Thom Hartmann explains the lies, hoaxes, And scams that Republicans use to deceive middle-income people to vote for them, against their self-interest. He shows how Jeb Bush tilted the election of 2000 in favor of his brother George.
This is a must-read.
Hartmann writes:
The GOP — to keep the support of “average” American voters while they work entirely for the benefit of giant corporations, the weapons and fossil fuel industries, and the morbidly rich — have run a whole series of scams on voters ever since the original Reagan grift of trickle-down economics.
Oddly, there’s nothing comparable on the Democratic side. No lies or BS to justify unjustifiable policies: Democrats just say up-front what they’re all about:
Healthcare and quality education for all. Treat all people and religions with respect and fairness. Trust women to make their own decisions. Raise the pay of working people and support unionization. Get assault weapons off the streets. Do something about climate change. Clean up toxic waste sites and outlaw pesticides that damage children. Replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Nonetheless, the media persists in treating the two parties as if they were equally honest and equally interested in the needs of all Americans. In part, that’s because one of the GOP’s most effective scams — the “liberal media bias” scam — has been so successful ever since Lee Atwater invented it back in the early years of the Reagan Revolution.
For example, right now there’s a lot of huffing and puffing in the media about how the Supreme Court might rule in the case of Trump being thrown off the ballot in Colorado. They almost always mention “originalism” and “textualism” as if they’re honest, good-faith methods for interpreting the Constitution when, in fact, they’re cynical scams invented to justify unjustifiable rulings.
Thus, the question: how much longer will Americans (and the American media) continue to fall for the GOP’s scams?
They include:
— Originalism: Robert Bork came up with this scam back in the 1980s when Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court and he couldn’t come up with honest or reasonable answers for his jurisprudential positions, particularly those justifying white supremacy. By saying that he could read the minds of the Founders and Framers of the Constitution, Bork gave himself and future generations of Republicans on the Court the fig leaf they needed.
The simple fact is that there was rarely a consensus among the Framers and among the politicians of the founding generation about pretty much anything. And to say that we should govern America by the standards of a white-men-only era before even the industrial revolution much less today’s modern medicine, communications, and understanding of economics is absurd on its face.
— Voter Fraud: This scam, used by white supremacists across the South in the years after the failure of Reconstruction to prevent Black people from voting, was reinvented in 1993, when Bill Clinton and Democrats in Congress succeeded in passing what’s today called the “Motor Voter” law that lets states automatically register people to vote when they renew their driver’s licenses. Republicans freaked out at the idea that more people might be voting, and claimed the new law would cause voter fraud (it didn’t).
By 1997, following Democratic victories in the 1996 election, it had become a major meme to justify purging voting rolls of Black and Hispanic people. Today it’s the justification for over 300 voter suppression laws passed in Red states in just in the past 2 years, all intended to make it harder for working class people, minorities, women, the elderly dependent on Social Security, and students (all Democratic constituencies) to vote.
The most recent iteration of it is Donald Trump‘s claim that the 2020 election, which he lost by fully 7 million votes, was stolen from him by voter fraud committed by Black people in major cities.
As a massive exposé in yesterday’s Washington Post titled “GOP Voter-Fraud Crackdown Overwhelmingly Targets Minorities, Democrats” points out, the simple reality is that voter fraud in the US is so rare as to be meaningless, and has never, ever, anywhere been documented to swing a single election.
But Republicans have been using it as a very effective excuse to make it harder for Democratic voters to cast a ballot, and to excuse their purging almost 40,000,000 Americans off the voting rolls in the last five years.
Right To Work (For Less): back in the 1940s, Republicans came up with this scam. Over the veto of President Harry Truman, they pushed through what he referred to as “the vicious Taft-Hartley Act,” which lets states make it almost impossible for unions to survive. Virtually every Red state has now adopted “right to work,” which has left their working class people impoverished and, because it guts the political power of working people, their minimum wage unchanged.
— Bush v Gore: The simple reality is that Al Gore won Florida in 2000, won the national popular vote by a half-million, and five Republicans on the Supreme Court denied him the presidency. Florida Governor and George W. Bush’s brother Jeb had his Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris, throw around 90,000 African Americans off the voting rolls just before the election and then, when the votes had come in and it was clear former Vice President Al Gore had still won, she invented a new category of ballots for the 2000 election: “Spoiled.”
As The New York Times reported a year after the 2000 election when the consortium of newspapers they were part of finally recounted all the ballots:
“While 35,176 voters wrote in Bush’s name after punching the hole for him, 80,775 wrote in Gore’s name while punching the hole for Gore. [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris decided that these were ‘spoiled’ ballots because they were both punched and written upon and ordered that none of them should be counted.
“Many were from African American districts, where older and often broken machines were distributed, causing voters to write onto their ballots so their intent would be unambiguous.”
George W. Bush “won” the election by 537 votes in Florida, because the statewide recount — which would have revealed Harris’s crime and counted the “spoiled” ballots, handing the election to Gore (who’d won the popular vote by over a half-million) — was stopped when George HW Bush appointee Clarence Thomas became the deciding vote on the Supreme Court to block the recount order from the Florida Supreme Court.
Harris’ decision to not count the 45,599 more votes for Gore than Bush was completely arbitrary; there is no legal category and no legal precedent, outside of the old Confederate states simply refusing to count the votes of Black people, to justify it. The intent of the voters was unambiguous. And the 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court jumped in to block the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court (in violation of the 10th Amendment) just in time to prevent those “spoiled” votes from being counted, cementing Bush’s illegitimate presidency.
— Money is “Free Speech” and corporations are “persons”: This scam was invented entirely by Republicans on the Supreme Court, although billionaire GOP donors — infuriated by campaign contribution and dark money limits put into law in the 1970s after the Nixon bribery scandals — had been funding legal efforts to get it before the Court for years.
In a decision that twists logic beyond rationality, the five Republicans on the Court — over the strong, emphatic objections of all the Democrats on the Court — ruled that our individual right to free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment also includes the “right to listen,” as I lay out in detail in The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America and they wrotein Citizens United:
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.”
Without being able to hear from the most knowledgeable entities, they argued, Americans couldn’t be well-informed about the issues of the day.
And who was in the best position to inform us? As Lewis Powell himself wrote in the Bellottidecision, echoed in Citizens United, it’s those corporate “persons”:
“Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster…”
“Political speech is ‘indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.’ … The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.”
They doubled down, arguing that corporations and billionaires should be allowed to dump unlimited amounts of money into the political campaigns of those politicians they want to own so long as they go into dark money operations instead of formal campaigns. What was called “bribery” for over 200 years is now “free speech”:
“For the reasons explained above, we [five Republicans on the Supreme Court] now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
— Cutting taxes raises revenue: As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, the idea promoted by Reagan, Bush, and Trump to justify almost $30 trillion in cumulative tax cuts for billionaires and giant corporations is “The Biggest Tax Scam in History.”
Reagan first pitched this to justify cutting the top income tax rate on the morbidly rich from 74% down to 25% in the 1980s, and it was reprised by both George W. Bush and Donald Trump for their own massive tax breaks for their well-off donors and peers.
The simple fact is that America went from a national debt of over 124% of GDP following World War II to a national debt of a mere $800 billion when Reagan came into office. We’d been paying down our debt steadily, and had enough money to build the interstate highway system, brand new schools and hospitals from coast to coast, and even to put men on the moon.
