Oh BTW, I did MY homework and studied the entire game BEFORE I bothered to comment. I know what Yasser and Peter said, so give it a rest.>

Hard to say which comment offers less insight--the 'lazy and rather effortless' first post, or the slagging above.

I'm here to tell you, to have somehow managed to become a halfway competent player in bygone days, I must have been excellent in the middlegame and ending to overcome this 'opening weakness'.

<Georgia lawmakers will open a special session Wednesday as majority Republicans move to minimize their losses while also trying to increase the number of Black-majority districts to comply with a federal court order.

It's one in a series of redistricting sessions across the South after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1964 Voting Rights Act, clearing the way for Black voters to win changes from courts.

Georgia House Republicans on Tuesday released a map that would likely cost them only two seats from their current 102-78 majority while creating five more majority-Black districts that Democrats would be likely to win. That's because the map would also pair three sets of Democratic incumbents, meaning Democrats would lose three of those members after 2024 elections

And Senate Republicans could improve on that performance — the map they proposed on Monday creates two additional Black-majority voting districts, but would probably retain the GOP's current 33-23 edge in the upper chamber.

Still to come is a new congressional map, where lawmakers have been ordered to draw one new Black-majority seat. Republicans currently hold a 9-5 edge in Georgia's congressional delegation. To try to hold that margin, they'd have to dissolve the only congressional district held by a Democrat that's not majority-Black, Lucy McBath's 7th District in the Atlanta suburbs of Gwinnett and Fulton counties.

It’s unclear if that would be legal. U.S. District Judge Steve Jones wrote in his order that Georgia can’t fix its problems “by eliminating minority opportunity districts elsewhere.”

Jones in October ordered Georgia to draw Black majorities in the additional districts, finding that current maps drawn by Republicans after the 2020 Census illegally diluted Black votes. That ruling came after a trial when plaintiffs argued that opportunities for Black voters hadn't increased even though their share of population increased in the state over the previous decade.

“There had been truly massive levels of black population growth and change and yet there was no increase in the number of black majority districts,” said Ari Savitzky, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents some of the plaintiffs.

Because Black voters in Georgia vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, new Black-majority districts will favor the party. But Democratic hopes to gain seats may have been premature.

“Republicans are clearly going to control the process and the outcome," said University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock, who studies redistricting.

The House map would create one new Black majority district running east from Macon to Milledgeville and a second district running northwest from Macon into Monroe County. It would create two additional Black majority districts in Atlanta's southern suburbs, one in Henry and Clayton counties around Hampton and a second one in Henry County around McDonough and Locust Grove. Finally, a fifth Black-majority district would be created in suburban Douglas County west of Atlanta.

Only the Macon-to-Milledgeville district would have a current incumbent, Republican Ken Vance of Milledgeville. The other four would be open seats in 2024.

Paired House Democrats would include Saira Draper and Becky Evans of Atlanta, Teri Anulewicz and Doug Stoner of Smyrna, and Sam Park and Greg Kennard of Lawrenceville. One set of Republicans would be paired, David Knight of Griffin and Beth Camp of Concord.

Under Georgia law, state legislators must have lived in their districts for a year before they are elected. Because 2024’s election is less than a year away, it’s too late for anyone to move to another district to run.

The Senate map doesn’t pair any incumbents. It increases the number of Black majority districts by eliminating two white-majority districts currently represented by Democrats — State Sens. Jason Esteves and Elena Parent, both of Atlanta.

Democrats released their own Senate map Wednesday. It would convert two Republican districts held by Sens. Marty Harbin of Tyrone and Brian Strickland of McDonough into majority-Black districts. Senate Democratic Minority Leader Gloria Butler of Stone Mountain said the Republican Senate plan doesn't meet the terms of the court order.

“Instead of remedying the specific Voting Rights Act violations identified by the court in the specific areas identified by the court, the Republican proposal primarily moves Black voters living outside of the areas in which the court found Voting Rights Act violations into majority-Black districts,” Butler said in a statement.

<It was in late August when Republican Sen. Mike Lee went in a weird and new direction. Commenting on new Covid-related lockdowns that did not and will not exist, the Utah Republican decided to amplify unfounded allegations from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ InfoWars website.

Even by contemporary GOP standards, this was unsettling. Republicans have grown increasingly comfortable with strange ideas from the political fringe, but most of the party’s sitting U.S. senators recognize the value of steering clear of Alex Jones’ nonsensical misinformation. He is, after all, a media personality who owes nearly $1.5 billion in damages for spreading ugly lies about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Lee, however, apparently didn’t care.

A couple of days after amplifying false Covid-related claims from InfoWars, Deputy White House Press Secretary Andrew Bates told Lee via social media, “Senator, this is completely false. Respectfully, we’d urge you to double-check before sharing misinformation from a source that now has to pay tens of millions of dollars for spreading some of the most painful lies imaginable.”

That was good advice that the Utah Republican chose to ignore. A few months after promoting conspiratorial misinformation, Lee did it again last week. NBC News reported:

By way of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, the Republican senator promoted a message showing a picture of a man on Capitol Hill that right-wing conspiracy theorists said was carrying an FBI badge. “I can’t wait to ask FBI Director Christopher Wray about this at our next oversight hearing,” Lee wrote.

There is, however, nothing to ask about: We already know the identity of the man in the picture. It was Kevin Lyons, a Jan. 6 defendant who described himself as an “idiot,” and who was sentenced to 51 months in prison. What conspiracy theorists thought was an FBI badge was apparently a vaping device.

In fringe circles, there are still people clinging to the idea that nefarious federal agents somehow participated in the assault on the Capitol, and the conspiracy theory that Lee helped promote was part of this ridiculous push.

Indeed, in a follow-up online item, Lee showed a video of Jan. 6 violence and asked, “How many of these guys are feds?”

A week later, the Utah Republican conceded to HuffPost that the man in the picture he promoted online probably wasn’t a federal agent disguised as a Donald Trump supporter. That said, Lee’s original online content still hasn’t been taken down, and the senator hasn’t made any effort to explain his support for fringe misinformation.

There’s also a larger context to consider. The Bulwark’s Charlie Sykes reflected last week on Lee’s “strange, twisted journey.”

I’ll confess that every time this happens to a Republican official, I find it jarring. No one ever accused Lee of being a moderate GOP voice, but he presented himself as something of an intellectual. There was even quite of a chatter in the not-too-distant past that the senator actually wanted to be considered for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lee held a safe seat in a reliably “red” state; he knew he’d probably never face a credible primary challenge; and he didn’t have any obvious incentives to go off the deep end.

