Maine’s governor drops out of the Democrats’ Senate primary ….

The New Neo Posted on by

… leaving the Nazi tattoo guy to face incumbent Republican Susan Collins.

Mills is 78, and I think her heart wasn’t in it, but she also ran out of money. New York Magazine refers to her campaign as “lackluster,” and that’s a fitting description.

More:

Senate Democrats had touted Mills as a top recruit to take on Collins, who is the only Republican senator representing a state that President Donald Trump lost last year. Maine is practically a must-win if Democrats are to net the four seats they need to take control of the chamber in the 2026 midterm election. But Collins has proven a tough opponent in previous elections.

After launching her Senate campaign in October, Mills struggled to gain traction against Platner, who burst onto the scene as a brash political newcomer and quickly built a loyal following. Platner notched endorsements from high-profile progressive leaders including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Most importantly, he built major support among Maine Democrats, leading by double digits in recent polls of the primary. Platner’s rise — and the governor’s struggles — came despite top Democrats’ preference for Mills, turning this campaign into a rare rebuke of party leaders in a top-tier race.

Mills was kind of the Jeb Bush in the race, except for the lack of money. Note the NBC piece linked and quoted there doesn’t mention Platner’s most salient characteristic, the Nazi tatoo, early on. You have to get very deep into the article – paragraph fourteen – before it’s mentioned, and then it’s described as classic “Republicans POUNCE!”:

Republicans have already begun to attack Platner, as he pulled ahead in the primary. The GOP super PAC Pine Tree Results PAC launched an ad Monday highlighting those controversial social media posts and Platner having a tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol. Platner has said he was not aware of the Nazi connection and has since covered up the tattoo.

Well, doesn’t everybody get a Totenkopf tattoo and not know what it is? Could happen to anyone. More, from Platner’s Wiki page:

While acknowledging the resemblance, he said he had not been aware of it until reporters and political operatives from DC contacted him during his campaign. He said he had recently gotten it covered up. CNN and Jewish Insider reported that an anonymous former acquaintance of Platner’s claimed that Platner was aware of the tattoo’s meaning and had previously called it “my Totenkopf”. Maine governor Janet Mills, one of Platner’s opponents in the Democratic primary, called the tattoo “abhorrent”.

Ah, but that’s really the least of it. There’s this:

In October 2025, various news outlets reported on Reddit posts Platner made between 2013 and 2021 in which he called himself a “communist”, wrote that all cops are bastards, and agreed with a post calling rural white Americans “racist and stupid”. In an interview with CNN, Platner said of those comments, “That was very much me fucking around the internet … I don’t think any of that is indicative of who I am today”. In a 2013 Reddit discussion about anti-rape underwear, Platner wrote that people worried about assault should “take some responsibility for themselves and not get so fucked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to”.

Platner also referenced political violence in multiple posts; in 2018, he wrote: “Fight until you get tired of fighting with words and then fight with signs, and fists, and guns if need be.” He also wrote that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice” and urged readers to “Get Armed, Get Organized. The Other Side Sure As Hell Is.” He has said that many of the comments do not represent his current political beliefs, and that they were the product of disillusionment after his military discharge and struggles with PTSD.

Collins called Platner’s internet history “terrible” and “offensive”. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said that while he did not approve of Platner’s comments, he did not consider them “disqualifying”. Platner said in an interview with Semafor, “How do you expect to win young people? How do you expect to win back men when you go back through somebody’s Reddit history and just pull it all out and say: ‘Oh my God, this person has no right to ever be in politics?’ Good luck with that. Good luck winning over those demographics.”

Of course Martin doesn’t consider them “disqualifying.” Au contraire; they match the mood of the party and its up-and-coming younger candidates. Platner is 41, by the way, born in 1984. You do the math; we’re not talking about posts or comments he made in high school. He was 29 years old in 2013 and 37 in 2021, the years in which the posts were made. Hardly an impressionable child, and not that long ago.

From Platner’s Wiki page:

[Platner says in an early campaign video] “I did four infantry tours in the Marine Corps and the Army. I’m not afraid to name an enemy. And the enemy is the oligarchy. It’s the billionaires who pay for it, and the politicians who sell us out. And yeah, that means politicians like Susan Collins.”

This video received 2.5 million views in its first 24 hours, sparking national media attention. The campaign raised $1 million in its first nine days, and reported amassing over 2,700 volunteers.

Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Platner on August 30, ahead of a Fighting Oligarchy tour appearance in Portland with Platner and Maine gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson. The event had originally been scheduled to be held in an auditorium but had to be moved to a much larger arena due to high public interest. Platner has also been endorsed by former United States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich; Senators Ruben Gallego, Martin Heinrich, and Elizabeth Warren; and Representative Ro Khanna. He has also been endorsed by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Maine State Nurses Association, and United Auto Workers.

