I fucking refuse to be dragged into the mainstream media PROCESS STORY about whether the next debate should happen. AT THIS DEBATE, the President of the United States encouraged white supremacists to intimidate voters at the polls.
It's not on Biden to figure out how desperately the media-industrial complex wants another debate It's on the media to figure out whether they are going to LITERALLY ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION and figure out amongst themselves how to STOP Trump from LYING ALL THE TIME
Debates are a TV show. The media CONTROLS THE FUCKING MICS. If they don't like what they saw they can literally just CHOOSE TO DO BETTER. If they so choose and Trump gets huffy and walks off set, that's HIS choice.
The MEDIA'S choice is to do their JOBS, or do this crap.
One last thing: Television is like AIR to Trump. At ANY POINT, b/w 2015-TODAY, if the media wanted to "correct" his behavior, THEY COULD STOP COVERING HIM.
Same with these debates. If the media doesn't like it, BLACK HIM OUT when he goes over. He'd learn. I PROMISE.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The biggest change I've noticed is that for the last three days, people are treating Trump appropriately: as an old, tired, racist and sexist man who is basically a failing comic with no new material trying to gin up a laugh by repeating his greatest hits.
Two things have always been true about Trump: He is a dangerous fascist and he is a pathetic clown. Those two true things often are seen at odds, because to laugh doesn't take him seriously, and to take him seriously misses how petty and uncreative he is.
But right now, I feel like everybody is coming together on these truths. We're not underestimating him, we're not dismissing him... but we're also not afraid of him, and we're not acting like he's cracked some kind of special political code.
I know term limits and ethics sounds "less radical" to a lot of people than court expansion.
But, as I keep trying to tell you all, the Supreme Court gets to decide if term limits and ethics are constitutional. And so if you don't expand the court, these other plans will fail.
People still don't want to accept that the "radical" solution is the ONLY solution to get the more *moderate* changes they desire.
But if you tell John Roberts he has to leave office after 18 years, JOHN ROBERTS WILL SAY NO... and then what have you done?
The *only way* to get term limits is to appoint a majority of justices who think term limits are constitutional. And right now, I don't even know if there are *three* justices who think they're constitutional, much less the necessary five.
I understand why Republicans are invested in downplaying the scope of the immunity decision. If people understood what just happened they might want to do something about the Supreme Court.
I really don't understand why Democrats are downplaying the scope though.
My only guess is that Democrats think that if people understood how much power the Supreme Court just handed to the President, they might expect their President to use it.
Since Biden's not going to use it, I guess there's value in telling people it didn't happen?
And along those lines I guess there's value in Democrats (falsely) telling people that there's still some kind of ridiculous chance Trump is still brought to justice, because even thought that is now a complete lie, people like to believe "the system is working."
Look, I appreciate that people still want to find *some way* to think that Trump is going to be brought to justice for January 6.
But he WILL NOT be brought to justice. That part of the conversation is OVER. Trump won. People need to deal with that in their own way, but he WON.
The more relevant question is "NOW... WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?" Trump won. He iced the bookeeper. He killed Sean Connery. NOW, WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?
Are you prepared to go to the mattresses against the Supreme Court? Are you prepared to DEMAND court expansion as a condition for your next vote, in your next primary? Yes? Then we can talk. NO? Then there is no point.
20 minutes out from Supreme Court decisions. It's been an honor covering these last gasps of democratic self government.
Just so you know, my process is to read the case syllabus, which usually tells you the holding, then read the first few paragraphs of the dissent, which tells you what the actual fight was about.
First case is Corner Post v. Federal Reserve. 6-3. Party lines. Barrett opinion, Jackson dissenting.
Republican justices say that people can challenge administrative regulations, essentially whenever they want, statute of limitations be damned.