And yet, here the senator is, amplifying Infowars and peddling bizarre Jan. 6 conspiracy theories.

It’s not too late for Lee to start working his way back to more sensible waters, but by all appearances, the Utahan has no interest in doing so.>

<An internet post has chalked up the success of Representatives George Santos (R-New York), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), and Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) to something called the Dunning–Kruger effect.

This cognitive bias suggests that individuals with limited competence in a specific domain tend to overestimate their abilities, with some researchers noting a parallel tendency for high performers to underestimate their skills.

Understanding the Dunning–Kruger Effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect, initially studied by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, assesses self-assessment against objective performance.

While often misunderstood in popular culture, this phenomenon has been explored across various tasks, including logical reasoning, grammar, social skills, business, politics, medicine, driving, aviation, spatial memory, examinations, and literacy.

The correlation between the Dunning-Kruger effect and the success of Reps Santos, Greene, and Boebert was highlighted by a social media user on X (formerly Twitter), who posted a video captioned, "The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. Well, this sums up George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert's special kind of crazy."

Social media reactions

The theory garnered support from others online, who added their two cents.

"Perfection," one responded.

"They make Congress a very bad joke!!" another wrote.

"I consider myself a civics/legal procedure novice, despite the fact I grew up around lawyers and worked with them most of my life. So when they speak, I'm sitting here thinking, 'is it possible for someone to be this dumb? Or am I smarter at this than I thought?'" someone else offered.>

<WHY IS STONE FREE OR DIE ALLOWED TO ATTACK MEMBERS IN THIS FORUM??? THIS HAS HAPPENED FOR YEARS AND YEARS. WHEN CGs ALLOWs THIS CRAP, MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES, ALTHOUGH WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO. CGs SHOULD D E L E T E THE STONE THROWER POSTS INSTEAD.

Chessgames is allowing the troll harassments all over again. The monitoring is pathetic, always letting the troublemaker to [sic] skate by.>

<Piss off Stoner, you flea-bitten troll. GTFO!>

<It's a troll, nothing more, nothing less, just a troll. Always has been a troll, always will be a troll. Chessgames does nothing but allow this troll to harass other members.>

<I think you're a gumshoe punk that somebody with gingivitis spit out, Stoner.>

<Thanks man.

All the nasty, perverted, dishonest filthy trash all over the place and management sees fit to delete our posts instead. Such wimps. It's a blatant, deliberate double standard of unfairness and lack of regulating the guidelines properly, evenly.

It wasn't this way when David [sic] was around. There was [sic] way, way more posters back then too.>

<Go play with your sister's panties you creepy stoned troll.>

<You're a full-time troll, troll and you know it. You don't give a damn about chess. You've never read a beginner's chess book to learn what promotion really iz and izn't. Such a lozer.>

<Blatant trolling from our #1 troll (sorry Rdb, you're a part-timer and Zanzibar is full-time), yet sfod has the audacity to pretend otherwize. sfod haz alwayz claimed innocence, the right to say whatever about the rest of us, but we must be silent in regard to sfod's endless trash posting as shown. It's complete bullspit.

We see the Chessgames double standard of unfairness in full bloom.>

<Former President Donald Trump has been placed under "enhanced monitoring" after Trump Organization monitor Barbara Jones identified $40 million in previously undisclosed cash transfers, reported Law360's Frank G. Runyeon on Wednesday.

Jones alerted Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing Trump's civil fraud trial in New York.

"The Materiality Threshold ... requires that Defendants provide notice when entities within the Trust make transfers outside of the Trust with an aggregate value in excess of $5 million," she wrote, adding that "we observed three cash transfers exceeding $5 million each, totaling approximately $40 million," including a transfer of "$29 million to Donald J. Trump, which I have confirmed was used for tax purposes."

Another $5.5 million transfer, Jones wrote, was used to pay the sexual assault judgment won against Trump by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll earlier this year.

The civil fraud case was brought by state Attorney General Letitia James, who argues that Trump and his two adult sons systematically lied about the value of the Trump Organization's assets for years to manipulate interest rates and tax treatment.

Engoron has already ruled in favor of James on the merits of the fraud allegations on summary judgment, and the remainder of the case is primarily about assessing damages. James is seeking hundreds of millions in fines and the dissolution of the Trump Organization.>

<As the House of Representatives moves closer to expelling ethically-challenged Rep. George Santos (R-NY), some in his party are still sticking by him. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), in a letter to his GOP colleagues, dramatically equated the move to expel to a “public crucifixion.”

Dated November 25, Higgins expressed “serious concerns” with the move to expel Santos, citing previous matters of ethics violations with members of Congress being “conducted quietly, reflective of our Constitutional standards of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” But in the case of Santos, Higgins claimed that “the very fact that we have all read ‘the investigative report’ indicates a level of public character assassination that I have not witnessed through 4 terms of Congressional service.” Higgins also expressed doubt about the content and allegations of the report, saying that the report itself was “FILLED with conjecture, opinion, and pejorative language” and “stinks of politics” despite being written by a Republican when the House has only a slim Republican majority.

The martyr-like portrayal of Santos by Higgins went on:

This report is posing as an objective presentation of fact, yet it is most certainly written with notable disregard for professional objectivity, and it is wrapped in a media incensed public disclosure that any reasonable man can see is the Congressional equivalent of a public crucifixion. I’m stunned that Members would cheer for this public shaming and expulsion. It’s like witnessing an otherwise fair and compassionate village gather to celebrate the burning of an alleged witch.

The letter was sent more than a week after Santos was the subject of a scorching report by the House Ethics Committee that accused the freshman representative of spending campaign funds on personal purchases including Botox, designer shoes, and porn. Santos has also been indicted on 23 federal counts including fraud and conspiracy; he has pleaded not guilty.

After the release of the report, Santos announced he would not run for reelection in 2024, but would not resign. Chair of the House Ethics Committee Rep. Michael Guest (R-MS) formally introduced a motion to expel Santos on November 17.>

Higgins' loyalty is admirable, but this is truly a misbegotten cause.

<On Dec. 30, 2020, Jeffrey Clark was nervous. He had just been told that Donald Trump was “very happy” with him.

“I’m praying,” the Justice Department official told Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who less than two weeks earlier had arranged for Clark to meet the president. “And wonder if I’m worthy or ready.”

“You are the man. I have confirmed it,” Perry replied. “God does what he does for a reason.”

