Archives for category: Extremism

The day after Trump’s Madison Square Garden, the media reacted with shock to the raw racism and misogyny on display. The New York Times reported:

Former President Donald J. Trump sought to head off the major speech Vice President Kamala Harris was planning to deliver Tuesday night by casting her as responsible for all of the nation’s ills while also attempting to draw attention away from bigoted and racist remarks at his rally in New York.

Two days after he hosted a rally at Madison Square Garden where several speakers made racist and vulgar statements, Mr. Trump accused Ms. Harris of running “a campaign of absolute hate.”

Mr. Trump then headed to Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state, for two campaign stops. Ms. Harris is expected to speak at the Ellipse, the same park near the White House where Mr. Trump marshaled his supporters to descend on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The setting for Ms. Harris’s remarks will provide her campaign with a symbolic moment to go along with its increasingly blunt warnings about the dangers posed by Mr. Trump, who Democrats say is unstable and will run roughshod over democratic norms if he returns to the White House.

Mr. Trump’s allies have shown anxiety that the backlash to the Madison Square Garden event, and descriptions of him as a racist and a fascist, may be breaking through to segments of voters in battleground states. On Tuesday, however, the former president sought to attack Ms. Harris with the very accusations he himself has been facing, telling a group of supporters and reporters at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida that her message “has been a message of hate and division.”

In his remarks, Mr. Trump continued to push back against criticisms of his rally — which he called, unprompted, “an absolute love fest” — mocking Democrats who have pointed out that a pro-Nazi rally was held at Madison Square Garden in 1939.

Election Day is one week from today. Here’s what else to know:

  • Madison Square Garden rally fallout: Republicans moved swiftly to distance themselves from remarks disparaging Puerto Rico made by the comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who was one of the opening speakers at Mr. Trump’s New York rally. The island’s Republican Party chairman is demanding an apology, and the Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny stepped up his condemnation of the remarks on Tuesday.
  • Hinting at a vulgar taunt: An ad from Elon Musk’s PAC refers to Ms. Harris as a “C Word” — eventually calling her a “communist” — in an allusion to an insult against women that is one of the most obscene words in American English.

Jeff Bezos may have killed the Washington Post’s editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris, but he certainly didn’t muzzle the editorial board, which lacerated Trump about his behavior on January 6, which he recently called “a day of love.”

The editorial on Monday said:

Vice President Kamala Harris will deliver her closing argument in a speech Tuesday at the Ellipse in D.C. This location, where President Donald Trump incited a mob to ransack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is fitting and proper. Mr. Trump’s unprecedented efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, combined with promises to pardon supporters convicted of crimes committed that day, represent Ms. Harris’s strongest argument for why voters shouldn’t return him to the White House.

Mr. Trump has shown no contrition for what happened during the worst assault on the Capitol since the British set it ablaze in 1814. Instead, he’s attempted to rewrite history.

During a Univision town hall on Oct. 16, Republican Ramiro González, a 56-year-old construction worker living in Tampa, expressed concern to Mr. Trump about his inaction on Jan. 6. Mr. Trump said, not for the first time, that it was actually “a day of love” and referred to the rioters in the first person plural. “The others had guns, but we didn’t have guns,” he said. By “others,” Mr. Trump is referring to law enforcement officers, some 140 of whom were assaulted by his supporters that day. Moreover, it’s not true “we” didn’t have guns.

Six people were arrested on Jan. 6 while possessing guns in the vicinity of the Capitol, and more than a dozen have been charged with bringing weapons into D.C. Police officers testified that they observed more people with weapons but didn’t try to arrest them because they were regaining control of the Capitol.

Former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a star witness during the Jan. 6 congressional inquest, testified under oath that the president was angry that Secret Service agents weren’t letting armed supporters through security at the Ellipse. “I don’t even care that they have weapons,” Ms. Hutchinson recalled Mr. Trump saying. “They’re not here to hurt me.” (Mr. Trump denies this.)

This month alone, Mr. Trump played footsie with a conspiracy theory that the insurrection was some kind of FBI inside job, sharing a meme on social media that said: “January 6 will go down in history as the day the government staged a riot to cover up the fact that they certified a fraudulent election.” As he reiterated his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, Mr. Trump told podcaster Joe Rogan on Friday that “the enemy from within” poses a greater threat than North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

During an interview with radio host Dan Bongino, he compared the incarceration of his supporters for Jan. 6 crimes to the internment of 112,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, even though Japanese Americans were interned entirely because of their ethnicity and without due process.

When pressed, Mr. Trump added that he told attendees at his “Stop the Steal” rally to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” But he also urged them to “walk down” to the Capitol. “And I’ll be there with you,” he said. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he continued. “You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing.”

More than 1,500 people have been criminally charged by federal prosecutors in connection with breaching the Capitol that day. Of those, about 1,200 have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. About 600 were charged with assaulting police or rioting. Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman has said he’ll consider pardon requests on “a case-by-case basis.” Mr. Trump himself has declined to rule out clemency for members of extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, whose leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Over the past four years, Mr. Trump has sounded an increasingly sympathetic tone for all of them. He evolved from referring to the Jan. 6 defendants as “political prisoners” to calling them “hostages.” He has said the real “insurrection” took place on Election Day. He contributed his voice to a rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” by the “J6 Prison Choir,” which he played at the kickoff rally of his 2024 campaign.

Mr. Trump himself faces criminal charges for trying to subvert the election. In an Oct. 2 filing, special counsel Jack Smith laid out forensic evidence to prove that Mr. Trump watched Fox News and scrolled through Twitter as he sat alone in the Oval Office on Jan. 6. When he was told that Vice President Mike Pence had been evacuated to a secure location after insurrectionists chanted for his hanging, Mr. Trump allegedly responded, “So what?”

Mr. Pence does not support Mr. Trump’s bid for another term. Should he win, Mr. Trump pledged last week to fire Mr. Smith “within two seconds” of taking office. In addition to retribution, the GOP nominee has promised not to be a dictator, “except for Day One.” If Jan. 6, 2021, was a day of love, it’s unsettling to imagine what that “Day One” of a second Trump term might look like, as well as the days after it.

