There’s some commentary on here saying we should disregard Trump’s “bloodbath” remarks last night because he was talking about potential harms to the auto industry.
That is misguided. 1/x
Trump may well have been referring to a “bloodbath” in that industry. He’s sufficiently incoherent that, as is so often the case with him, it’s hard to tell one way other what exactly he’s talking about at any given moment. 2/x
I’m willing to assume for the sake of argument that he was referring to cars. And it makes no difference to his malicious intent or to the danger he and his rhetoric poses. 3/x
What matters is that he consistently uses apocalyptic and violent language in an indiscriminate fashion as a result of his psychopathy and correlative authoritarian tendencies, and because he’s just plain evil. 4/x
It’s a classic trait and technique of authoritarian demagogues. He catastrophizes *everything* to rile up his cultish supporters, and to bind them to him, and to make them willing to do his bidding. 5/x
That’s dangerous all around because he’s encouraging them to believe that conditions are so bad or will become so bad, and that the political opposition is so awful, that anything is justified—including law-breaking and violence—to prevent those conditions and to destroy the opposition. 6/x
And so it doesn’t matter what he’s specifically referring to at the moment. He could be talking about i trans people in public bathrooms or the state of the auto industry or the border—it doesn’t matter. 7/x
He’s a dangerous psychopath, and after more than eight years of watching his sick behavior, we must not give him the benefit of the doubt. 8/8 (end).
typos/corrections
2/x — “one way or the other” 7/x — “talking about trans people”
3/x — “the danger he and his rhetoric pose”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As I’m sure many of you have, I’ve been thinking a lot about the electoral choice we have in 2020 with more focus over the past few days, and I keep returning to a conclusion I reached a while back, but felt was not realistic enough as a scenario to be worth expressing.
And that is that, for the good of the country and their own good, both of the major-party presidential candidates should retire.
Joe Biden has served his country honorably for over a half-century. He deserves our thanks for that, and in particular for saving our Constitution, our democracy, and the rule of law by running for president and winning in 2020.
Absolutely agree with @Delavegalaw, @MichaelCohen212, and @meiselasb. I was in the courtroom that day, and I found that moment to be a good one for the defense, but felt it was only a small one and essentially the only good moment during a rather long, meandering, and ineffective cross-examination.
I was astonished—shocked, in fact—when I learned that television viewers, particularly on @CNN, had been misled into believing that the defense had dealt some kind of death blow to the prosecution’s case.
Some of the mainstream media coverage of the case has been downright bizarre, and remains so. 🤷🏻♂️
Here’s what I said about that day right after court, at 5:04 pm EDT on May 16, 2024. I’m not patting myself on the back for being right; I’m just expressing mystification about how many others could have been so wrong.
I think it may have the herd instinct we all have. If just one legal analyst sitting in a studio vigorously pronounces a misguided, albeit well-meaning, take (let’s leave aside the Trump shills the networks absurdly decided to air), that can influence how others (particularly the nonlegal journalists) how they perceive or express things (because they want to appear to play things down the middle). And the public gets misled.
Chris defends the Goldwater rule in his “deep dive.” It has been the subject of severe criticism among many mental health professionals. Their informed criticisms are far more persuasive than Chris’s cursory defense. I attach a (small) sampling of their articles:
Yep. Even if Cohen had advanced the money in October 2016 on his own without any expectation of repayment by Trump—a ludicrous lie—Cohen would have committed a campaign finance violation (which is why he pleaded guilty to one).
Hicks’s testimony establishes beyond any question that Trump knew about that illegal and undisclosed contribution, and knew that his reimbursement of Cohen was not a payment for legal services.
And that means, beyond any reasonable doubt, that means that Donald Trump intentionally created false business records—including the checks that he himself signed—to cover up the underlying campaign finance violations.