The text exchange, briefly made public as part of a court dispute over special counsel prosecutors’ access to Perry’s phone, illuminates the extent of Perry’s involvement in the machinations that have led to criminal charges against both Clark and Trump over their attempts to prevent President Biden from taking office. The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit said that a district court judge needed to individually review roughly 2,000 communications to decide which ones were “speech or debate” — falling under a clause that grants members of Congress immunity from criminal investigation in their official capacities. But the same appellate panel on Wednesday exposed many of those messages by unsealing that lower court judge’s 51-page opinion, previously available only with heavy redactions.

The document was on the public docket for several hours Wednesday afternoon before being put under seal by the court again. The initial release came as the court granted a request by a news media advocacy group to unseal more of the record since aspects of the case have become public. A spokesperson for the court did not respond to a request for comment about why some material was resealed.

The day after Perry’s reassurance, Trump proposed making Clark the acting attorney general as part of an attempt to overturn the 2020 election results by telling officials in states that went for Biden that they could instead send electors for Trump to Washington. That plan was thwarted because of pushback from top Justice Department officials, who warned of mass resignations if Clark — previously an obscure environmental attorney — was put in charge.

The Justice Department first sought Perry’s phone records in August 2022. According to materials unsealed Wednesday, they asked for his communications with multiple people now facing criminal liability for their efforts to keep Trump in office: Clark, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell and Trump himself. All were charged in Georgia state court with taking part in a criminal conspiracy to undo that state’s election results; Ellis and Powell pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Clark, Eastman, Giuliani and Powell are also considered unindicted co-conspirators by federal prosecutors who charged Trump with illegal election interference.

Perry has not been charged with a crime. The House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack said he sought a preemptive pardon from Trump, something Perry has denied. Attorneys for Clark and Perry did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

Wednesday’s disclosures are unlikely to be news to Trump’s defense, which has already received the bulk of evidence prosecutors intend to use in his federal criminal prosecution. The full opinion likewise was already available to Perry’s attorneys, top attorneys for the House of Representatives, and parts of the Justice Department, even if case investigators have not been allowed to review Perry’s actual communications. Still, it is unclear if any of Trump’s alleged but unnamed federal co-conspirators could glean or piece together any new insights from the unredacted opinion.

When Clark wanted access to extremely sensitive intelligence about the election results, he again turned to Perry, the court documents show. In a text conversation beginning on New Year’s Day, Clark asked Perry to “tell the president that” Gina Haspel, then the head of the CIA, “needs to get me the tickets,” meaning Clark wanted access to highly classified, compartmented information. Senior U.S. officials often refer to their access to such closely guarded government secrets as “tickets.” To that request, Perry replied, “Roger,” and later texted Clark: “POTUS is giving you a presidential security clearance.”....>

<....According to a Senate report on election interference, Clark received a classified briefing on the election that same day confirming there was no evidence of any ballot or data tampering.

Perry also conveyed to Clark that Trump was “not thrilled” after the Justice Department moved to block in court an effort to expand Vice President Mike Pence’s power to overturn the election results. As acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Division of the Justice Department, Clark’s name was on the filing, something Clark has pointed to in defending himself against the criminal charges in Georgia. But Clark told Perry that the career attorneys working under him were “rebelling ... because they know time is short and they yearn for Biden.”

Perry also connected Pennsylvania state legislators who supported Trump’s fraud allegations with the former president’s campaign, and ferried wild claims to the White House and the public. He was in touch with Phil Waldron, a retired Army colonel who was key in spreading claims of voting-machine manipulation, and Ronna McDaniel, the head of the Republican National Committee. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, who had called on Trump to declare martial law, set up military tribunals, prevent the electoral college from meeting to confirm Biden’s victory and cancel the inauguration, asked Perry for help getting on Fox News.

“I will re-engage the targets,” Perry replied to McInerney, who had asked for help to get himself or Powell on Tucker Carlson’s show.

According to the court records, Perry was also in contact with other attorneys for the Trump campaign, with whom he shared ideas for challenging the election results.

The full context of the exchange between Clark and Perry in late December remains unclear, as do other exchanges between the lawmaker and people in Trump’s orbit. All are offered in partial form as part of then-Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell’s determination that these communications were political discussions rather than legislative work protected by the speech or debate clause. Her opinion says only that the night before Trump proposed making Clark attorney general, Clark and Perry went on to discuss whether Trump would, in their words, “pull the trigger on something new” and make an “absolute decision.”

When the appellate court ruled that Howell’s decision was too broad, it directed her successor as chief judge, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, to conduct a more detailed review of which records could be shared with prosecutors. That review remains pending.

The appeals court was responding to a request from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The media legal advocacy organization has also asked a federal court in Pennsylvania to unseal the FBI affidavit used to justify seizing Perry’s phone. Legal director Katie Townsend said the group acted “so the public could better understand how the court of appeals resolved the case,” Townsend said. “There’s a lot of public interest in these cases, and rightfully so.”

The court asked both Perry and the Justice Department to file redacted versions of several documents while leaving the full versions under seal. Several other records in the litigation were unsealed Wednesday and remain on the docket.>

<Just put Saffy on ignore. It's always the same song and dance from that corner. Facts matter not to him.

Sorry Stone, couldn't get back to you. CGs said I was posting to [sic] much. You ever have that problem?? No, you don't. CGs doesn't bother to regulate trolls. That way they can harass members non-stop, and then blame the members.

Kiss my hairy ass perfidouche!>

Almost time to delete your catalogue of sins above, then pretend innocence.

<In evaluating his public and private behavior, America’s leading mental health professionals have concluded that Donald Trump is mentally unwell, and likely a sociopath — if not a psychopath. In even more direct terms, Trump has shown himself to apparently have a diseased mind, which in turn amplifies his already corrupt morality and ethics, attraction to violence, and overall capacity for evil. Ultimately, if he were to become president again, such an outcome would be a disaster for both the United States and the world.

In a new essay in the New York Times, Thomas Edsall consulted with mental health professionals from some of America’s most prestigious institutions about this emergency. Their conclusion: Donald Trump’s aberrant behavior is getting worse. Once again, the American people and their leaders have been warned about the growing danger(s) and too few of them are responding with the appropriate energy and seriousness.

