Bruce Springsteen: "Dancing in the Dark"
The Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by a green marker.
Recommended Reading:
Sameer: [Content Note: Islamophobia; racism] Somali-American Man to Donald Trump: 'I Am No Danger to the Community'
Helen: Progressive Politics and the AAPI Movement
Cece: [CN: Fat bias; internalized fat bias] How to Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin
Holly: [CN: Classism] Coding "White Trash" in Academia
Quita: [CN: Misogynoir] The Today Show Hair Fail and Anti-Blackness in the Beauty Industry
Monica: Lea T Makes Some Olympic Trans History
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Islamophobia; harassment.]
"I will do it [a] million times, I will do it louder, I will do it forcefully. I'll do it [a] hundred million times—now is the time for the rest of the world to see the true America, the decent America, the good America."—Khizr Khan, on speaking out against Donald Trump, and how he would not only do it again, but do it a million times, despite the steep cost to him and to his family, for raising his voice.
This is what a true patriot looks like.
Trump's Economic Address: He Still Doesn't Know How Government Works
[Content Note: Antisemitism; racism; classism.]
To tepid applause and constant interruptions from protesters, Donald Trump just delivered his Very Important Economic Address. The policies were predictably terrible, the dog whistles were present and accounted for, and he reminded us once more that he has no idea how government actually works.
It was the hundredth or so time that Trump gave what was billed as a serious policy address meant to "reboot" his campaign and convince nervous Republican elites and voters that he's a viable candidate.
And, in the sense that he was able to stand at the podium without falling over and read all the words from the teleprompter, he did a bang-up job.
But the specifics of the address were not those of a serious candidate. His economic proposals are utterly unworkable and will patently not accomplish the things he is promising to US workers.
They are, at best, retreads of failed Republican economic policy, and, at worst, ludicrous proposals with zero chance of bettering the lives of the average working American—despite Trump's claims that it's "easy" to achieve his gossamer promises of economic prosperity and security for all.
Would that the totally expected faulty policy specifics were the worst part of this address. But he opened with a central slogan of "America First," which he continues to use despite its ugly anti-Semitic history. Or, perhaps, because of it.
And then there is this: Speaking from Detroit, whose economic struggles Trump used to pitch a grim economic tale of terror that mirrored the foreign policy fearmongering which defined his Republican convention speech, he attributed Detroit's economic collapse and continued turmoil exclusively to Democratic governance.
Detroit, he said, was a city ruled by Democratic governance at every level.
But that is not true. At least as long as Detroit is still part of Michigan—which it was, last I checked.
Michigan has a Republican governor (Rick Snyder); a Republican majority in the state senate; and a Republican majority in the state house of representatives.
Either Trump doesn't know that Detroit is in a state overseen by Republican governance, or he is trying to conceal the effects of that Republican governance on Detroit, or his comprehension of government and politics is so limited, he doesn't understand that Detroit is affected by Republican governance.
A little from column A, a little from column B, and a lot from column C, perhaps.
Trump laid the blame for Detroit's economic collapse squarely, and exclusively, at Hillary Clinton's—and her husband's—feet, but the truth is that Detroit's problems started long before the Clintons were national political players.
And such a comprehensive collapse does not have a singular genesis: Designed segregation, white flight, auto-focused urban planning, automation, oil prices, Reaganomics, union-busting, and a host of other factors combined to put enormous pressure on the Motor City.
Many of these problems are still present today—and none of the proposals pitched by Trump would meaningfully solve any of them.
A number of them would, however, exacerbate them.
And that's because, among other reasons, Trump believes that as long as he makes "the best deals" and does all the "easy" things that our current President inexplicably refuses to do, he will restore the US to its former glory—reversing the trend of automation, apparently, and without concern for the ways in which that alleged glory was dependent on excluding many marginalized people from the workforce.
Trump simply doesn't get how the world works. Among his many other disqualifying features, this is at the top of the list. A president can't devise effective policy solutions for a nation he doesn't even begin to understand.
In the News
Here's some stuff in the news today...
