The epitome of fascism is residing in the White House!

Known as either THE MAGA ARSEHOLE or THE MAGA FUCKWIT

That article linked in the OP is the best I've read on the topic.

I wish GOPer fascists would read it to learn something about themselves and what they are doing and what they are allowing to be done.

It's the denial that gets me - zealous denial.

Quote from the article:

We know now that a constant flood of decontextualized information confuses and disorients people so thoroughly that they will stop thinking altogether and surrender to the comfort of falsehoods. That is precisely the aim of any authoritarian leader — to rule a society hollowed of any widely shared, coherent meaning that might compete with their own supreme leader mythology.

So fascism is not a historical or static artifact wearing a brown shirt. However one defines the word, this damnable political force evolves like a COVID virus with ever-changing variants. It is not so much a definable political choice as it is a conditioned response to disorder, marginalization and loss. The philosopher John Gray put it candidly: “Capitalist economies can go badly wrong,” and when they do, fascism is one of its manifestations.

“When a democracy is sick, fascism comes to its bedside, but it is not to inquire about its health.” Albert Camus

============================================================

"decontextualized information"

That's significant.

AI Overview

Decontextualized information refers to information presented or considered without its original context, or the surrounding situation that gives it meaning. In essence, it's about separating information from the circumstances in which it naturally exists, like a text, event, or artwork.

=====================================================

Think of decontextualized as lacking perspective, and giving perspective as different from influencing.

Here's an example from another thread where I wrote about that, in the context of cynicism is a factor in fascism:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:

People should be allowed to form their own opinion of facts without influence.

Okay. What's stopping you?

Just the facts news is something I've heard many times from far-right people, especially my 1st cousin. I've told him many times that even if he knew all the facts, he would filter them in forming an opinion, and such opinion would probably pre-exist. Filtering for affirmation.

I did a search on: what's wrong with the premise of just the facts news

Results: https://www.google.com/search?...B5om&sclient=gws-wiz

Here's one person's comment:

" There is no objective journalism giving “just the facts” and there never was. It starts with story selection, and the facts never given because the story is never told. It continues with the questions never answered because the questions were never asked.

But then there's the choice of words, and the tone and emphasis. What facts highlight the first paragraph, and what facts are buried, continued on page 2?

When I was writing a college research paper on the Spanish Armada, I decided to read the contemporary news coverage in the London newspapers and compare it to later historical timelines and studies. What I learned was headlines have been click bait since before there were clicks.

And news reports giving “just the facts” have always been circumscribed by what witnesses to events saw and/or are willing to say, what reporters hear, and how their words flow from brain to pen or pixel.

Good reporters try to be aware of their biases and compensate, but there is nothing so hard to see as one's own blind spot. I'm glad I'm a columnist. My opinion is expected to permeate my writing."

My grandfather was highly placed in the judiciary of Weimar Germany, and while he was too old to emigrate himself, he shipped my teenaged father to Canada as he watched in alarm at the rise of Hitler.

As a result, I’ve been a lifelong student of the Nazi movement and fascism in general - struggling to understand how a population could be drawn into such madness. In the case of Germany, there’s little doubt the motivation came from the crushing restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, driving the German people into poverty and hyperinflation. Hitler gave them a rebellious outlet.

I see the same madness growing and infecting the U.S. right now; the same blind obeisance to a clearly deranged leader, the resistance to apply objective reason and logic to their baffling adulation, and the willingness to follow him, lemming like, over an economic and social precipice.

But this time I can only see one clear motive. Western economies are generally pretty good, despite a lot of ‘living beyond their means’. The west is not currently involved in any major military conflicts, nor struggling to recover from one.

The only motive I can detect is the recent global flood of unchecked migration from overpopulated third world countries to the more prosperous and less populated west. Stop that, and I suspect this madness will subside - but it will have to be stopped by ALL of the western economies, if it isn’t already too late. And, like many things in life, stopping it won’t be pretty.