Since Reagan rolled out his tax scam, however, our national debt has gone from less than a trillion in 1980 to over 30 trillion today: we’re back, in terms of debt, to where we were during WWII when FDR raised the tippy-top bracket income tax rate to 90% to deal with the cost of the war. We should be back to that tax rate for the morbidly rich today, as well.
— Destroying unions helps workers: In their eagerness to help their corporate donors, Reagan rolled out a novel idea in 1981, arguing that instead of helping working people, corrupt “union bosses” were actually ripping them off.
Union leaders work on a salary and are elected by their members: the very idea that they, like CEOs who are compensated with stock options and performance bonuses and appointed by their boards, could somehow put their own interests first is ludicrous. Their only interest, if they want to retain their jobs, is to do what the workers want.
But Reagan was a hell of a salesman, and he was so successful with this pitch he cut union membership in America during his and his VP’s presidency by more than 50 percent.
— Corporations can provide better Medicare than the government: For a corporation to exist over the long term, particularly a publicly-traded corporation, it must produce a profit. That’s why when George W. Bush and friends invented the Medicare Advantage scam in 2003 they allowed Advantage providers to make as much as 20 percent in pure profit.
Government overhead for real Medicare is around 2% — the cost of administration — and corporations could probably run their Advantage programs with a similar overhead, but they have to make that 20% profit nut, so they hire larger staffs to examine every single request to pay for procedures, surgeries, tests, imaging, and even doctors’ appointments. And reject, according to The New York Times, around 18% of them.
“Advantage plans also refused to pay legitimate claims, according to the report. About 18 percent of payments were denied despite meeting Medicare coverage rules, an estimated 1.5 million payments for all of 2019.”
When they deny you care, they make money. If they ran like real Medicare and paid every bill (except the fraudulent ones), they’d merely break even, and no company can do that. Nonetheless, Republicans continue to claim that “choice” in the marketplace is more important than fixing Medicare.
With the $140 billion that for-profit insurance companies overcharge us and steal from our government every year, if Medicare Advantage vanished there would be enough money left over to cut Medicare premiums to almost nothing and add dental, vision, and hearing. But don’t expect Republicans to ever go along with that: they take too much money from the insurance industry (thanks to five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court).
— More guns means more safety: Remember the NRA’s old “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”? They’re still at it, and there’s hardly a single Republican in America who will step up and do anything about the gun violence crisis that is uniquely experienced by our nation.
Bullets are now the leading cause of death among children in the US, and we’re literally the only country in the entire world for which that is true. And a child living in Red state Mississippi is ten times more likely to die from a gun than a child in Blue state Massachusetts. But as long as the NRA owns them, Republicans will never do anything about it.
— The media has a liberal bias: This canard was started by Lee Atwater in an attempt to “work the refs” of the media, demanding that they stop pointing out the scams Republicans were engaging in (at the time it was trickle-down). The simple reality is that America’s media, from TV and radio networks to newspapers to websites, are overwhelmingly owned by billionaires and corporations with an openly conservative bent.
There are over 1500 rightwing radio stations (and 1000 religious broadcasters, who are increasingly political), three rightwing TV networks, and an army of tens of thousands of paid conservative activists turning out news releases and policy papers in every state, every day of the year. There are even well-funded social media operations.
There is nothing comparable on the left. Even MSNBC is owned by Comcast and so never touches issues of corporate governance, media bias (they fired Brian Stelter!), or the corruption of Congress by its big pharma and Medicare Advantage advertisers.
— Republicans are the party of faith: Republicans claim to be the pious ones, from Mike Johnson’s creepy “chastity ball” with his daughter, to their hate of queer people, to their embrace of multimillionaire TV and megachurch preachers. But Democrats, who are more accepting of people of all faiths and tend not to wear their religion on their sleeves, are the ones following Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus, arguably the founder of Christianity, was emphatic that you should never pray in public, do your good deeds in private as well, and that the only way to get to heaven is to feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick, and love every other human as much as you love yourself.
Republicans, on the other hand, wave their piety like a bloody shirt, issue press releases about their private charities, and fight every effort to have our government feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick, or even respect, much less love, people who look or live or pray differently from them.
— Crime is exploding and you’re safer living in an area Republicans control: In fact, crime of almost all sorts is at a low not seen since 1969. Only car thefts are up, and some of that appears to have to do with social media “how to” videos and a few very vulnerable makes of autos.
New FBI statistics find that violent crime nationwide is down 8 percent; in big cities it’s down nearly 15 percent, robbery and burglary are down 10 and 12 percent respectively.
But what crime there is is overwhelmingly happening in Red states. Over the past 21 years, all types of crime in Red states are 23 percent higher than in Blue states: in 2020, murder rates were a mind-boggling 40 percent higher in states that voted for Trump than those Biden carried.
— Global warming is a hoax: Ever since fossil fuel billionaires and the fossil fuel industry started using the legal bribery rights five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court created for them, virtually every Republican politician in the nation is either directly on the take or benefits indirectly from the massive infrastructure created by the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel barons. As a result, it’s almost impossible to find even one brave, truthful Republican who’s willing to do anything about the climate crisis that is most likely to crash not just the US but civilization itself.
— Hispanic immigrants are “murderers and rapists”: Donald Trump threw this out when he first announced his candidacy for president in 2015, saying, “They are bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They’re rapists.” In fact, Hispanic immigrants (legal or without documentation) are far less likely, per capita and by any other measure, to commit crime of any sort than white citizens.
— Helping people makes them lazy. The old Limbaugh joke about “kicking people when they’re down is the only way to get them up” reveals the mindset behind this Republican scam, which argues that when people get money or things they didn’t work for it actually injures them and society by making them lazy. The GOP has used this rationalization to oppose everything from unemployment insurance in the 1930s to food stamps, Medicaid, and housing supports today.
In fact, not only is there no evidence for it, but studies of Universal Basic Income (UBI), where people are given a few hundred dollars a month with no strings attached, finds that the vast majority use the extra funds to improve themselves. They upgrade their housing, look for better jobs, and go back to school.
If the morbidly rich people behind the GOP who promote this scam really believed it, they’d be arguing for a 100% estate tax, to prevent their own children from ending up “lazy.” Good luck finding any who are leaving their trust-fund kids destitute.
— Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer: Back in 2000, soon-to-be Indiana Governor and then-Congressman Mike Pence wrote a column that was published statewide saying, “Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.” Pence’s family had made money off tobacco for years with a small chain of now-bankrupt convenience stores called “Tobacco Road,” but he was also being spiffed by the industry.
Similarly, George W. Bush pushed the “Healthy Forests Initiative” as president after big contributions from the timber industry: “healthy” meant “clear cut.” Bush also had his “Clear Skies Initiative” that let polluters dump more poison into our air. And the Trump administration, after big bucks and heavy lobbying from the chemical and Big Ag industries, refused to ban a very profitable pesticide used on human food crops that was found to definitely cause brain damage and cancer in children.
— For-profit utilities produce cheaper and more reliable electricity than government-owned and -run ones: This one goes back to the Reagan era, with Republicans arguing that the “free market” will always outperform government, including when it comes to generating and distributing electricity. In fact, each of us has only one wire coming into our homes or offices, so there is no possible competition to drive either improved performance or lower prices among for-profit utilities.
In fact, non-profit community-owned or government run utilities consistently produce more reliable electricity, serve their customers better, and charge lower prices. And the differences have become starker every year since, in 1992, President GHW Bush ended federal regulation of electric utilities. It’s why Texas, which has almost completely privatized its power grid, suffers some of the least reliable and most expensive electricity in the nation when severe weather hits.
