Page 4 of 92

There you go again

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…we believed that after repeated clear demonstrations of the knowing falsity and deliberate deceptive intent of a politician’s claims, most Americans would grow tired of that politician’s attempts to mislead – and the implicit lack of respect for the voters that those attempts show – and they would turn their backs on the liar.  It was a more innocent time, one in which we never imagined that the lie was what so many Americans really wanted to believe.

Today, the official presidential firehose of lies was re-opened.  And the lies came so quickly, one false statement after another serving as bogus premises upon which to build an even bigger lie.  A performance by surely the most treacherous, perfidious president in American history, living down to a standard he himself established and which no one (I hope!) will ever challenge.

Our friends at PolitiFact live fact-checked the inaugural address, and found among other things:

–Trump made the case for his plan to enact tariffs: “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.”

Our reporting has found that most economists disagree tariffs will “enrich” Americans, and real-world examples of tariffs working that way are rare. Consumers in the tariff-levying country are on the losing end of the deals through higher prices, they said.

–Trump criticized the Biden administration’s response to natural disasters, including Hurricane Helene in North Carolina in 2024 and the Los Angeles fires that started this month.

“Our country can no longer deliver basic services in times of emergency, as recently shown by the wonderful people of North Carolina,” referring to Hurricane Helene, Trump said. Trump added, “or more recently, Los Angeles, where we are watching fires still tragically burn from weeks ago without even a token of defense.”

The Biden administration provided federal funding for both disasters.

–Trump repeated the campaign claim that people “from prisons and mental institutions … illegally entered our country from all over the world.”

Pants on Fire. There is no evidence that countries are emptying their prisons, or that mental institutions are sending people to illegally migrate to the U.S.

–Trump, who repeated his goal of taking back control of the Panama Canal, misled about the canal’s operations.

“And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal,” Trump said.

That’s false.

The Republic of Panama has owned and administered the Panama Canal since Dec. 31, 1999, when Panama took over full operation.

Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous government entity, governed by an 11-member board of directors manages the waterway.

China does have influence in the canal.Three defense experts who carried out fieldwork in Panama — Carla Martinez Machain of the University at Buffalo, Michael A. Allen of Boise State University and Michael E. Flynn of Kansas State University — wrote in a Jan. 13 article that Trump’s Dec. 25 claim that Chinese soldiers are operating the canal was false. However, the experts wrote that Chinese companies do have a stake in the waterway.

Check out the site for more, including something I just discovered: the MAGA-Meter, where they plan to concentrate research on the new Administration’s progress in keeping campaign promises.  PolitiFact, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker and CNN’s Daniel Dale have led the charge to hold Trump to account; I applaud their work, and refer to them regularly.

But even their effort to relentlessly chronicle what is and is not true wasn’t enough to get the scales to fall from the eyes of enough Americans to prevent this new assault on truth.  OK, America, don’t say you weren’t warned.  We are about to get what we asked for.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And as my gift, this free link to the Washington Post’s fact check on the second Trump inaugural.  (Hint, it finds even more of what you’d expect!)

In the matter of the new-but-same-old president, I have a few thoughts; let the sharing begin

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Presidential inaugurations are historic moments. I watch them all, even when it is a president I didn’t vote for, and I’ll watch this one, too. Here are a few things I’ll be thinking about.

The man who will take the oath of office as president of the United States this Monday has the support of only one-third of Americans who were eligible to vote in the last election.  The other two-thirds either voted for someone else (most of them for Kamala Harris) or didn’t vote at all.  According to data gathered by the University of Florida Election Lab, and neatly organized for even easier reading here on Wikipedia, the 156.3 million Americans who voted in November are less than 64% of all those Americans who were eligible to vote in that election.  The majority of citizens who did cast ballots, 77.3 million, voted for Donald Trump; that number of people is only 31.59% of the Americans who were eligible to vote in that election.  To Trump’s credit, there have been only three winners of presidential elections since 1980 (the period covered by this research) who got a higher percentage of votes from among all those eligible: Joe Biden in 2020 (33.78%, from 81.2 million voters), Barack Obama in 2008 (32.58%, 69.4 million votes) and Ronald Reagan in 1984 (32.47%, 54.4 million voters).