A group of scholars at the Brookings Institution analyzed Project 2025’s proposals for education and their implications.

What struck me as most bizarre about Project 2025 was not its efforts to block-grant all federal funding of schools, nor its emphasis on privatization of K-12 schools. (Block-granting means assigning federal funding to states as a lump sum, no strings attached, no federal oversight).

No, what amazed me most was the split screen between the report’s desire to hand all power over education to states and communities, and the report’s insistence on preserving enough power to punish LGBT students, especially trans students and to impose other far-right mandates, like stamping out critical race theory. You know, either you let the states decide or you don’t. The report wants it both ways.

It’s also astonishing to realize that the insidious goal of the report is eventually abandon federal funding of education. That’s a huge step backward, taking us to 1965, before Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, whose purpose was to raise spending in impoverished communities. I essence, P2025 says that decades of pursuing equitable funding “didn’t work,” so let’s abandon the goal and the spending.

Here is the Brookings analysis:

Project 2025 outlines a radical policy agenda that would dramatically reshape the federal government. The report was spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and represents the policy aims of a large coalition of conservative activists. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, many of the report’s authors worked in the previous Trump administration and could return for a second round. Trump, himself, said in 2022, “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.”

In other words, Project 2025 warrants a close look, even if the Trump campaign would like Americans to avert their gaze.

Project 2025’s education agenda proposes a drastic overhaul of federal education policy, from early childhood through higher education. Here’s just a sample of the Project 2025 education-related recommendations:

  • Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
  • Eliminate the Head Start program for young children in poverty
  • Discontinue the Title I program that provides federal funding to schools serving low-income children
  • Rescind federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
  • Undercut federal capacity to enforce civil rights law
  • Reduce federal funding for students with disabilities and remove guardrails designed to ensure these children are adequately served by schools
  • Promote universal private school choice
  • Privatize the federal student loan portfolio

It’s an outrageous list, and that’s just the start of it.

We’ve reviewed the Project 2025 chapter on education (Chapter 11), along with other chapters with implications for students. We’ve come away with four main observations:

1. Most of the major policy proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely amount of congressional cooperation

Project 2025 is presented as a to-do list for an incoming Trump administration. However, most of its big-ticket education items would require a great deal of cooperation from Congress.

Proposals to create controversial, new laws or programs would require majority support in the House and, very likely, a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Ideas like a Parents’ Bill of Rights, the Department of Education Reorganization Act, and a federal tax-credit scholarship program fall into this category. Even if Republicans outperform expectations in this fall’s Senate races, they’d have to attract several Democratic votes to get to 60. That’s not happening for these types of proposals.  

The same goes for major changes to existing legislation. This includes, for example, a proposal to convert funding associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to no-strings-attached block grants and education savings accounts (with, presumably, much less accountability for spending those funds appropriately). It also includes a proposal to end the “negotiated rulemaking” (“neg-reg”) process that ED follows when developing regulations related to programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The neg-reg requirement is written into HEA itself, which means that unwinding neg-reg would require Congress to amend the HEA. That’s unlikely given that HEA reauthorization is already more than a decade overdue—and that’s without the political baggage of Project 2025 weighing down the process.

The prospect of changing funding levels for existing programs is a little more complicated. Programs like Title I are permanently authorized. Eliminating Title I or changing the formulas it usesto allocate funds to local educational agencies would require new and unlikely legislation. Year-to-year funding levels can and do change, but the vast majority of ED’s budget consists of discretionary funding that’s provided through the regular, annual appropriations process and subject to a filibuster. This limits the ability of one party to make major, unilateral changes. (ED’s mandatoryfunding is more vulnerable.)

In sum, one limiting factor on what an incoming Trump administration could realistically enact from Project 2025 is that many of these proposals are too unpopular with Democrats to overcome their legislative hurdles.

2. Some Project 2025 proposals would disproportionately harm conservative, rural areas and likely encounter Republican opposition

Another limiting factor is that some of Project 2025’s most substantive proposals probably wouldn’t be all that popular with Republicans either.

Let’s take, for example, the proposed sunsetting of the Title I program. Project 2025 proposes to phase out federal spending on Title I over a 10-year period, with states left to decide whether and how to continue that funding. It justifies this with misleading suggestions that persistent test score gaps between wealthy and poor students indicate that investments like Title I funding aren’t paying off. (In fact, evidence from school finance reforms suggests real benefits from education spending, especially for students from low-income families.)

The phrase “Title I schools” might conjure up images of under-resourced schools in urban areas that predominantly serve students of color, and it’s true that these schools are major beneficiaries of Title I. However, many types of schools, across many types of communities, receive critical support through Title I. In fact, schools in Republican-leaning areas could be hit the hardest by major cuts or changes to Title I. In the map below, we show the share of total per-pupil funding coming from Title I by state. Note that many of the states that rely the most on Title I funds (darkest blue) are politically conservative.

[Open the link to see the map.]

Of course, the impact of shifting from federal to state control of Title I would depend on how states choose to handle their newfound decision-making power. Given that several red states are among the lowest spenders on education—and have skimped on programs like Summer EBT and Medicaid expansion—it’s hard to believe that low-income students in red states would benefit from a shift to state control.

What does that mean for the type of support that Project 2025 proposals might get from red-state Republicans in Congress? It’s hard to know. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that the GOP’s push for universal private school voucher programs has encountered some of its fiercest resistance from rural Republicans across several states.

3. Project 2025 also has significant proposals that a second Trump administration could enact unilaterally

While a second Trump administration couldn’t enact everything outlined in Project 2025 even if it wanted to, several consequential proposals wouldn’t require cooperation from Congress. This includes some actions that ED took during the first Trump administration and certainly could take again.

Here are a few of the Project 2025 proposals that the Trump administration could enact with the authority of the executive branch alone:

  • Roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
  • Roll back Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination
  • Dismantle the federal civil rights enforcement apparatus
  • Eliminate current income-driven repayment plans and require higher monthly payments for low-income borrowers
  • Remove protections from predatory colleges that leave students with excessive debt

Federal education policy has suffered from regulatory whiplash over the last decade, with presidential administrations launching counter-regulations to undo the executive actions of the prior administration. Take, for example, “gainful employment” regulations that Democratic administrations have used to limit eligibility for federal financial aid for colleges that leave students with excessive loan debt. A second Trump administration would likely seek to reverse the Biden administration’s “gainful employment” regulations like the first Trump administration did to the Obama administration’s rules. (Then again, with the Supreme Court striking down Chevron, which provided deference to agency expertise in setting regulations, the Trump administration might not even need to formally undo regulations.)