— The electoral college protects our democracy: There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans wanted to get rid of the Electoral College; a constitutional amendment to do that failed in Congress by a single vote back in 1970. But after both George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the White house by a half-million and three million votes respectively but ended up as president anyway, Republicans fell newly in love with the College and are fully planning to use it again in 2024 to seize power even if ten million more people vote for Biden this time (Biden won by 7 million votes in 2020).
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Republicans are now defending billionaires buying off Supreme Court justices and most recently Lever News found that they’ve been spiffing over 100 other federal judges — who regularly vote in favor of the interests of corporations and the morbidly rich — in addition to Alito, Thomas, Roberts, et al.
Republicans are also claiming that:
— Trump isn’t a threat to our democracy and his promises to be a dictator are “mere hyperbole.”
— Letting Putin take Ukraine won’t put Taiwan and other democracies at risk.
— Ignoring churches routinely breaking the law by preaching politics while enjoying immunity from taxes is no big deal.
— Massive consolidation to monopoly levels across virtually every industry in America since Reagan stopped enforcement of our anti-trust laws (causing Americans to pay an average of $5,000 a year more for everything from broadband to drugs than any other country in the world) is just the way business should be run.
— Teaching white children the racial history of America will make them feel bad, rather than feel less racist and more empathetic.
— Queer people are groomers and pedophiles (the majority in these categories are actually straight white men).
— Banning and burning books is good for society and our kids.
— Ending public schools with statewide voucher programs will improve education (every credible study shows the opposite).
I could go on, but you get the point. When will America — and, particularly, American media — wake up to these scams and start calling them out for what they are?
I’m not holding my breath, although you could help get the ball rolling by sharing this admittedly incomplete list as far and wide as possible.

So, four years ago, Trump promised a new, comprehensive healthcare plan that would be far better than Obamacare “in a week or so.” A week or so after that, he promised the same plan in “about a week.” A week later, he promised the same thing again, soon, very, very soon. You get the pattern, . . .
Well, on Christmas, Trump promised, if he is reelected in 2024, [guess what?]
Because you can always trust Trump [to lie to you].
LikeLike
Trump also promised a grand infrastructure program that went nowhere, and, of course, a wall paid for by Mexico. All politicians stretch the truth during campaigns, but the GOP does a far superior job of turning their lies into a major propaganda campaign that their children of the corn blindly believe.
One of the reasons for Biden’s drop in the polls has been the GOP character assassination over Hunter Biden’s misdeeds, despite the fact that zero evidence has been presented to support the claims. Apparently, their smear campaign against Biden has gained some traction with voters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are blindly partisan. The Biden family clearly was trading on Joe’s position to obtain millions of dollars from shady foreign entities. That Trump is an awful person does not justify what Joe Biden did in allowing this type of corruption, whether or not it is technically legal.
LikeLike
Emily,
I have followed the Biden investigation closely and have not seen any evidence that Joe Biden is corrupt. He had one son, Beau, who was a model citizen. If he had not volunteered to go to Iraq, he would be a superstar now.
Joe’s other son, Hunter, is a troubled soul. Drugs, alcohol, addiction. It’s very sad. But Joe Biden is a good man.
LikeLike
Evidence of actual corruption provided by the geniuses in Congress: zero.
LikeLike
Emily King
What a revelation. When did you have the epiphany. I am flabbergasted. How could you possibly believe that from Legacy Admissions to colleges, to out right nepotism America is not a meritocracy.
You think Hunter using daddies name to sell clients on his value is unusual. You think they put athletes on their Boards because of their knowledge of sales or manufacturing. The Lug heads need only smile for the Cameras holding the sneakers. Exactly Hunters role. Daddy was not even VP at the time.
From corporate suites to Teacher appointments.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/06/right-now-nepotism
And then this .
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/apr/23/secret-teacher-nepotism-rife-schools
LikeLike
RT, Trump talked about an infrastructure program but he never actually proposed one.
I do remember the many rallies where he asked the crowd, “Who will pay for the wall?” And the crowd responded, “MEXICO.”
LikeLike
Emily King made some points that I heard recently from someone who has a professional background in the subject matter discussed here. Last week I met with a longtime CPA friend who is not very political, although I know he detests Donald Trump. For the last 15 or so years he has been a high-level forensic accountant who has worked on bank fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering investigations, appearing as a prosecution witness in several criminal cases. I asked him about the controversies surrounding the Bidens.
He answered this way. Imagine that what is publicly known about the Bidens was shown to independent forensic accountants, but any personal identifying information was redacted; the accountants didn’t know who the parties were. He said that every competent forensic accountant in the country would be suspicious of all the shell companies and other devices used by the Bidens to transact business – huge red flags that almost always indicate a desire to conceal what is going on. If there is nothing illegal or embarrassing about the alleged influence-peddling activities of the Bidens, why not disclose it all to the public?
People who dismiss the concerns about the Bidens are guilty of confirmation bias, dismissing information that doesn’t confirm what they want to believe.
LikeLike
Mike,
The House Republicans are digging as hard as they can and so far they have not come up with any evidence implicating Joe Biden to his son’s financial activities. I will wait for actual evidence, not speculation.
LikeLike
The infrastructure plan to cement working-class approval of Trump was all Bannon, and it was the basis of Trump’s inaugural address. But Trump was too ignorant to have a clue what he was talking about, and he had no intention of delivering, because he doesn’t give half a F–K of a porn star about ordinary, working-class Americans.
LikeLike
Trump uses working-class people the way other people use Kleenex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very well put, Diane. Precisely the case.
As you have pointed out many times, he is the darling of people whom he would not sit down to dinner with or allow into his club.
But it’s not just working-class people whom he treats this way. He demands loyalty oaths but is utterly disloyal to those who kow-tow to him–the people like Pence the Dense, for example, that utter embarrassment of servility and toadying.
LikeLike
Does anyone think that Trump would invite his anyone from his blue-collar base to dine with him at Mar-a-Lago?
LikeLike
Yeah, all the shell companies used by the Bidens is quite suspicious. And the playing on the family name done by Hunter Biden is disgusting, as this always is with the sons and daughters of famous politicians.
LikeLike
No one can compete with the Trump family when it comes to monetizing the family name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10160245358348380&set=a.229675043379
LikeLike
Mike Zeihen and his forensic accountant friend are the kind of biased people who vehemently criticize the investigative methods in the Steele dossier while simultaneously touting work product based on similar methods, as long as they are used against Democrats. Mike and his buddies enjoy conflating Democratic family members. But, they would raise a ruckus if Jared Kushner’s financial transactions were held against The Don. I’m certain the intelligent people in Mike’s sphere roll their eyes when his mouth spews pontifications based on double standards.
LikeLike
Jared’s $2 billion gift from the Saudis was just a token of appreciation in exchange for something he did for them.
LikeLike
Mike Zeihen
Perhaps the someone you spoke to could enlighten the House Committee on what he found. They don’t seem to have accountants. After a year of investigations , well the 7 months that they did anything.
They found shopping receipts for condoms and charges paid to escort services.
LikeLike
The type of comment written by Linda is typical for this blog. She attributes beliefs to me and to another person that we don’t have; she knows absolutely nothing about us. Neither I nor my friend claim that there yet exists proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Biden is guilty of bribery. We say that what is already known about the Biden family activities is suspicious and merits further and fair investigation.
LikeLike
Mike,
Relax. Jim Jordan and James Comer have already launched an impeachment investigation. They don’t have any evidence yet, but if it exists, they will find it.
