Yves here. We’re heavy in our syndicated material today on the increasingly aggressive actions by the Trump Administration, its minions, and its loyalists against US Constitutional and legislative limits on Administration authority. The post below explains how the man-handling of Senator Padilla at a press conference fits this bill.
These escalating abuses are for the most part drowned out by the Israel-Iran war, the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and Trump’s tariff gaslighting. It does not help that the Democrats thought it was a brilliant idea to sit on their hands as Trump took ground, on the barmy assumption that merely doing nothing would be a winning strategy for the mid-terms. Did it not occur to them that a lot of very serious, including irreversible, damage, would be done in the meantime?
By Charlie Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boise State University. Originally published at The Conversation
Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground.
“Sir! Sir! Hands off!” Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. “I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.”
Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, “Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.”
Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference.
What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla?
What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem’s security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it’s safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way.
This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn’t identify himself at the briefing, even though, “I’m Senator Alex Padilla” were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared.
What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch?
Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident.
Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they’re complying with laws that Congress has passed.
As a Senate member from California, it’s perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations.
This is completely in line with Congress’ oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents.
Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution’s speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress’ oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here.
Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he’s focused on. But it’s not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy.
What other factors led to this moment?
Something I’ve written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that “we don’t just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.” This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle.
More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right.
We have seen violence during Trump’s campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump’s encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s subsequent pardons of those rioters.
Does Padilla’s removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically?
We can’t ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn’t create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there’s no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics.
For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are “sick” or “nasty,” that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn’t have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago.
All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla.
What will you be watching for as this situation plays out?
My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for “ambition to counteract ambition,” as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn’t get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction.
As Congress has been steadily torn apart by partisanship, it’s given up lots of its power over the past half-century and no longer seems to see itself as a coequal branch of government with the executive.
As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government.
Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla’s treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she’s pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take?
If Democrats as a political party truly believe that they need only do nothing while authoritarianism becomes established and accepted, if that is what they think “fighting for the people” looks like, then they clearly deserve neither political office nor its protections. This is the result of being ruled by image processing consultants: a Do-Less-Than-Nothing Party of arrogant, condescending, insulated elites fundamentally out of touch with reality, whose faces need to meet the pavement. Hard.
And just to be clear, yes, Padilla’s treatment by DHS goons is appalling — how could it be anything but. But not surprising — after all, Trump has consistently telegraphed how he would behave in office.
Not as bad as when Representative Brooks assaulted Senator Sumner in the Senate Chamber but it is on the way there-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner
Just in passing, partly down that page is an image of Representative Laurence Keitt who helped enabled that attack. Can anybody else see who he resembles? Just sayin’.
Brooks was really very practiced in caning people, as a slaveowner, nearly killed Sumner…
I have a hard time feeling sorry for the senator. I firmly believe that they should experience more of what normal people experience. In the USA, if a few senators were shot by the police for minor traffic violations, maybe there would be some reform of the police.
In general, this form and level of violence is just a sign of how deep the US as a society has sunk.
Didn’t you even feel sorry for the action? I mean, what I see is that tolerance for authoritarian acts is too high. Isn’t it? As I interpret your commentary the bar should be set too low for everybody. That would be real democracy, wouldn’t it be? In this way we ensure that normal people experiences will actually worsen more, and at the same time the abusers won’t ever feel any harm.
To be honest, that’s what I thought. A US senator is a powerful figure–I don’t doubt that he has already made sure that the DHS goons and their bosses will regret what they did for the rest of their and their children’s lives. But people like Padilla don’t lift a finger when it’s regular people on the other end of such indignities.
Assuming, that is, the forced removal was genuine and not performative in some fashion. I have trouble imagining federal employees of any sort getting away with something like that: there are plenty of stories where senators and representatives, with the full approval of their collegues, punished bureaucrats who annoyed them via “interesting” clauses in legislation.
IMO Padilla handled himself well. He exuded dignified, tough-guy defiance. He was careful not to be over-aggressive (i.e., lunatic style), and at the same time, didn’t come across as a spineless slob getting the bum-rush. Perfect mix of passivity and aggression.
Betcha this video ages well. Padilla’s winning creds with Democratic voters that yearn for old-school, brassy, in-your-face sorts of leaders.
“More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right.
