Quick question about polling

I think this is a nice illustration of the bullshit of current polling numbers, numbers heavily relied on by corporate media in its amoral, anything for more clicks, bettors’ guide to the horse race coverage of presidential sweepstakes.

I’m reading a piece by Robert Reich, a very smart guy with informed opinions and good arguments to back them up. He calls the piece Trump’s Woman Problem and it outlines how women should tip the election to Harris/Walz. Women vote in higher numbers than men, Reich points out:

There are 3 million more women in America than men. And they almost always vote in larger numbers than men. In 2020, 74 percent of adult U.S. women said they voted, vs. 71 percent of men.

That split has held true for more than 40 years — in every presidential election beginning in 1980, according to the Center for American Women and Politics.

There’s also a big split in voter registration: 89 million women told census surveyors they were registered in 2020, vs. 79 million men.

Fair enough. Then Quinnipiac tells us this:

A Quinnipiac Poll in mid-August found a similar gender chasm among likely voters in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania: Women backed Harris 54 percent to 41 percent, while men went for Trump, 49 percent to 42 percent. (Overall, Harris was up 48 percent to 45 percent.)

Women vote in higher numbers, they favor Harris by 13%. Men vote in lower numbers, they favor Trump by 7%. How does that average out to a 3% “overall” lead for Harris?

All an American can do is leave a comment, here’s mine:

Anyone else see a problem with these polling numbers?

Women are the majority of Americans, 89 million women were registered to vote in 2020, vs. 79 million men, and they consistently vote in higher numbers. Then this puzzler from Quinnipiac, after reporting that Harris is up 13% among women and Trump leads by 7% among men, and Robert Reich, who is brilliant, has no comment? How does the spread of 13% of a larger group for Harris and 7% for a smaller contingent for Trump come out to only a 3 point lead for Harris?

A Quinnipiac Poll in mid-August found a similar gender chasm among likely voters in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania: Women backed Harris 54 percent to 41 percent, while men went for Trump, 49 percent to 42 percent. (Overall, Harris was up 48 percent to 45 percent.)

This nonsensical math underscores the horrific fact that we are not presently living in a moment where ordinary rationality seems to apply. Discussing things based on agreed upon facts, seen in the light of Reason, seems to have gone the way of ethics, decency, fairness and self-respect. The virally infectious nature of intolerance, hatred and rage leaves anyone not ruled by those things puzzled as to how we arrived at this ominous place.

I feel a sense of futility as the comment I was urged to make immediately disappears under hundreds of more popular comments, and the discussion of those comments. This is the future we are now living in, boys and girls. Ask Quinnipiac, they’ll tell you the same thing.

When you lose, kill the winner

Narcissism has come into popular consciousness after almost a decade of a malignant narcissist dominating the news cycle every day, amplified by the destructive behavior of the ambitious psychopaths who justify his rage to dominate, all normalized by profit-hungry corporate media. One key feature of narcissists, because their ability to see things from anybody else’s perspective was destroyed early on, is a rigid insistence that they can never be wrong, no matter what they have done.

If they are wrong, it is somebody else’s fault for making them wrong, so they’re actually right. They justify every excess by blaming others for their temper tantrums, hurt, rage, shame, need for revenge and everything else that makes them unbearably uncomfortable. You get a great encapsulation of narcissistic rage, and its reflex to justify retribution, from our former president as he made his lying case during the privately organized, privately funded pep rally at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, the tasteful prelude to the peaceful, patriotic Trump riot at the Capitol.

Very different rules. You can “illegally” take millions of dollars from foreign powers for your campaign, in exchange for promised political favors, because the other side is cheating. You can claim your predecessor illegally wiretapped you, because he wasn’t even a legitimate president, he’s a liar. You can order your attorney general to violently remove peaceful protesters from the streets so you can show strength in a photo op, because the protesters hate America and are violent terrorists. You can have the wife of a Supreme Court justice walk into the West Wing at will, and when she leaves, decide which disloyal members of your staff need to be fired, because, separation of powers (or States Rights, or whatever). You can make political martyrs of those who violently attacked police, because, when there’s fraud, you know… You can lie to your supporters over and over, and steal money from them based on those lies, because the other side is a powerful cabal of cannibal pedophiles who advocate the murder of newborn babies and are legally killing them by the truck loads in Blue States.