Other Project 2025 proposals, not explicitly about education, also could wreak havoc. This includes a major overhaul of the federal civil service. Specifically, Project 2025 seeks to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order that Trump signed during his final weeks in office. Schedule F would reclassify thousands of civil service positions in the federal government to policy roles—a shift that would empower the president to fire civil servants and fill their positions with political appointees. Much has been written about the consequences of decimating the civil service, and the U.S. Department of Education, along with other federal agencies that serve students, would feel its effects.

4. Project 2025 reflects a white Christian nationalist agenda as much as it reflects a traditional conservative education policy agenda

If one were to read Project 2025’s appeals to principles such as local control and parental choice, they might think this is a standard conservative agenda for education policy. Republicans, after all, have been calling for the dismantling of ED since the Reagan administration, and every administration since has supported some types of school choice reforms.

But in many ways, Project 2025’s proposals really don’t look conservative at all. For example, a large-scale, tax-credit scholarship program would substantially increase the federal government’s role in K-12 education. A Parents’ Bill of Rights would require the construction of a massive federal oversight and enforcement function that does not currently exist. And a proposal that “states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents” would impose an enormous compliance burden on schools, districts, and teachers.

Much of Project 2025 is more easily interpretable through the lens of white Christian nationalism than traditional political conservatism. Scholars Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry describe white Christian nationalism as being “about ethno-traditionalism and protecting the freedoms of a very narrowly defined ‘us’.” The Project 2025 chapter on education is loaded with proposals fitting this description. That includes a stunning number of proposals focused on gender identity, with transgender students as a frequent target. Project 2025 seeks to secure rights for certain people (e.g., parents who support a particular vision of parental rights) while removing protections for many others (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racially minoritized children). Case in point, its proposal for “Safeguarding civil rights” says only, “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”

These types of proposals don’t come from the traditional conservative playbook for education policy reform. They come from a white Christian nationalist playbook that has gained prominence in far-right politics in recent years.

At this point, it’s clear that the Trump campaign sees Project 2025 as a political liability that requires distance through the election season. Let’s not confuse that with what might happen during a second Trump administration.

Alexandra Petri is the humorist for The Washington Post. In her column, she endorsed Kamala Harris. She called her column “It Has Fallen to Me, the Humor Columnist, to Endorse Kamala Harris for President.” This is why I didn’t cancel my subscription to The Washington Post. I want to see many ways the opinion writers devise to torture Jeff Bezos.

She wrote:

The Washington Post is not bothering to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election. (Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin and the founder and executive chairman of Amazon and Amazon Web Services, also owns The Post.)

We as a newspaper suddenly remembered, less than two weeks before the election, that we had a robust tradition 50 years ago of not telling anyone what to do with their vote for president.

It is time we got back to those “roots,” I’m told!
Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.

But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.

Let me tell you something. I am having a baby (It’s a boy!), and he is expected on Jan. 6, 2025 (It’s a … Proud Boy?). This is either slightly funny or not at all funny. This whole election, I have been lurching around, increasingly heavily pregnant, nauseated, unwieldy, full of the commingled hopes and terrors that come every time you are on the verge of introducing a new person to the world.

Well, that world will look very different, depending on the outcome of November’s election, and I care which world my kid gets born into. I also live here myself. And I happen to care about the people who are already here, in this world. Come to think of it, I have a lot of reasons for caring how the election goes. I think it should be obvious that this is not an election for sitting out.

The case for Donald Trump is “I erroneously think the economy used to be better? I know that he has made many ominous-sounding threats about mass deportations, going after his political enemies, shutting down the speech of those who disagree with him (especially media outlets), and that he wants to make things worse for almost every category of person — people with wombs, immigrants, transgender people, journalists, protesters, people of color — but … maybe he’ll forget.”

“But maybe he’ll forget” is not enough to hang a country on!

Embarrassingly enough, I like this country. But everything good about it has been the product of centuries of people who had no reason to hope for better but chose to believe that better things were possible, clawing their way uphill — protesting, marching, voting, and, yes, doing the work of journalism — to build this fragile thing called democracy. But to be fragile is not the same as to be perishable, as G.K. Chesterton wrote. Simply do not break a glass, and it will last a thousand years. Smash it, and it will not last an instant. Democracy is like that: fragile, but only if you shatter it.

Trust is like that, too, as newspapers know.
I’m just a humor columnist. I only know what’s happening because our actual journalists are out there reporting, knowing that their editors have their backs, that there’s no one too powerful to report on, that we would never pull a punch out of fear. That’s what our readers deserve and expect: that we are saying what we really think, reporting what we really see; that if we think Trump should not return to the White House and Harris would make a fine president, we’re going to be able to say so.

That’s why I, the humor columnist, am endorsing Kamala Harris by myself!

I have been puzzling over this question since the Democratic National Convention.

Like most people, I didn’t know much about Kamala Harris when she became Vice President. Now that I have seen her speak, now that I saw her debate Trump, I feel very energized to support her campaign for the Presidency.

She is smart, well informed, experienced, committed to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. She is thoughtful and composed. She laughs, she smiles, she seems like a kind and thoughtful person. She is well prepared for the presidency, having won election as the District Attorney of San Francisco, as Attorney General of the State of California, as U.S. Senator from California, and as Vice-President of the United States since Joe Biden and she were elected in 2020.

Her opponent is a bundle of equal parts narcissism and hatred. He likes men. He likes white men. He likes to play tough guy. He looks on women as sex objects and feather heads. He doesn’t respect women.

He is crude, vulgar, without a shred of the dignity we expect from a president. The language he uses to ridicule and insult others is vile.

He is a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, and a Christian nationalist (without being a practicing Christian).

He is a sexual predator. He is known for not paying people to whom he owes money for services rendered. He has gone through six bankruptcies.