The hardest truth, I think, is this: 88.3 million Americans who were eligible to vote…didn’t.  Put another way, of those who had the right and privilege to participate in their own governance, 36% did not…either could not vote for some reason, or could not be bothered to.  That’s more than who voted for Trump, more than who voted for Harris.  Even though that is still the second-best participation rate in the period studied, trailing only the 2020 election.

Some of the youngest folks who voted this past November would have been as young as 10 when Trump was elected the first time, so they wouldn’t have been paying attention to the 2016 campaign or maybe remember some of those highlights. I found this handy reminder list on Twitter, and share it here as a public service.

Although the announcement came from TFG (now meaning “the felon guy” rather than “the former guy”), I do not believe for one instant that the man who eight years ago lied about the crowd size at his first inauguration to protect his fragile ego is the same guy who now made the very sensible decision to bring this year’s ceremony indoors to protect people from the cold.  In fact it is the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies which plans and executes these events, and I can completely see it not taking public credit for this choice so as not to be seen as bigfooting an incoming president, especially this one.  I’m not buying that the guy who four years ago encouraged Americans to risk their safety to commit violence at the Capitol as part of his attempt to overturn an election is the same guy who is looking out for others when he says “I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th”.  Also, I think it should be “it will be dangerous conditions” rather than it is.  And also just by the way, who taught this nitwit the rules of capitalization?

— George Conway (@gtconway.bsky.social) 2025-01-17T18:54:25.940Z

It was disheartening to see the tenuous relationship with the concept of “truth” exhibited by some of the Trump Cabinet nominees during confirmation hearings.  To be fair, Republicans and Democrats are just as adept as MAGA persons are when it comes to the kabuki dance of non-answer answers to pointed questions, finding it a preferred alternative to perjury.  I accept the validity of politely refusing to provide a speculative answer to a hypothetical, or for judicial nominees to refuse to express an opinion about a case that might come before them some day.  But to say, for example, that some of Pam Bondi’s responses strained credulity is to really streeeetch the definition of “strained.”  Am I really expected to believe that Bondi did not/does not know certain facts of life, as reported by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate:

  • Did she hear Donald Trump’s telephone call to Georgia’s secretary of state asking him to find more votes? No, she never listened to it.
  • Did she hear Trump’s comments about prosecuting Liz Cheney? She never heard that.
  • Does she know about Trump’s pledge to prosecute Jack Smith? She does not.
  • His threat to go after Merrick Garland? No idea.
  • What does she think of Kash Patel’s much-vaunted enemies list? Oh. Did he say that on TV?
  • Patel’s threats to shutter the FBI? She doesn’t know.
  • Pardons for those convicted for the Jan. 6 insurrection? She dare not judge a matter that may come before her.
  • And did Trump lose the 2020 election? Biden is the president.
  • No really, did Trump win the 2020 election? She saw some STUFF on the ground in Pennsylvania.You have NO idea.
  • What does she know beyond a shadow of a doubt? There was a “peaceful transition” after the 2020 election.

Or her flat-out refusal to acknowledge that a part of the law is in fact a part of the law:

Padilla: Will you defend birthright citizenship as the law of the land?Bondi: I will study birthright citizenshipPadilla: You're asking to be considered for Attorney General and you still need to study the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

— FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) 2025-01-15T18:29:45.201Z

I really wish that in cases like this senators would at least stand up for themselves and the prerogatives of the Senate even if they won’t call bullshit on behalf of their constituents or their country. Some day, when a nominee refuses to answer a direct question in these ways, I would love the senator to respond by saying “Thank you. The lack of candor displayed by your refusal to respond to my question, and your refusal to participate in this Constitutionally-mandated procedure in good faith, means I will not vote to confirm your nomination and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you for coming.”

TikTok

— Nick Anderson – political cartoonist (@andertoon.bsky.social) 2025-01-17T22:16:24.157Z

The truth shall set you free – Episode 2

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Maybe this really isn’t very complicated at all.  Maybe, a growing number of Americans don’t trust the mainstream news media because they don’t like what they see and hear and read, and they don’t understand what journalism is supposed to do.  I first encountered this phenomenon as a journalist way back at the beginning, by which I mean about 1980.