LikeLike
Mike Zeihen
You must be new at this .
You say
“that what is already known about the Biden family activities is suspicious and merits further and fair investigation.”
Does the name VINCE FOSTER ring a bell.
The biggest Republican scam of all is there never is any evidence. All roads lead to a Blue Dress that means nothing in the lives of real Americans.
At the end, after 4 or 5 investigations , Starr’s being the last. Ken Starr concludes he can not prove foster wasn’t murdered even though every investigation determined that suicide was the most likely cause.
I will never be able to prove the sun is not made of cream cheese(I can’t get close enough). So we will leave that assertion out there.
So you prove their method is a success.
“that what is already known about the Biden family activities is suspicious and merits further and fair investigation.”
It will always merit further investigation no matter how baseless the charge!!!
LikeLike
dianeravitch
People do not care about infrastructure unless the overpass over their(!!!) house falls on their head.
The lead time between the infrastructure act and shovels in the ground for the largest projects (the ones that have the most impact on people ) means that few have even been started and the larger ones that have are in their very early stage. They will not be appreciated till Biden’s next term.
The reason the infrastructure portion of Obama’s 2009 stimulus package was all asphalt on existing Highways, was to throw money into the economy. Doing so quickly without “dropping it from helicopters”.
To put things into perspective the $13 billion JFK Airport renewal which Cuomo announced in March of 2019 saw the first pieces of steel rising in the summer of 2023.
Do you think anyone connects the dots back to the infrastructure bill and Biden or in the case of JFK a Public Private Partnership that Cuomo signed with a developer in 2019. By the time it is complete they will be asking Andrew who.
But you can be sure if it were Trump his fat ugly face would be plastered all over the projects.
LikeLike
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10232311504317424&set=a.1200477179262
LikeLike
Joel, have I ever told you how much I appreciate your intellect, your knowledge, and your insight?
LikeLike
Very good overview by Hartmann. I have to quibble a bit on the matter of “originalism” in Supreme Ct. interpretations, though. I studied law at Ohio State in the ’60’s (1960’s) and we discussed that concept at length. There has always been a view that laws and language in general should be interpreted according to what it meant when it was written. But there’s always been an approach that tries to update or re-interpret language. “Originalists” argued, Change the law, not the meanings of words. It’s good advice, except that it makes it harder to amend the Constitution, because changing the law or the actual language meant it had to pass Congress and the White House. It has always been easier to get the Court to stretch meanings, or reverse them.
LikeLike
I agree with the idea that Bork and modern conservatives use originalism as a hammer, striking only that which they perceive as a nail. While I know it was around, I do not think it was used the same way
LikeLike
Originalism never made any sense. Circumstances change. The ones known about by someone writing a law 200 years ago might be utterly different now. The spirit of the law, yes, usually. But the literal intent? Uh, nope.
LikeLike
Originalist is a stupid idea. I believe that the Founders never intended to lock their new nation into 18th century mindsets. I can’t begin to refer to the massive changes in society and the economy. When they wrote the Constitution, Blacks were enslaved, and only white propertied men were allowed to vote. Should we live with their views?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe that the Founders never intended to lock their new nation into 18th century mindsets.
Many of these folks were revolutionary, visionary, far-sighted people. Locking into the status quo was their way.
LikeLike
In three sentences, you absolutely demolish Originalism, Diane. Well done.
LikeLike
I believe Madison and company expected their descendants to amend the constitution constantly. If they returned now to see the relatively few we have, they would be gobsmacked.
LikeLike
Diane Ravitch makes clear that she doesn’t have even a cursory understanding of what originalism means. To think that she was once an historian.
LikeLike
It is you, Ms. Markerson, who don’t have a clue what Diane meant. Let me spell it out for you: The founders were so backward, from our pov, that a) they didn’t think women deserved the vote and b) they took out of their draft the language condemning slavery. So, if one is interested only in what they must have thought at the time when they drafted particular language, one must take into consideration what they thought generally about things. So, clearly, when the founders drafted this, they meant the terms “He” and “him” literally.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years
Article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States
So, since no Amendment has specifically changed this and stated that a woman can hold this office, and since we must go with the Original Intent, according to these Repugnicans, we must conclude, according to their principle, that women are not able to run for and hold this office. Sorry, Nikki.
LikeLike
I presume (perhaps wrongly) that an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution would not permit Nikki Haley to run for the Presidency and would compel the female justices and Justice Thomas to resign at once.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bob Shepherd needs to educate himself on what advocates of originalism actually believe. His description is just a crude caricature based on his lack of knowledge about this topic. There are varying opinions among legal scholars who describe themselves as originalists. Of course, to be aware of those opinions you would have to venture outside the left-wing bubble. From the comments section, it’s clear that the regular commenters here never expose themselves to ideas that don’t automatically confirm what they already believe.
LikeLike
Haaaaa!!!!! You should take your comic routine on the road, Ms. Markerson.
–The oh-so-uneducated unlike reactionary Repugnicans Bob Shepherd
LikeLike
Bob,
Do you even have a high school diploma?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It weren’t sumpin’ my pap put much store in, book larnin, Miss Diane.
LikeLike
Original intent: Interpretation of legal documents based upon what was intended by the authors of those documents.
It’s pretty obvious that they intended to refer to men there. ROFLMAO!!!
Btw, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., advanced the same theory, that meaning was based upon authorial intent, in his work Validity in Interpretation. But, ofc, when we are talking about what John Milton originally intended, it’s not as crucial as what James Madison originally intended.
Interpretation of the law based on Original Intent is bunk. And, it is a moveable feast, applicable when Reich-wing judges find it useful to back up their prejudices and otherwise not. And, of course, as Ms. Markerson points out, interpretable to mean whatever serves their purpose of ruling according to their prejudices in a particular case. Sometimes strict original intent. Sometimes not so strict. Sometimes utterly “activist.”
Alito had to go all the way back to freaking witch-hunting jurists to find his precedents. Same schtick.
LikeLike
If “Originalists” don’t mean a search for the “original intent,” then I don’t think it means anything.
If you pursue the thought, it’s nuts. The Founders never intended for women or Blacks to vote, nor to serve in office. Certainly not to be lawyers or Supreme Court justices!
The plain reading of the 2nd Anendment seems to be about arming a militia, not about the right of every man to own and carry a gun in public.
LikeLike
No idea is too preposterous, too ridiculous for what passes for the intellectual fringe of the Repugnican Party. This idiotic notion should have been interred with Bork.
LikeLike
Note that Reich wingers love Originalism except when it conflicts with the outcomes they want to see, as in the case of Originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, which was clearly not about individual right to gun ownership but about enabling the creation of militias. And similarly, they completely overlook the quite liberal views of abortion held from the Puritan Era through the Revolutionary one.
