You have spent all your time exclusively criticising Democrats.
If you were as you claim you'd have been like Mercutio, a curse on both your houses, but you didn't.
You may have occasionally mentioned your support for the American green party, and you may even have praised Stein as much as Trump has, but in essense your message hasn't changed.
You've stayed anti Democrat throughout, you've tried to position yourself to the left of all of it.
It doesn't wash, you constantly pepper your feigned leftist sentiments with far right horseshit.
You're not smart enough to pull it off, never have been.
At least you've stopped using links to buying eEcyclopaedia Britannica, to hide your bogus sources.
Your behaviour has always been dishonest and downright sneaky.
#3 Ad hom
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump distanced himself from Project 2025, a plan for a second Trump term prepared by a number of right-wing institutions led by the Heritage Foundation. The plan called for dismantling the nonpartisan civil service and replacing it with officers loyal to an extraordinarily strong executive. It called for that strong executive to take control of the Department of Justice and the military and then, once firmly in power, to impose Christian nationalism on the country.
The members of the Heritage Foundation who wrote Project 2025 are closely aligned with Hungarian president Victor Orbán’s Danube Institute, and their plan looks much like his erosion of democracy to create a dictatorship that enforces white male Christian patriarchy. On Monday, Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times reflected on the influence of Hungary on the American right wing, posting: “it has always been wild to me that the model these guys have for the united states is a country that would rival mississippi for poorest state if it became part of this country.”
Once people heard about Project 2025, they came out strongly against it. Trump then maintained he knew nothing about the plan, although many of the people involved in it had been part of his first administration.
On January 24, Nik Popli noted in Time magazine that a number of the people who wrote Project 2025 have been tapped to serve in Trump’s second administration and that nearly two thirds of the executive orders Trump has signed either mirror or partly mirror the plans in that nearly 900-page document. “The real shame is that on the campaign trail, Trump did not level with Americans,” Skye Perryman of the legal organization Democracy Forward told Popli. “He didn't seek to try to convince Americans that this was his agenda. He acted as if he didn't have anything to do with Project 2025, when we know and have seen that he's really seeking to accelerate that agenda.”
On Monday, January 27, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued to agency heads guidance for how to implement what was, in Trump’s first term, known as “Schedule F,” a plan to replace the nonpartisan civil servant system established in 1883 with people loyal to Trump. As soon as he took office, former president Joe Biden rescinded Schedule F, but it has come back in Trump’s second term as “Schedule Policy/Career.”
The plan strips tens of thousands of federal workers of their civil service protections. Don Kettl of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy told Erich Wagner of Government Executive that the new rules say “the responsibility of people in the executive branch is to do what the president says, as he decides it should be done, and anyone who doesn't is subject to firing…. It’s a flat-out assertion of presidential authority under Article II [of the Constitution] that I’ve never seen put quite so broadly.”
Today, the Trump administration sent an email blast titled “Fork in the Road” to federal workers offering to let them resign and keep their pay until September, a transparent attempt to clear places for loyalists. Judd Legum of Popular Information noted that this sure looked like Elon Musk was “spiking the ball,” as this was the same subject line he sent to Twitter employees when he bought the company. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo looked at the buyout proposal and noted that “zero legal authority exists to do this.”
Last night, legal commentator Joyce White Vance detailed the Trump administration’s attacks on the independence of the Department of Justice. On Monday, Trump’s acting attorney general fired more than a dozen lawyers who worked on the criminal prosecutions of now-president Trump, after reassigning many more. In a statement, an official for the department said that the acting attorney general “does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda.” In a masterpiece of gaslighting, the statement added: “This action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government.”
Vance points out that “[a]n administration can’t fire career federal prosecutors based on their perceived political loyalties.” She continues: “The real witch hunt is here. And it’s a warning to all other federal employees to mind their loyalty if they want to keep their jobs. That’s the point. Trump knows he can’t lawfully fire these people in this manner. He wants to make the point that he’s willing to do it, in hopes others will stay in line.”
Trump appears to be trying to gain control over the military and turn it into a political instrument. In his inaugural address he said he would free the U.S. military “to focus on their sole mission: defeating America’s enemies.” But, in fact, the stated mission of the U.S. military is “to deter war and ensure our nation's security.” Those two statements are not the same thing.
As Michael T. Klare wrote today in The Nation, the focus of Trump’s pick for Defense Secretary, former Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth, is not to ensure the nation’s security, but to fight “the ‘Marxists’ in government, the media, and civil society who, he claims, have instilled ‘wokism’ in the US military—that is, a commitment to racial and gender diversity.” When Republican senators balked at confirming Hegseth, Trump’s allies forced him through by a vote of 50–50, with Vice President J.D. Vance, who shares Hegseth’s right-wing religious extremism, casting the deciding vote.