As a kid I somehow understood that the “news” I read in the newspaper and heard and saw on radio and television was intended to inform and educate me about what was happening in the world, not to promote any certain politicians or favored views of the world.  And that’s not to say that news didn’t (or doesn’t) cast some politicians and views of the world favorably, if you consider the ones who were not in the news in the first place for accusations of law-breaking and dirty dealing.  Watergate happened when I was in high school – both the crimes and the reporting that uncovered the crimes – and Woodward-and-Bernstein were making “investigative journalist” a career goal for more and more college students, although that’s not specifically what attracted me…I was looking for an alternative after I decided, as someone who really didn’t enjoy college, that it would take too long to go to law school.  Later I realized I made a mistake turning my nose up at “college” the way I did.  Later I also came to realize that all good journalism involves “investigating” and the term of art was more a promotional pitch than an accurate description of a exclusive branch of the practice.

After having worked for a year on the college newspaper as a reporter and editor (followed by life-affirming experiences as a lunch-rush sandwich maker in a fast food restaurant and then overnight cashier in a self-serve gas station), I got a part-time job in the news department at a local country music radio station.  They needed someone else to cover school board meetings since their reporter was the daughter of the school board president, and someone to write and anchor short on-the-hour newscasts on weekend afternoons and evenings.   That’s what had me on the air reading the first UPI bulletin about the assault on Congressman Leo Ryan and his traveling party at Port Kaituma in Guyana before the news the next day of the massacre at Jonestown.  Before long I was covering city hall and a municipal election while still a student, then going full-time after graduation.  Nine months later I took a job at another station in town (for more money) as a reporter and anchor, lucky to have a terrific friend and mentor there (Olin Murrell, the late musician you may have heard of) who kept my focus on a clear and fair presentation of the stories that made up the daily news.

Olin also hosted the live evening call-in talk show on that station, and late in 1980 he gave me a chance to try it out: be the ringmaster who conducted interviews and managed an open discussion of any topic, able to articulate my opinion and be devil’s advocate with callers as they expressed their opinions, so as to generate a discussion and hold the attention of an audience.  A few years ago I characterized my outlook at that time as “left of center but not crazy; I had more than one caller who complimented me for being funny and so reasonable…for a liberal.”

It was those conversations with a caller named Irene that were the first direct exposure I can remember to the accusation that the news media is liberal and biased against conservatives.  It seemed to be drawn from a false belief that no person who believed in the Conservative cause and ideals – think Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority – would ever express an opinion contrary to that company line.  It was as if, first, they did not believe that any reporter was capable of quarantining the influence of their personal beliefs when reporting the facts of a story, and second, that any facts reported that did not gild Reagan’s lily must be wrong or have been intentionally distorted to make him look bad.  And this was long before the rise of “alternative facts” or “fake news” and today’s growing mainstream distrust of mainstream reporting.  Where does that come from?

In a thoughtful piece in Slate this month, Ben Mathis-Lilley lays out the case that an economic impact on legacy media from online sources that do not prioritize fair and responsible reporting has made it “increasingly difficult to sustain a media outlet whose business mostly involves the costly process of nonpartisan fact-gathering and reporting.”

That’s especially true at the local level, where newspapers often simply don’t exist anymore—but it’s also true nationally, where the country is headed in the direction of having one reportorial omnipublication (the New York Times) and a few others that are mostly for people who work in business. Concurrently, the right wing has developed its own media apparatus, while social media and streaming platforms now allow public personalities to build their own audiences directly.

Where that mostly leaves the participants in media (defined broadly) is trying to hustle up a career by selling a strong perspective on the world—by having a dramatic and emotionally satisfying explanation for everything that’s happening everywhere. Its marker of success is being able to headline your own podcast or subscription-driven Substack newsletter, and it runs on opinion “takes,” which cost relatively little to produce, but have to compete for space and eyeballs on Google results, X and Bluesky, and Apple News. And in many cases, the more a take reinforces readers’ existing beliefs, the better it does. It’s a truism and a Paul Simon lyric for a reason: All else being equal, people prefer to hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest.