When it comes to migration, Trump has the right idea. The worrisome part is the level of peripheral economic, egomaniacal and social ‘crazy’ that he’s dragging in along with it.

And yes, Jeffeosso, these are my own opinions, so no citation is necessary.

quote:

The only motive I can detect is the recent global flood of unchecked migration from overpopulated third world countries to the more prosperous and less populated west. Stop that...

When it comes to migration, Trump has the right idea. The worrisome part is the level of peripheral economic, egomaniacal and social ‘crazy’ that he’s dragging in along with it.

Well, the migration isn't unchecked.

Apparently, it isn't checked enough.

Why is a demagogue authoritarian needed for a solution to migration, checked or unchecked?

Some say that's a duty or prerogative of congress to pass legislation and exec for enforcement of the law. Why did the bipartisan attempt at legislation under Biden fail? Only one party wanted it to fail and facilitated failure.

And yes, there is inevitably much collateral damage from deploying a fascist as a fixer. Stopping that is more important than stopping or more control of migration. Fascism is the greater threat. Migration didn't cause fascism/Trumpism. The trajectory of fascism is more difficult to stop than any other threat right now. Fascism is not a solution but a bigger problem. Unwanted or illegal migration has a solution through the historical system if not dysfunctional. Fix the system. Fascism defeats/breaks the historical system through direct contest.

From the article, I think this sums it up...

In 1944 the writer George Orwell, who had fought Franco’s fascists in Spain, noted, “If you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist.” He concluded the word had been so thoroughly abused that it remained little more than a slur denoting an unscrupulous bully.

So, in essence, its meaningless at this point. Its all what the individual want it to mean because we as a people have gone too far down the road of individual wants to the point where we allow words to mean what more people want them to mean... or at least the folks that scream the loudest.

Look at decimate. It has a very precise definition historically. 10% loss. It was a Roman punishment for cowardice for a military unit. Now we use it for any "massive" loss in a dangerous context. Lots of folks who should know better use it as a synonym for devastate or destroy.

I think this is probably a very insightful comment.

While I do see some blind obeisance to Trump as you put it, I also think, from talking to some strong MAGA adherents that I know that it isn't necessarily blind, but rather a conscious decision that they see how the opposition has behaved and feel that the only way to defeat the political opposition is to not eat their own.

In other words, as long as there isn't a viable other choice (as they see it) to defeating the Democrats, they support Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
My grandfather was highly placed in the judiciary of Weimar Germany, and while he was too old to emigrate himself, he shipped my teenaged father to Canada as he watched in alarm at the rise of Hitler.

As a result, I’ve been a lifelong student of the Nazi movement and fascism in general - struggling to understand how a population could be drawn into such madness. In the case of Germany, there’s little doubt the motivation came from the crushing restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, driving the German people into poverty and hyperinflation. Hitler gave them a rebellious outlet.

I see the same madness growing and infecting the U.S. right now; the same blind obeisance to a clearly deranged leader, the resistance to apply objective reason and logic to their baffling adulation, and the willingness to follow him, lemming like, over an economic and social precipice.

But this time I can only see one clear motive. Western economies are generally pretty good, despite a lot of ‘living beyond their means’. The west is not currently involved in any major military conflicts, nor struggling to recover from one.

The only motive I can detect is the recent global flood of unchecked migration from overpopulated third world countries to the more prosperous and less populated west. Stop that, and I suspect this madness will subside - but it will have to be stopped by ALL of the western economies, if it isn’t already too late. And, like many things in life, stopping it won’t be pretty.

When it comes to migration, Trump has the right idea. The worrisome part is the level of peripheral economic, egomaniacal and social ‘crazy’ that he’s dragging in along with it.

And yes, Jeffeosso, these are my own opinions, so no citation is necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
From the article, I think this sums it up...

In 1944 the writer George Orwell, who had fought Franco’s fascists in Spain, noted, “If you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist.” He concluded the word had been so thoroughly abused that it remained little more than a slur denoting an unscrupulous bully.