Leonard Class, who is an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, told Edsall that:

If Trump — in adopting language that he cannot help knowing replicates that of Hitler (especially the references to opponents as "vermin" and "poisoning the blood of our country"), we have to wonder if he has crossed into "new terrain." That terrain, driven by grandiosity and dread of exposure (e.g., at the trials) could signal the emergence of an even less constrained, more overtly vicious and remorseless Trump who, should he regain the presidency, would, indeed act like the authoritarians he praises. Absent conscientious aides who could contain him (as they barely did last time), this could lead to the literal shedding of American blood on American soil by a man who believes he is "the only one" and the one, some believe, is a purifying agent of God and in whom they see no evil nor do they doubt.

Several mental health experts whom Edsall consulted highlighted the role that Trump’s aging brain and apparent cognitive decline are playing in his pathological behavior:

"Trump is an aging malignant narcissist," Aaron L. Pincus, a professor of psychology at Penn State, wrote in an email. "As he ages, he appears to be losing impulse control and is slipping cognitively. So we are seeing a more unfiltered version of his pathology. Quite dangerous."

In addition, Pincus continued, "Trump seems increasingly paranoid, which can also be a reflection of his aging brain and mental decline."

The result? "Greater hostility and less ability to reflect on the implications and consequences of his behavior."

Edwin B. Fisher, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, made the case in an email that Trump’s insistence on the validity of his own distorted claims has created a vicious circle, pressuring him to limit his close relations to those willing to confirm his beliefs:

His isolation is much of his own making. The enormous pressures he puts on others for confirmation and unquestioning loyalty and his harsh, often vicious responses to perceived disloyalty lead to a strong, accelerating dynamic of more and more pressure for loyalty, harsher and harsher judgment of the disloyal and greater and greater shrinking of pool of supporters.

At the same time, Fisher continued, Trump is showing signs of cognitive deterioration:

the confusion of Sioux Falls and Sioux City, several times referring to having beaten and/or now running against Obama or the odd garbling of words on a number of occasions for it seems like about a year now. Add to these the tremendous pressure and threat he is under, and you have, if you will, a trifecta of danger — lifelong habit, threat and possible cognitive decline. They each exacerbate the other two.

Craig Malkin, who is a lecturer in psychology at Harvard Medical School, emphasized what he believes is Trump’s increasingly psychopathic behavior.

If the evidence emerging proves true — that Trump knew he lost and continued to push the big lie anyway — his character problems go well beyond simple narcissism and reach troubling levels of psychopathy. And psychopaths are far more concerned with their own power than preserving truth, democracy or even lives. [My emphasis added]....>

<.....The conclusions reached by the mental health professionals quoted in Edsall’s essay echo those of their colleagues who I have been in dialogue with here at Salon and elsewhere for (at least) the last seven years.

For example, Dr. Justin Frank, author of "Trump on the Couch," recently warned that Trump has a "a classic God complex driven by a persecutory delusion. His sense of omniscience is compensatory and more disturbing than ever" and "In my opinion, Trump's incessant, word-salad repetition reflects chronic substance abuse or impending dementia, which is consistent with the blank eyes. His blotchy red and puffy face (and constant sniffling) are not new but underscore a clinician's natural suspicion that he is not cognitively healthy. His cartoon character menacing and bellicose posture is second nature to him."

Several weeks ago, psychiatrist Dr. Lance Dodes told me the following about how Trump is behaving in response to his legal peril and trials:

His lengthy history, however, shows the opposite, that he is simply a sociopath, interested only in his personal gains in power and wealth despite the harm to others.

Those who have concluded that he is decompensating are correct, though it would be more precise to say that the decompensation consists of exposing an inability to see reality and violent self-interest that has always been who he is. As many have predicted, as pressure on him continues to rise, his claims of greatness, his inability to accept legal constraints or punishments, and his destructive impulses toward all who have limited him, will increase. Ultimately, he may decompensate to the point of gross paranoid psychosis with even more obvious incitement to riots and civil war rather than accept the reality that he has been finally held accountable.

I have been very vocal in my criticism of the New York Times and other agenda-setting media about their failures to consistently engage in pro-democracy journalism — a type of journalistic practice that requires that the abnormal is not normalized and that the American people are repeatedly warned about Trumpism, neofascism, and the dangers embodied by other types of anti-democratic politics.

Edsall’s new essay, and his writing more generally, is an example of the type of bold public teaching and truth-telling that the New York Times and other elite media should be doing much more of. In fact, the future of American democracy depends on it.

And given how the right-wing disinformation propaganda machine is escalating its war on reality and truth as it shapes and prepares the information space to facilitate Trump’s return to power as America’s first dictator, the New York Times and other such elite media should be even more earnest in such a commitment....>

<.....As William Bunch writes in his new essay at The Philadelphia Inquirer:

In the ever-shrinking world of a free and fair media, the recent weeks have brought an explosion of untruth and a stepped-up war on reality. With democracy increasingly staring into the abyss both at home and abroad, propaganda and censorship are the double-edged sword of rising dictatorship. And now with violent hacking coming from both sides of the blade, it is indeed an increasing struggle to cling to the dream of truth-flavored sanity. This kind of malarkey is what I find so alarming about our increasingly Orwellian present, and even dimmer future. It’s not just that the newest generation of chest-thumping strongmen are harnessing the electrons of the 21st century to hypercharge their modern Ministries of Untruth, but that the guardians of the actual truth — the newsroom grand poobahs, an American president who claims he ran to save democracy — are passively watching it slip from our hands.

Collectively, the small group of mental health professionals who followed through on their "duty to warn" the American people about Trump and his dangerousness were marginalized, harassed (including death threats) and in at least one example suffered sanctions and loss of employment. Their warnings about Trumpism and the ascendant neofascist movement and the type of widespread harm, including violence and mass death (as seen with the Trump regime’s negligent if not outright criminal response to the Covid pandemic) have proven to be prescient. Trump’s plans to become America’s first dictator are creating a cataclysmic synergy between his diseased mind, with its megalomania and God complex, and a fascist political party and movement that is eager to rubbleize democracy with the goal of creating an American apartheid Christofascist plutocracy.

To that point, Trump and his agents have publicly announced their plans to use the United States military to occupy Democratic-led cities and other "blue" parts of the country as part of a plan to impose martial law. Dictator Trump and his enforcers will attempt to legitimate this attack on the American people’s fundamental civil and human rights by claiming that they are actually cracking down on "crime" in the name of "public safety."

None of this is new. As seen in Nazi Germany and elsewhere, history shows that sick leaders attract sick followers who in turn combine to create sick mass movements that oppress (and do worse to) their fellow citizens as they destroy society. Ignoring these lessons and precedents is a choice – one that is usually fatal.>

Hi! Glad you're still, ah, following.....