So, if even the media outlets which are not ideologically bent one way or another are pushed to publish quick, emotional opinions about the news – rather than to report and present “the news” itself – in order to remain profitable and stay in business, it shouldn’t be surprising that more and more Americans have come to believe, through their own experience, that there is a lot of opinion included in mainstream “news.”

What this often (though not always!) rewards is pandering to simple, polemical worldviews—Everyone else is stupid, they’re all lying to you, this or that particular group is responsible for everything in the news that is upsetting—rather than uncertainty or curiosity. It’s a good time to be a person who says everything is bullshit. (Which, to be clear, is a take I usually agree with. There’s lots of bullshit out there!) At the same time, groups that feel like they’re under attack will look for their own messengers to deliver polemical responses which reject every criticism and assign blame somewhere else; this is what “stanning” is. (Crucially, the political center is just as subject to these incentives as everyone else; there are centrism stans, too, who find “illiberalism” at the scene of every crime.) It is a polarization-optimized discourse. And everything it touches gets a little dumber and more difficult to trust.

For a detailed explanation of how the rise of online “news” has threatened the existence of mainstream reporting, check out Phillip Longman’s “How Fighting Monopoly Can Save Journalism” in the first quarter’s Washington Monthly.  It has a thorough background of how digital players have stripped mainstream journalism of its income and contributed to the growth of opinion journalism; I found it very educational with both scary and hopeful aspects:

[With politicians of both parties] repealing or failing to enforce basic market rules that had long contained concentrated corporate power, policy makers enabled the emergence of a new kind of monopoly that engages in a broad range of deeply anticompetitive business practices. These include, most significantly, the cornering of advertising markets, which historically provided the primary means of financing journalism. This is the colossal policy failure that has effectively destroyed the economic foundations of a free press.

An extension of the attitude I first heard from Irene some 45 years ago is evident in our next president, who has a long record of attacking as corrupt and/or unfair any source of information that does not praise him.  That combative attitude is present in Republicans at lower levels of government, too, many of whom (I’m talking about you, Ken Paxton) have taken to refusing to even engage with the “hostile media”…and then pander to their supporters by later attacking those outlets over stories in which they didn’t get a chance to defend themselves!

I think most people want a reliable source for news that is not biased for or against certain politicians or any particular view of how the world should be.  Like the folks in a rural southeastern Colorado county who volunteered to pay more to keep their weekly newspaper from shutting down, from losing their only source of what was happening where they live.  If journalism can find a way to better provide that, affordably, we can still have the educated populace that is critical to our survival as a free people…as Ronald Reagan himself said it, in 1981: “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, as Jefferson cautioned, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

Nothing but Bluesky from now on

Pat Ryan 1 Comment

So it’s late at night and I’m at the desktop computer bopping around the interwebs looking for entertaining but brief stories…nothing too dense, you know, I really ought to just go on to bed.  I was checking out Slate and hit this headline: “Sick of X and Elon Musk? This App Might Be for You.”  Since I am that, I read on and learned that there is a thing called Bluesky, which is currently making news for its growing popularity as an alternative to Twitter.  (I still call it Twitter, can’t help it.)

What, then, is Bluesky? Until this week, one could think of it as a small, clean lifeboat, sitting off to the side of a sinking cruise ship where most of the passengers also have norovirus.

For more than a year, Bluesky has been the boat for left-leaning Twitter refugees who were so fed up with Musk that they beat the masses in deciding not to stick around on his platform. That could have some echo-chamber effects, not that such an outcome was any worse than being surrounded by the most obnoxious people on the internet over on X. (For example, a critical mass of Bluesky users were a good ways behind the rest of the internet last summer in recognizing that Joe Biden had no chance of political survival after his last debate performance.) X has remained where most of the action happens, because it is where politicians, companies, the biggest media outlets, and their reporters still live. The discourse has steadily degraded there, but the power users have not fled en masse.

But while X has spiraled deeper into a racist fever dream and Threads has kept building its sunshine-pumping text app for influencers, Bluesky has been building.

