Obviously because he’s a weak candidate (and has been from the very beginning) in what might well be the highest stakes presidential race in US history.

The debate didn’t suddenly create some notion of his weakness as a candidate - long before the debate, his prospects were already shaky at best, and the Dem establishment had already had to resort to basically trying to guilt trip people into voting for him.

All the debate did as far as any of that goes is drive home the point that people have been trying to make from the beginning - that he is and always has been a weak and uninspiring candidate at best.

And I’d say that rather obviously, if anyone’s repeating the mistakes of 2016, it’s the Dem establishment.

And on a bit of a side note - in response to the author’s smugly self-congratulatory view that the voters are mindless automatons who just blindly do as the media tells them, I would just like to offer up a hearty, “fuck you.”

Ah - yeah. I should’ve seen this coming.

It’s a standard tactic for Trump, as it is for petulant and unimaginative children around the world - basically an official version of “Nuh uh! You are!”

We’re not getting worse moving to a different hack that can form thoughts on the fly.

Though I don’t like it a bit, that’s my position too, but with one glaring exception.

The thing that keeps haunting me is that I really think there’s a good chance that they’ll go back to Hillary, who’s basically everything that’s wrong with the current Democrats turned up to 11 - a plainly corrupt, transparently power-hungry and entirely self-serving opportunist who gives paid speeches on Wall Street, idolizes Kissinger and has all the charisma of a damp rag. As far as I can see, her only real qualifications for the office are that she wants it so desperately and she’s so willing to sell herself to anyone who will contribute to getting her there. And she’s the one possibility that I would say is far and away the least likely to win. But she brings in the corporate money, and that’s obviously the DNC’s main priority.

If it’s pretty much anybody else, that’s fine by me.

It’s psychopathic fuckwads all the way down.

I would love a real second primary with an array of candidates not all of whom were preselected by the billionaires. And a large inclusive debate or two. Is that what you are suggesting?

Yes.

Sorry - I thought “throw open” was a commonly understood phrase.

It means to open something suddenly and completely - no incremental stages and no limitations - just immediately from closed to fully and completely open.

Whoever ends up being the candidate will get literally billions of dollars in earned media by simply “becoming” the candidate. The whole drama of it suddenly engages what is currently a completely disengaged voting populace.

This is the most important bit IMO.

At this point, I don’t even think of dumping Biden as just a satisfactory fallback position, but as a winning strategy, and specifically for this reason.

It’s not as if Biden suddenly became a weak candidate the night of the debate - he’s been a weak candidate all along. As I just said earlier, the only thing that changed with the debate is that more people came to that conclusion.

And all it would take to motivate the base - to get Democrats enthused in a way that they haven’t been since 2008 - is to throw open the nomination. That would bring the race a sense of excitement and hope that hasn’t just been missing since the debate, but all along.

Any Democrats who can stand up and show leadership right now stand a very good chance of becoming the most powerful person in the world. Trump is a deeply unpopular candidate. It won’t take much to expose his weakness for what it is, we just currently happen to have the weakest possible candidate. Swap the candidate, adopt the positions of the base, and whoever ends up being the nominee can coast into office.

I think this is rather obviously true. Many on the left have been pushing for a different, and presumably better, candidate from the beginning, so in a way, all that’s changed since the debate is that many more have joined them. So really, all the Dems have to do is provide the people with that candidate, and it’ll be a runaway.

BUT…

I’m starting to worry that the DNC is going to fuck it up yet again, and specifically because, just as was the case in 2016 and 2020, they’re not only going to not adopt the positions of the base, but are going to instead manipulate the process in order to shove another establishment hack down our throats. And quite likely not even just any establishment hack, but the one that’s already proven to be even less popular than Biden - Hillary Clinton.

This is a moment for the DNC to get out of the way and let the people come together and choose the candidate they want. That’s the exact thing that will motivate the base, and in turn guarantee Trump’s defeat.

I’m just afraid that the DNC won’t be able to do that - that in their all-consuming self-centeredness and greed, they’re going to fuck it up for all of us, yet again.

Just another example of the right saying the quiet part out loud.

Make no mistake about it - these aren’t just idle threats or emotive rhetoric. These people genuinely want you dead.

I dunno…

You could well be right, but I have a hard time believing that any court - even this grotesquely corrupt one - would attempt such rulings.

So far, while obviously a significant threat, their immunity rulings have actually been broadly in line with established precedent. And they specifically stated that the precise definition of an “official act” was something that was going to have to be worked out in future rulings.

Even with as cynical as I am, I find it hard to believe that they actually intend to rule that anything that might be done in the midst of carrying out some entirely and completely unrelated official act is afforded the same protection as that official act. That would rather obviously make it so that the president could, for instance, pause in the middle of signing a bill and do literally anything - absolutely anything at all - and be entirely immune from any and all consequences.

Yes - it is possible that they’ll rule that way, but again, even as cynical as I am, I can’t imagine that they actually will, if for no other reason than that that would empower the president to order the summary execution of all Supreme Court justices.

I’d sure as hell hope not.

There has to be a limit to the corruption and duplicity of this facsimile of a Supreme Court, and I would have to think that it’s somewhere short of ruling that efforts to cover up the misappropriation of campaign funds and filing of fraudulent financial reports count as “official acts” of a president.