So, in essence, its meaningless at this point. Its all what the individual want it to mean because we as a people have gone too far down the road of individual wants to the point where we allow words to mean what more people want them to mean... or at least the folks that scream the loudest.

Look at decimate. It has a very precise definition historically. 10% loss. It was a Roman punishment for cowardice for a military unit. Now we use it for any "massive" loss in a dangerous context. Lots of folks who should know better use it as a synonym for devastate or destroy.

Nice post

I think it's a silly post.

It shows how bias filtering works.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

In other words, as long as there isn't a viable other choice (as they see it) to defeating the Democrats, they support Trump.

That comment is about dead center.

That's the end justifies the means argument we have been having on this forum.

"they support Trump" by choosing a fascist fixer and all the attendant characteristics of fascism as explained in the article.

https://youtu.be/x3R-Vo6sNOA?s...gr-4I1QRjieWwj&t=153

Tim Alberta: Why evangelicals feel Trump is like a 'mercenary' for their beliefs

Maggie, if you are the only poster for 3,4,5 posts in a row, you might chill

I am chill.

Didn't you notice?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
From the article, I think this sums it up...

In 1944 the writer George Orwell, who had fought Franco’s fascists in Spain, noted, “If you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist.” He concluded the word had been so thoroughly abused that it remained little more than a slur denoting an unscrupulous bully.

So, in essence, its meaningless at this point. Its all what the individual want it to mean because we as a people have gone too far down the road of individual wants to the point where we allow words to mean what more people want them to mean... or at least the folks that scream the loudest.

Look at decimate. It has a very precise definition historically. 10% loss. It was a Roman punishment for cowardice for a military unit. Now we use it for any "massive" loss in a dangerous context. Lots of folks who should know better use it as a synonym for devastate or destroy.

Nice post

Agreed and will add word Racist to Doc OP as over used to extreme

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
From the article, I think this sums it up...

In 1944 the writer George Orwell, who had fought Franco’s fascists in Spain, noted, “If you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist.” He concluded the word had been so thoroughly abused that it remained little more than a slur denoting an unscrupulous bully.

So, in essence, its meaningless at this point. Its all what the individual want it to mean because we as a people have gone too far down the road of individual wants to the point where we allow words to mean what more people want them to mean... or at least the folks that scream the loudest.

Look at decimate. It has a very precise definition historically. 10% loss. It was a Roman punishment for cowardice for a military unit. Now we use it for any "massive" loss in a dangerous context. Lots of folks who should know better use it as a synonym for devastate or destroy.

I think Doc's rationalizing post is pretty good for someone doing the overt cognitive denial thing. It's also just like we discussed before about how the media slants by what is left out. And the comparison of the meanings of words fascist and decimate is a pathetic stretch, intended to facilitate his own and other's denial. The author was careful to delve into the aspect of slippery definition re fascism in order to be whole truthful and for actual, not slanted, perspective. Orwell's quote was about the slippery definitions and overuse and how it devolved to a slur.

The word may be and still is used as a slur, but the fact remains that Fascism is far-right. IMO, you can't discuss Benito Mussolini and not use the word fascism. So, the word still has definite meanings. It is also reasonable to compare and consider the similarities and consequences, present and trajectory, with Trumpism. I think it's dishonest to not make the comparisons noting the similarities.

The author of the OP article could have made Orwell's quote the central theme, but he didn't. Instead, like good journalism, for balance he included several doses of looking at it from different perspectives. Orwell wrote 1984, a famous dystopian fiction with aspects of fascism. Making Orwell's quote a central premise is missing or minimizing the whole point of the article. Of course, that's Doc's intent as well as those who agree with him.

There are many other relevant paragraphs from the article:

But Orwell had other thoughts. Defining fascism satisfactorily, argued the journalist, just might lead to some uncomfortable admissions about the development of modernity that neither fascists nor conservatives nor socialists really want to talk about...