So OK, I signed up to check it out, the same way I did with Twitter in 2008, when I initially resisted because I bought the criticism that Twitter was just a bunch of people telling other peoplebafkreickppry5djbfnkxqijqap3bvglmguqdkgicr3rdzcdciritdbqzxu what they had for lunch today.  You’d have thought I’d just fallen into The Time Tunnel: it all looked and felt like Twitter did back in the early days, but without the overtly annoying stuff including the incessant interruptions from Musk with some new misleading or downright false information.  The Washington Post says Bluesky is where liberals who are fleeing Twitter are going:

With Musk taking on a central advisory role to Trump’s administration after leveraging X and his personal fortune to boost Trump’s campaign, U.S. liberals and others disenchanted with the site are once again scurrying to friendlier pastures. This time, though, the primary beneficiary may not be Meta’s Threads, which is controlled by Musk’s fellow billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and has acquired 275 million users in just over a year, many of them X refugees.

Instead, the upstart social network Bluesky is surging. It has more than doubled in size in the past three months. And in the eight days since the election, it has added more than 1.25 million users, bringing its total to more than 15 million as it topped Apple’s App Store rankings on Wednesday. Of those, some 8.5 million have logged in within the past month, spokesperson Emily Liu said Wednesday.

That’s nowhere near the number of users on Twitter or Threads, not even close.  But I found that a lot of the people who I enjoyed following on Twitter are already on Bluesky, and a visit there doesn’t have the feel of the slog I get whenever I check out Twitter.  Which, I will say, has become less frequent in the last few months since I realized I shouldn’t subject myself to getting bogged down in the negativity I kept finding.  Alex Kirshner on Slate characterizes the vibe this way:

Bluesky does not trap users in nonchronological feeds. It gives people only what they ask for, and it does so in real time. It turns out that when a lot of people join the fray, that creates a feeling of controlled but wholesome chaos that resembles what Twitter felt like to some of its earlier addicts around, say, 2014 or 2015. I have been on Bluesky for more than a year but cannot claim to have dived into it in earnest until this past weekend, when I found its college football–watching crowd to be much more energetic and fun than what I had seen this fall on X.

Eventually, more power users should migrate, in part because Bluesky does not throttle access to their work in the way that X, Meta, and Google have so frequently done. There are no bought-and-paid-for blue check marks that flood the zone. Bluesky doesn’t go out of its way to deprioritize posts with links. It encourages members of the news and sports media to spend time there and bring along their audiences. As the journalist Matt Pearce put it: “​​Hard to describe as a journalist how grateful I am to have a text-based app that does not suppress hyperlinks. I don’t know if people realize exactly how hostile the corporate internet has gotten toward news.” In building a social media site that does not go out of its way to be unusable for people distributing news or trying to consume it, Bluesky has been an innovator.

The platform already works as a place where people enjoy spending time on the internet, with a more bespoke experience and less online sewage than they find on X. That will need to be its value proposition to win over more people in moments when Musk isn’t helping Donald Trump return to power or peeling away more features that once made Twitter popular.

(snip)

Bluesky is winning a segment of the internet not because it is ideological but because it is customizable, allowing people to take more control of their experience online. It has not displaced X as a hub for the formation of elite public opinion, but it could dent Musk’s monopoly on that kind of discussion if enough power users, politicians, and companies eventually move. For now, it is a nice place to hang out with pals on the internet, get news without being confused, and take a quick break from thinking about Elon Musk.

I recommend checking it out.  That light blue butterfly icon in the sidebar of this blog is a link to my feed on Bluesky; use it as a way in the door.

As the coach used to say each Monday, let’s talk a bit about the happenings of last week

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… (Been done.)

It was the worst night of my entire life… (Take it easy, Princess.)

What in the actual f**k were you people thinking… (Leave that approach to Jon Stewart.  How about this:)

I am very disappointed with the result of the presidential election, and I’m concerned about what’s going to happen starting next year.  (OK…keep going.)