<House Republicans held a hearing Wednesday throwing cold water on President Joe Biden’s plan to give more workers overtime protections.

Even though the hearing was about employees who work long hours, the GOP chair of the House Committee on Education & the Workforce took a moment to argue that too many Americans don’t want to work at all.

“There’s [sic] just a lot of people in this country that [sic] don’t want to work, period … and want other people to take care of them,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.).

Foxx added: “That’s not what this country is all about. We have great opportunities in this country for people to be successful, if they want to work hard.”

The lawmaker’s statement came in response to testimony from Democratic witness Judy Conti, the director of government affairs for the National Employment Law Project, who’d said that many workers won’t put up with forced overtime these days.

“We see that workers are increasingly willing to — especially younger workers — are willing to leave jobs where they have to do mandatory overtime, especially where it’s uncompensated,” Conti had said.

Biden’s Labor Department has proposed a new rule that would guarantee more workers time-and-a-half pay when they work extra hours. The White House estimates that an additional 3.6 million workers, most of them salaried, would be eligible for overtime pay under the plan.

Many of those workers — for example, retail store managers — now routinely log more than 40 hours a week but receive nothing beyond their base pay. The system encourages employers to heap more work on those managers since they don’t have to be paid for the additional time, unlike hourly employees who are guaranteed overtime pay.

U.S. overtime protections date back to the Great Depression, but over the years fewer and fewer workers have been eligible for them. That’s largely because of the low “salary threshold” — the salary below which workers have a legal right to overtime pay regardless of their job duties.

The current rate is just $35,568 per year, but the administration wants to hike it to $55,068. Raising it would bring millions more workers under the law’s protections.

Republican lawmakers have criticized the plan as a job killer, and their witnesses in Wednesday’s hearing claimed that the regulation would force employers to cut hours and positions.

The Labor Department estimates that the overtime proposal would put $1.3 billion of additional wages in workers’ paychecks.

When the Labor Department announced the proposal, Foxx said it would “stifle workplace flexibility” and “lump burdensome costs on job creators.”

Foxx recently made headlines when she told a reporter to “shut up” after the journalist asked House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) about his role in the effort to overturn the results of 2020′s presidential election.>

<Officials in a rural Arizona county who delayed canvassing the 2022 general election results have been criminally charged, the state's top prosecutor said Wednesday.

A grand jury in Maricopa County Superior Court has indicted Cochise County supervisors Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby on one count each of conspiracy and interference of an election officer.

“The repeated attempts to undermine our democracy are unacceptable,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said in a statement. “I took an oath to uphold the rule of law, and my office will continue to enforce Arizona’s elections laws and support our election officials as they carry out the duties and responsibilities of their offices.”

Dennis Wilenchik, an attorney for Crosby, called the indictment “nothing but political partisanship.” In a statement, he promised a vigorous defense for what he called baseless charges.

“The conspiracy is solely based on an alleged ‘agreement’ to interfere that is nonexistent, as there was none,” said Wilenchik, who also referred to the interference charge as “nonsensical."

Judd did not respond to requests via text and email for comment.

Jane Montgomery, spokesperson for Cochise County, declined to comment. She confirmed both supervisors will be responsible for their own legal representation.

The indictment marks a rare instance of criminally prosecuting people connected to the vote canvassing being dragged out last year in six Arizona counties.

In December 2022, Cochise County certified election results only after a judge ruled Crosby and Judd, both Republicans, were breaking the law by refusing to sign off on the vote count by the deadline.

Crosby and Judd said they weren’t satisfied that the machines used to tabulate ballots were properly certified for use in elections. This prompted lawsuits including one from then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat.

After the judge’s order, Judd joined Ann English, the lone Democrat on the three-member board, in voting to certify the election. Crosby did not attend that meeting.

Judd and Crosby both were subpoenaed to court earlier this month. English was not subpoenaed or indicted.

At the time, Judd and Crosby told The Associated Press they had no idea why they were being subpoenaed. Crosby was shocked.

“I don’t feel like I broke a law. But, obviously the courts had different feelings,” Judd said.

Last year, election results were certified without issue throughout most of the country. But in Arizona, the six counties hesitated to meet the certification deadline amid pressure from some Republicans. Democrats ended up winning U.S. Senate, governor and other statewide races in what has now become a swing state.

Arizona has been a hotbed of election conspiracies since President Joe Biden in 2020 became only the second Democrat in seven decades to win the state. There is concern that partisan election officials could interfere with the orderly counting and certification of votes in next year’s presidential election, which is shaping up to be a rematch of the contentious 2020 contest.>

<President Joe Biden took his economic message to the Colorado congressional district of Rep. Lauren Boebert on Wednesday, highlighting clean-energy manufacturing investments in the hardline Republican's backyard that she voted against.

The visit was part of a White House strategy to contrast Biden's economic vision with that of "MAGA Republicans" − like Boebert − as Americans continue to give his administration poor marks on the economy amid lingering anxiety over inflation.

"She along with every single Republican colleagues voted against the law that made these investments in jobs possible," Biden said in Pueblo, Colo. "That's not hyperbole, it's a fact. And then she voted to repeal key parts of this law."

Biden spoke from a factory operated by CS Wind − the world's largest wind tower manufacturer − that is undertaking a $200 million expansion as a result of incentives from Biden's Inflation Reduction Act that Congress, then controlled by Democrats, approved in 2022. All Republican members of Congress, including Boebert, voted against the legislative package.

CS Wind has already hired more than 500 employees so far since the Pueblo expansion began, with the project expected to create 850 new jobs overall.

"She called this law a 'massive failure.' You all know you're part of a massive failure?" Biden said to workers gathered in the factory. "Tell that to the 850 Coloradoans who get new jobs in Pueblo and see us win thanks to this law. Tell that to a local economy that’s going to benefit from these investments. Tell that to anyone who wants to listen.”

Yet, less than a year before the 2024 presidential election, voters' concerns about Biden's handling of the economy remain one of his biggest vulnerabilities. Biden has touted a manufacturing resurgence under his presidency and embraced the slogan "Bidenomics," but a Gallup poll this week found 59% of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy.

More Americans trust former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican primary front-runner, than Biden to improve the economy by a 47%-36% margin, according to a USA TODAY poll in September.

Boebert, in a statement on X, formerly known as Twitter, said, "Joe Biden is taking a break from his lavish vacations to come to Pueblo to talk about what he calls 'clean energy.'"