All right then: "Key players in the GOP's anti-Trump movement are preparing to launch an independent presidential campaign for Evan McMullin—a CIA veteran and the chief policy director of the House Republican conference—sources close to the effort told BuzzFeed News. Veteran Republican strategist Rick Wilson, a Florida-based media consultant and outspoken Trump critic, is expected to be involved in McMullin's campaign. Sources said Wilson was in Washington on Sunday meeting with members of McMullin's prospective campaign—which includes some who were involved in a group called Better for America, which has been pushing an independent presidential bid. McMullin did not immediately respond to requests for comment from BuzzFeed News. He would make for an unlikely presidential candidate. He has never held elective office before and has spent most of his career as a CIA officer, according to his LinkedIn page. Young and unmarried, McMullin received an MBA at Wharton in 2011, and after a stint at Goldman Sachs, went to work as a policy wonk on Capitol Hill."
[Content Note: Video may autoplay at link] "A former Ronald Reagan political director says he's voting for Hillary Clinton, rejecting the Republican nominee for the first time in 40 years. Frank Lavin, who was Reagan's political director from 1987 to 1989, became the latest GOP official—following Reps. Scott Rigell and Richard Hanna and operatives like former Jeb Bush aide Sally Bradshaw and ex-Chris Christie communications aide Maria Comella—to announce he won't back Donald Trump. ...'It might not be entirely clear that Hillary Clinton deserves to win the presidency, but it is thunderingly clear that Donald Trump deserves to lose,' Lavin wrote in an op-ed for CNN."
[CN: Misogyny] Welp: "Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, I held out great hope that he would become our next president. Over the past month, I have done a great deal of reflecting and asked myself: Where does this seemingly irrational antipathy toward Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Clinton that has been produced, packaged and perpetuated mostly by the GOP, with the help of many Democrats and independents. This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy and powerful—a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How dare you, Ms. Clinton. How dare you have a mind of your own. How dare you be bright and powerful. Don’t you know these rights are exclusively for white, Christian, heterosexual men?"
Oh, look: Nicholas Kristof is being helpful again. "Clinton's Fibs vs. Trump's Huge Lies."
[CN: Sexual assault; rape culture] My god: "Two more women allege assaults by Bill Cosby; total now 60." Sixty. I'm not surprised; I have been writing about rape culture far too long to be surprised, and I am all too aware that rape is not, as it is often misrepresented, a "mistake," but a cruel and deliberate act that its perpetrators keep repeating unless and until they are stopped. But I am definitely angry. This is what happens when survivors are disbelieved and a rapist is left to continue abusing people. Sixty.
[CN: Islamophobia] Right on: "Ibtihaj Muhammad will make history on Monday as the first American to ever compete in the Olympics wearing a hijab. Whether she wins a medal in Rio or not, Muhammad has already made quite an impact. Ever since making the Olympic team, Muhammad has been using her platform to advocate for the acceptance of Muslims in America, something that is particularly crucial considering the GOP nominee for president has called for a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country. When asked about Donald Trump in a recent CNN interview, Muhammad did not shy away from addressing his divisive rhetoric. 'I think his words are very dangerous,' she said. 'When these types of comments are made, no one thinks about how they really affect people. I'm African-American. I don't have another home to go to. My family was born here. I was born here. I've grown up in Jersey. All my family's from Jersey. It's like, well, where do we go?'"
[CN: Domestic violence; death; self-harm] I've now read several stories about this awful family annihilator case in Pennsylvania, which each open with some variation on the parents having "struggled to find medication after their young daughter received a heart transplant." While financial strain, including healthcare access, can be a crucial contributing factor, it is deeply irresponsible to mask that this is a known form of domestic violence deeply attached to patriarchal definitions of men as providers. It is also irresponsible to treat this as incidental: "Neighbours told the Reading Eagle that the couple had been heard arguing and Megan Short planned to leave her husband." My condolences to those who knew the family.
[CN: Wildfire] Damn: "A fire near Silverwood Lake in San Bernardino County has grown to 4,500 acres, with only 5% containment, officials said Monday. The Pilot fire, first reported around 12 p.m. Sunday, spread quickly amid dry brush and timber, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Firefighters and bulldozers worked through the night building fire lines, said U.S. Forest Service spokesman Bob Poole. 'Because the vegetation is so incredibly dry, all it takes is a little spark and it's just been chewing through it,' Poole said. 'That's been our difficulty.' Evacuations remain in place for the Summit Valley area, east of Cedar Springs Dam. There has been no structural damage to homes, said Poole, who described the area as rural." Let's hope it stays that way.