Today, Dan Lamothe, Missy Ryan, and Alex Horton of the Washington Post reported that Hegseth has stripped retired former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair General Mark Milley of his security detail, revoked his security clearance, and ordered an inspector general to investigate his behavior. Trump appointed Milley but came to despise him because he stood against Trump’s unconstitutional orders.
While strafing the independent civil service, the Justice Department, and the military, the administration is also working to strengthen the hand of the president. Over the weekend, Trump openly broke a law passed by Congress in 2022 to limit his ability to fire inspectors general, and when met with shrugs by Republican enablers, the administration moved to bigger power grabs.
It is ignoring a 1974 law that says the president must disburse monies appropriated by Congress, passed after President Richard Nixon tried to override the power of Congress by “impounding” the money it appropriated for things lawmakers thought would benefit their constituents. Federal money, after all, belongs to the American people. The authors of Project 2025 insist that the 1974 Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and that the president can decide simply to stop funding the things Congress deems important, thus reducing Congress from the lawmaking body the Constitution established to a sort of advisory body.
When Trump tried this in 2019, impounding money Congress had appropriated for Ukraine’s fight against Russian incursions in order to force Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to smear Trump’s political rival Joe Biden, the House of Representatives impeached him. Although Republican senators agreed Trump was guilty, they acquitted him, fearing that convicting him would hurt their party in the 2020 elections.
On Friday the Trump administration froze all foreign aid appropriated by Congress. “We get tired of giving massive amounts of money to countries that hate us, don't we?" Trump said on Monday, but the truth is that American soft power has been crucial in maintaining U.S. global influence since World War II. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) called it “dumb and murderous,” adding: “Tons of kids are just going to die needlessly” as U.S.-funded food supplies for famine-stricken Sudan stop. “The terrorists will benefit” as U.S. money for prisons holding ISIS members dries up. “The point of all this is to destroy U.S. power in the world,” Murphy wrote. “That primarily helps China, who is INCREASING its aid programs as we disappear. China—the place where all of Trump’s billionaires make their products and want deals to open markets. Think there’s a connection?”
International aid groups that depend on U.S. funding appeared shocked. "The recent stop-work cable from the State Department suspends programs that support America's global leadership and creates dangerous vacuums that China and our adversaries will quickly fill," said InterAction, the largest alliance of international aid organizations. "This halt interrupts critical life-saving work including clean water to infants, basic education for kids, ending the trafficking of girls, and providing medications to children and others suffering from disease. It stops assistance in countries critical to U.S. interests, including Taiwan, Syria, and Pakistan. And, it halts decades of life-saving work through PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a global health program started by President George W. Bush] that helps babies to be born HIV-free.”
International aid organizations hoped the decision would be reversed, but on Monday night the Trump administration accused the leadership of USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, of trying to get around its order to freeze all foreign aid, and it placed dozens of career officials on administrative leave. Still, after an outcry, newly confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio today announced a temporary waiver for certain “lifesaving humanitarian assistance,” although what that means is unclear.
On Monday, Trump’s White House budget office went even further in strengthening Trump. It ordered a pause on all federal government grants and loans, requiring them all to guarantee that they ban diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and stop spending for clean energy initiatives. According to Jeff Stein, Jacob Bogage, and Emily Davies of the Washington Post, the memo sent to government agencies said programs affected are “including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”
Georgetown University Law Center professor Josh Chafetz wrote: “There is simply no plausible argument that the president has the constitutional authority to refuse to spend appropriated funds because he doesn’t like how the money is being spent…. And it's hard to think of anything more destructive of our constitutional order than a claim that a president can either spend funds that have not been appropriated or refuse to spend funds that have.”
Today, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters: “Last night President Trump plunged the country into chaos…. The Trump administration announced a halt to virtually all federal funds across the country. In an instant, Donald Trump has shut off billions, perhaps trillions of dollars that directly support states, cities, towns, schools, hospitals, small businesses, and, most of all, American families. This is a dagger at the heart of the average American family in red states, in blue states, in cities, in suburbs, in rural areas…. Funds for things like disaster assistance, local law enforcement, rural hospitals, aid to the elderly, food for people in need, all are on the chopping block.” “Congress approved these investments and they are not optional,” Schumer said; “they are the law.”