"He should be coming here to apologize for his all out war on fossil fuels and his Green New Deal agenda which have cost the great people of Colorado’s 3rd District dearly," she said.

Boebert, who won her 2022 reelection by less than 1 percentage point, faces another tough election in 2024. Democratic challenger Adam Frisch, who fell just short in his bid last year, is seeking the Democratic nomination again for a rematch.

Americans' economic concerns have not eased despite strong metrics. The U.S. economy grew at a stronger pace in the third quarter than expected, according to new data released Wednesday by the Commerce Department that showed the gross domestic product increased by 5.2%, better than the 5% projection.

"That's more growth than accrued under my predecessor than in any quarter outside the pandemic," Biden said.

Nationwide, the Inflation Reduction Act has led to $310 billion in new clean-energy investments since its passage, creating 210,000 new jobs across 44 states, according to an analysis from Climate Power, which advocates for clean energy.

Biden pointed to a new Treasury Department report released Wednesday that found 81% of clean-energy funds from the Inflation Reduction Act have gone to projects in counties where the median income is below the national average.

"When I took office, I vowed to be president for all Americans," Biden said. "And we're delivering on that promise."

Companies have announced $7 billion in new manufacturing and clean-energy projects in Colorado during Biden's presidency, according to the White House, that are expected to account for 3,500 new jobs. That includes a $400 million project by Primergy Solar to build a 1,900-acre solar field in Pueblo that could power up to 56,000 homes and create 250 jobs.

Biden noted that Boebert also voted against the infrastructure law he pushed, which is delivering $17 million for street projects in Pueblo and $13.2 million to revitalize Main Street in Delta, Colo.

"Folks, none of that sounds like a massive failure to me. How about you?" Biden said, directing his comments to the factory workers. "You're changing America. But it all sounds like a massive failure in thinking for the congresswoman and her colleagues.">

<In a profanity-laced outburst, Elon Musk has slammed advertisers that have left X, warning they will kill the social media platform.

At an event in New York, he accused companies that have joined an ad boycott of the site formerly known as Twitter of trying to blackmail him.

"Go [expletive] yourself," the billionaire said in an interview.

Some firms have paused advertising on X amid concerns over antisemitism, including a post from Mr Musk himself.

The Tesla and SpaceX boss apologised on Wednesday for that post, saying it might be the "dumbest" thing he has ever shared online.

But it was his response to a question about an advertising boycott by companies including Disney, Apple and Comcast that caused a stir at the gathering of leaders from the worlds of business, politics and culture.

"I don't want them to advertise," Mr Musk said at the New York Times' DealBook Summit.

"If someone is going to blackmail me with advertising or money go [expletive] yourself.

"Go. [Expletive]. Yourself. Is that clear? Hey Bob, if you're in the audience, that's how I feel."

He was apparently referring to Disney chief executive Bob Iger, who spoke at the summit earlier in the day.

In the room with Mr Musk was Linda Yaccarino, X's chief executive, who has been charged with trying to bring back advertisers to the platform.

Mr Musk also said that advertisers could kill X.

"What this advertising boycott is going to do is it's going to kill the company," he said.

"The whole world will know those advertisers killed the company, and we will document it in great detail," he added.

Ms Yaccarino has since reposted what she called his "candid interview", adding her perspective on advertising that "X is standing at a unique and amazing intersection of Free Speech and Main Street — and the X community is powerful and is here to welcome you".

Mr Musk has been on a visit to Israel after he last month appeared to personally back an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

"I'm sorry for that tweet... it might be literally the worst and dumbest post that I've ever done," he said on Wednesday.

The boycott isn't just to do with that post, though.

Many advertisers had already decided to spend their dollars elsewhere.

In an interview with the BBC in April, Mr Musk said "almost all of them [advertisers] have either come back or they're going to come back".

Three months later he acknowledged in a post on X that ad revenue had fallen by 50%.

That was before a report by liberal pressure group Media Matters, which claimed to have found evidence that some adverts had been placed next to Nazi content.

X sues pressure group over antisemitism claims

X says the group's report had "misrepresented the real user experience of X" in order to "undermine freedom of speech and mislead advertisers". X has filed a lawsuit against Media Matters.

It's hard to see how Mr Musk's comments will bring advertisers running back. The company is heavily reliant on their money.

It is unclear how much of X's revenue currently comes from ads, because it's now a private company and no longer publishes quarterly reports.

But before Mr Musk took over the firm, advertising made up about 90% of Twitter revenue.>

<If a decision handed down by a conservative federal appeals court last week is allowed to stand, it will gut what remains of one of the most important federal laws enacted in my lifetime, the Voting Rights Act.

An 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel held that no one other than the federal government can sue to enforce a key section of this vital statute. And as the dissenting judge pointed out, only 15 of the 182 successful suits under the section over the last 40 years were brought solely by the Department of Justice.

The Voting Rights Act has been remarkably effective in countering the myriad laws and practices the Southern states adopted to keep Black people from voting since the end of Reconstruction. Turnout among Black voters in Mississippi increased from 6% in 1964, the year before the law was enacted, to 59% in 1969.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits state and local election practices and systems from discriminating against voters of color. Congress strengthened the provision in 1982 so that proof of intentional discrimination would no longer be necessary; it’s sufficient to show discriminatory impact.

Even under the conservative Roberts court, Section 2 has provided crucial protection against race discrimination in voting. This year, for example, in Allen vs. Milligan, the court found that Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act in drawing congressional districts.

Alabama’s population is 27% Black, but the state’s Legislature had drawn the congressional districts so that only one of six had a Black majority. The court’s ruling that the districts violated Section 2 led to a new map with two majority-Black districts.

Under the 8th Circuit’s 2-1 ruling, however, private individuals and groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund could not sue to enforce Section 2. Hundreds of such suits have been brought, and many have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court — among them Allen vs. Milligan — without being questioned on these grounds.

This latest threat to the Voting Rights Act comes a decade after the Supreme Court overruled another key aspect of the law, Section 5. Under that section, jurisdictions with a history of race discrimination in voting had to secure the U.S. attorney general’s approval before making significant changes to their election systems.

The court declared this “preclearance” requirement unconstitutional in 2013, ruling 5 to 4 that it violated the principle of “equal state sovereignty” to single out Southern states for the restriction. States such as North Carolina and Texas responded by quickly instituting discriminatory election practices that were previously blocked.