But then again, they are painfully obviously grotesquely corrupt and duplicitous…

Any article that cites Krugman is self-evident bullshit.

Krugman has made an entire career out of carrying water for the ruling class.

That’s more or less the theory I keep coming back to, but I can’t even entirely wrap my head around that one. It’s sort of like a really complex conspiracy theory in that it presumes a particular contrived course of action from seemingly too many people.

I can absolutely imagine some number of writers, editors and publishers self-servingly treating the obviously insane blathering of a lunatic as if it’s legitimate just to further their own careers, and I can absolutely imagine some additional (and likely greater) number of them doing so to protect themselves from retribution. I can even imagine some number who are themselves insane in a way that aligns enough with Trump’s insanity that they treat him seriously sincerely.

But all of that still doesn’t seem enough to account for the near-universal failure to even comment obliquely on how deeply mentally ill Trump so obviously is. Just as with a complex conspiracy theory, I can see the possibility on a limited scale, but it all seems to fall apart if one tries to expand it out to the scale that would seem to necessarily be the case.

And yeah - I keep ending up feeling like the only sane person in the asylum.

Well…

You’re absolutely right, and that was very well-written to boot. But it’s not the part that perplexes me. I likely just did a poor job of explaining myself.

I fully expect his intellectually and/or psychologically compromised supporters to fail or refuse to recognize his glaringly obvious insanity. As you note, he affirms their prejudices and tells them that the condemnation they so deservedly receive is actually some sort of evil conspiracy, and they grovel at his feet, lapping it up.

But that just accounts for a portion of his supporters and none of his opponents, and it’s that remainder I wonder about - all of the people who are certainly rational enough to recognize his glaringly obvious derangement for what it is, but somehow just don’t, or won’t.

I have this recurring experience in which I read an essay or article from some more or less neutral site or even an oppositional site in which someone relates something that Trump said, then parses and analyzes it, as if it’s a legitimate statement of supposed fact rather than the deranged ranting of someone who’s painfully obviously profoundly mentally ill, and I can’t even see how they managed to make it that far - how they didn’t just stop halfway through relating whatever it was he said and throw their hands up and say, “This guy is a fucking lunatic!” Because he so blatantly obviously is.

That’s what I don’t get.

…a perfect, brilliant, beautiful statement that I make…

Doesn’t anyone else notice how often he makes these cringily exaggerated statements, and more to the point, recognize how clearly they illustrate the staggering depths of his delusions?

That’s still the thing I most notably don’t get about Trump - the man is obviously profoundly mentally ill, so why and how is he even taken seriously? How in the world is it even possible for such a painfully obvious gibbering lunatic to not only run for public office, but quite possibly win?

I’m roundaboutly reminded of one of my favorite novels - Greener Than You Think, by Ward Moore.

It’s a science fiction story about the end of the world that was written in the late 40s. The proximate cause of the end is all of the landmasses of Earth being smothered by a gigantic and very aggressive strain of Bermuda grass, but the real cause is the utter and complete failure, due to ignorance, greed, selfishness, short-sightedness, incompetence, arrogance and so on, of every attempt to combat it.

Well damn.

No - I very deliberately used round peg in the square hole, initially just to avoid the cliche, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.

Conservatives pound on round/natural/organic/smooth pegs to try to force them into square/artificial/contrived/rigid holes.

I liked it anyway…

In all seriousness, I sort of pity conservatives.

They’re sort of like the one kid in kindergarten who could never manage to figure out which plastic peg went in which hole and would just get frustrated and throw things. Except that they never grew out of it. Here they are, twenty or thirty or sixty years later, still unable to grasp the simple fact that the world just is what it is and the round peg isn’t going to go in the square hole no matter how much you pound on it, and still angry over it, as if it’s some sort of vast conspiracy rather than just the fact that they’re fucking morons.

That has to be an unpleasant way to live.

Of course, they’re such vile and loathsome and destructive assholes that my pity is short-lived, but still…

Just another step toward making used-to-be-Twitter a safe space for cowardly fascists.

Of course they do.

That’s the central reason that bribes need to be kept out of politics (and don’t feed me any of that shit about lobbying as speech - they’re bribes obviously). It’s not simply that it’s dishonorable or dishonest to base government policy on bribes paid - much more importantly it’s that allowing bribes rewards and thus selects for people who are vile, self-serving scumbags.

It’s not an accident that the billionaires and the politicians are almost entirely foul pieces of shit - it’s because our corrupt political system actually rewards foul pieces of shit and penalizes anyone with actual morals or integrity. It’s not just that politicians can take bribes, but that they essentially have to, just to keep up with the other candidates who do. And similarly it’s not that the wealthy and the corporations can pay bribes, but that they essentially have to, just to compete against the other wealthy people and corporations who do.

Allowing bribes just creates a political system that’s effectively gatekept - “You have to be this corrupt to take part in this system.” And the people who aren’t that corrupt are locked out.

Trump is certainly the most foul, loathsome, corrupt piece of shit in this election (not that Biden isn’t one too - just that Trump has achieved depths virtually unheard of, even in the cesspool of US politics). So Trump is naturally the one who’s going to get the lion’s share of bribes from the foul, loathsome pieces of shit who pay the most and biggest ones.

Well of course he wants to keep it in “vague terms” - he’s too canny of a politician to come right out and say that the plan is and always has been the conquest, occupation and eventual annexation of the whole of Gaza.