While it is unclear what this freeze covers, Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post says there is general agreement that it includes discretionary spending, including the Head Start early childhood development program and WIC, the nutrition program for mothers and infants. Representative Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) wrote that Trump’s order is “illegal & dictatorial & Americans will die as a result.”
Senator Angus King (I-ME) called Trump’s impoundment of all federal grants and loans “blatantly unconstitutional.” “This is a profound constitutional issue,” he continued. “What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress…in the history of the United States.”
This evening a federal judge issued a stay to stop the Trump administration’s freeze on the disbursement of federal monies. Judge Loren L. AliKahn of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has paused the measure until Monday evening while she hears arguments concerning it.
Today, CNN host Jim Acosta, a Trump critic, announced on air he was leaving the channel after its management tried to move him to a middle-of-the-night slot. “People often ask me if the highlight of my career at CNN was at the White House covering Donald Trump,” Acosta said. “Actually, no. That moment came…when I covered…President Barack Obama’s trip to Cuba in 2016 and had the chance to question the dictator there, Raul Castro, about the island’s political prisoners. As the son of a Cuban refugee I took home this lesson: It is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant. I’ve always believed it is the job of the press to hold power to account. I’ve always tried to do that here at CNN and I plan on…doing…that in the future. One final message: Don’t give into the lies. Don’t give into the fear. Hold onto the truth and to hope. Even if you have to get out your phone, record that message: I will not give in to the lies. I will not give into the fear. Post it on your social media."
In his pamphlet Eristic Dialectic (or The Art of Being Always Right ), the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer lists this technique under the title of Ultimate Stratagem (both last listed and last resort) 1 :
Quote:"If one realizes that the opponent is superior and that one is not going to win, one must make derogatory, hurtful and rude remarks. To be derogatory consists in leaving the object of the quarrel (since one has lost the game) to move on to the opponent, and to attack him in one way or another for what he is: one could call this argumentum ad personam to differentiate it from the argumentum ad hominem . The latter moves away from the purely objective object to focus on what the opponent has said or conceded about it. But when one moves on to personal attacks, one completely abandons the object and directs one's attacks on the person of the opponent. One thus becomes vexing, mean, hurtful, rude. It is an appeal from the faculties of the mind to those of the body or to animality. This rule is very popular because everyone is able to apply it, and so it is often used. The question now arises as to what parry can be used by the opponent. Because if he proceeds in the same way, we end up in a fight, a duel or a defamation trial.
Douglas N. Walton considers the question of whether the conventions of informal conversation can be articulated more precisely than they are at present. Specifically, he addresses the problem of the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation as it occurs in natural settings. Can rules be formulated to determine if criticisms of apparent hypocrisy in an argument are defensible or refutable? Walton suggests that they can, and ultimately defends the thesis that ad hominem reasoning is not fallacious per se. He carries his analysis to the core of action--theoretic reasoning--by examining a number of specimen arguments. As suggested by the title, the conclusion of ad hominem argument is demonstrated to be relative to the arguer's position. In the appendixes of the book, articles by Gerald McAuliffe and Gordon R. Lowe illustrate vivid and powerful cases in which Walton's contentions are put to the test.
That's a very useful differentiation, Walter.
Quote:wikipediaIn his pamphlet Eristic Dialectic (or The Art of Being Always Right ), the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer lists this technique under the title of Ultimate Stratagem (both last listed and last resort) 1 :
Quote:"If one realizes that the opponent is superior and that one is not going to win, one must make derogatory, hurtful and rude remarks. To be derogatory consists in leaving the object of the quarrel (since one has lost the game) to move on to the opponent, and to attack him in one way or another for what he is: one could call this argumentum ad personam to differentiate it from the argumentum ad hominem . The latter moves away from the purely objective object to focus on what the opponent has said or conceded about it. But when one moves on to personal attacks, one completely abandons the object and directs one's attacks on the person of the opponent. One thus becomes vexing, mean, hurtful, rude. It is an appeal from the faculties of the mind to those of the body or to animality. This rule is very popular because everyone is able to apply it, and so it is often used. The question now arises as to what parry can be used by the opponent. Because if he proceeds in the same way, we end up in a fight, a duel or a defamation trial.
Or just present a better argument.
In a conversation with Greg Sargent of the New Republic published today, writer Amanda Marcotte called out an important moment in White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s first press conference yesterday.
When a reporter noted that “[e]gg prices have skyrocketed since President Trump took office,” and asked “what specifically is he doing to lower those costs for Americans?” Leavitt answered: “Really glad you brought this up because there is a lot of reporting out there that is putting the onus on this White House for the increased cost of eggs. I would like to point out to each and every one of you that in 2024, when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office or upstairs in the residence sleeping, I’m not so sure, egg prices increased 65 percent in this country. We also have seen the cost of everything—not just eggs—bacon, groceries, gasoline, have increased because of the inflationary policies of the last administration.”