We have seen violence during Trump’s campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump’s encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s subsequent pardons of those rioters.”
Ahem, and which Presidential candidate was the subject of at least two assassination plots, one which resulted in a bullet would to the head? And which President blew up Nordstream, indulged in lawfare, gave a fascist aesthetic address (Dark Brandon), even had an out of control dog?
To foreigner eyes, the violent authoritarianism looks like bipartisan sickness.
And while I don’t wish mistreatment on anybody, perhaps the experience will be salutary and Congress will treat people with humanity rather than brutality. Or perhaps not….
No, this is just another step in the direction of more authoritarianism and the erosion of first amendment rights in this country. All the criticisms of Democratic Party fecklessness and complicity are correct (with some noble exceptions), but people shouldn’t use them to deflect criticisms from the Trump administration’s escalations. That is also part of the problem IMO.
Aurelien had a Substack the other day, stating that liberalism lacks any ideology at all except power seeking. So I guess for liberal Democrats, only winning the midterms is relevant. And actually taking any steps to confront our burgeoning police state, which Democrats are adjacent to, isn’t seemingly in their best interests.
Oh well.
The Blowhard In Chief fancies himself as the “tough guy in town”, using jack-booted thugs to assault, abduct, imprison and punish anyone who dares question in any way his policies, as they have done to foreign students who are in our Country legally and are protesting the ongoing US/Israel genocide of the Palestinians. The man is a jerk who has no business being anywhere near our governmental operations. He has installed ignorant and incompetent people like Kristi Noem in important positions in our government because they will do whatever they are told to do rather than doing their jobs in a competent and professional manner. This is a disgrace to our Country and to the American people.
“because they will do whatever they are told to do rather than doing their jobs in a competent and professional manner.”
I would substitute “professional manner” with a manner consistent with their oaths to uphold the constitution instead of their obedience to any man/woman.
I agree with Jim’s first sentence
and, this “man is a jerk who has no business being anywhere near our governmental operations.”
“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” – Abraham Lincoln
The display of this administration and it’s cast of psychophants who, on the face of it, appear bent upon the perversion of the constitution in order to elevate the executive above that same Constitution with it’s deliberate constraints found at it’s inseption – is repugnant. It also brings to mind another quote from Lincoln for different purposes but equally applicable here.
“We, the People, are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the Courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who have perverted it.” – Abraham Lincoln
and just a couple more applicable quotes (redundant on my part – sorry).
“They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.” FDR 10/31/36
The ongoing and deliberate (both parties) avoidance of upholding the constitution – where the constitution specifically enumerates powers upon the three branches and provides basic inviolate rights: This ongoing perversion I attribute to the -what’s good for the goose is good for the gander – wherein, both parties actively avoid invocation and upholding for fear that their own abdications and perversions of constitutional powers will prove to be mutualy destructive to ‘both uniparties?’
Add, in my view, the absurd misconception – that to admit (truthfully) of errors/failures/mistakes is a sign of weakness, instead of a sign of great strength and humility, or the garbage of peace through strength or the PR stunt of changing the department of war to the department of defence because nobody likes war but everybody can get behind defence –
Just so much in – the -face- absurdity- contrived division and BS that it is hard to even know where to start and end.
maybe in desperation to simply seperate the wheat from the chafe or, to simply give my neurosynopsi a cooling down I retreat to- We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.- or Peace no war
Who hete remembers Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb, the Libertarian and Green Party Presidential nominees, being arrested in St. Louis in October 2004 at the presidential debates while trying to serve legal papers on the private group responsible for the debates?
No need to even go back that far. Presidential candidate Jill Stein was somewhat forcefully arrested just last year – https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/criminal-charges-issued-nearly-a-year-after-washington-university-ceasefire-demonstrations-israel-palestine-gaza/63-3b966840-7c5a-4b98-a671-b62a2a6d86f5
And on a related note since the author of the article can’t remember, here are a whole bunch of Congresspeople being arrested during the Biden administration, although admittedly they wanted to be arrested as a publicity stunt, and went so far as to pretend they were being cuffed when they weren’t. But it was a similar catch and release arrest like Padilla’s – https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-congress-members-arrested-abortion-rights-protest-supreme-court-aoc-1726131
Stopped reading when the dude said Padilla represents 39 million people. LOL. If dude’s gonna lead off with whopper lies I have no reason to read anything further.