Read everything that Imani Gandy writes, including this: "Whole Woman's Health Breathes New Life Into Voting Rights Cases: It is no longer acceptable—at least in theory—for state legislators to announce that a particular restriction advances an interest in women's health and to expect courts and the public to take them at their word. The same goes for, as it turns out, voting rights."
Wow: "It's not clear why the humpbacks would risk injury and waste so much energy protecting an entirely different species. What is clear is that this was not an isolated incident. In the last 62 years, there have been 115 interactions recorded between humpback whales and killer whales, according to a study published this July in the journal Marine Mammal Science. 'This humpback whale behavior continues to happen in multiple areas throughout the world,' says [Alisa Schulman-Janiger, a whale researcher with the California Killer Whale Project], who coauthored the study."
[CN: Video autoplays at link] And finally! CORGI POOL PARTY!!!
Daily Dose of Cute
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Nope
[Content Note: Disablism; food policing.]
So, the new conspiracy theory among the anti-Clinton brigade (especially among Trump supporters) is that Hillary Clinton has some serious undisclosed health issue. I'm not going to link to it, because nope, but I've reviewed their "evidence," and it's as ridiculous as you'd imagine.
Their assertion is that she has some sort of seizure disorder, and all I will say is this: It doesn't even matter if it's true. This is just rank disablism. Nothing about having a seizure disorder prevents someone from doing the job. If I knew FOR A FACT that Donald Trump was on meds for seizures, it would be at the absolute bottom of my list of concerns about him.
And speaking of Trump, a hashtag about his diet was trending this morning, because of this piece in the New York Times about his love of "junk food."
Who cares. I have zero interest in policing Trump's food consumption, and I don't think the food that people eat says anything about their character.
The only interest I have in what Donald Trump eats is when he uses it as a misogynist and/or racist dogwhistle. The end.
The Olympics Thread
Take a bow, Simone! @Simone_Biles cements herself as the one to beat in vault. https://t.co/8UlQsUiW6F
— NBC Olympics (@NBCOlympics) August 8, 2016
https://t.co/HxOdu3vmxM
Whoa.
I haven't had time to watch even one second of the Olympics, and most of what I've read about it has ranged from concerned to critical, on behalf of both the competing Olympians and the Brazilian people.
But here's an open thread for discussion, and both excited celebration of the athletes and criticism of the corporate games are on topic for this thread.
#HillaryCoverageIsCrap
[Content Note: Misogyny; dehumanization.]
This weekend, I wrote a long piece for BNR on the abysmal state of media coverage of Hillary Clinton, which is the culmination of decades of garbage coverage:
Hillary has been subjected, for decades, to a level of scrutiny so relentless and intense that it has somehow, incredibly, become acceptable to publish, under the auspices of legitimate news, an article inviting "body language experts" to assess the authenticity of her gestures – and to report that they find she is "dishonest" even in her very mannerisms.There is much, much more at the link—and, if you read only one thing I've written this election on the media and Hillary Clinton, please make it this one.
Somehow, alarmingly, it has become acceptable to ask Hillary, over and over, why people don't like her. A historic candidate who resoundingly won her primary and is leading the race for the White House. Why doesn't anyone like you, Hillary?
Somehow, enragingly, it is acceptable for panelists of talking heads to discuss her voice, her laugh, whether she smiles enough. To admonish her for "shouting." To talk about her hair, her clothes, her accessories. To sneer at her jokes and disdainfully disqualify any personal tidbit she shares as "pandering" and "cynical" and a desperate, pathetic attempt to connect to voters.
To openly laugh at anything she does that reveals her humanity.
This is not news coverage. This is harassment. This is rank dehumanization. This is abuse.
How have we gotten to a point where we tolerate this deeply sexist, deeply personal sustained attack on one of the most admired women in the world?
