1/10. The claim that Trump won the election is a big lie.
2/10. A big lie changes reality. To believe it, people must disbelieve their senses, distrust their fellow citizens, and live in a world of faith.
3/10. A big lie demands conspiracy thinking, since all who doubt it are seen as traitors.
4/10. A big lie undoes a society, since it divides citizens into believers and unbelievers.
5/10. A big lie destroys democracy, since people who are convinced that nothing is true but the utterances of their leader ignore voting and its results.
6/10. A big lie must bring violence, as it has.
7/10. A big lie can never be told just by one person. Trump is the originator of this big lie, but it could never have flourished without his allies on Capitol Hill.
8/10. Political futures now depend on this big lie. Senators Hawley and Cruz are running for president on the basis of this big lie.
9/10. There is a cure for the big lie. Our elected representatives should tell the truth, without dissimulation, about the results of the 2020 election.
10/10. Politicians who do not tell the simple truth perpetuate the big lie, further an alternative reality, support conspiracy theories, weaken democracy, and foment violence far worse than that of January 6, 2021.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.