He is ignorant. His former aides say he has never read the Constitution. He is driven by his massive ego. He wants everyone to say he’s the best, the greatest, and there’s never been anyone as great as him.

He is a convicted felon, convicted on 34 counts of business fraud in New York. He was found guilty by a jury in New York of defaming E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of sexually assaulting her many years ago. He was ordered to pay her more than $90 million for continuing to defame her. That judgment is on appeal.

Other trials are pending.

When he lost the 2020 election, he refused to accept his defeat. He schemed to overturn the election by various ploys. He summoned a mob of his fans to Washington on January 6, 2021, the day that Congress gathered for the ceremonial certification of the election. Trump encouraged them to march on the U.S. Capitol, “peaceably….(but) fight like hell.” They did fight like hell. They battered their way into the Capitol, smashing windows and doors, beating law officers, vandalizing the building and its offices, while hunting for Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The outnumbered law officers held them off to protect the members of Congress. Many of them were brutally beaten. Some later died. What if the mob had reached the members of Congress? What if they had captured Pence and Pelosi?

It was the most shameful day of our national history. A President encouraging a mob to sack the Capitol and overturn the Constitution.

Ever since that disgraceful day, Trump has reiterated that the election was stolen from him, even though it wasn’t close. He has undermined faith in the electoral process, faith in the judiciary, faith in the law.

These are the two candidates: Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Why is this election close?

I was standing in line for early voting this morning, and a friend asked, “Did you hear the great speeches in Kalamazoo yesterday by Michelle and Kamala?” I had not. When I got home, after voting for Kamala, I listened to both women.

I hope you watch and listen.

The enthusiasm of the crowd was amazing! They will, as Michelle said, “Do something!”

They referred to their city as Kamalazoo. Good one!

Last night, I read the hundreds of letters to the editor of the Washington Post about Bezos’ decision not to endorse. By now, there are probably thousands. Almost all of them said: I have canceled my subscription.”

Good for them.

I am NOT canceling my subscription.

I enjoy reading Dana Milbank, Jennifer Rubin, Eugene Robinson, Alexander Petri, and other columnists.

I applaud them for dissenting from Bezos’ mandate.

They will vent their rage for the next 10 days. At Bezos and especially at Trump.

And of course there will continue to be hard-hitting investigations.

I want to read what they write.

On the same day that the Washington Post announced that it would not endorse a Presidential candidate, the following article appeared, written by Isaac Arnsdorf and Josh Dawsey. Actually, I saw the article on the Post website Friday morning but by Friday night it had disappeared from the website. I searched for it at 1 am early Saturday morning and could not find it. It was posted again this morning with yesterday’s date. It’s a long article, but well worth the read.

It reads like a rebuttal to Jeff Bezos’ decision not to endorse a candidate, not to choose between an experienced, sensible woman of color and a nutty, egotistical ex-President who thinks he won the last election.

The article appeared before the editorial decision. It reads like a rebuttal.

It begins:

Donald Trump debuted a name for his idiosyncratic, digressive speaking style this summer: “the weave.”

The Republican presidential nominee, now 78, was frustrated with news coverage describing his speeches as rambling and speculating about cognitive decline, according to people who have talked with him, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Trump decided to brand his habit of going off on wide-ranging tangents as the mark of a vibrant and sophisticated mind, they said — trying to turn what many voters, and some of his advisers, saw as a weakness into a strength.

I call it ‘the weave.’ And some people think it’s so genius. But the bad people, what they say is, ‘You know, he was rambling.’ That’s not a ramble. There’s no rambling. This is a weave. I call it the weave. You need an extraordinary memory because you have to come back to where you started.
Oct. 9 interview with Andrew Schulz on the “Flagrant” podcast

Trump’s recent public appearances have been strikingly erratic, coarse and often confusing, even for a politician with a history of ad-libbing in three consecutive presidential runs, a Washington Post review of dozens of speeches, interviews and other public appearances shows. His speeches have gotten longer and more repetitive compared with those of past campaigns. He promotes falsehoods and theories that are so far removed from reality or appear wholly made up that they are often baffling to anyone not steeped in MAGA media or internet memes.

He jumps more abruptly between subjects and from his script to improvising, sometimes offering what sound like non sequiturs. He occasionally mixes up words or names, and some of his sentences are meaningless or nonsensical. As he has delivered more speeches in October, he has made multiple slip-ups per day. He has become more profane in public.

Many of Trump’s supporters say they enjoy his off-the-cuff commentary, favorably contrasting his speeches with what they usually hear from politicians.

“Just because you don’t like how somebody talks doesn’t mean that you don’t listen to what’s in their head,” said Deanna Borracci, 52, who wore a hat reading “Re-elect that motherf—er” to Trump’s rally in Juneau, Wisconsin, on Oct. 6.
“It doesn’t bother me,” she said of his long speeches and off-the-cuff remarks. “He’s being himself.”

With less than two weeks of campaigning left, Vice President Kamala Harris is increasingly trying to use Trump’s words against him. At rallies, she has started playing clips of him speaking and calling him “unstable and unhinged.”

“He has called it ‘the weave,’” Harris said at a rally on Oct. 19. “But I think we here will call it nonsense.”

Trump’s unusual delivery has inspired comedy routines and armchair diagnoses for years. Long, meandering stemwinders, provocations, brazen falsehoods and blunt language, jokes and insults have distinguished his speeches since he launched his candidacy in 2015 calling Mexican immigrants “rapists.” He has frequently posted all-caps outbursts on social media in the middle of the night, critiqued live television, picked fights with celebrities, and veered off poll-tested political messages in favor of petty, personal grievances. His unscripted appearances generate widespread attention, accomplishing his goal of dominating headlines.

The Republican nominee has scoffed at questions about his age and fitness and challenged Harris’s intelligence.

“I have no cognitive,” he said at a town hall in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 20. “She may have a cognitive problem, but, but there’s no cognitive problem.”

He has regularly mocked Harris for meandering answers she has sometimes given and questioned her intelligence in sometimes sexist ways, people who have been with him privately say. He also accused the press of cherry-picking occasional slip-ups.