How have we allowed ourselves to become so inured to a public, ritualistic humiliation of one of our nation's most admired public servants?
Why do we expect that this overpoweringly unhealthy dynamic should be the cost of her public service, when no man in her position – including her disgusting opponent – is subjected to anything like this level of harassment and dehumanization?
Could any other human being survive this level of aggressive, ceaseless auditing, judgment, scrutiny, and personal criticism?
Why are the media doing this to her? And why are we allowing it to happen?
We published the piece in association with the hashtag #HillaryCoverageIsCrap, which was trending for much of the day yesterday and was the #1 trending topic for quite some time.
I did a lot of tweeting in the hashtag, and I've Storified those tweets for anyone who would like to read them.
Peter Daou and I knew, when we launched the hashtag, that it would eventually be hijacked by anti-Clinton trolls, and so it was. They are always keen to prove our point, and they couldn't have more perfectly done so than by disgorging into the hashtag a barrage of tweets reiterating the very mainstream media-facilitated narratives about Clinton that have been uncritically accepted by lots and lots of people.
And, as I predicted right in my piece, they accused me of saying Clinton is above criticism and that all criticism of her is sexist, despite the fact I never made either claim.
Longtime Shakers know how many years I have spent diligently documenting with integrity the media attacks on Hillary Clinton. I've been sitting in this dynamic for more than a minute. And I'm just completely done with calling this shit anything but what it is: It is abusive.
Certainly, there are some members of the media who have asked the sorts of questions I condemn—"Why don't people like you, Hillary?"—who feel very aggrieved by such a charge. I have seen members of the press get very defensive when called out on this shit. They're just doing their jobs. If she can't face a hard question, how can she be president? Etc.
But it's actually not the job of a journalist to ask stupid, demeaning questions in order to try to humiliate a woman in a way that a man never would be. And it's actually not that Clinton can't face these questions; it's that she shouldn't have to.
On this subject, I've seen journalists affect the posture that their journalism isn't problematic, as though it exists in a vacuum. It does not. The cacophony of bullshit questions, bullshit headlines, bullshit photos, bullshit coverage in its every iteration is what is the problem, and no one person is exempt.
And if you want to know whether my contention that hating Clinton is the cost of entry to jobs in the corporate media, and that hatred for her is uniquely acceptable, pay close attention to who isn't commenting in or about this hashtag and its subject—especially among those for whom the gross mistreatment of women would normally be something about which they are concerned.
Different rules for Hillary Clinton, in action.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
So Done with This Crap
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
I'm so exhausted with media criticisms that Clinton doesn't hold pressers. Well maybe you shouldn't have treated her like garbage for 30yrs.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
Her website is robust. Her speeches are detailed. She's done listening tours. She opted for intimate venues over huge stadium appearances.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
She has made herself accessible to voters. I don't need, nor do I want, another press conference where I have to watch her being harassed.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
And, yes, asking her shit like, "Why don't people like you?" is harassment. That's no search for truth. It's an attempt to capture her pain.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
I'm FINE with her answering moderated questions. Yes, I believe that "counts." What I see is a woman drawing boundaries.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
And what I see in response to that is the same trash I see when ANY woman draws boundaries: Angrily telling her she's not allowed to do it.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
Frankly, I'm relieved by Hillary Clinton's approach to a press intent on demonizing her. I ache from years of watching this sick dynamic.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
And I highly recommend that any member of the media inclined to complain spend that time instead reflecting on why she's obliged to do it.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
This has been going on for (at least) TWENTY YEARS. https://t.co/GIQsaS1WKg
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
Me, quoted in that piece: pic.twitter.com/0iZUObvk5I
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 5, 2016
The Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by a warm breeze.
Recommended Reading:
TLC: TLC Welcomes New Staff: Meet Raquel, Jack, Jade, Beatrix, and Shawn! (Hi, y'all!)
Sarah: [Content Note: Bigotry; white nationalism; guns] Donald Trump and His Followers Could Destroy America Even if He Loses
Susie: GOP Controversy Machine Tries to Whip Up Scandal over Iran Payment
Shireen: [CN: Racism; war; displacement; exploitation] The Refugee Olympic Team Is a Vast Light in a Sea of Darkness
Adrienne: [CN: Racism] Where Are the Natives in Hamilton?