There is nothing you are not allowed to do, when fighting an evil so monstrous. The narcissistic mindset is reptilian in its reflex never to be wrong, no matter what.

I think of my one time closest friend, today on his 68th birthday. His primal wound is that his father, a strong and generally admirable man, never protected him from a crazy mother with a violent temper. He grew up triggered by his manipulative mother, now over ninety and as able to reduce him to anger as when he was a child, and mourning the loss of a father who emotionally abandoned him.

The punchline, I suppose, is that he inflicted the identical damage on his own children, by being helpless to intervene whenever they were raged at by a mother who became abusive whenever she felt challenged. Here’s the man’s perfect rationale for nonintervention, as he’d explain to his children when they insisted on being hurt: what you think was abuse was really not abuse, you have to understand, because mom loves you so much, it’s just that she’s used to being in charge, has been since she was a girl, and so when you defy her she gets her back up, understandably.

Imagine falling asleep at night after your mother unfairly raged at you and your sympathetic father fed you that big, comforting spoonful of shit. Why would you not find yourself prone to panic attacks?

Note to a graduate student 150 years in the future

Heather Cox Richardson, transcribing the brutal history of this Nazi adjacent moment:

By rights, tonight’s post should be a picture, but Trump’s behavior today merits a marker because it feels like a dramatic escalation of the themes we’ve seen for years. Please feel free to ignore—as I often say, I am trying to leave notes for a graduate student in 150 years, and you can consider this one for her if you want a break from the recent onslaught of news.

Yesterday, Trump ranted at the press, furious that the American legal system had resulted in two jury decisions that he had defamed and sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll. He was so angry that, with his lawyers standing awkwardly behind him, he told reporters: “I’m disappointed in my legal talent, I’ll be honest with you.”

Today, Trump held a rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, a small city in the center of the state, where he addressed about 7,000 people. A number of us who have been watching him closely have been saying for a while that when voters actually saw him in this campaign, they would be shocked at how he has deteriorated, and that seems to be true: his meandering and self-indulgent speeches have had attendees leaving early, some of them bewildered. In today’s speech, Trump slurred a number of words, referring to Elon Musk as “Leon,” for example, and forgetting the name of North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, who was on his short list for a vice presidential pick.

But today’s speech struck me as different from his past performances, distinguished for what sounded like desperation. Trump has always invented his stories from whole cloth, but there used to be some way to tie them to reality. Today that seemed to be gone. He was in a fantasy world, and his rhetoric was apocalyptic. It was also bloody in ways that raise huge red flags for scholars of fascism.

Trump told the audience that when he took office in 2017, military officers told him the U.S. had given all the military’s ammunition away to allies. Then he went on a rant against our allies, saying that they’re only our allies when they need something and that they would never come to our aid if we needed them. This echoes the talking points put out by Russian operatives and flies in the face of the fact that the one time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked the mutual defense pact in that agreement was after the attacks of September 11, 2001, in support of the U.S. 

He embraced Project 2025’s promise to eliminate the Department of Education and send education back to the states so that right-wing figures like Wisconsin’s Senator Ron Johnson can run it. He reiterated the MAGA claim that mothers are executing their babies after birth—this is completely bonkers—and again echoed Russian talking points when he said these executions are happening—they are not—but “nobody talks about it.” He went on: “We did a great thing when we got Roe v. Wade out of the federal government.” 

He reiterated the complete fantasy that schools are performing gender-affirming surgery on children. “Can you imagine you’re a parent and your son leaves the house and you say, Jimmy, I love you so much, go have a good day at school, and your son comes back with a brutal operation. Can you even imagine this? What the hell is wrong with our country?” Trump’s suggestion that schools are performing surgery on students is bananas. This is simply not a thing that happens. 

And then he went full-blown apocalyptic, attacking immigrants and claiming that crime, which in reality has dropped dramatically since President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took office after a spike during his own term, has made the U.S. uninhabitable. He said that “If I don’t win Colorado, it will be taken over by migrants and the governor will be sent fleeing.” “Migrants and crime are here in our country at levels never thought possible before…. You’re not safe even sitting here, to be honest with you. I’m the only one that’s going to get it done. Everybody is saying that.” He urged people to protest “because you’re being overrun by criminals.” 