During his campaign for the presidency, Trump repeatedly attacked Biden for the post-pandemic inflation that afflicted the country, and promised to bring down “the price of everything.” Even before he took office, Trump had begun to walk back his promise, and J.D. Vance has also suggested price relief would “take a little bit of time.” Now coffee and egg prices are at an all-time high, and the administration’s solution is to attack Biden. No matter the incompetencies of the Trump presidency, Marcotte notes, it appears the answer will be: You might not like what we’re doing, but don’t you hate Democrats more?
President Richard Nixon’s team pioneered this strategy before the 1970 midterm elections to rally wavering Republicans around the president’s party. Nixon had won election with a promise that he would end the war in Vietnam honorably, but had, in fact, increased the U.S. presence there. By the end of 1969, with opposition mounting, he insisted that a “silent majority” agreed with his Vietnam policies. Then, at the end of April 1970, he told the American people that he had sent ground troops into Vietnam’s neighbor Cambodia. Protests led to the killing of four college students at Ohio’s Kent State University. Members of Nixon’s key demographic, middle-class white Americans, threatened to abandon him.
Nixon’s advisors urged him to win his voters back by attacking their opponents as lazy, dangerous, and un-American. They called their strategy “positive polarization” because it stoked the anger they needed voters to feel in order to show up to vote, a development they saw as positive. Patrick Buchanan wrote a memo to Nixon urging him to take much stronger control over the nation, to manipulate the media, and to go to war with his opponents, whom he considered illegitimate, warning: “[W]e are in a contest over the soul of the country now and the decision will not be some middle compromise—it will be their kind of society or ours.”
Nixon so internalized this advice that by 1972 he was willing to sabotage his Democratic opponent’s campaign in order to win, convinced that a Democratic victory would destroy America. He ended up having to resign when his participation in covering up the bugging of the Democratic National Convention’s headquarters at the Watergate Hotel surfaced, but in his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan picked up the rhetorical technique of dividing the country in two.
In part, that depended on constructing a false world, claiming when challenged on his stories of government mismanagement that a “liberal media” was determined to undermine him. When voters elected him, Reagan began the dismantling of the post–World War II government that protected equality before the law, equal access to resources, and the right to have a say in government. Whenever it seemed that voters were turning against the Republicans’ policies, which moved $50 trillion from the bottom 90% to the top 1% between 1981 and 2021, Republicans doubled down on the idea that popular government programs were “socialist” or “Marxist,” designed to redistribute wealth from hardworking Americans to undeserving “liberals.”
By 2020, accompanying that rhetoric with voter suppression and a flood of money into Republican election war chests had made many Republican voters loyal to the party above the country. So convinced were they that the government was corrupt and that they were fighting a war for America that they were willing to die of Covid in order to “own the Libs.” And in 2021 they tried to overturn democracy in order to keep their leader in power.
Now, in 2025, the impulse simply to hurt Democrats no matter how badly such actions would hurt the country showed in a social media post today by Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) that the Senate should confirm Trump’s deeply problematic nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. because “no Cabinet nominee could damage the political future of Democrats more than RFK.”
Kennedy is before the Senate Finance Committee today in confirmation hearings to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Food and Drug Administration, among other agencies. Kennedy is a conspiracy theorist who opposes the vaccines that have slashed deadly illnesses in the U.S., and has attacked the institutions he would oversee; more than 18,000 physicians have signed a letter opposing his confirmation.
Yesterday, Kennedy’s cousin, Caroline Kennedy, broke her silence about him to write an open letter to senators. She warned that he “lacks any relevant government, financial, management, or medical experience” and, calling him a “predator,” warned that he has “gone on to misrepresent, lie and cheat his way through life.”
Forcing the Republican agenda by continuing to portray political opponents as dangerous to America because of wasteful spending and misguided priorities has reached cartoonish extremes. Trump has nonsensically claimed that thanks to him, the U.S. military has “TURNED ON THE WATER” in California, apparently misunderstanding that the Army Corps of Engineers had conducted maintenance on federal water pumps for three days and turned them back on when the maintenance was complete.
Yesterday, Leavitt claimed that the Trump administration tried to stop all foreign aid because Biden supposedly sent $50 million of condoms to Gaza and that the administration was just focusing on being “good stewards of tax dollars.” The story is simply false. The U.S. Agency for International Development spent about $7 million on condoms in 2023, the vast majority of which went to Africa through anti-AIDS programs; Trump’s first administration made similar investments.