In literary studies, Originalism in the sense of looking for how people of the time understood some x can be extremely revealing. That’s what the New Historicism in Literary Studies is all about. It enables one to discover that people in the past often had VERY BIZARRE NOTIONS that are no longer current and that are difficult to imagine, today, because they are so different from how we see things. Let me give four favorite examples. First one: The ancient Greeks had one word, psyche, where we have two separate ones, mind and soul. So, this word did double duty. Now, Plato noticed that we can think of, say, a perfect line, triangle, or square, but no such thing exists in nature. Therefore, he thought, perfection can be found in the abstract mind/soul, but not in the world, which is made up of inferior, devolved, degraded copies. Similarly, a perfection–truth, for example,–belonged to this world of the spirit, the world of abstract “forms,” of which this world was made up of merely poor copies. Second one: the Greek word from Plato that is often translated into English as “virtue,” arete, meant, literally, excellence AND/OR efficiency. So, one could speak of a shoe being virtuous, as well as of a man. This idea created a reflexive notion that what made anything good, virtuous, excellent, efficient–whatever gave it arete–was something already there to be discovered. So, Plato thought we just had to look to the psyche, the spirit/mind, carefully, to ask the right questions, to discover what a virtuous man or state was. What constituted virtue was already given and there to be discovered via reason. We tend to think, rather, that these are things both to be discovered and to be INVENTED, CREATED. So, we can create something new, a new kind of state policy, for example, that serves peoples needs better and so is virtuous. Finally, in the Greek of the time, the word theos had a predicative force. Where Christians have always posited a god and then listed his attributes–omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, love, jealousy–ancient Greeks looked at a powerful phenomenon in the world–the volcano, the wind, the waves of the sea, friendship, erotic love, fate, memory, sleep, death–and said THIS IS A GOD. So, the wind is a god. The Earth is a god. The sky is a god. Erotic love is a god. Memory is a god. History is a god. LOL.
Now, the ancient Greeks had a very weird, from our perspective, theory of motivation. If you read the Iliad carefully, you will notice that the characters rarely do anything of their own accord. Instead, a god infuses, influences, acts through him or her. One was infused with, inhabited by, possessed by a god that motivated one to act. This internal motivation of a person by a god was called the person’s Ate. It was a kind of “I couldn’t help myself, I had this overwhelming urge, this Ate, to do [x] or [y].”
In other words, their ways of thinking and being were far stranger than we typically think of them as being, far weirder, much more unlike us. And actually recapturing how they thought is a lot more challenging.
But it is not surprising, is it, that the Alitos of the world want to go back to a good ole time when girls were girls and men were men (as Jordan Peterson, Josh Hawley, and Tucker Carlson tell us they aren’t anymore, at least among liberals and in those dark towers of liberalism, universities).
All this is easy enough to say, but actually trying to recapture how they thought and THINK THAT WAY YOURSELF involves major UNTHINKING, letting go of deeply engrained modern habits of thought. It’s not easy, and if you actually do that, what you end up with is REALLY WEIRD from a modern perspective. So, the modern personalizations–well, there was Eros, and he was the God of Love–are falsifications due to thinking like Christians–there is a god; here is his attributel. The Greeks, rather, thought not of the god as having a domain but of the force being a god. And, here’s another
LikeLike
What makes the New Historicism difficult (and fascinating) is that it actually isn’t easy to recapture how people in the past thought and try to understand things as they did. It requires successive stabs at it, going back to it, in what is known as the hermeneutic circle.
LikeLike
It amuses me to no end, Diane, that this person thinks I know little of Original Intent–I who have given so much time and effort to the study of hermeneutics.
LikeLike
When I was a college kid there was this little jazz bar some friends ran. On the wall of the restroom was an obscene reference. Soon, answers to this reference had turned the wall into a back and forth on capitalism.
This back and forth reminds me of that one in a way, and I am proud to have been a part of it.
LikeLike
Emphasizing the original intent of the Constitution’s drafters does not mean ignoring the facial meaning of subsequent amendments or legislative acts, nor does it require ignoring the original intent of the drafters of those amendments or legislative acts.
LikeLike
FLERP,
It makes no sense to write that “Emphasizing the original intent of the Constitution’s drafters does not mean… ignoring the original intent of the drafters of those amendments or legislative acts.”
Circular comment.
LikeLike
I was careful, Flerp, to point out that there was no subsequent Amendment that addressed women holding high political office. So, my comment did NOT require ignoring subsequent Amendments, and purposefully so.
LikeLike
Mr. Hartmann is hyper-partisan and blindly so. For a more level-headed account of the current situation, read a strong critic of the authoritarianism on both the Right and the Left.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/23/the-road-to-autocracy/
LikeLike
Great article and I agree, mostly. What we have now is a kleptocratic oligarchy where everyone is being pulled in different directions, resulting in societal disorientation which is leading to a lack of trust….of anything. Right now there seems to be no nuance, compromise or middle ground of any issue (big or small). “We” the people, need to know the players in this dystopian game.
LikeLike
I read Joel Kotkin’s piece and I was puzzled by his revulsion towards higher education. I haven’t been in college for many years but I’m very involved with my Alma mater and I read widely. It’s true that colleges and universities oppose racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, all forms of hate speech.
What’s wrong with that?
That’s not censorship. That good manners.
LikeLike
There’s nothing wrong with that! What’s wrong is the way they go about making an issue out of something that really isn’t an issue and then try to make people bend to new rules that are made up so that the college looks good on some DEI report (eg. “social” work/worker). This just creates social chaos on campuses.
Good manners/compassion/empathy will abound when those that think they know better stop trying to “mind control” teens/young adults and let them learn naturally from living within the real world among their peers
LikeLike
Ms. Ravitch,
You claim to read widely but then you say you are puzzled by Mr. Kotkin’s revulsion toward higher education. You may read a lot, but what you choose to read apparently just confirms what you already believe. The criticisms that Kotkin makes about academia have been made for many years, mostly by conservative writers, but also by many moderates and some traditional liberals as well. How do you not know that?
LikeLike
Kotkin’s article is utterly fact free. It is purest expostulation with ZERO SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT. He has provided no evidence whatsoever of anything he says. He’s just another Reich winger upset that people are finally calling out racism, sexism, nationalism, mythologized nationalistic history, religious bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, classicism, and other evils.
LikeLike
cx: classism
LikeLike
In other words, that article is just more contentless right-wing shrieking.
LikeLike
I have worked all my life in higher education. I retired in 2020. I have friends and relatives who are professors at different institutions. State universities and elite universities and small
Colleges. None of them are radical. All are reasonable centrists. Should I believe Roger Kimball, Dinesh DiSouza, and Joel Koukin or my own eyes and ears?
LikeLike
And if this guy is a representative Democrat, then we no longer have two opposing parties in this country, for judging from this article, he is indistinguishable from a Repugnican. Reminds me of Maserati Joe Manchin the Dirty Coal King.
LikeLike
Mr. Shepherd,
You obviously have no clue who Joel Kotkin is. He is a moderate Democrat who often strongly criticizes the direction the Republican party has taken in the Trump era; he takes the sensible liberal position on several issues. But he also opposes the extreme progressives, i.e. the wokesters, that few percent of the Left who dominate academia, major media journalism, Hollywood, and this blog. Kotkin is worth reading if you’re open to someone whom you won’t always agree with; he’s not the right-winger that you pigeonhole him as being.
LikeLike
I did not respond to him GENERALLY. I responded to this article, to what it says. Again, it is a lot of overgeneralization and almost completely content-free and quite right-wing.
LikeLike
People who complain about, “extreme progressives,” assume the “extreme” left supports recompense for Black families who had their land and businesses stolen from them (institutional racism). Progressives’ critics don’t care that Whites were owners of the US legal and economic power. The critics put their fingers in their ears when there’s talk about university entrance discrimination after WWII which denied opportunities to Black GI’s and, they don’t want to be exposed to the info. about prejudice in the military against Blacks in WWII which had adverse consequences to the generational wealth accumulation of Black families. Progressives’ critics don’t care that a 10-year old is denied an abortion. They don’t care when people can’t afford medical care nor, about the amount of wealth the richest 0.1% control. They don’t care about climate change. And, they want to quash dissent about any environment that isn’t limited to binary sexual identity.