As of 2023 there were 38.9 million people living in CA. Senators represent all the people in their state. Knowledge is your friend.
You’ve been leaving comments well below the standard set forth for the site in our Policies. I suggest you read them. Continuing to violate the Policies after you’ve been instructed to read them is a fast track to being blacklisted.
More generally, commenting here is a privilege, not a right. If you want to continue to have your comments published, you need to up your game.
I don’t know where to start on this one..
#1. He tried to charge up on that stage at a press conference. If anyone tried to do that, you bet security is going to stop them.
#2. If Padilla just stood back with the press, and asked questions, this would be a noting burger. What did he see Newsom getting all the attention and had to get some?
#3. If the agents knew who he was, and still arrested him, that is just dumb! Either they weren’t thinking about the optics, or just don’t care about looking like thigs.
Huh? Did you see the same video? Or has MAGA impaired your vision?
He did not try to “charge the stage”. That is a fabrication, even before the fact that there was no stage.
The video started with the security types grabbing Padilla. He then said who he was, tried to pull them off him (on the assumption they would stop restraining him when they knew who he was), and tried to move towards the group at the front, as in more or less where he’d been before the goons grabbed him. He was all of one or maybe even half a chair width ahead of the first row of seats when they went after him, and on the far side of the seating relative to the speakers.
The meeting looked to have been impromptu, with the seats close to Noem and her claque. This likely was a “friendlies only” briefing.
This is the official briefing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhWVxZF6J9s
As you can see, Noem is dressed like a girl jock, in a baseball cap and sport shirt, making accusations about Padilla not being appropriately attired look misplaced. You can also the chairs are placed very close to her lectern.
This version does not pick up what happened before Padilla was grabbed. But it does show he was over to the side, much further from Noem and the others than those right in front of her.
Padilla made a statement later, and one key issue was his office had sent many queries to Noem and DHS and just about all of them were ignored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQWrj-0sB8
More generally, it looks like you and others have bought into authoritarian beliefs about public officials (and this is not just a Republican project; Lambert talked about the Democrats’ fondness for “authoritarian followership” going back at least to the Obama era). They accountable to voters. They do not have the right to expect deference. Plenty of citizens in town halls get more animated that Padilla was. Or better yet, go look at a session of the UK’s Question Time and get back to me. It shows what candy-asses Americans have become about fully warranted questions to an Administration, or in UK-speak, the Government.
I agree with many of your points, but every video I’ve seen starts when security engaged with Padilla. Even in the official video you linked, the camera only shows the security already engaged. Too bad there’s no footage of his entrance. Oh wait, there probably is. I can’t believe that in todays digital world no one on his team was capturing all of this. It sure looks like he had people following with cameras. The fact that his team’s video hasnt been released makes me believe it doesnt support the narrative. Maybe he did “come in hot” (at least enough to activate a trigger happy security detail).
Man doesn’t show proper deference to one of the king’s minions, gets man handled, unsucessfully tries “do you know who i am?”, get taken to the ground and arrested. Probably not much different than what would happen if I behaved that way. Main difference is I would probably be in jail. I think this plays out this way regardless of who is currently king.
Note: I’m not saying this is a good thing or I agree with it.
So maybe the Senator was grandstanding, not an uncommon behavior for a Senator, but the behavior of the “security persons” was on a par. Seems shoving people around is in the rules of engagement. Beyond this incident is the constant testing of boundaries by DJT’s minions. Looks to me that they, think Homan, have been told, had hinted, that those fusty old limits don’t apply so let’s see how far we can go before there is serious resistance and any resistance will be met with aggressive defense. This, seems to me, would be right outnof the Roy Cohn-Donald Trump playbook. And every inch gained is a precedent for future use.
What happened to Senator Padilla is not a Trump thing. Law enforcement everywhere in this country use excessive force when arresting people. Exceptions are made for upper class members of society who run afoul of the law. There is no good reason to throw people to the ground before handcuffing them, but police are trained to do that as a form of intimidation. Gang tackling is another form of intimidation frequently employed by law enforcement. I suppose the good Senator should be thankful he wasn’t tasered.
Yeah, one of the contradictions is that the US is a “democracy” yet has the largest number of, prisoners, and has the most heavily armed civilian population in the “developed” world. The US has the highest homicide rate of any “developed country”. Violence is an integral part of US history culture. War and violence are glorified, just watch an American football game.
