*CNN (banned) – Page 2 – * Failed Pols

As I write this, the world is still awaiting the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Even before the winner is called, and no matter whether it is Joe Biden (who at this moment looks promising) or Donald Trump, the overall results have been a little disturbing. It is genuinely surprising how much of the country wants Donald Trump to remain their president for four more years.

Many Americans (a lot of us thought it was most Americans) couldn’t wait for the opportunity to elect Joe Biden to replace Donald Trump and stop the national bleeding that has resulted from an administration defined by corruption, lies, divisiveness, recklessness, and gross mismanagement of a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Record voter turnouts were encouraging. Lifelong Republicans in droves were declaring their intention to vote for Joe Biden, and even many prominent Republicans endorsed Biden.

Yet, on Election Night, the news networks’ Magic Walls and prediction maps lit up in red, one state after another, showing Donald Trump as the winner for those states. It’s always true that some states will vote predominantly red, while others vote predominantly blue; that’s democracy in action. During this, The Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes, then, why have so many people voted to keep a man in office who has shown a keen interest in eliminating as much of our democracy as possible?

Polls showed that the president’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic was a big factor in how Americans planned to vote. According to those polls, most Americans aren’t happy with how Donald Trump has managed the pandemic, and feel Joe Biden would do a better job of it. Though we can’t ignore that fact that millions of votes did reflect this, for an alarming number of other Americans, the over 224,000 deaths, the millions of positive cases, and the president’s reckless super-spreader rallies, weren’t a problem.

When Americans elected Donald Trump in 2016, it might have been understandable that they wanted a change from politics as usual, and saw that in Trump. They’d try him out, and if it didn’t work out, then, in four years, another president could be elected instead. It might have been excusable that some of them were desperate about their jobs or their futures, and saw hope in Donald Trump. Others believed his convenient claim of being “pro-life,” and that’s all that mattered to them. And some, we know, liked Trump’s message of racism and xenophobia disguised as “America First” and “Law and Order,” which made them, at last, feel safe to come out of the shadows and express their own racism and xenophobia. Many were in all three pro-Trump camps.

Desperation and hope are understandable. “But the economy” is perhaps a valid argument until we consider all of the integrity and decency that Trump voters have been willing to disregard and overlook for its sake. What’s more, it’s been four years, and many of those desperate people who voted for Trump are still waiting for “the economy” to work for them.

Donald Trump has shown who he is, and his loyalists have shown who they really are. The “let’s see what happens” approach to Trump as president has expired. We’ve seen what has happened: the division, the open corruption of the adminstration, the rollback of many Obama-era environmental protections, the rise (or at least the increased boldness) of white supremacists and right-wing militia groups, the death and tragedy from an unmanaged pandemic, the open racism and xenophobia, the stamp of approval on misogyny. After four years of all this, an alarming number of Americans have demonstrated that they have no problem with any of it.

Numerous high-ranking former military officers have condemned Trump’s misuse of the military to squelch freedoms and further his own political interests.

Following Trump’s stunt in June, 2020, where he used the military to break up a peaceful demonstration in response to the police killing of George Floyd, then posed in front of church with a Bible for a photo-op, Marine Corps General John Allen, former commander of US forces in Afghanistan under Obama, said, “Donald Trump isn’t religious, has no need of religion, and doesn’t care about the devout, except insofar as they serve his political needs…To even the casual observer, Monday was awful for the United States and its democracy. The president’s speech was calculated to project his abject and arbitrary power, but he failed to project any of the higher emotions or leadership desperately needed in every quarter of this nation during this dire moment.”

National security experts and former intelligence officials have warned that Trump is a threat to our national security in a variety of ways. Some of the ways Trump endangers the nation include his freewheeling granting of security clearance to others who may be national security threats; his cozying up to despotic strongmen such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping; and his replacement of experienced career diplomats in key global locations with inexperienced campaign donors. In addition, it was recently revealed that Trump has excessive financial debt to foreign countries.

David Kris, former head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division and founder of Culper Partners consulting firm, says, “For a person with access to U.S. classified information to be in massive financial debt is a counterintelligence risk because the debt-holder tends to have leverage over the person, and the leverage may be used to encourage actions, such as disclosure of information or influencing policy, that compromise U.S. national security.”

Perhaps most astonishing is the fact that even though Donald Trump has loudly signaled that he’d like to be a despotic ruler more than president of a democratic nation, the small-government, self-proclaimed rugged individualists who are his supporters are willing to enable him as he attains this career goal. They believed his threats of chaos, violence, loss of liberty, and even “socialism,” should he not get four more years in the White House, fearing for their democracy. Yet, they’re just fine with Trump’s claim of “absolute authority” as president, his attempts to silence the media, and his frequent abuses of office.

It’s true that Joe Biden has received more popular votes than any other candidate in American history, yet it’s dismaying how many Americans chose to cast their votes for Donald Trump. Whether it was in spite of who Trump is, or because of who he is, those voters have demonstrated clearly that they don’t have a problem with what Trump stands for, and how he treats other human beings.

If Joe Biden does become president, it will be a start toward ending the division in this country. The division, however, stems from something deeper than mere “political disagreement.” Friends and neighbors can agree to disagree. When it comes to human rights, treatment of others, and the safety of American lives, however, it is no longer a matter of political opinion, it is a matter of character. The 2020 Presidential Election revealed to us the disturbing fact that a large number of Americans align with the character of Donald Trump. Joe Biden, if elected to replace Donald Trump, has his work cut out for him. (P.S.: I believe he’s up to the task.)