For weeks and weeks, I’m up here ranting and raving. Last night, 100,000 people, flawless. Ranting and raving. I’m ranting and raving. Not a mistake. And then I’ll be at a little thing, and I’ll say something, a little bit like ‘the,’ I’ll say, ‘dah,’ they’ll say, ‘He’s cognitively impaired.’ No. I’ll let you know when I will be. I will be someday. We all will be someday, but I’ll be the first to let you know.
Oct. 13 rally in Prescott Valley, Arizona


Trump’s Truth Social posts don’t have anywhere near the reach he once got on Twitter and his rallies are not covered wall-to-wall on live TV, meaning his comments don’t get the traction they once might have. Privately, some of his advisers see this as a positive development. Harris, for her part, has urged people to watch Trump’s rallies for themselves.

Trump would be the oldest person ever elected president. He has never released his medical records or submitted to independent evaluation. The most detailed account of his health came in a January 2019 briefing from White House physician Ronny Jackson, who later resigned under allegations he drank on the job and mistreated subordinates; he now represents a Texas district in Congress. His successor, Sean Conley, gave public accounts of Trump’s health that were rosier than reality when the then-president contracted covid-19 shortly before the 2020 election.

Fifty-one percent of Americans said Trump was too old to work in government in a September Reuters-Ipsos national poll, an identical number as in the same survey in July.

Trump’s advisers reject the notion that Trump has lost a step. He has dramatically increased the pace of campaigning since Labor Day, with multiple events on some days, leaving him appearing more tired and irritable. He has had to suspend his usual golf routine both because of the demands of the campaign and because of security concerns from two assassination attempts and ongoing threats from Iran, according to advisers. He has shown flashes of frustration with those dangers, as well as with his busy schedule, and with having to run against Harris after an aging President Joe Biden withdrew from the race.

Some of his puzzling statements arise from how he gets his own information. In the years since leaving the White House, Trump’s sources of news have grown increasingly insular and self-reinforcing, according to people who talk with him. He both validates and thrives on an alternative ecosystem that selects and amplifies stories to suit him, and he summarily dismisses any other reports as fake. Aides who contradict him or bring him bad news quickly lose his favor and access. Much of the information he gets these days comes from Natalie Harp, a junior but highly influential aide who often trails Trump no matter where he is, printing out supportive articles and social media posts for his review, according to advisers.

For several weeks this fall, campaign advisers tried to persuade him to shorten his speeches. Talk about the economy. Don’t attack people. People would stop leaving, they argued, if his speeches were shorter.

“Going down the stretch, a little discipline would help,” one adviser said.

Trump has dismissed the advice. “People want a show,” he said in Pennsylvania in August, according to a person who heard his comments.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung in an email praised the Republican nominee’s rhetoric: “President Trump is the greatest orator in political history and his patented Weave is a brilliant method to convey important stories and explain policies that will help everyday Americans turn the page from the last four years of Kamala Harris’s failures. The media is too stupid and ignorant to understand or comprehend what is happening in the country and, therefore, is unable to accurately report on President Trump’s achievements while in office and the pro-America agenda he will implement in his second term.”

He repeats falsehoods that are far removed from reality

And then they have the apps, right? How about the apps? Where they have an app so that the gangs, the people, the cartels, the heads of ’em, they can call the app. They call the second-most resettled population. Nobody’s ever seen. They call up the app and they ask, ‘Where do we drop the illegals?’ And people are on the other side, and they left that. She actually created an app, a phone system, where they can call up. I mean, she’s a criminal. She’s a criminal. She really is. If you think about it.
Oct. 11 rally in Aurora, Colorado

Trump’s tendency to boast and exaggerate is well documented, including in more than 30,000 false claims during his presidency, tallied by The Washington Post’s Fact Checker. Typical fact checks compare the data Trump is referencing with his characterization. But some of his falsehoods are so fantastical it can be hard to tell what he is referring to.

He accused Harris of speaking “about teddy bears,” which have never come up in any of her interviews. He claimed she was known as “the tax queen” as San Francisco district attorney even though prosecutors have no power over taxation. He falsely claims banning cows and windows are part of Democrats’ plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even accusing them of trying to raze Manhattan. He sometimes vividly describes nonexistent crime sprees.

You go to a lot of cities and they rob a department store and guys are walking out with refrigerators. They have it on their back with two front and air conditioning and everything, and they literally are stripping. And the police are standing outside and they’re shaking out of anger because they really want to do something, but they’re told to stand down, stand down, and they’re watching these criminals walk out.
Oct. 20 town hall in Lancaster, Pennsylvania


Trump’s riffs about Hannibal Lecter roughly coincided with false right-wing internet rumors about cannibals from Haiti. He and his campaign have never provided any basis for Trump’s frequent claim that foreign countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions to send people to the United States.

As Trump emphasizes immigration in the closing stretch of the campaign, his speeches routinely feature the false allegation that Harris created a phone app for cartels to coordinate human smuggling at the U.S.-Mexico border. The false claim stems from a mobile application developed and released by Customs and Border Protection during the Trump administration to facilitate trade. In 2023, the agency expanded the app to add appointment scheduling for asylum applications.

Most prominently, Trump promoted unfounded, racist allegations against Haitian refugees settled in Springfield, Ohio, during the Sept. 10 debate with Harris. False internet rumors accused people of eating geese and cats, and Trump, without any basis, added dogs.

He occasionally mixes up words and names

In June, Trump accidentally called his former doctor, Ronny Jackson, Ronny Johnson — ironically in the same breath that he was attacking Biden’s cognitive health and boasting about his own.

At an Oct. 1 news conference in Milwaukee, Trump complained that the Secret Service was busy protecting the U.N. General Assembly, including “the president of North Korea, who’s basically trying to kill me,” apparently meaning Iran.

At the same appearance, Trump mistook Afghan attacks on coalition forces, known in NATO as “green on blue,” for “blue on brown and brown on blue.”

At a rally in Prescott Valley, Arizona, on Oct. 13, Trump struggled to pronounce the word “Assyrians,” sounding like “Azurasians.”
At an Oct. 5 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump appeared to struggle to summon the name of Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, while also falsely claiming that Harris helped start the “defund the police” movement.


