where he has been sued or indicted have gotten the media attention, but he himself has filed numeroud frivolous lawsuits for eithe rmessaging purposes or to intimidate people. He and his lawyers were sanctioned $1 million for filing a massive civil RICO conspiracy suit against Hillary CLinton and a number of former government officials for claims that were deficient on their face.
Several weeks ago, 60 Minutes did an episode in which they aired an interview of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Donald Trump and JD Vance were also invited to appear, but they chose not to. Last week, Trump filed a $10 BILLION lawsuit against CBS because he didn't like the way they edited the Harris interview. (Among other things, this shows that he is not a believer in free speech.)
Trump University.
Trump charity.
Would you hire Trump to run your company?
(Truth Social)
Remember Trump told his people to short pay vendors.
He is willing to stiff hard working people
He hates paying overtime.
Mike Pence