He assured attendees that “If you think you have a nice house, have a migrant enjoy your house, because a migrant will take it over. A migrant will take it over. It will be Venezuela on steroids.” He reiterated his plan to get rid of migrants. “And you know,” he said, “getting them out will be a bloody story.” 

He went on to try to rev up supporters in words very similar to those he used on January 6th, 2021, but focused on this election. “Every citizen who’s sick and tired of the parasitic political class in Washington that sucks our country of its blood and treasure, November fifth will be your liberation day. November fifth, this year, will be the most important day in the history of our country because we’re not going to have a country anymore if we don’t win.” 

He promised: “I will prevent World War III, and I am the only one that can do it. I will prevent World War III. And if I don’t win this election,… Israel is doomed…. Israel will be gone…. I’d better win.” 

“I better win or you’re gonna have problems like we’ve never had. We may have no country left. This may be our last election. You want to know the truth? People have said that. This may be our last election…. It’ll all be over, and you gotta remember…. Trump is always right. I hate to be right. I’m always right.” 

Trump’s hellscape is only in his mind: crime is sharply down in the U.S. since he left office, migrant crossings have plunged, and the economy is the strongest in the world.

Then, tonight, Trump posted on his social media site a rant asserting that he will win the 2024 election but that he expects Democrats to cheat, and “WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. We cannot let our Country further devolve into a Third World Nation, AND WE WON’T! Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.” 

Is it the Justice Department indictments that showed Russia is working to get him reelected? Is it the rising popularity of Democratic nominees Kamala Harris and Tim Walz? Is it fury at the new grand jury’s indicting him for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election and install himself in power? Is it fear of Tuesday’s debate with Harris? Is it a declining ability to grapple with reality?

Whatever has caused it, Trump seems utterly off his pins, embracing wild conspiracy theories and, as his hopes of winning the election appear to be crumbling, threatening vengeance with a dogged fury that he used to be able to hide. 

Grey Lady on left-wing disinformation

Suggestions that there was something suspicious about the way the attempted assassination of Trump went down, including Trump’s striking a heroic fundraising pose with bloody face seconds after shots were fired, the blackout on medical details at the hospital, the miraculous healing of his shot ear, the perfect timing of the shooting for campaign purposes right before the RNC, that it had the smell of yet another Trump-concocted lie, are cited by the New York Times as being conspiracy theories advanced by the left “without proof.”   Hmmmm.   So both sides do it, Grey Lady?  Buried in the article is this:

“There’s just a world of difference between what you’re hearing episodically out of the left and the systemic production of pretty vile and dangerous stuff that we have seen now for years coming out of that right-wing ecosystem,” said Steven Livingston, the founding director of the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University.

According to the Times article they are suggesting, “without proof”, that their paper is taking a bold stand here in calling out occasional misinformation on the left. Consider the final paragraphs of the story:

Articles debunking left-wing misinformation have faced pushback online from critics and journalism watchdogs, who have claimed that the traditional fact-checking process is not suited to tackling falsehoods from the left. The Associated Press was roundly mocked online for trying to debunk the joke by writing a staid fact check that was soon deleted. The news agency said that the fact check had not gone through its “standard editing process.”

“Since most of what Democrats are saying is provably — or at least arguably — true, fact-checkers have descended to hairsplitting at best and worst,” wrote Dan Froomkin, the founder of Press Watch, a nonprofit website covering political journalism.

Snopes, the fact-checking website, is used to seeing pushback over its frequent debunking of right-wing disinformation. But since the war started between Israel and Gaza — and through this year’s presidential election — the website has also faced scrutiny after running fact-check articles about left-wing falsehoods, according to Doreen Marchionni, the executive and managing editor for the site.

“We kind of get hit by all sides whenever what we report doesn’t conform to certain left or right talking points,” she said.

Read the new indictment of our criminal former president

To win a legal argument a lawyer must wield a blunt instrument, the law, with precision. A prosecutor must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt or there is no conviction. There are many ways for wealthy, politically connected defendants to game the system and gain long delays in trial, conviction and sentencing. Ultrawealthy scofflaws enjoy tremendous advantages in court, as in life, and it is frustrating as hell to watch these litigious fucks run roughshod over law and decency.