The latest case arose in 2021, when the Arkansas NAACP and others challenged new state House districts. The plaintiffs alleged that the Arkansas map diluted Black voting strength in violation of Section 2 and that five additional majority-Black districts should be drawn to fairly represent the state’s Black population.

The majority opinion by 8th Circuit Court Judge David Stras, a Trump appointee, concludes that only the United States government can bring such suits, contradicting 58 years of practice since the Voting Rights Act became law. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Stras clerked for, raised this possibility in his Milligan dissent, but the prospect of such a radical change in the law wasn’t taken seriously by many. In fact, none of the parties in the Arkansas litigation even raised the issue: The U.S. District Court where the case was first heard improperly raised the issue on its own.

At best, the Justice Department has the resources to bring only a handful of Section 2 lawsuits a year. At worst, especially under a conservative administration, it may bring none.

In his dissent from the appeals court’s decision, Chief Judge Lavenski Smith rightly described the ruling as threatening major upheaval. “Rights so foundational to self-government and citizenship,” he wrote, “should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of the government’s agents for protection.”

As Smith noted, the Supreme Court declared more than two centuries ago, in Marbury vs. Madison, that where there is a violation of a right, there must be a remedy. If the Supreme Court doesn’t reverse the 8th Circuit’s decision, it will leave little remedy for violations of one of our most important rights.>

<Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is warning that the Department of Justice's investigation into the Capitol riot is a "war on Trump" and all of his supporters.

Former President Donald Trump was indicted by the DOJ in August on four counts, including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and accused prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes.

On January 6, 2021, Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., where Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 election. The riot followed unsubstantiated claims made by the former president that the election was stolen from him via widespread voter fraud.

More than 1,200 people have been charged in connection to the riot, including more than 400 accused of assaulting or impeding law enforcement, which is a felony.

Greene, a vocal Trump ally who has denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election and visited January 6 defendants in jail, claimed that the DOJ is out to get Trump and his supporters in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday.

"It truly is a war on Trump, and also anyone who supports Trump," the Georgia Republican posted. "Republicans must recognize the extreme nature of the politically weaponized DOJ and do everything we can to stop it!"

Greene attached a screenshot from an electronic search warrant issued by United States Chief Judge Beryl Howell on January 17, 2023, with the intent of looking through information associated with Trump's now-defunct Twitter account.

The screenshot focused on a part of the search warrant that requested information from "all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted tweets" from Trump's account, "as well as all tweets that include the username associated with the account (i.e., 'mentions' or 'replies')."

Newsweek reached out to Greene and Trump's team via email for comment.

Trump's Twitter account, which had over 88 million followers, was permanently suspended two days after the Capitol riot "due to the risk of further incitement of violence." Twitter said that Trump's posts in the wake of the insurrection, including one in which he called his supporters "patriots" and one in which he said he would not attend the presidential inauguration on January 20, 2021, violated the company's rules against glorifying violence.

Some people on social media supported Greene's post and backed Trump.

X user Jay Pennview wrote: "Unacceptable! Something MUST be done."

Another X user, @RoiResell, wrote: "Trump has always been under attack, most of it unjustified."

Others pointed a finger at the former president.

"Trump is a criminal," X user Steven Johnson wrote.

"Trumps criminal actions brought this on. It starts and stops there," @Mike12108735 posted.>

<Marjorie Taylor Greene has triggered a backlash after posting Russian propaganda about the war in Ukraine.

Posting on X, formerly Twitter, the Georgia representative, who has consistently been critical of aid to Ukraine since the war began in February 2022, posted an article originally published by The Islander, a self-professed geopolitical analysis site, and reposted by the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) and wrote: "Anyone who votes to fund Ukraine is funding the most corrupt money scheme of any foreign war in our country's history.

"And forcing the American people to pay for it."

The article claimed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's closest associates bought two yachts worth a combined total of $75 million in October and speculated they may have used Western aid to do so.

But a community note added by other X users said: "Rep. Greene is reposting content from the Strategic Culture Foundation, a Russian state propaganda outlet sanctioned for spreading disinformation and interfering in U.S. elections," alongside links to information about the foundation.

X users can leave context notes on any post and if enough contributors from different points of view rate that note as helpful, it is publicly shown on a post.

Meanwhile, commenting on her post X users further disagreed with her. One said: "The majority of Americans don't want to pay your salary, yet here we are."

Another wrote: "Why is anyone taking this woman seriously? Can't you see the whole Trump squad does nothing but this?"

And a third said: "Burn! You got fact checked. Of course you would source it from a Russian foreign ministry that spreads misinformation."

Newsweek contacted representatives for Greene by email to comment on this story.

The SCF is a Russian think tank and publication. In 2020, The Washington Post reported it had spread false information that Bill Gates was making a coronavirus vaccine with surveillance capabilities.

In April 2021, the Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the SCF over alleged interference in the 2020 presidential elections.

In a statement, it said the SCF "created false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning U.S. officials involved in the 2020 U.S. presidential election."

It added: "It publishes conspiracy theorists, giving them a broader platform to spread disinformation, while trying to obscure the Russian origins of the journal so that readers may be more likely to trust the sourcing."

In March 2022, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 26 individuals and seven entities, some of whom were employees of the SCF, for spreading disinformation ahead of the war in Ukraine. Seven individuals connected to the foundation also face sanctions from the United Kingdom.

Greene has previously criticized funding for the war in Ukraine, posting earlier this month about "the Ukraine scam."

In a Facebook video in March 2022, one month after Russia's invasion, she said that providing funding will extend the conflict and result in more deaths.

"It's not our responsibility to give Zelensky and the Ukrainian people false hope about a war they cannot win," she said.

Last month, President Joe Biden submitted a request to Congress for $106 billion that would go toward military and humanitarian aid for Israel and Ukraine, as well as humanitarian assistance to Gaza. That request earmarked $61.4 billion for Ukraine but the House of Representatives only approved the aid for Israel.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told a news conference before the November congressional recess, "Ukraine will come in short order. It will come next."

Earlier this month the Department of Defense announced a new $100-million package of support including "additional air defense capabilities, artillery ammunition, anti-tank weapons, and other equipment to help Ukraine defend its sovereign territory and fight for its freedom from Russia's ongoing war of aggression."

Meanwhile, American public's support for aid to Ukraine has been declining. According to a Gallup poll released earlier this month, 61 percent of U.S. adults said there "should be a time limit" on American aid, compared to 37 percent who said the U.S. should continue its support "as long as Ukraine requests it.">

She is naught but evil.

<<Amateur Poster gambler perv> is angry - so what else is new?