So Orwell saw fascism not necessarily as an easily defined reactionary movement but as a development of modernity capable of poisoning public life over time, like a coal mine releasing arsenic or selenium into a river.

The ultimate propaganda machine

My point here is that beyond banal epithets, fascism does have a particular political meaning that cannot be reduced to a textbook definition. Timothy Snyder, the noted historian and author of On Tyranny, in a blog post provides his try at a definition within the current American context. “By fascism I just have in mind (1) the cult of personality of a Leader; (2) the party that becomes a single party; (3) the threat and use of violence; and (4) the big lie that must be accepted and used to reshape reality: in this case, that Trump can never lose an election.”

Thoroughly modern fascism

The U.S. historian Robert Paxton, in a 1998 essay, calls fascism “the most original political novelty of the 20th century.” It erupted in nations undergoing rapid technological and economic change, even where existing democracies seemed assured of stable expansion.

He also corrects a common misconception. Fascism is first and foremost “an authentic mass popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever manipulation of populist emotions by the reactionary right or by capitalism in crisis.”

As such, fascism really doesn’t have a manifesto or even an ideology. It behaves like a power-seeking missile and embraces violence as the purest of emotions. It also idolizes technique. Anything that attracts a crowd, strengthens a following and comforts elite accomplices will be said and done. Expediency commands the fascist party because thought and reason have no place while chasing greatness. Such behaviours will simply not hold our attention.

Fascism, writes Paxton, also needs a particular fertilizer: “polarization in civil society and deadlocks within the political system.” These ingredients combine with the ambitions of wealthy accomplices — whether these oligarchs own newspapers, electric car makers or oil companies.

Paxton, who wrote an illuminating book on Vichy France, concludes that fascism works as “a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline.” That definition should now sound frighteningly familiar

Fascist?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9e1eb0ea73c183&ei=22

House Republicans approve rule to block Democrats from forcing votes on executive oversight
Story by Ja'han Jones • 1d • 2 min read

Fascist: Contrulling hearts and minds.

Note the gold eagle on a staff in the picture of Wormtongue Miller.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9e1eb0ea73c183&ei=75

Stephen Miller claims that children are being taught to be 'communist' in schools
Story by Jack Hobbs • 1d • 3 min read

The White House Chief of Staff of Policy, Stephen Miller, proclaimed early Thursday morning that Donald Trump's administration will focus on teaching children to love the U.S. rather than the alleged communist agenda that's being pushed in schools. The comments came during the Chief of Staff's fiery rant in the James S. Brady press room.

"Children will be taught to love America. Children will be taught to be patriots," Miller, 39, said. "Children will be taught civic values for schools that want federal taxpayer funding."

"So as we close the Department of Education and provide funding to states, we're going to make sure these funds are not being used to promote communist ideology," he added. "For any nation to be successful, it cannot teach its children to hate themselves and their country."

Here's four posts in sequence, jeffee.

Are your panties in a wad yet?

Fascist maneuver:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0fca43713a7a87&ei=23

Why Trump Wants to Cut Federal Funding to NPR, PBS
Story by Dan Cody • 1h • 4 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...ocid=socialshare&t=1

‘Fire Elon, Save Elmo’: Democrat Claps Back at GOP Over Public Media Attacks
The U.S. House DOGE subcommittee called the CEO of PBS to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, aiming to scrutinize—and potentially slash—its funding. Defending public media, Rep. Robert Garcia fired back with a jab at Elon Musk, saying, “Fire Elon, save Elmo.”

In another thread, Kabob. You took doc to task that you didnt like comparing similarities. You showcased differences.
A key part of fascism is nationalizing businesses, and unionizing the workers around that nationalizing.
That is the opposite of trump, yet you continue with the similarity side of fascism. Even though you say you are against others doing that.
You asked for one thing trump didnt lie about in another thread. I said, Trump said we need a secure border. You never did reply to that post.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
A key part of fascism is nationalizing businesses, and unionizing the workers around that nationalizing.
That is the opposite of trump, yet you continue with the similarity side of fascism.