Religious and conservative culture creates a feeling of superiority and receptiveness to authoritarianism.
It promotes a distorted view of democracy, one in which all must adhere to the best interests of White, wealthy, heterosexual, right wing Christian men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
White men bashing college is the thing nowadays. When it comes from political commentators, it mostly comes from the right, but plenty of centrists and center-left commentators do it too.
It’s almost seems like since they don’t completely run the show anymore, college doesn’t matter now. Of course, there are areas of concern in higher education, but that doesn’t mean that it is not a good product anymore for those who wish to pursue it.
I consume quite a few self-help, personal development, “start a business”, etc. content. While I can’t always gauge people’s political bents, plenty of them sure love bashing college. Meanwhile, some of them went to the best of the best in the US and sometimes let it slip that they have 529s for their kids.
LikeLike
The so-called militant leftists may have pushed some unfairly out of positions, but they never led an insurrection to overturn the government like the one on January 6th. It’s a false equivalency.
As far as the media goes, the corporate media rarely calls Trump out for his lies as well as the other right wing politicians. The leftist media are mostly the independent journalists like Thom Hartmann, IMO.
LikeLike
“As far as the media goes, the corporate media rarely calls Trump out for his lies as well as the other right wing politicians.”
I read the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and many other publications. They ALL frequently accuse Trump of lying, which in most cases is true.
LikeLike
The problem, of course, is Trump is so prolific with the lies that it’s difficult for any media to keep up them. Write an article about the 8 lies this morning, and there are 12 more that night when it goes to press. But the worst of it is that one entire political party entirely kow-tows to this breathtakingly stupid, ignorant, dishonest and venal man (if one uses the term “man” very loosely).
LikeLike
That’s two comments today calling people “blindly hyper-partisan”. I don’t want to be hyper anything, but bipartisanship has for decades meant Democrats acting like Republicans Lite. In my lifetime, the only give by moderate Republicans seems to have been Bush calling himself “compassionate” about some social issues. Dems, on the other hand, have gone all out for conservatism and libertarianism, even trying to privatize Social Security and Medicare. No, to be moderate, there must be some give and take by both sides, not one side giving and the other side taking. Partisanship is necessary in a world of power imbalance. I am a proud partisan.
LikeLike
There was nothing “compassionate” about Bush. He was and is a war criminal. Hundreds of thousands dead unnecessarily because of him, and irretrievable cultural monuments destroyed. All because of a war over WMDs that did not exist with a tyrant whom we put in place. He broke the fundamental principle of international law, which is the inviolability of sovereign U.N. member states.
But he gets to sit in Texas and paint his sentimental paintings and do his moronic interviews with reporters from time to time where he flubs the answers to the most softball of questions, showing that he is true to the same form he showed when he was being ruled by the Dark Lords Cheney and Rummy.
LikeLike
According to George Tenet’s autobiography, the only WMDs found in Iraq were drums of chemical weapons that the United States had given to Saddam Hussein. Tenet says that the U.S. bombed the already captured facility to keep it from exposed to the world. It didn’t want people reading the labels in English on the sides of the containers that the U.S. had given to its buddy, the ex-Bath Party hired killer, whom it had put in place as leader of Iraq.
How quickly people forget.
LikeLike
The only WMD in Iraq was GWB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We all know that George Bush, Jr., was and is a simpleton. And it’s horrifying that given that, a lot of Americans voted him into the presidency. From time to time, someone goes to see him or calls him up and pretends to be someone important like Zelensky, and George falls for it and gives him or her breathtakingly stupid advice. So, here’s the question I wonder about: Is he so stupid that he has no clue how much damage he is responsible for? During the Second Iraq War, started under false pretenses that Iraq was developing WMDs and that Hussein’s territorial ambitions could not be contained by other means, the United States did precisely what Russia is now doing in Ukraine. It invaded a fellow sovereign U.N. member state, in violation of International Law, and it carried out a bombing campaign against civilian populations and cultural monuments, both also in violation of International Law. Estimates vary widely, but it is likely that at least 150,000 Iraqi citizens died as a result of this war. Grandmas and Grandpas, babies, toddlers, young men and women with their entire lives ahead of them–you know, a cross section of people. All murdered by this guy, on his orders. Does he have any idea what he is responsible for? All that loss? All that heartbreak and terror? If there were any justice in the world, he and the others responsible for that war would be in the dock being tried by the International Court of Criminal Justice for these war crimes. Instead, our press runs softball pieces about his primitive, sentimental paintings and the aww shucks comradery of Bush and the other ex-presidents.
LikeLike
Many good points in this but he works himself up so much that he goes off the rails a couple times. The electoral college isn’t a Republican “scam.” It’s a constitutional fact and it’s not going away. We need to stop whining about it.
LikeLike
I disagree. One man’s whining is another man’s logical argument. We should promote dialogue, and saying that Hartman is whining does not promote such discussion.
As for Hartman, I am not sure his evaluation of Bush-Gore is correct. Most of the stuff I have read suggests a statewide recount would have given Bush a narrow victory. I maintained in 2000 that the Florida debacle proved that we needed to revise the way electors are assigned relative to candidates to prevent such controversy. Jan 6 suggested I was right. Of course, Hartman is right about the 5-4 decision to stop the recount. The Supreme Court no more knew the outcome than anyone else and clearly behaved as a partisan entity.
LikeLike
The electoral college is supposed to keep states from seceding. It makes sense today that we would have a serious problem on our hands if presidential candidates only had to win the populous cities of N.Y.C., L.A., and Chicago. Everyone else’s lips would be dripping with the phrase taxation without representation.
Also, while Bush was a horrible president for whom we are all still greatly suffering today, remember that Bill Gates wouldn’t be the billionaire he is today without a whole lot of help from none other than Al Gore. (Geismer, Left Behind)
LikeLike
Yup, it’s a bi-partisan circle jerk involving a few oligarchs and the politicians who live on the dole from those guys.
LikeLike
Complain all you want, the electoral college isn’t going away.
LikeLike
ABC News 8-31-2022
“Former senator discusses the hushed efforts to change the Constitution.”
The article is about the right wing’s “convention provision” (article 5).
Strange phenomenon-
The right wing makes headway in destroying the left but, the left is deemed
loco when trying to advance democracy.
LikeLike
This seems a little far-fetched. Not likely that the Reich wingers would get 2/3rds of the members of both houses to call a Constitutional Convention.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-discusses-hushed-efforts-change-us-constitution/story?id=89048487
LikeLike
Seven technology companies, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, chip-maker Nvidia, Tesla, and Meta (Facebook), took advantage of imitative (generously called generative) AI and gained 74% of global market value combined in 2023 compared to 12% for the rest of the world’s companies combined. These seven companies are now valued together greater than the wealth of five of the world’s highest income nations combined: Japan, UK, China, France, and Canada. Apple or Microsoft each separately has more money than UK, China, France, or Canada. The sun never sets on Gates’ Billish Empire. How much land, just land, does that one dude own all by himself?
As a microcosmic example, I merely want to stop devoting a fifth of my students’ instruction time to iReady online standardized tests and business-related online test prep products that began in Los Angeles this year. I’m up against Apple, however. Not exactly a fair fight. I have little say in what or how I do day to day. My experience is best summed up as common.