She was one of the founders of ‘defund the police.’ And she still believes that. By the way, I don’t know how anybody could, but she still believes that. And if she ever had a chance, there’s a good possibility you should go back to it. Can you imagine, somebody’s robbing our house? ‘Well, there’s nothing we can do about it.’ That’s what they had. They say, there’s not — you know, they tried it. And you know where they tried it? In Minnesota, with our … vice president. And it wasn’t working out too well. It was working out very well for the robbers and the criminals. That’s the only one it was working out well for.
Oct. 5 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania

This isn’t like Elon with his rocket ships that land within 12 inches on the moon where they want it to land or he gets the engines back. That was the first I really saw. I said, ‘Who the hell did that?’ I saw engines about three or four years ago. These things were coming. Cylinders, no wings, no nothing, and they’re coming down very slowly, landing on a raft in the middle of the ocean, someplace with a circle. Boom. Reminded me of the Biden circles that he used to have, right? He’d have eight circles and he couldn’t fill them up. But then I heard he beat us with the popular vote. I don’t know, I don’t know, couldn’t fill up the circles. I always loved those circles. They were so beautiful. That was so beautiful to look at. In fact, the person that did them, that was the best thing about his — the level of that circle was great. But they couldn’t get people, so they used to have the press stand in those circles because they couldn’t get the people. Then I heard we lost. ‘Oh, we lost.’ No, we’re never going to let that happen again. But we’ve been abused by other countries. We’ve been abused by our own politicians, really, more than other countries. I can’t blame them. We’ve been abused by people that represent us in this country, some of them stupid, some of them naive, and some of them crooked, frankly.
Oct. 10 speech to the Detroit Economic Club

In an Oct. 7 interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump claimed he had visited Gaza. There is no evidence he has ever been to the territory, and a campaign official later clarified he was referring to Israel, which does not encompass Gaza.

During a town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 14, Trump incorrectly named Election Day as Jan. 5 instead of Nov. 5. (Back in February, he misstated the date of Michigan’s primary as Nov. 27 instead of Feb. 27.) The Oaks town hall ended with 39 minutes of Trump swaying and dancing to music after two people fainted and he decided to stop taking questions.

In an Oct. 21 news conference in Asheville, North Carolina, Trump answered a question about climate change using the French term “double entendre,” which means a phrase with a second meaning, usually sexual. He appeared to mean “double standard.”

We weren’t losing jobs. We weren’t in terms of climate change. Because when you look at the rest of the world and you look at China and you look at the fact that they spent no money on climate change — I mean, John Kerry goes over and speaks to President Xi and they say ‘yes’ and ‘yes’ him. And they laugh at him as he leaves and they do what they’re doing. We spend a lot of money in this country. You know, we have a — it’s a double, it’s a double entendre.
Oct. 21 news conference in Asheville, North Carolina

Trump’s rallies often include a shout-out to the superfans who frequently camp out to be first in line for his rallies, known as the “Front Row Joes.” On Oct. 22 in Greensboro, North Carolina, Trump mistakenly called them the “Front Row Jacks.” He repeated “Front Row Jacks,” then seemed to catch himself by adding, “and Joes.”
Trump repeatedly interrupted that speech to point to someone in the crowd, asking if he was someone he had met yesterday. The man shouted back, “No, you haven’t met me, but I LOVE you, man!”

Almost two hours into the Greensboro rally, Trump struggled to summon the word “fryer” two days after visiting a McDonald’s restaurant in Pennsylvania.

“Those french fries were good,” he said. “They were good. They were right out of the uh, they were right out of whatever the hell they make them out of.”

He transitions abruptly, verging on non sequiturs

During an Oct. 10 speech at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump described watching a SpaceX landing and said it reminded him of “the Biden circles that he used to have.” Trump was alluding to small-scale campaign events that Biden held during the pandemic to accommodate social distancing, with people seated in spaced-out circles painted on a parking lot — claiming that was evidence that Biden could not have beaten him in the election. The reference would not be obvious based on Trump’s description alone, without already being familiar with the image from four years ago.

Trump often delivers speeches in conversation with his own text, ad-libbing asides and reacting in real time to his own statements as he reads them. Sometimes he switches back and forth between improvising and reading the script or teleprompter without warning, leading to abrupt or jarring transitions.

At an Oct. 1 news conference in Milwaukee billed as a speech about education policy, Trump jumped off from that topic to compare the United States’ performance to other countries, compare states, complain about transgender athletes and immigration, return to other countries and states, attack California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), misrepresent a California law preventing localities from imposing stricter voter ID requirements than the state, and accuse Democrats without evidence of cheating in elections. He then returned to his script about schools without any verbal signal or change in his affect.
Five days later, in Juneau, Wisconsin, Trump swerved off topic based on two distinct meanings of the word “mandate.”

The only way to avoid this miserable fate for America is if Wisconsin and the entire Midwest turn, and I mean turn out in record numbers. We need — and I hate to use this word, ’cause they should have never done it with respect to covid, they should have never done it. But for this, we need a mandate. They shouldn’t have done it with covid. Everybody that did it should be ashamed of themselves what they did. But we need a mandate in the vote, and we’re going to get it.
Oct. 6 rally in Juneau, Wisconsin

In an Oct. 15 Bloomberg News interview, editor John Micklethwait asked whether the Justice Department should break up Google as a monopoly. Trump, appearing to react to the mention of the Justice Department, responded by complaining about a new lawsuit to prevent systematic voting roll purges within 90 days of an election.
“The question is about Google, President Trump,” Micklethwait said.
That night, at a rally in Atlanta, Trump dwelled on the word “kickback” to toggle between making fun of Harris for reading a teleprompter and accusing the administration of corruption. (A week later, at a rally in Greensboro, Trump called the same phenomenon with teleprompters a “snap back.”)

She was talking about 32 days, Mr. Congressman. 32. She goes, ‘And the election will be in 32 days. Thirty-two days.’ The teleprompter crashed. Thirty-two — she kept going. I would have loved to — you know, it kicked back in. It’s called a kickback. Like some people know a lot about a kickback. It’s called a kickback. They know in this administration. But no, it’s a kickback, it kicks back in. And it did kick back in just in time because she was about ready to eat the guy.
Oct. 15 rally in Atlanta

He has started routinely comparing his various tax proposals to the invention of the paper clip. During an Oct. 21 rally, he made the comparison while talking about exempting car loan interest from taxes.