Search on: is fascism nationalizing businesses

Results: https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

AI Overview

Fascist regimes typically did not nationalize businesses in the way that socialist or communist regimes did. Instead, they exercised control over private property through various means, often prioritizing national interests and the needs of their business allies, while not necessarily taking ownership of businesses according to Wikipedia. While some fascist governments, like the Nazi regime, did nationalize specific industries, it was more common for them to control and direct private businesses rather than outright owning them.

2nd AI Overview

Fascism generally didn't involve nationalizing businesses in the traditional sense of outright ownership by the state, like in communism. However, fascist governments did exercise significant control over private property, often requiring businesses to operate in the "national interest". This control was often exerted through regulations, partnerships with big business, and the suppression of dissent.

==============================================

I read the following article but didn't study it. So, I'm not sure I understand it or agree with it. It seems okay at first read:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Excerpt:

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

==============================================

The words "foreign conquest" struck me; Greenland, Canada, minerals deal with Ukraine.

Also "National Protectionism"

I already said all that kabob.
That is NOT a trump thing, nationalizing and unions, so why are you using similarities of other aspects of fascism but not the big differences? Differences were your thing, you said.

What difference, especially BIG?

Trump is Dear Leader. Is he not?

that a large part of fascism is the business and labor force under control of the government.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
that a large part of fascism is the business and labor force under control of the government.

See my post above.

Meanwhile - fascism at play:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e2df50197cd84cd&ei=9

Trump Suggests Republicans Start Expelling Dems From Congress
Story by Nikki McCann Ramirez • 4h • 3 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...2df50197cd84cd&ei=77

Trump's budget proposes slashing health, education and clean energy programs while growing the military
Story by Sahil Kapur • 3h • 3 min read

IIRC, the Nazis had 4 year plans with regards to centralized economic control. No, they did not take over ownership of companies or try and manage day to day administration of business… but they did direct overall economic control.

They did have a role in unions as well, but they were not necessarily for the good of the workers, but rather for the nation state.

I haven’t spent nearly the time studying what exactly Mussolini did- but in broad strokes it was similar, just not as all encompassing or as well organized as the Germans.

Trump wants to control the central bank and fed reserve.

Meanwhile:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...2df50197cd84cd&ei=86

Oklahoma wants to teach kids Trump’s false version of the 2020 election where he was cheated out of victory
Story by Gustaf Kilander • 3h •
3 min read

Summarize the main points on this page
The article discusses a new education policy in Oklahoma, announced by Ryan Walters, the Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction. The policy includes teaching students about alleged "discrepancies" in the 2020 U.S. election, aligning with former President Donald Trump's baseless claims that the election was stolen.

Key points:

The updated academic standards for social studies will instruct students to examine election data for supposed irregularities, including mail-in ballot security risks and sudden pauses in vote counting.

The Oklahoma Senate recently declined to reject this election-related language from the standards, following lobbying efforts by Walters and pressure from the far-right group Moms for Liberty.

You are right doc. Kabob is trying to say that is what trump is doing?
Not at all, false narrative on kabobs part.

To compare Trumpism to Nazism or Mussolini is inevitable and tempting, but it misses the point which is highlighted in the OP article.

But that's why such comparison is so popular. It provides and escape for those seeking denial as to what Trumpism really is, and what they are supporting.

https://wapo.st/3ELJoJU

No, Trump is not literally Hitler. So what is he?
Trump’s allies and supporters claim that Trump’s opponents call him Hitler. Most criticism, though, draws comparisons to the German dictator — ones that can be hard to set aside.

October 24, 2024

Excerpt:

No, Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler. He has, happily, not engaged in either the systematized slaughter of a population or launched an effort to subjugate the world.

...

“Why do some people hate you so much?” he asked Trump. “I mean, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. I’ve run into it. We saw it online repeatedly. The stuff they call you, the Hitler stuff, the fascist stuff. … Why do you destabilize people this way?”