At the same time they are portraying Democrats as wasteful and misguided, Trump and MAGA Republicans are claiming Democratic accomplishments for themselves. Last night, Trump claimed he had “just asked Elon Musk and [SpaceX] to ‘go get’ the 2 brave astronauts who have been virtually abandoned in space by the Biden Administration,” and Musk chipped in that it was “[t]errible that the Biden administration left them there so long.” In fact, as fact-checkers quickly noted, NASA says the astronauts whose damaged spaceship has returned to Earth are not stuck in space but are staffing the space station, and that a SpaceX capsule has been docked at the station since September in an arrangement made by the Biden administration to bring them back to Earth as soon as a new crew arrives.
True MAGA is buying the lies the administration is selling—Fox News Channel pundit Jesse Watters suggested Gazans were using condoms as balloons to float explosives into Israel—but it is possible Nixon’s system of polarization is reaching the end of its rope.
Key to Trump’s 2024 win was his insistence that violent crime was skyrocketing in the U.S.—in fact, it was plummeting—and he vowed to deport “criminal” migrants. Since he took office, a number of made-for-television sweeps have tried to demonstrate that he is making America safer. But his commutations and pardons of all the January 6 rioters convicted of crimes has made that a hard sell, especially as one is now wanted for soliciting sex with a minor and another has been killed by Indiana police for resisting arrest. In addition, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council notes that Trump officials ordered prosecutors to divert resources away from truly dangerous drug traffickers to go after undocumented immigrants.
Those who believed Trump would not come for anyone but “criminals” are learning otherwise: NBC News reported on Monday that nearly half the migrants arrested in a Chicago sweep on Sunday either had nonviolent offenses or had committed no offense. While the Trump administration defends its sweeps by saying it considers anyone who has broken immigration law to be a criminal, being undocumented is in fact a civil offense, not a crime, and many of Trump’s supporters did not think he would make such general sweeps.
But the biggest wake-up call for those embracing the longtime language of polarization is that when Trump on Tuesday shut down all federal funding and grants to stop what he called the “Marxist” diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives of the government, he was attacking virtually all Americans. The administration’s pause of all federal funding and grants until it could make sure “DEI” had been purged out of them cut everything from Meals on Wheels, a food delivery program for shut-ins, to education, local law enforcement, and the Medicaid on which programs for the elderly depend.
The outcry was so strong that today the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo to rescind its previous memo freezing all federal programs. But Leavitt immediately contradicted the apparent content of the new memo, saying the cuts were still in effect. Judd Legum of Popular Information noted that the plan seemed to be “to create as much chaos as possible.” That chaos keeps attention on the administration, and it appeared to be a way for the White House to upend lawsuits against the freeze. So far, that has not worked. U.S. District Judge John McConnell said he was inclined to grant a restraining order, noting that “the administration is acting with a distinction without a difference.”
The Trump administration’s cutting of the federal funding on which Americans depend in the name of opposition to “Marxism” and “DEI” contrasts spectacularly with its embrace of the world’s richest man, Elon Musk; the billionaires in Trump’s Cabinet; and the billionaires who have poured money into the Trump administration.
CNN’s Chris Isidore notes that government subsidies built Musk’s fortune and that he continues to receive government contracts worth billions of dollars. In addition to government contracts, Trump’s tax policy favors the very rich. On Monday, January 27, the Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee billionaire Scott Bessent for Treasury secretary. In his confirmation hearings, Bessent told the Senate that he believes extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts is “the single most important economic issue of the day…. If we do not fix these tax cuts, if we do not renew and extend, then we will be facing an economic calamity.”
Republicans identify the rapidly growing federal deficit as a crisis for which Democrats are to blame, but in fact, President Bill Clinton—with an assist from Republican president George H.W. Bush—eliminated the federal deficit in the 1990s. What threw the deficit into the red was the tax cuts and unfunded wars under George W. Bush, along with Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy and corporations. The U.S. Treasury estimates that extending the TCJA as is—Trump has mused on deeper cuts—would cost $4.2 trillion over the next ten years.
Slashing the federal funding that supports ordinary Americans will make it easier to fund federal contracts and further tax cuts for the wealthy. With that tradeoff so visible in 2025, will “owning the Libs” still be worth it?
Trump seemed to be worried that it might not be. This afternoon he threw red meat directly at the MAGA base with an announcement that he would be signing an executive order to open a 30,000-person-capacity migrant detention center at Guantanamo Bay to “detain the worst criminal illegal aliens threatening the American people.”