Sounds simple, right? But it’s not so simple. I always say it’s like the paper clip. You know, some guy 129 years ago, he came up, he took a little piece of stuff, and he went like all of a sudden, the paper clip. He made a fortune. People look at it, they say, ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ This is the same thing.
Oct. 21 rally in Greenville, North Carolina

Some of Trump’s speeches can be hard to follow for anyone not already familiar with listening to him, because he uses shorthand for topics as he rapidly jumps through them rather than fully explaining his references. In one answer at the Lancaster town hall, he said “what happened in Afghanistan” to mean the killing of 13 U.S. service members in a suicide bombing at the Kabul airport in 2021, and “Russia Russia Russia” to mean special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Our country is really, it’s a failing nation. I don’t care what you say. I mean, we’re not — we’re laughed at all over the world by other leaders four years ago. We were respected by everybody. China, Russia. Russia would have never gone into Ukraine. Israel would have never been attacked on October 7th. We would have never had the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country, which is you saw what happened in Afghanistan, the Taliban. We would have never had — think of it. We would have never had Afghanistan. We were getting out, but we were going to get out with dignity and strength, and we were going to keep the big air base, Bagram, because it’s one hour away, spent billions and billions of dollars, just about the biggest, most powerful, longest runways in the world. We gave it to China. They gave it to China. The Chinese now operate it. We were one hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons. We gave it up. Would have never happened. All of these things. We wouldn’t have had inflation because our energy was so good. Energy caused inflation. What they did with energy. But I said to myself, you know, sometimes I think I see, you know, I get hit with all these lunatics that we have with the radical left lunatics where they make up stories about Russia, Russia, Russia. In the end, I wouldn’t change what we’ve done for anything. We’re going to make America great again, greater than ever before.
Oct. 20 town hall in Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Some phrases and answers are nonsensical

I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that — because child care is child care. It’s — couldn’t — you know, it’s something — you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. And those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have — I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care.
Sept. 5 speech at the Economic Club of New York

Some of Trump’s answers in recent interviews and town halls have been particularly obscure. A discussion of his plan for child care included phrases such as “child care is child care,” and there was little more clarity to be found in the answer taken as a whole.
His intent was similarly unclear when he jumped from discussing the border to his support among women during an Oct. 9 rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Four years ago, we had the best border in our country’s history, and that included human trafficking, mostly in women, by the way. That includes — so, when women say, ‘Oh, I don’t know if I like Trump. I was the one — that is the most heinous thing. Human trafficking, mostly in women. Gee, I wonder what that’s all about, right? And then they say, ‘Oh, I don’t know, I’m going to’ — Kamala is not going to protect anyone. They’ve allowed this country to be poisoned at our border. And, you know, a lot of people say — and this is not part of the deal, but I’d like to go off the teleprompter, if you don’t mind. I actually haven’t — I don’t think I’ve been on it, shit. I haven’t — they’re waiting for me.
Oct. 9 rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania

At a rally in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 19, Trump said Chinese factories in Mexico would sell cars to the U.S. by going “around the little horn.”

Asked on Oct. 7 how he would advise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Iran, Trump repeatedly interrupted himself without finishing or explaining his thoughts. He also referred ambiguously to “the nuclear people.”

No, I said don’t hit the nuclear. Did you ever hear of anyone say don’t hit, he says don’t hit the nuclear. They asked him the other day would you hit, well, I don’t think you should hit the nuclear. I thought it was the opposite, okay? I sort of thought it was the opposite. The nuclear is the biggest single problem the world has. Not global warming, where the ocean will rise one-eighth of an inch in the next 500 years. You know, these people are crazy. The biggest problem we have is nuclear warming, not global warming. And the nuclear people can’t have the nuclear. The nuclear is the power.


Oct. 7 interview with Hugh Hewitt
Sabrina Rodriguez, Marianne LeVine and Hannah Knowles contributed to this report.

Margaret Sullivan was the ombudsman for The New York Times. She now writes a blog called American Crisis.

She writes:

With less than two weeks until the most consequential presidential election of the modern era, this is my evaluation of how the media has done — along with an 11th hour plea. 

There are, after all, still a lot of undecided or at least uncommitted voters, hard as that may be to believe. And the media, while it won’t determine the outcome, can make a difference.

I’ll grant, up front, that the national news media — Big Journalism — has done some good work. The reporting on Project 2025, while not pervasive enough, has been excellent, and some of the best of that has been in the New York Times. Daniel Dale at CNN has done great, helpful fact-checking. ABC News did a good job with the single presidential debate. The Guardian has been publishing a fine series and a newsletter called The Stakes. (I contributed a piece about what would happen to press rights.) The New York Times just launched a link to its extensive coverage of what a Trump presidency would mean, tagged “What’s At Stake.”

Some columnists have made sense of the nightmare for us, like Will Bunch at the Philadelphia Inquirer, who consistently nails what’s happening, providing reporting and big-picture context; and Jill Lawrence at the Los Angeles Times, whose most recent column was terrifyingly headlined: “Get Ready for President Vance.” And I see improvement from the Washington Post, as Parker Molloy noted in a New Republic piece about Trump’s town-hall dance party titled “The Washington Post Covered that Bizarro Trump Rally the Right Way.” 

But fundamentally, the media coverage writ large has fallen far short of what was needed to get the true stakes across to an entire nation of voters. And that’s been true not just recently, but for more than nine years, since Trump declared his candidacy in 2015. Too often, the coverage of Trump has been an embarrassing failure — sanewashing his lunacy, falsely equating him to his traditional rivals, or treating him as some sort of amusing sideshow. 

The economist Dean Baker, posting on X the other day, expressed it perfectly: “It says everything you need to know about the U.S. media that Trump’s clown show at the McDonald’s gets more attention than his former defense secretary and chair of the Joint Chief of Staff warning that Trump is a dangerous fascist with no respect for democracy.”

Exactly. And that is true of the mainstream, supposedly independent media! Now add in Fox News, the beating heart of the right-wing propaganda monster. 