And of course, the police are also notoriously violent. When I was younger, I was wrongly detained by police officers from a tony suburb in the SF Bay Area. They accused me of vandalism. When I respectfully and politely asked what evidence they had, the “bad cop” told me to STFU or he would beat the sht out of me (while he had his hand on his sidearm).. I was young and naive, the abusive language shocked me. After questioning me, and seeing that I lived in a working class town nearby, he told me to “get your white trash ass out of town and don’t come back”
“Uniquely authoritarian presidency” seems very much coded language for the emerging Police State, so a totalitarian USA.
All the elements of this are being co-ordinated under the Project 25 agenda.
Arendt postulated that authoritarianism becomes totalitarianism when there is compulsion to think and act in certain ways, and other ways of thinking and acting are punished.
The totalitarian checklist includes:
a. An often psychopathic or sociopathic leadership figure, with power concentrated around that individual and inner circle, and a manufactured ‘saviour’ personality cult.
b. A substantial disaffected and often disadvantaged minority, often 25-30%, that provides loyal core support to a populist leader in securing elective office.
c. Direct appeal to patriotism and chauvinism as fundamental values, plus both implicit and explicit xenophobia, and often ultra-nationalism.
d. A target group scapegoated for the day to day problems faced by the disadvantaged cohort, often characterised as sub human or lesser humans. Social Darwinism underpins fascism. The target group is often loosely specified as “Marxists”, religious adherents, a racial/cultural sub group and/or immigrants.
e. By placing culpability exclusively on the ‘othered’ minority there is a reality Inversion. The power elite plays the victim. Routine stigmatisation of ‘out’ group through propaganda.
f. Ownership or substantial control of mass media promoting editorial standpoints in favour of the leadership clique, and restricts presentation of alternative analyses.
g. Persistent disinformation and constant propaganda campaigns often at saturation levels.
h. Oligarchic ownership elite, or a relatively small client grouping willing to support repression for preferential treatment and personal or corporate advantage.
i. Constitutional ’emergency powers’ provisions permit the executive leadership to justify overriding democratic checks, balances and judicial processes, facilitating autocracy.
j. Executive capture of the judiciary. Disregard of legal rulings that challenge leadership authority.
k. A quasi militaristic praetorian guard, operating freely in the public realm. Undertakes daily practical repression such as arrest and detention “on suspicion” and is characterised by lack of due process.
l. Suspension of ‘habeas corpus’ and suppression of human rights, plus rejection of human rights treaties.
m. Control of education institutions and curricula, reduction of education budgets, especially in higher education. Proscription of courses and book banning are an essential element of suppression of education. Associated restriction of the arts, drama and music.
n. Continuous public surveillance by regime police. Stigmatisation and persecution of dissension. A punitive and vindictive policing regime is justified as ‘national security’.
o. Restriction of free speech, the right to assemble and protest. Progressive suppression of political opposition through harassment and intimidation.
p. An inculcated and increasingly pervasive fear of retribution for dissent within the general public.
q. Capacity to utilise mass detention facilities. (ICE has an increased budget from 22/5/25 sufficient for 100,000 detention places)
Great reference, thank you.. Chris Hedges has talked about this quite a bit. We can put a check mark on virtually every point.
The summary checklist notes are in my words, but is a synopsis of both Hannah Arendt’s and Gordon Allport’s writings post WW2, with a nod to James Burnham’s 1941 ‘Managerial Revolution”, and my own teaching of Weimar history 1919-1939.
To be honest, I think that many western post industrial nation states could tick several points, including the UK, and several other European nations.
I don’t know what the tipping point is though…. or how reversible the key factors are.
I do wonder if some or even many of the “great figures in history” can escape checking many of these: consider Lincoln or FDR. The differences between them and more “obviously authoritarian” figures aren’t great. Of course Lincoln and FDR faced perilous times, but so did every authoritarian.
It’s the transition from authoritarianism to totalitarianism that exercised Hannah Arendt
The entire situation is sad and embarrassing, as is so common nowadays. The thuggery, lawlessness and bufoonish behavior of the DT2 regime is on full display.