Forty years of trickle down economics, including all the horrors enacted by the GOP listed above, one after another, created a monopoly of wealth and power. Neoliberal bipartisanship not listed above greatly helped the GOP lead us down this path. War in Iraq weakened the U.S.’s ability and willingness to maintain military stability in the post Cold War world. With tax revenue practically nonexistent and regulation of businesses even less existent, we are past the tipping point of returning to a world of social and financial safety and stability. We are constantly shocked by the behavior of Trump and the like. It’s the Shock Doctrine at work. We, as a once thriving democracy, are too weakened by insane disaster after disaster to respond well to the hostile, corporate takeover of everything by a couple handfuls of dorky billionaires who like to threaten each other with cage fights to show how manly they are.
Dystopia.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, we have become into a corporatocracy. Unless a company does something so outrageous, there are few attempts to rein in their power and influence. They hire the lobbyists to ensure they get preferential treatment.
LikeLike
“These seven companies are now valued together greater than the wealth of five of the world’s highest income nations combined: Japan, UK, China, France, and Canada.”
In this statistic, I wondered if the wealth of these countries is considered to include some of the wealth of these companies? How do you figure the wealth of a country vs. the wealth of a corpotation?
LikeLike
Here’s the source.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/26/the-stock-market-story-of-2023-the-growing-domination-of-us-tech
The stat is from the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) which measures “‘global investable equity opportunity’, as the compilers put it.” I think public and private ratings are indexed independently of one another, although via taxes, subsidies, etc, they are certainly somewhat interdependent.
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane. AGREE with Thom Hartmann.
Are Dumpster supporters able to THINK much? Answer: NO! They are in deep &^ and know it…thus their insane behavior.
LikeLike
Today, at The Hill, a guy from the Koch network posted an opinion about the GOP’s double standards. Christian Ziegler, M4L’s co-founder’s husband, deservedly faces banishment according to national Republican politicians and Florida’s state GOP officials. On the other, Donald Trump’s noteworthy sexual situations aren’t a concern for those same people.
LikeLike
They are a bunch of hypocrites. Trump exemplifies each of the seven deadly sins.
pride, check
greed, check
wrath, check
envy, check
lust, check
gluttony, check
sloth, check
If more Repugnicans participated in more three-ways, perhaps they wouldn’t be so uptight and would relax a little about people who aren’t exactly like them.
LikeLike
If smelling bad were one of the deadly sins, he would exemplify that too, apparently.
LikeLike
I agree with everything Hartmann says since I’ve been thinking what he wrote for too many years to count.
Still, most voters in this country do not have an attention span long enough to read all of Hartmann’s commentary.
One of the reasons that the extreme right has been so successful at fooling ignorant voters with short attention spans for decades, is because this is the core of their propaganda scheme.
Keep the message short.
Make it sound horrible.
Never explain in depth because there are no reliable facts to support the extreme rights dystopian agenda.
Next, a short list — it could be longer but there are only so many hours in a day — that represents the extreme right’s propoganda campaign.
MAGA
CRT
LGBTQ
Libtards
Snowflakes
WOKE
Liberals are communists
Communism is evil.
Liberals are socialists
Socialism is evil
Election fraud
Biden’s too old — And there is seldom if any mention in the traditional media that Trump is almost as old as Biden – but the media repeats the extreme right propaganda that Biden is too old. WTFs wrong with the media?
Biden has dementia — but there’s no evidence of Biden has dementia like there is for Traitor Trump. Trump has a historia of dementia in his family. Biden doesn’t. WTFs wrong with the media?
Biden is a crook — when there is no evidence Biden is a crook and a mountain of evidence that Traitor Trump is. WTFs wrong with the media?
et al.
Compare that short list to the length of Hartman’s essay.
Does anyone have the time to summarize what Hartmann wrote in 250 words or less, if that is even possible, with a simple, easy to understand acronym to represent all of what he says?
I think it is possible.
Recently, I saw a perfect poster on Quora with a list of Trump’s failures and crimes on the left and his image on the right facing that list. The list was similar to the example above of the extreme’s rights short and simple propaganda list but the list about Trump was based on FACTS, not BS.
I also agree that the traditional media is guilty too because they have been reacting so poorly to that propoganda campaign above.
LikeLike
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10232311372514129&set=a.1200477179262
LikeLike
Revised:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10232311504317424&set=a.1200477179262
LikeLike
Bush’s are so heinous they need to be eradicated, besides being actual nazis, allowing 9/11 to happen and continuing the NWO. Gore would have been a horrible president. Does not take much to realize Bush election was a stolen but nothing as horrific as 2020
LikeLike
nothing as horrific as 2020
OMG. You ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS BULLSHIT. The level of gullibility that takes is breathtaking. Is there anything so absurd that you won’t believe it if Don the Con has said it?
LikeLike
Patriot. Please provide one piece of evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. Actual evidence.
There is none. Only bullshit from Trump and his toadies.
LikeLike
Careful, “patriot.” You don’t want the NWO to submit you to remote rectification. Make sure you have your tin foil hat on at all times!!!! Why was Ben Franklin really out there experimenting with kites and keys? Trying to figure out how to capture the rectification beams and deflect them harmlessly to the ground.
Stay tuned her for the TRUTH THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!
woo woo
LikeLike
I meant, “Stay tuned here,” but clearly, Critical Race Theory modified my post to introduce errors into it.
LikeLike
Continuing my thought from above, about ancient Greek ways of thinking (Greek Original Intent, lol):
Here’s another. The ancient Greeks had a theory of motivation that is very strange from our modern POV. If you read the Iliad closely, you will notice that almost no character ever acts of his or her own accord, out of his or her own will. Instead, he or she is infused, inhabited, or (to put it in Christian terms) possessed by a god who then moves him or her to action almost as if against his or her will, as if the person were a mere gollum. The Greeks called this difficult-to-control-or-repress internal motivating force one’s Ate.
LikeLike
Here, a more finished, more complete version of my argument about Originalism. This brief piece deals with the ways of thinking of ancient Greeks.
https://wordpress.com/post/bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/5747
LikeLike
Sorry, here is the proper link:
LikeLike
Citizens in Indiana have to hear the blabber of our Attorney General. [R-IN]. Obviously Rokita doesn’t believe in the 14th amendment. Indiana is heavily gerrymandered by the GOP.
This country has NO use for a narcissistic, pathological liar who wanted to overturn the government. If he is elected, there is a very good chance that he will never leave the office. His loyal followers have guns and will support him.
………………………………..
Attorney General Todd Rokita leads 19 states defending former President Trump’s right to be on the ballot in 2024
Attorney General Todd Rokita this week co-led a 19-state coalition in defending former President Trump’s right to appear on the Colorado ballot in 2024.
“The legal effort to banish President Trump from Colorado’s ballot in 2024 smacks of the same underhanded sliminess that provoked such skepticism among Americans after the 2020 elections,” Attorney General Rokita said. “State-by-state efforts to thwart the democratic process of electing a president disenfranchises voters in other states like Indiana.”
Indiana voters have a direct interest in this case, Attorney General Rokita added.
“If any state prohibits a legitimate presidential candidate from appearing on their ballot, that action would serve to squelch the voices of voters from every other state who supported that candidate,” Attorney General Rokita said. “Hoosiers cannot tolerate such an assault on democracy and election integrity.”
Attorney General Rokita and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey led a 19-state amicus brief calling upon the Colorado Supreme Court to dismiss a case challenging Trump’s eligibility to appear on that state’s ballot. The brief asserts that the Constitution gives Congress, not courts, authority to decide who is eligible to run for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“We need to protect the integrity of our elections, and actions like this undermine the right of the citizens to choose who they want to represent them in every level of government,” Attorney General Morrisey said. “This is a very simple argument: Congress gets to decide on matters like this.”