How the world is reacting to the U.S. presidential election | CBS News
[2020-11-04]

Trump supporter leaves CNN anchor speechless | CNN [2016-10-10]

Just because Amy Coney Barrett is a woman doesn’t mean she is a champion of women and the laws designed to protect them or their freedoms. Many conservative Republicans, however, take the view that Democrats and feminists should support the Supreme Court justice nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett, who would fill the vacated seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, simply because she’s a woman.

Donald Trump and the conservatives hold up Amy Coney Barrett, female judge, as if to say, “See? We’re not anti-woman!” similarly to the way they offer up a handful of Black people in a crowd of supporters to say, “See? We’re not racist!” And so, according to some conservatives’ reasoning, If Democrats support women, they have to be behind any woman nominee. Any objection to Barrett is labeled as hypocrisy.

In an opinion piece in The Hill, Katie Pavlich asks, “What Happened to Democrats Supporting Women?”

“After her nomination at the White House over the weekend,” writes Pavlich, “it’s become clearer than ever Democrats are only interested in supporting certain kinds of ambitious and successful women.”

Certain kinds? Well, yes: The kind who stand for the freedom of women to make their own choices and have equal protection under the law. The kind who don’t want to block women’s rights to health care, reproductive freedom, and personal autonomy. The kind who won’t legislate from the bench. And, yes, the kind who wasn’t nominated with the conservatives’ expectation that she will carry out the will of Donald Trump and the Republican lawmakers when it comes to dismantling the Affordable Care Act, overturning Roe v. Wade, and possibly even presiding over a lawsuit to contest the presidential election, should there be a contested election.

“Judge Barrett isn’t the kind of woman the left tolerates. She’s independent, strong and has rejected the notion that women are still victims in American society,” writes Pavlich, insulting the memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as “the left” and women who continue to be victims in American society.

“She is too religious, too respectful of her husband, has too many children and loves the United States of America. Not to mention her love for the U.S. Constitution. It’s no wonder the left is trying to destroy her. After all, she stands for everything they stand against: the nuclear family, true tolerance, freedom of religion, the principle that each person, no matter how small, has value, and much more,” writes Pavlich, falling back on the frequently used conservative narrative strategy of accusing “the left” of being anti-family, anti-religion, and generally anti-American.

Democrats don’t want to deny Amy Coney Barrett the freedom to practice her religion. They do fear, however, that her religious beliefs may influence the way she interprets the law and how she rules on cases. Will she be able to be unbiased? She is, we need to remember, the darling of the religious right, and of “pro-life” groups.

It’s unclear, for example, how Barrett would rule in cases concerning the rights of the LGBTQ community. And Coney Barrett’s past decisions have indicated that she would rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus removing a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. She has, after all, been nominated by Donald Trump to fill one of the seats Trump promised to fill with “pro-life” judges.

And speaking of bias, would she recuse herself from elections-related cases that go before the Supreme Court, should the 2020 presidential election be contested? Donald Trump clearly wants her participation.

Katie Pavlich wants badly to frame Democrats’ concern over Barrett’s nomination as simply an inability to recognize an outstanding woman if she’s not a Democrat. No one can say (and no one is saying) that Amy Coney Barrett isn’t an intelligent, accomplished, admirable woman. She is a judge, a scholar, a law professor, a wife, and the mother of seven. She clerked with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Judge Barrett is a female inspiration,” writes Pavlich. “It’s too bad Democrats only seem to care about women’s achievement when an individual shares their political preferences.”

No, Katie Pavlich, it’s bigger than that. Not only is there concern that Barrett won’t be able to be an unbiased Justice, her past writing indicates that she would likely rule to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In fact, Trump and the GOP lawmakers have already indicated that they would take this opportunity to appoint a judge who would be with them on overturning the ACA.

In 2016, candidate Trump promised, “If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.”

When he announced Barrett’s nomination, he tied repealing the ACA with her nomination, saying that eliminating it would be “a big win for the USA.”

On November 10, the Supreme Court will hear a lawsuit by the Trump Administration to declare the ACA Unconstitutional, and, if confirmed, Barrett would be one of the judges to hear the case. If Trump wins, millions of Americans will lose their health care. Most insured Americans will face the possibility of higher premiums, fewer covered services, and denial of coverage or price-gouging for pre-existing conditions. Services for women that must now be covered under the ACA, such as maternity care, annual well woman visits, birth control, and other services, will no longer be required to be covered, and women will no longer be protected from paying more for health care simply because they are women.

It really doesn’t matter how much of a “female inspiration” Judge Amy Coney Barrett is. And her political and religious preferences are secondary. What matters is whether she is interested in upholding equal protection under the law for all Americans, including women and marginalized communities; whether she would legislate from the bench by ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade; and whether she is ok with eliminating health care for millions of Americans without a replacement plan.

We can only hope that if confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett will not allow bias to influence her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, and that she will not take us backward. Donald Trump and the Republican lawmakers who are eager to rush through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation are banking that she will do both.

WATCH: Democrats respond to the first day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings | PBS NewsHour [2020-10-12]

Kamala Harris: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy is in jeopardy | CNN
[2020-10-12]

Category: *CNN (banned)

Editorial: The 2020 Presidential Election Reveals More Than Just “Differences of Opinion.”

Editorial: Amy Coney Barrett is a Woman but That Doesn’t Mean Feminists Must Support Her