Once in a blue moon we have a moment of seeming legal clarity. It is a beautiful thing to see an indictment lay out a case against one of these fucks that allows for no reasonable doubt. You can read that kind of indictment here, the very readable superseding indictment Jack Smith’s office recently brought against serial offender Donald J. Chrump.

The indictment uses plain language to lay out in clear, crisp detail, every element of each of the four crimes the Orange Polyp has been indicted for. The superseding indictment steers clear of the MAGA Supreme Court’s unconstitutional made-for-Trump July ruling that presidents may legally commit crimes, if they do this in the course of carrying out their core “official duties”. (Thought experiment challenge — imagine a criminal act that would be necessary for a noncriminal president to commit in order to carry out his official duties).

The revamped indictment removes references to losing candidate Trump’s “official acts”, as when he sought to promote an unqualified loyalist, American Eichmann Jefferey Clarke, to Attorney General to give an official stamp to his Stolen Election lie, or when he told officials just to lie and his allies in Congress would do the rest. It is an easy read that leaves the reader in no doubt as to the guilt of the infallible criminal candidate in knowingly spreading a lie about the rigged and stolen 2020 election, using that lie to whip up duped supporters and raise money, arm twist, wheedle and threaten government officials, inviting election officials of a state he lost to the Oval Office to convince them to change the votes in their states, signing on to a fake elector plan, exhorting an angry crowd he’d lied to for over an hour, at a private event, to “fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore” and taking no action, for hours, outside of stoking the mob’s anger at Mike Pence, as the peaceful mob of reverent tourists he inspired shut down a joint session of Congress.

In Defendant’s defense, during his hour long, lie-studded harangue of the angry mob at the Ellipse, a private event paid for by private funds (as Smith points out), losing candidate Trump used the word “peaceful” several times. So when he told them to go down to the Capitol to fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore, he meant to fight peacefully, you know, as one does when your country is about to be stolen from you.

The law is a blunt instrument and many serious harms are considered trifles by a system of law, designed for all, that routinely favors the rich and powerful. It is a refreshing thing to see a case laid out as beautifully, as indisputably, as Jack Smith’s office did in the reworked election interference indictment of Trump. We can lament the many delays a spoiled, entitled, unaccountable, law suit wielding, blustering, lying, ultra-wealthy bully like Trump always gets, and that Merrick Garland, a stickler for norms and rules, waited so long to appoint a Special Counsel, but, damn, this indictment is good. Check it out.

Now we just have to make sure very fine American Nazis don’t steal the upcoming election for their criminal figurehead so the trial can go forward, with all deliberate speed, in the several cases of US v. Trump (and his indicted co-conspirators).

That famous NY Times nuance: Tucker and “Holocaust Revisionists”

Because “Holocaust Denier” sounds so unfairly judgmental for this kind of calm reasonable-sounding Hitler-defending “revisionist”:

. . . Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history in which Hitler tried mightily to avoid war with Western Europe, Churchill was a “psychopath” propped up by Zionist interests, and millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” because the overwhelmed Nazis didn’t have the resources to care for them. Elon Musk promoted the conversation as “very interesting” on his platform X, though he later deleted the tweet.

From great op-ed by Michelle Goldberg

Got to feel bad for those overwhelmed Nazis, right? They didn’t want the war, did their best to avoid it, then they had to fight everyone and wind up vilified by billionaire Zionists for not protecting their Jews better while under attack…

See, not denial at all, simple revisionism [1], an honest disagreement about allegedly disputed historical facts. The ever fair and dazzlingly nuanced NY Times editorial board rests its case.

I truly don’t get the motives of the New York Times, but the Grey Lady certainly cuts a piss-poor figure representing a free press during the frantic gallop of American fascism.

His shot ear has healed miraculously in a very short time, as this recent photo shows. More proof to faithful Evangelicals of how much God loves this flawed vessel.

[1] In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) scholarly views or narratives regarding a historical event, timespan, or phenomenon by introducing contrary evidence or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. Revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record in order to make it more complete and accurate.