The 19-state brief is attached.
LikeLike
People can put all kinds of spins on the concept of Originalism, of course, but they all relate to interpreting a legal text in terms of what it meant when it was written. One can of course argue scholastically about there being a difference between Original Intent (what the author or authors meant by a phrase, clause, or statute) and Original Meaning (what the generally accepted meaning was at the time of the writing) and between the Original Intent and Original Meaning at the time of adoption or ratification (versus at the time of writing), but these are quibbles. The basic question is whether a law is a living document that changes with the circumstances of our lives, or not. Conservatives love Originalism when it helps them to prop up their prejudices (well, clearly, these folks did not define marriage to include ones between a man and a man or a woman and a woman) but hate it when it fails to do so (well, clearly, the typical eighteenth-century colonist did not think of a fetus as a person yet and did not think of ending a dangerous, life-threatening pregnancy as murder). And so, the so-called Originalists prove in their practice that their Originalism is a now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t affair, a moveable feast. And those who fancy themselves Strict Constructionists, Textualists, and/or Originalists seem in practice to have no qualms about getting all activist and totally distorting the history to support their prejudices (see the Alito decision for clear examples of this). And equally clearly, Originalism makes no sense at all because THINGS CHANGE. Sensible interpretation takes this into account. It recognizes that the principle of equality under the law applies to black people as well as to white people, to poor people as well as to wealthy and propertied ones, to women as well as to men, EVEN IF the authors (Originalism as Intent) or people in general at the time of inception of the law (Originalism as Meaning) didn’t think so. The law must be a living thing. And, of course, the scholastic quibbling about varieties of Originalism is mostly about differences without differences. What person A meant at the time when he or she wrote x is typically what people in general at the time meant by x because language communicates only when a community of people–the author and his or her readers–share the common understanding at the time of what the words mean.
LikeLike
Bob,
Good comment about Originalism.
Consider changes in medicine from the 1780s to today. Mind-boggling.
Abortion? At the time the Constitution was written, babies were delivered at home, by a midwife or aunt or husband.
There was no way to know that a child in the womb had a fatal genetic defect or that the mother’s life was in danger.
Women died in childbirth.
My view is that anyone who looks to the Constitution for guidance on medical practice today is unserious, foolish, deluded, or deceptive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed!
LikeLike
So, Intent is a good gloss for Originalism in general, especially since in hermeneutics (the theory of interpretation) generally, that’s the role it plays–as a general name for a variety of interpretive strategies that share basing interpretation on what the author most likely meant, which is in turn based on textual evidence, on evidence from typical meaning within a genre (a shepherd in pastoral is truthful and humble), on philological evidence, and on historical evidence.
LikeLike
So, for example, a hermeneutics theorist like E.D. Hirsch, Jr., would argue that an interpretation is valid if it is based upon a reasonable reconstruction of what the author intended. That, according to such theorists, is what a text “means.”
This is a reasonable approach, but it does not take into account other meanings of “meaning,” including, most significantly, meaning as significance (as in, that had a lot of meaning to me). This, I always thought, was a shortcoming of Hirsch’s theory, and I told him so personally.
LikeLike
A political party that is, too, corrupt, and yet, it appeased to the followers, who can’t, think for themselves to, have the, sound, judgments, to know, who’s right or wrong, and, the country will be, screwed over, if and when, the too rotten-to-the-core party, takes control of the, legislative, executive, as well as the, judiciary, branches, and the people are, completely, enslaved by the, government, with these, corrupt, officials who’d been, voted into the office, by them, but hey, don’t feel too bad, it’s like this, EVERYWHERE these days, the governments are, playing the voters for, stupid, and, we are, still, allowing them to, abuse us…and we can’t, TEACH our governments that lesson about, how abusing the people, the people will, eventually, fight, back, because, they will, just, INVALIDATE, the, voting, process anyways, so, any way, we are all, SCREWED!
LikeLike
Taurus, what’s with all those commas?
LikeLike
I think that they were intended as pauses for emphasis.
LikeLike
I just wanted to comment that this is a wonderful article by Hartman. He nails the various scams that the Repugnican Party pulls on working people. The Democratic Party needs intelligent, capable leadership that will take on the challenge of explaining each of these CLEARLY to the American public, which has been scammed for far too long. It’s really sad that the Repugnicans are able to get working people in the U.S. TO VOTE AGAINST THEMSELVES by stirring up racial prejudice and sexism and promoting falsehoods about the effects of viruses and climate change and other matters having scientific bases. This has been going on for far, far too long. The national Democratic Party needs to start running ISSUE ADS to educate people on these topics, and, in particular, to call out the Repugnican lies.
LikeLike
No paywall to this month-by-month narration of the GOP’s efforts to impeach Biden over his son Hunter’s business deals. I offer it not to convince those invested in the “Biden Crime Family” story, but as clear refutation amid the smoke machine tended by MAGA for more reality based individuals.
By March, Republicans were ready to begin releasing a slow trickle of information about the monetary interactions between Hunter Biden, James Biden and their business partners. In the middle of the month, Oversight released the first of several “bank memos” that detailed money received by the Bidens or their associates and some of those who received it. None of those recipients was the president.
The Post would later walk through many of the allegations — including claims of millions of dollars flowing to the Bidens and of numerous “shell companies” — and would reveal them to be overstated or false.
https://wapo.st/3twivUy
LikeLike
The Republicans assume that Joe Biden must be receiving a cut of any business deal in which his family members are involved but there is no evidence, no smoking gun.
Maybe they should have gone on welfare while he was in office.
Funnily enough, the business deals that Republicans have targeted apparently occurred while Biden was not in office.
LikeLike
How insane are you guys obsession with trump! he has been gone for 3 years and everyone witnessed 3 years of hell on this earth with legit the worst president we have ever seen. Colorado shut down stupid election fraud, maine deranged moron should be removed she is a loyalist to bifen and obama. We are in a communist country, imagine doing this to a dem who is leading in polls.
How in gods earth do you think you have seen corruption with absurd lies about trump being russian spy, debunked losers! Biden has 10,000 pages of documented evidence of treason, corruption, 20 shell companies, hunter being guilty on so many counts of corruption and not even including sex with family drugs and getting money for big guy. Bob diane, lloyd and the rest have lost your damn minds!!!! Trump 2024 baby!!!!
LikeLike
I know I put that mind around here somewhere.
LikeLike
This is what we have been missing in this country for over two centuries: an insurrectionist and traitor in the White House. This reflects poorly on the Founders, who didn’t erect enough guardrails to exclude an unprincipled scoundrel from running for president. I know that they wrote Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to exclude people like Trump but apparently their language was not clear enough.
LikeLike
Diane! Hate to break it to you there was no insurrection! It was a fedsurrecxtion and if you actually watched released footage even a 5th grader can see how many feds , antifa, people dressed as cops letting people in, moving barracades, shooting ruibber bullets, tear gas. What a crazy insurrection, people walking calmy and being escorted into the capital. Set up by dems, rinos and pelosi. Pelosi and mayor made it clear no national guard. Unselect committee destroyed evidence, take off your blinders. 80% plus congress people are compromised jeff epstein style. LOL the 14th amendment section 3 will not work for this! Trump even told crowd to leave calmly respect authority. Real insurrection was the election and all the billions of damage blm shit costed
LikeLike