Donald Trump talks to reporters after handing out food at a McDonald’s in a campaign stunt in Pennsylvania on Oct. 20 / Getty Images

New research from Media Matters notes that “Fox News gave nearly 500 times more coverage to McDonald’s stunt than Trump’s threats to Social Security.” (That’s two hours and four minutes for the stunt; 15 seconds for a report from a nonpartisan group showing that Trump’s policies would make the Social Security Trust Fund insolvent years before expected; Kamala Harris’s policy would not change the expected trajectory.) Bret Baier’s showily combative interview with Kamala Harris was one more example.

There are some — including prominent commentators — who are in dreamland, handing out helpings of false equivalency like Milky Way bars on Halloween. Here was the top piece in the New York Times opinion newsletter from Tuesday: “Keep calm and look at the polling averages.” The point of this piece from Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Andersen was that you can reduce your stress by realizing that polls shift and change all the time. “The ups and downs that can come from seeing your preferred candidate pingpong back and forth, from day to day, became less stressful when placed into context.” 

Believe me, it’s not the shifting polls that are stressing me out; it’s the knowledge that if Trump is elected, American democracy may well be over. Her take reminded me of the infamous column from Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post on Nov. 4, 2016: “Calm down. We’ll be fine no matter who wins.”

Readers, we weren’t.

And we won’t be, if Trump wins. Those are the stakes.

So over the next two weeks — though it’s arguably too late — every media outlet should be trying to correct its long-term errors. It should be trying to get across to those mysterious individuals known as undecided voters that this really matters, and why. That Trump is a danger, declining by the day, and that the prospect of a radical, but much younger, President Vance is very real.

I’ll be keeping track here, and I deeply appreciate your joining me. Please let me know — in the comments or on social media — what you’re seeing in the media that strikes you as admirable or objectionable.

Getting it right in the last two weeks is probably too little, too late. But, in a very tight election, any improvement just might be enough to matter

Will Saletan writes for The Bulwark that Trump is openly, blatantly running as a fascist. In recent days, Trump has babbled on about his intention to break all the norms of American leadership. He will use his power to punish people who have challenged him. They are not his “opponents,” they are his “enemies.”

He begins:

DONALD TRUMP IS RUNNING THE MOST openly fascist campaign ever undertaken by a major-party nominee for president of the United States.

That’s not hype; it’s a textbook application of the term. In 2021, Trump used violence to try to overturn an election; in 2022, he called for terminating the Constitution. Now, on the brink of returning to power, Trump is reaffirming his intent to take America deeper into autocracy.

Here are some of the threats and declarations he has issued in the past three months.

1. He says he’s legally immune to all current charges against him.

Four grand juries have indicted Trump on felony charges, and one jury has convicted him. But on August 15, Trump boasted that “the Supreme Court ruled recently on immunity, and I’m immune from all of the stuff that they charge me with.”

2. He claims the right to do whatever he wants as president.

On August 21, Trump asserted (falsely) that the criminal case against him for obstructing recovery of classified documents was invalid because “I had the Presidential Records Act. I had a right to do whatever I wanted to do.”

3. He advocates “one really violent day” of police action.

On September 29, Trump called for police violence against people who appear to be stealing from drug stores or department stores. He proposed an “extraordinarily rough” response: “One real rough, nasty day, with the drugstores as an example,” in which police would take on people who “start walking out with” merchandise. “If you had one really violent day,” said Trump, “one rough hour, and I mean real rough—the word will get out, and it will end immediately.”

4. He vows to indemnify police against “any prosecutions” for doing what he wants.

On October 11, Trump pledged to “indemnify” police officers against any prosecutions” for actions undertaken as part of his planned mass deportations. The next day, he added that when officers confront people walking out of department stores with what appear to be stolen goods, “we’re going to indemnify them against any problems they have.”

The fascists win by dividing the opposition. So join the best pro-democracy community on the internet by becoming a Bulwark+ member.

5. He threatens to use the military against “the enemy within.”

Trump says the New York Times, the Washington Post, “the press” generally, and Democratic politicians such as Rep. Adam Schiff are part of the “enemy from within” America.

On October 10, in a Fox News interview, Maria Bartiromo asked Trump whether criminals or terrorists from abroad might pose a threat to the United States on Election Day. Trump told her that “the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” not foreigners. “We have some sick people, radical-left lunatics,” said Trump. “And it should be very easily handled by—if necessary—by National Guard. Or, if really necessary, by the military.”

Later in the interview, Trump made it clear that the “lunatics” he was talking about included Democratic politicians. Bartiromo asked Trump how, as president, he would “guard against the bureaucrats undermining you.” Trump repliedthat “the enemy from within,” including “lunatics that we have inside like Adam Schiff,” was “more dangerous than China [or] Russia.”

Last Wednesday, another Fox News host, Harris Faulkner, invited Trump to clarify his meaning. He responded by adding former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the list. “It is the enemy from within, and they’re very dangerous. They’re Marxists and communists and fascists, and they’re sick,” said Trump. “The Pelosis, these people—they’re so sick, and they’re so evil.”

6. He says some of his political opponents shouldn’t be allowed to run for office.

On August 23, Trump said that Ruben Gallego, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Arizona, “shouldn’t be allowed to even run in this election.” On September 27, he added, “Anybody that wants to defund the police is not qualified and shouldn’t be allowed to even run for president.” On September 28, he declared that due to Kamala Harris’s border policies, “she shouldn’t even be allowed to run.”

7. He says he could have jailed Hillary Clinton.

On August 8, Trump boasted, “With Hillary Clinton, I could have done things to her that would have made your head spin.” On August 15, he said he could have jailed Clinton “very easily.” On August 21, he repeated, “I could have put her in jail.”

In an interview that aired on September 3, podcaster Lex Fridman asked Trump about the temptations of the presidency. “If you become leader again, you’ll have unprecedented power,” said Fridman. “What does that power do to you? Is there any threat of it corrupting how you see the world?”

Trump responded by bragging that he could have jailed Clinton but had spared her. “I could have done a big number on Hillary Clinton,” he said. “She’s so lucky I didn’t do anything. She’s so lucky. . . . I could have done something very bad.”

Donald Trump is an ignorant, narcissistic sociopath.