However, Padilla, like most of his ilk (regardless of party affiliation), has voted to support warmongering, engage in economic warfare, supply rogue regimes, and support Israel and the genocide. And he panders to his “base”, and supports the partisan status-quo.
For years, all three branches of govt. have shown their institutional corruption as well as actions and policies that make a mockery of the constitution and the so-called rule of law. The institutional rot will only get worse
Padilla’s ostensible concern for immigrants rings hollow, given the context. Just more hypocrisy on top of more hypocrisy
Poli-tricksters take bribes legally, and accept money from AIPAC et. al. openly and proudly. We little people are not supposed to notice and pretend this is a “democracy” There is not much left of “democracy” however one defines the slippery term. I guess we can chalk it up as another sht show in the decline and rot of the empire.
Heimat Sicherheitsdienst sounds so much better in the original German. Heimat was also a Zionist trope before it became a German one. Now the Zionists are riffing on Lebensraum.
I thought we were going to have to learn Chinese, not pull out the old German vocabulary books.
Look, Senator Padilla was essentially doing what many claim most Democrats are not: challenging the extravagant actions of the Trump administration in LA. Padilla is well-known to just about everyone in LA. He grew up there. He was a Council member there. He was Sec. of State before being elected to the Senate. Unfortunately, Kristi Noem and her goons failed to recognize him.
And that is the problem with the federal actions in LA. They don’t understand the city (larger than the pop. of 40 states) and the majority composition of its citizens (non-white). Making ‘sweeps’ with groups of masked marauders in unmarked vehicles (ICE) is more than illegal, it is frighteningly disruptive to the lives of most citizens. (I’ve only experienced this via phone videos, but the optics make me puke. We are not leading the world to ‘freedom’.)
While the King of Chaos thinks this makes him look good to his ‘base’, it is just another step in the wrong direction.
Breaking News:
Minnesota Lawmaker Is Assassinated in Act of ‘Targeted Political Violence
A manhunt is underway after a gunman fatally shot Melissa Hortman, a Democratic state representative, and her husband in a Minneapolis suburb, Gov. Tim Walz said. Another lawmaker and his wife were injured in a separate attack, officials said.
Regarding TiPi’s post above and part “d.)” this is exactly what all the scapegoating leads to. After 9/11 we saw individual attacks against citizens that looked arab.
During the years when we were taught to believe that Japan was buying all of America we saw individual attacks against Asians.
Now we see (admittedly assumed) right-wing Trump supporters directly sttacking members of the supposed, and scapegoated, opposition party.
Things are turning, as in the famous Chinese Curse, interesting.
Latest news that i have seen suggests that your assumption about the attack being a right winger is incorrect (unless democrat governors often appoint right wing nuts to their bipartisan commissions). What does this say?
Either Noem is fired SOON or our Congresscrittters can kiss their rice .bowls Bye Bye.
hey are corrupt (It’s the system) and they are depraved (Gaza) and they are craven, are they also too stupid to realize that letting this assault happen without retaliating makes them irrelevant?
” It does not help that the Democrats thought it was a brilliant idea to sit on their hands as Trump took ground, on the barmy assumption that merely doing nothing would be a winning strategy for the mid-terms. Did it not occur to them that a lot of very serious, including irreversible, damage, would be done in the meantime? ” . . . is a fair point and a fair question.
The problem is that people counseling to vote against Harris or at least not vote for Harris because of various progressive reasons were abundantly warned by all kinds of people that this is the “irreversible damage to democracy” program which the Project 2025 Republicans and the vengeful Trump had all teed up and ready to go if elected. So the same question applies to them. Perhaps to them even more, because they clearly understood going into the election that Democrats only ever sit on their hands anyway. Yet they too chose to give the Democrats something to really sit on their hands about.
Happy Accelerationism.
This has been “baked into the cake” for many years.The “irreversible damage” was done long before the DT2 regime. The “irreversible damage” (progressively worsening institutional corruption, lawlessness and pissing on the constitution) is what makes this all possible. “Voting” for the D brand of genocide and war is not the lesser evil. BOTH parties support mass murdering children, that’s about as “evil” as it gets IMO.
Unlimited political bribery is “legal”, habeas corpus is dead, the financial oligarchy is above the law, supporting war crime and genocide violates US law, but is ignored. Millions remain in denial, and the problems will only worsen.
Stentorian tones.
Padilla should’ve led with those.