One form of historical revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments. Revision in this fashion is a more controversial topic, and can include denial or distortion of the historical record yielding an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negationism (involving, for example, distrust of genuine documents or records or deliberate manipulation of statistical data to draw predetermined conclusions). This type of historical revisionism can present a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record.[2] 

Negationists use the term revisionism to portray their efforts as legitimate historical inquiry; this is especially the case when revisionism relates to Holocaust denial.

source

Proving an idiot is an idiot

Demonstrating that someone is an idiot, talking out of their ass, constantly contradicting themselves, making no sense as they toss out their word salads, transparently lying, then insisting they are not the liar, (you are!), that they get angry rather than answering simple questions, and so on, is not hard to do. An idiot speaks for himself. All you really need are a handful of their quotations in context to prove your point. Still, what do you actually gain by proving someone is an idiot?

A charismatic or powerful person who is an idiot gets admiration, and a pass for being dumb, by people who fall under the spell of the admirable idiot’s performed personality. You will not change the mind of anyone who follows, or even worships, an idiot, by offering proof that the object of their fandom is, in fact, an idiot, cretin, imbecile or other person of sub-average intelligence. Having true faith and personal loyalty means that you are impervious to “rational” arguments against the indisputable truth of the thing you fervently hold dear. There is no objective proof that can make a dent in true belief.

So the argument about a malicious idiot who is also loved goes round and round and there is no exit from the cul du sac of that senseless, unresolvable debate. In the end, it is idiotic to expect to prove to someone with a closed mind on a subject that they have been influenced by an idiot and that their belief in the idiot is, uh, not smart.

Belief, like other strong feelings that give meaning to our lives, is not really subject to proof or disproof. The end of an argument over beliefs, with a certain percentage of offended believers, is a punch in the face or other outburst of violent indignation.

When we observe that certain people we encounter are idiots, and we are in forced contact with them, it is best to stay away from topics that might provoke them. Avoid anything but idle chitchat, smiles and good natured jokes and everything is generally more or less OK. It is not hard to be pleasant, even if you sometimes have to be somewhat false.

Of course, moral idiocy is not limited to stupid people. We also see very intelligent people who lack empathy, are stubborn, cruel, manipulative, vindictive etc. Idiots have no monopoly on being assholes, it’s a character flaw that works across the spectrum of human intelligence. Even though it’s hard to do sometimes, it is better, I’ve found, to avoid arguments with anyone, smart or idiotic, who shows you they will never, under any circumstance, actually take in what you have to say and give you a thoughtful response.

I have learned this seemingly simple lesson the hard way, and paid a high price for the understanding I have now, an understanding I remind myself of by writing things like this. I offer it to you for free, for whatever it may be worth to you.

The emotional component of healing our medical culture seldom acknowledges

The mind/body connection in health is well-known to anyone who has ever had a painful bodily reaction to stress. Stress can literally cripple a person, as in migraines or disabling back pain. Emotional pain robs us of resiliency and limits our ability to heal.

The concept is pretty basic and easy to observe, but many American doctors fail to take it into consideration, in my experience. After a painful surgery, repeated difficulty obtaining refills on pain medication for failure of the office to return multiple telephone calls may be considered (as it was by my knee surgeon’s office) the difficult patient’s problem, for example.

A vivid illustration of the emotional component of bodily pain for you:

I had a massage recently from an excellent masseuse. Lying on my stomach at the start of the massage I was aware of a painful hemorrhoid that threatened to ruin the massage. For the first ten minutes or so I felt the sting of this literal pain in the ass more than the hands that were massaging me. Then the massage began relaxing me. The pain of the hemorrhoid disappeared as I relaxed. It was gone for hours afterwards too.

So if a doctor discounts your emotional upset about anything related to your medical condition or its treatment, or expresses anger or frustration toward you, you are not in the right hands. Take the advice of someone who has experienced this a few times. Find a more sensitive, emotionally mature doctor.

Also, remember that it’s futile to argue with an angry asshole, it only makes things worse, in the short term (since it inevitably makes them angrier and more determined to prove they are not the asshole, you are) and afterwards. Better to walk away, find a new doctor and relieve yourself of the need to explain anything.