Ragen: [CN: Body policing] Fat Bodies Are Not Public Property
Keith: Ava DuVernay Becomes First Woman of Color to Direct a $100M Project
Brian: I May Have Bought a Freddie Mercury Action Figure
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
Quote of the Day
"Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and I will vigorously support her. Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance—improving the economy, our education system, healthcare, or the environment. It is based on bigotry. ...I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face is to defeat Donald Trump."—Bernie Sanders, in an op-ed for the LA Times today.
But who cares what he says, right? Establishment sellout.
(In case I didn't lay it on thick enough, that was sarcasm.)
Thanks, Bernie.
(And that was not.)
In the News
Here's some stuff in the news today...
Lots of terrible Trumpery to report!
I'm shocked—SHOCKED, I tell you—that Donald Trump's campaign website refuses to allow donors to cancel recurring donations. Geez, you'd think that campaign was being run by some kind of thieving con-man or something!
[Content Note: Misogyny] Trump released his list of economic advisors, and there isn't a single woman on it, because of course there isn't! This is particularly notable given his selection of Mike Pence as a running mate. A deeply anti-choice ticket. A bunch of male economic advisors. Almost certainly none of whom acknowledge reproductive freedom as a key economic issue for women.
Relatedly: "Trump Declines to Name Women He'd Put in His Cabinet Besides Daughter Ivanka." Sure.
[CN: Islamophobia; auditing] Meanwhile, Trump's New York State campaign co-chairman, Carl Paladino, insists that President Obama is a Muslim: "In the mind of the average American, there is no doubt he is a Muslim. He is not a Christian." Okay, player.
All of which, among the other 200 things since yesterday I haven't included, is leading Republican elites to start chattering about how Trump needs to get out of the race. Hey, bozos: You had your chance to stop him from being your nominee during a one million year primary. Where were you then? Need I remind you that he has been a dirtbag all along?
Meanwhile, even now, Republicans are just covering themselves in all sorts of glory by continuing to endorse him. To wit: "This 30-second video is absolutely devastating for Donald Trump." As advertised! In case you don't feel like watching it, the basic gist is John McCain, who has endorsed Trump, stammering out a glorious salad bar's worth of arglebargle word salad when asked if he is "comfortable with Donald Trump possibly having control of the nuclear arsenal." It may be devastating for Trump, but it's catastrophic for McCain.
Not so former CIA acting director Michael J. Morell, who endorsed Hillary Clinton today and made it abundantly clear that Trump shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.
Earlier today, Clinton made an appearance at the joint convention of the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), and she said a lot of good stuff, but this was my favorite: "'Rosa Parks opened up every seat on the bus' [and] now we have to make sure 'everyone can afford the fare.'"
In non-election news:
[CN: Lead poisoning; police brutality; guns; misogynoir] This report on how both Korryn Gaines and Freddie Gray had lead poisoning is both devastating and important reading.
[CN: Misogyny] Jennifer Garner is a repeat offender in the "giving interviews about how women who aren't mommies are garbage" file, and here she goes again: "I'm really glad that I'm playing moms because there's no more rich time in a woman's life than when you're having babies and when you're trying to figure out how to parent them and balance everything, and the emotional weight of seeing your children struggle." LEARN TO USE "I LANGUAGE" JENNIFER. JFC.
I don't generally care for war movies, but if you're going to put Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy in your war movie, well, I just might watch it. (I will definitely watch it.)
And finally!
LOL! Greyhound laziness at its most amazing! [Video Description: A greyhound in a life jacket bobbing around in a backyard pool, not even trying to swim.]
Daily Dose of Cute
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Amazing
Because Ana Mardoll is THE BEST, she sent this to me, knowing I would love it (WHICH I DID), so now I pass it on to you!
This morning, @OhNoSheTwitnt tweeted: "It's nice how America has a black guy and a woman as its lead protagonists now, just like Star Wars."
Which prompted @jeffbenzenberg to create this image:
Yowza
In the new McClatchy-Marist poll, which is generally reliable, Hillary Clinton is up by 15 points.