Trump’s connection was staticky, so it was a bit hard to understand his first comments. But then he offered a response.

“I have a tendency to win. It’s a nice thing. And that bothers people,” Trump said. “Sometimes I play a little bit rough, but they play rough. They are rough and vicious people. They are vicious people. They’re dirty people. They’ve weaponized government. They’ve weaponized everything and actually made me more popular. It’s hard to believe.”

So in response to a question centered on the ridiculousness of the idea that Trump’s politics mirror fascism, Trump describes his opponents as “vicious” and “dirty” and makes a false claim about how the Biden administration has “weaponized” the government — as manifested, for example, in the special counsel bringing charges against Trump for attempting to subvert the 2020 election. Which are the sorts of things autocrats say.

Trump’s supporters don’t want to address the central issue, which is that Trump’s approach to power much more closely resembles an autocratic, fascist leader than an American, democratic one. So they highlight the word “Hitler” in the same way that they at times highlight the word “racist”: as a way of suggesting that their opponents are once again hyperventilating without reason and lifting up the most damaging rhetoric they can muster, regardless of how applicable it might be. The benefit of doing so is that they then don’t have to address the underlying criticisms and concerns.

Godwin’s Law holds that any online debate will, if it continues long enough, eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or Nazi Germany in an effort to score the ultimate point. What Trump’s allies are doing is declaring the debate to have been “Godwinned” from the outset. They’re suggesting that his critics are making an unfair comparison in hopes of skipping all the intermediary discussion.

There are two points worth reinforcing here.

The first is that the most immediate round of comparisons to Hitler was driven not by left-wing paranoia about a second Trump term. It was driven, instead, by Trump’s own words, as relayed by his former chief of staff. It’s Trump who praised Hitler’s control over his generals and Trump who said Hitler did good things, according to Kelly, a retired four-star general. Those were comments he offered reluctantly, apparently doing so only after Trump suggested that the military should be used against any of the “enemy within” should there be unrest on Election Day.

The second is that one of the first people to compare Trump to Hitler was Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), now Trump’s running mate. What changed since Vance offered that comparison in 2016 isn’t how Trump approaches politics. It’s how willing Vance has become to acquiesce to that approach.

So it is with the right writ large.

You continually call trump a fascist.
Do you believe for a min. that when trump leaves office, he wants some quasi form of government to have control of his personal empire? That is what a large part of fascism is.
There are similarities in anal and vaginal sex. But if you refuse to see the difference, it may be why your women left!

OMG, I am crying

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
You continually call trump a fascist.
Do you believe for a min. that when trump leaves office, he wants some quasi form of government to have control of his personal empire? That is what a large part of fascism is.
There are similarities in anal and vaginal sex. But if you refuse to see the difference, it may be why your women left!

That's cringe worthy.

So, to continue our arguments about similarities and differences in the context of false equivalences, one big difference in your analogy is attitude. Frankly I can't even imagine the attitude it takes to think that up to make a point.

As to: "Do you believe for a min. that when trump leaves office, he wants some quasi form of government to have control of his personal empire?"

Yes. If you define "control" as a form of govt that gets out of his way and facilitates him, his crooked family and his oligarch buddies.

More fascism. Just a few examples:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...66f7c3c13ef514&ei=10

'Our Country, as we know it, is finished!' Trump rages at legal setback in overnight rant
Story by Tom Boggioni • 1h • 2 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9354f6583d0b3&ei=107

Trump wants a massive military parade

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4d1f05d1ad8de5&ei=18

Pam Bondi fires 'warning shot' at free press with 'most chilling' guidelines yet: report
Story by Krystina Alarcon Carroll • 16h • 2 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...2ee763dd52c972&ei=41

Stephen Miller's latest fascist lawsuit: Putting courts under Trump's control
Story by Ellsworth Toohey • 6h • 2 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4d1f05d1ad8de5&ei=98

Trump posts image of himself as pope on Truth Social. Critics erupt
Story by Mary Papenfuss • 47m • 2 min read