Corporate media, “extremely dangerous to our democracy”

Here’s a comment I posted after reading an interesting post entitled The Media Who Cried Wolf on a blog called Tony’s Bologna. Tony urged readers to listen to the news critically and resist knee jerk reactions to biased news reporting based on the color of your political baseball hat. I felt compelled to add this to the mix:

Good piece, but straight up propaganda packaged as news is not as bipartisan as it might seem. That collage of talking heads Rogan showed are all reading a script provided by Sinclair Media, an ultra-right wing outfit. They send scripted stories to many local stations all over the country. Trusted local news reporters read this crap to their trusting local audiences in markets large and small all over the country.

Both major parties are filled with narcissists and other major league assholes, no question about it. They don’t spread baseless propaganda with equal ferocity and message discipline though.

The rightwing has an entire media ecosystem that infects all corporate news coverage. A network or paper can’t cover a story “objectively” without being accused, by the right, of “anti-conservative bias” so we get this misleading “both sides do it” narrative in every case, even when only one side has fake electors, assaults Capitol police, colludes with foreign intelligence services, refuses to allow the peaceful transfer of power, has belief in the Big Lie (2020 election rigged and stolen) as a loyalty test for party membership, etc.

Plus, corporations by their nature (and by Supreme Court ruling) are concerned only with the bottom line. As “persons” they are greedy, psychopathic parasites who will do anything for a little more profit. And thanks to media consolidation, another anti-regulation right wing project, a corporate group like Sinclair, or an individual like Rupert Murdoch, wield tremendous power to influence public opinion.

Keep up the good work, brother. Your overall point is an important one, though the devil, as always (and as you suggest) is in the details.

Trump v. United States SCOTUS ruling

You won’t read this in the New York Times, necessarily, but this is the essence of what the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, in regard to former president Donald J. Trump’s case against the United States claiming absolute immunity from prosecution for any criminal act he committed while in office, or afterwards. It is an obscenely anti-democratic ruling by six members of an extremist, doctrinaire judicial fraternity (The Federalist Society) in service to American oligarchs.

The highest court in the land ruled that a president, present or former, may not be prosecuted for crimes he commits in office, if those crimes were done in the course of his official duties. If he was speaking to another government official about committing a crime — official business. All other crimes he commits while in office, not strictly in furtherance of his core official duties (try to picture why any crime would be necessary to carry out any core presidential responsibility — ah, never mind), carry the presumption that he had a good and legally justified reason to commit the crime. This presumption must be rebutted by a prosecutor before charges can be brought.

Just to ensure maximum protection to the man they protected in this one and done, tailor-made for the felon candidate ruling, evidence of any protected criminal act, or conspiracy to commit a newly protected presidential crime, may not be introduced in any other prosecution of a current or former president, in any criminal case where he is not protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Forget logic, the plain text and original meaning of the Constitution Leonard Leo’s appointees pretend great deference toward, common sense, political wisdom, basic fairness, any concern with democracy. This unappealable ruling was made simply to protect the brazen, audacious, ever-cooperative figurehead presidential candidate whose electoral victory is their constituency’s only current chance for holding on to power. The 6-3 Federalist Society supermajority did what loyal, lifelong partisans always do — gave their teammate a uniquely tailored, unappealable assist.

The even more poisonous part of this demented ruling (demented from the point of view of democracy) is the holding that corrupt presidential pardons, even ones he openly sells to felons, his criminal co-conspirators, serial killers with billionaire sponsors, pardons given as the quo of quid pro quo favors done for him or his business, MAY NOT BE CHALLENGED IN A COURT OF LAW. This means a president may hire a hit man to murder a political opponent, or Rosie O’Donnell, and then pardon that hit man as soon as the murder is done — or by preemptive pardon, if needed to seal the deal. As was the clear original intent of the Framers of our experiment in democracy.

MAGA, the rebranded Republican party, the truckling followers of reality-definer Trump (in service to reactionary billionaire polluters and blasphemously false Christian leaders) strenuously opposes an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court, the one branch of government they are majority stakeholders in. These über-entitled motherfuckers always get what they pay for. NO ETHICS FOR OUR PARTISAN IDEOLOGUES! So ordered.

If you want to call these swine Nazis, you are currently within your rights as an American citizen to do so. At least until use of the term “Nazi” is recognized, when applied to those who behave like actual, historical Nazis, as verboten, strictly forbidden, illegal and grounds for immediate imprisonment, reeducation and worse, at the sole discretion of the infallible Führer.