1/4. Important work here: Trump is violent rather than strong, and using US troops on protesters would break America. nytimes.com/2024/08/17/us/…
2/4. Crucial point in the reporting: the most radical plans, such as the use of US troops against Americans, actually go beyond Project 2025. nytimes.com/2024/08/17/us/…
3/4. A point not raised here is the effect that orders to suppress American protesters would have on the military itself. Either it resists or it becomes a tool of fascist power.
1/7. Right-wing justices postulate Trump's "immunity." The objection is that this makes him a king. Not so. It's much worse.
2/7. A king can be subject to law. Even George III was subject to law. The American Revolution was justified by the notion that he had overstepped the law.
3/7. This discussion of immunity is something else. The justices are not discussing any constitutional system at all, including a constitutional monarchy.
Biden and NYT. The problem with this very helpful report is that it implicitly reinforces the two-sides-to-each-story framing that is the underlying problem. 1/4
The real story is democracy, and the real question for NYT and everyone else is whether that framing is dominant. Some great reporting there, but general failure on the framing. 2/4
As a citizen, I couldn't care less who in the White House and who in the NYT has hurt feelings. I do care about who is doing their job well. The Biden administration, with mistakes of course, has done that. 3/4