I never get angry. Giving in to your emotions is for females and weak, unmanly beta males. <perv> is always so furious he can't think straight - it makes me giggle every time I read his rants!

That's why he gets in trouble with the admins. He loses his temper and uses naughty words - and right now he thinks he's being clever. He thinks we're all a bunch of dummies who can't see through what he's doing with my handle. Like it's not obvious, and the admins aren't going to notice and give him another vacation!

<Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) argued with a Social Security official over claims of backlogs in a Wednesday hearing about post-pandemic teleworking policies.

Boebert asked Oren “Hank” McKnelly, an executive counselor for the Social Security Administration, if the administration monitored its employees’ output and hours if workers are logging on from home.

McKnelly assured Boebert social security employees are “subjected to the same performance management processes” whether they are teleworking or working from the office.

“We have systems in place that our managers use to schedule, assign and track workloads,” McKnelly said, adding that if employees work virtually, they must be responsive to various forms of communication.

Boebert continued, asking the official why the backlog of social security applicants has increased from 41,000 to 107,000.

“We’ve been historically underfunded for a number of years now,” McKnelly fired back, to which the congresswoman disagreed.

McKnelly said in the past 10 years, the administration has seen an increase of more than 8 million beneficiaries and experienced the lowest staffing levels ever at the end of fiscal 2022.

“That’s a math problem,” he said. “If you have those workloads increasing and you don’t have the staff to take care of those workloads, you’re going to have the backlogs that you’re talking about, representative.”

It takes 220 days for social security claims to be decided, on average, which is 100 days longer than it did in 2019, said Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.), the chair of the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, in a hearing in October.>

<The conservative-minded Editorial Board at the Wall Street Journal has clarified that they are not fans of Donald Trump. They are also likely delighted that the former president keeps giving them opportunities to explicitly point out why they feel Trump is incompetent or not an ideal candidate to return to the White House.

In a column titled “Biden, Trump and Obamacare,” published Thursday morning, the WSJ opinion editors discuss the issue of ObamaCare Trump brought up recently; the subtitle reads, “Democrats distort the issue, but the GOP offers no alternative.”

It’s a thoughtful piece that adequately covers the limitations of the Affordable Care Act in a way that praises its good parts (namely the extended coverage to millions )and flaws (increased costs and profits to private insurance providers.) It’s a stunning evolution from the Tea Party rally cries of 2010 that repeatedly insisted that Obamacare would immediately lead to an economic depression not seen since the 1930s, which has proven to be way off the mark.

But the most interesting target is Trump, who on Wednesday re-upped his old harangue against Obamacare, which he long has promised to replace with something “much better” but failed to do anything about in his four years in office. On Wednesday morning, Trump went over some familiar territory when he again slammed Obamacare and promised a better health care plan. Trump wrote:

Getting much better Healthcare than Obamacare for the American people will be a priority of the Trump Administration. It is not a matter of cost, it is a matter of HEALTH. America will have one of the best Healthcare Plans anywhere in the world. Right now it has one of the WORST!

I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!

So Trump curiously raised this issue, which does not paint his ability to keep promises or accomplish what he intended in a favorable light. Which the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board was eager to point out.

Recall that Republicans failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare in 2017 despite controlling both houses of Congress. John McCain’s opposition ultimately killed the GOP’s last reform bill, but Mr. Trump’s unwillingness to understand the policy arguments was the bigger problem. His inability to marshal a case to rally public opinion contributed to its failure and the GOP’s losses in the midterms.

Democrats are again making false claims about ObamaCare that Mr. Trump and Republicans seem incapable of refuting. Mr. Trump later attempted to clarify that he merely wants to “replace” ObamaCare with “MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE,” though he again missed the mark by suggesting that other countries’ socialized health systems are superior to America’s private care.

Trump’s “unwillingness to understand the policy arguments was the bigger problem” than McCain’s famous thumbs down vote that killed congressional action to repeal Obamacare, says the conservative opinion outlet. They double down by calling out “Trump’s inability to marshal a case to rally public opinion,” which is also an issue.

The piece included the benefits and costs of the ACA:

The reality is that ObamaCare has increased healthcare costs while producing few tangible benefits for patients. As we recently pointed out, the law’s de facto profit cap has driven industry consolidation, resulting in higher costs for patients and taxpayers. Insurers have pocketed subsidies while increasing premiums and deductibles.

The share of Americans with insurance increased by about five percentage-points in the six years after the law’s Medicaid expansion and health exchanges took effect. This resulted in about 17 million Americans gaining health coverage. But most newly insured are young, healthy adults on Medicaid. They could have afforded “skinny” plans more appropriate for their age and health risks, but the Biden Administration is restricting those plans.

And there we have it. Trump’s re-upping his old Obamacare sucks! campaign chestnut from yesterdecade ended up soliciting ridicule from a once supportive media ally.>

<Former President Donald Trump, despite his competitive performance in general election polls right now, doesn't have a serious path back to the Oval Office, argued columnist Brian Karem for Salon — in fact, he said, Trump is secretly "afraid" of rematching President Joe Biden.

One reason for that is that he has simply made too many enemies to get the level of support necessary, he said.

"There are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who want to make sure Trump never comes back to power," wrote Karem.

"It isn’t, as Trump claims, because he’s been 'hounded by political wolves.' It is merely that Trump is a truly loathsome human being. He has no class, no tolerance, nothing of joy is derived by him unless it is at the expense of others. Those who’ve had the misfortune of being associated with him in anything from friendship to kinship end up grease for the engine, grist for the mill, and are run over by the Trump bus."

The former president has a number of other obstacles facing his re-election as well, including four criminal indictments in various legal jurisdictions, at least some of which could lead to a conviction before the GOP even hosts its convention next year.

To be clear, Karem has some reservations about President Joe Biden running again as well, and where his presidency even goes from here: "The question is, can Biden energize the rest of the country out of their stupor and vote next year?" he wrote. "I understand Biden’s belief that he should run again, but I’m really concerned about the future of both parties. What in the Hell happens even two years from now? Who is the future for the Democrats and Republicans?"

But ultimately, he wrote, none of the other people trying to run, in either party or out of them, has a shot at beating Trump. "Biden has the edge, not only because he’s more healthy, but also because he’s not mentally compromised like Donald Trump. Each week Trump exposes his lunacy even more because his many criminal charges are scaring him straight into oblivion," he wrote. And although the situation could change, for the time being "I believe Trump is destined to fail ... [and] right now, the only declared candidate who can do the job is Joe Biden.">