Clinton not only went up, but Trump also went down. Clinton now has a 48-33 percent lead, a huge turnaround from her narrow 42-39 advantage last month.And what's even more remarkable is that Clinton, who has been plagued by media narratives about "low enthusiasm" and "unlikeability," has a far greater number of people who are voting for her, rather than just against Trump, than Trump has voting for him:
The findings are particularly significant because the poll was taken after both political conventions ended and as Trump engaged in a war of words with the parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in an explosion in Iraq 12 years ago while trying to rescue other soldiers.
...Other polls have shown Clinton in the lead, though Marist's is the largest so far.
More encouraging for Clinton, 57 percent of her backers say their vote is for her, while 40 percent say it's largely an anti-Trump vote.That's important, because people who are voting for a candidate are typically more motivated to show up on Election Day to cast their affirmative vote than people are who just casting a protest vote.
...Most of Trump's backers – 57 percent – say their vote is against Clinton, while only 36 percent called it a pro-Trump decision.
On the one hand, I'm super excited by this! On the other hand, I'm quivering in fear, because I just don't think it will be this easy. No one strolls into the White House—least of all Hillary Clinton, who has been met with significant obstacles all along her journey.
On my nonexistent third hand, though, I don't see how the Republicans can win if they oust Trump, because his decidedly fervent supporters, a smaller percentage of his base though they may be, will surely revolt against whoever the GOP installs in his place. And I don't see Trump quitting, even if he is clearly beginning to sense his imminent humiliation, because quitting would be a humiliation all its own.
So I don't know. I'm very cautiously optimistic.
The only thing I can say with certainty is the next three months are going to be extremely tumultuous. This thing is far from over.
No, Donald Trump, the Election Is Not Rigged
GOOD GRIEF THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY HAD TO SAY THIS YESTERDAY.
Obama pushes back on Trump's comments: "Of course the elections will not be rigged. What does that mean?" https://t.co/z9v1h6howF
— NBC News (@NBCNews) August 4, 2016
Of course the elections will not be rigged! What does that mean?! The federal government doesn't run the election process. States and cities and communities all across the country—they're the ones who set up the voting systems and the voting booths, and, if Mr. Trump is suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country, including in places like Texas, where typically it's not Democrats who are in charge of voting booths, that's ridiculous. That doesn't make any sense. And I don't think anybody would take that seriously.President Obama added that, naturally, the federal government takes seriously "our responsibilities to monitor and preserve the integrity of the voting process," and responds when there are indications that voting machines are vulnerable to hacking, or when jurisdictions are disenfranchising voters. But that's the extent of the federal government's involvement in elections. Which Donald Trump doesn't appear to know. Like everything else about how government works.
President Obama also added: "I think all of us at some point in our life have played sports, or maybe just played in a schoolyard or a sand box, and sometimes folks, if they lose, they start complaining they got cheated. But I have never heard of someone complaining of cheating before the score is tallied. My suggestion would be, you know, go out there and try to win the election." OH SNAP!
Snarky POTUS is my favorite POTUS.
Meanwhile, as LOLGOP reminds us at Electablog, "Republicans were trying to steal this election and the courts stopped them" with, as Ari Berman details, "six major decisions against GOP-backed voting restrictions in five different states" in the last ten days.
Like I keep saying: Once you realize everything Donald Trump says is projection, it all makes so much more sense! It's his party that was trying to rig the election, by disenfranchising people who disproportionately vote for Democrats. And the GOP's shitty shenanigans were, thankfully, denied.
But of course all Trump can do to try to explain why he's currently losing and will definitely lose on Election Day, by possibly historic margins, is promulgate some conspiracy bullshit about rigged elections.
Because he can't imagine any other reason he could be losing. Not when he's got cheering crowds everywhere he goes! The polls must be rigged! The election will be rigged! How else could he be losing when he's got TREMENDOUS CROWDS?
For someone who's weirdly obsessed with Bernie Sanders, you'd think he'd have noticed that large crowds don't necessarily translate into electoral victory.
Then again, he thinks it was "rigged" against Bernie, too. And also: Trump doesn't seem big on learning lessons, even the most obvious ones.