It’s not that I was firmly convinced that Kamala Harris was going to win and am now staring at the returns in disbelief.  I definitely wanted her to win, but wasn’t deluded into thinking there was only one possible outcome.  I am bewildered to think that more than 73 million Americans think the former guy – now the once and future guy, I guess? – is the best person for the job.  Unless they really don’t think that at all.

Now I’m reading (see the reading list below, and thanks to everyone who kept this such a secret until after the whole thing was over) that Trump, as opposed to Harris or Joe Biden or apparently any other Republican, represents a dramatic change from a system that these people do not trust.  Strenuously do not trust.  The theory is that Trump voters don’t really agree with everything that comes out of his mouth; some things, sure, but not everything.  But they do want a major change from the status quo.  They want to throw out the scoundrels of the political establishment, and they trust that anything is better than what we have right now.  Even crazy, lying, fascist Trump is, they think, preferable to more of the same old same old.

While recognizing that all of us only have two real choices in this race by the time we get to November, I’m still surprised that so many people would vote for Trump.  A guy who lies to us so profoundly and so often, who is a convicted criminal, who has shamelessly used public office to enrich himself; who offers a plan to fight inflation and lower prices with tariffs that will undoubtedly raise prices instead, who promises to deport tens of millions of people in a plan that will be enormously expensive and disruptive to the labor force and economy as well as probably inhumane, who promises the unattainable instantly (end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza?  Easy peasy) with no clear plan of action.  Or any plan at all.

I’m worried about what’s going to happen next.  We were surprised in 2017 when he didn’t become more presidential or tone down the rhetoric or act more like what we were used to, but this time no one should be surprised if he does some of the out-there things he promised to do.

–he promised massive tariffs on foreign goods; we’ll all pay higher prices for those goods because the higher prices will be passed along to us by the seller.

–he promised (allegedly) vaccine denier Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. control of our public health agencies; yeah, what could go wrong there.

–he promised to jail his critics; First Amendment, Schmirst Amendment.  Stand by for other protected rights to be ignored.

–he promised the largest mass deportation in American history; waiting now for the (multi-million dollar) plans to construct a new generation of internment camps while he strong-arms our allies to accept repatriation.

–he promised to settle the wars in Gaza and Ukraine; stand by for “America First” plans that will provoke Iran, threaten Ukraine’s sovereignty (to the benefit of Russia), and put the NATO alliance in jeopardy.

You get the picture.  If Republicans end up with control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, we’ll also see Trump’s sudden support for Project 2025 and any other effort to push the Christian nationalist agenda to remake America civil society in their image.  And he’ll do it all while, as he did the first time, illegally enriching himself (hello, Emoluments Clause, my old friend).

Oh yeah, there’s this result, too:

image

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

To those thinking, how could Trump possibly win – that’s not who we are: Michelle Goldberg makes the case that maybe it is:

“Trump’s first election felt like a fluke, a sick accident enabled by Democratic complacency. But this year, the forces of liberal pluralism and basic civic decency poured everything they could into the fight, and they lost not just the Electoral College but also quite likely the popular vote. The American electorate, knowing exactly who Trump is, chose him. This is, it turns out, who we are.”

The polls say Trump won big with male voters; Elizabeth Spiers explores just which men they mean: Trump’s appeal to men was

“a regressive idea of masculinity in which power over women is a birthright. That this appealed in particular to white men was not a coincidence — it intersects with other types of entitlement, including the idea that white people are superior to other races and more qualified to hold positions of power, and that any success that women and minorities have has been unfairly conferred to them by D.E.I. programs, affirmative action and government set-asides. For men unhappy with their status, this view offers a group of people to blame, which feels more tangible than blaming systemic problems like rising economic inequality and the difficulty of adapting to technological and cultural changes.”

Bernie Sanders’ take:

“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them…First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.”

David French calls the vote a revolt against the ruling class and a faithful effort by those who believe Trump fulfills a prophecy.  (Honest to God)

Democratic mega-donor (and one-time candidate himself) Michael Bloomberg wonders how Democrats could possibly lose to such a bad candidate.

Just for fun, here’s a “deep dive” (as the kids say) on the scary details of Project 2025; Christian nationalists are unlikely to let this opportunity pass.