You get the picture. He also is running as a working-class Joe, but it seems to me – from his Wiki page – that he had a very comfortable family situation growing up: restaurant owner (in resort area) and lawyer parents, private high school in Connecticut, architect grandfather of some renown (grandpa designed the interior of the restaurant at the top of the World Trade Center, Windows On the World).

Graham seems to be hiding the extent of his leftism, another common theme among Democrat candidates these days. From Wiki again:

Before running for office, Platner described himself on Reddit as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who was “pretty radically left” and a “vegetable growing, psychedelics taking socialist” (in 2017) and “rabidly anti-Hillary [Clinton]” (in 2016 Democratic presidential primaries). In a December 2025 interview with The New Yorker, he declined to call himself a socialist and described his political involvement before his campaign as “organizing around mostly local economic justice issues or social justice issues”.

Blahbity blah.

Does Platner have a chance of winning? Yes, especially if you believe polls:

RealClearPolitics’ polling aggregate shows Platner with an average 7.6-point lead over Collins as of Thursday morning. Collins held a 0.2 point lead over Mills in polling average.

Maine backed former Vice President Kamala Harris by about 7 points in the 2024 presidential election and is generally viewed as Democratic-leaning but with an independent streak. Collins, a popular Republican in the state, has been able to win thanks to bipartisan credentials. Democrats believe she may be in for her toughest race yet, given President Donald Trump’s declining nationwide popularity.

I think it’s way too early to tell, and the polls aren’t especially meaningful. But Collins is definitely threatened. And no, a more conservative Republican wouldn’t have a chance in Maine. Collins has carefully positioned herself for years to be carefully calibrated to Maine’s basically blue/purple tastes.

Roundup again

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) The UAE is fed up with OPEC and pulls out. This should break some of OPEC’s power over the global oil market.

Iran is part of OPEC, by the way.

(2) Comey has been indicted again, this time for threatening to harm Trump:

“Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “The grand jury returned an indictment alleging James Comey did just that, at a time when this country has witnessed violent incitement followed by deadly actions against President Trump and other elected officials. The temperature needs to be turned down, and anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable.”

“James Comey disgracefully encouraged a threat on President Trump’s life and posted it on Instagram for the world to see,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “As the former Director of the FBI, he knew full well the attention and consequences of making such a post. This FBI and our DOJ partners pursued a rigorous investigation that followed the facts – and now Mr. Comey will be held fully accountable for his actions. Thank you to our investigators, Acting AG Todd Blanche, and the Eastern District of NC for their diligent and professional work.”

The threat was encoded in Comey’s “seashell” post, which contained the message “86 47”. I happen to agree with those who, like Jonathan Turley, think the case is iffy. But it’s one of those things Democrats would do if the shoe were on the other foot. And perhaps it’s also meant to serve notice that threatening the president on social media might not be a totally free ride.

(3) Al Gore warns of possible global cooling.

Warming, cooling, what’s the difference?

(4) Two “visibly Jewish” men in London have been stabbed and are in serious condition. “VIsibly Jewish” probably means dressed in Orthodox garb or with typically Jewish head coverings.

“Credit” was claimed:

Following the stabbings, pro-Iran regime Telegram accounts disseminated a video by Ashab al Yamin in which the group claimed credit for the stabbings.

“Zionists were targeted by our lone wolves in the Golders Green area of London. This heroic act left two Zionists critically wounded and on the brink of death,” the group stated.

Ashab al Yamin also encouraged further attacks against “Zionists,” framing them as defending humanity, the Al Aqsa Mosque, Palestine, and Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The statement lauded Cole Allen, who attempted to assassinate US President Donald Trump at a gathering of journalists and government officials in Washington, DC, on April 25. The statement ended with Ashab al Yamin encouraging “free people” to assassinate Trump. The statement included closed-circuit television footage showing one of the stabbings in Golders Green that had been widely distributed online by sources not linked to the group.

Take that with a grain of salt, though, because it’s a group that routinely claims credit for a lot of terrorist attacks in the area.

I’ve known a few devout Jews who have worn caps over their religious head coverings on the streets of Boston, starting about twenty years ago, to avoid problems.

(5) Of course the left blames the right for the attacks on Trump – a version of “she asked for it” or “he made us do it.” Remember when Kennedy was killed by an outright Communist, and it was blamed on the “climate of hate” coming from the right in Dallas?

King Charles visits and some interesting things happen

The New Neo Posted on by

First we have the friendly bee, which Trump had eating out of the palm of his hand:

Next we have a photo that Trump playfully labeled “Two kings”:

Trump has a way of turning criticisms into humor in a clever jujutsu – although I doubt Democrats see it that way.

King Charles also gave Trump an appropriate gift:

King Charles III presented President Trump with the bell from a World War II-era British submarine — dubbed the HMS Trump — at the White House state dinner Tuesday, where the two leaders bonded over highs and lows of the centuries-long US-UK relationship.

The shiny brass bell bearing Trump’s name and 1944, the year the submarine left a UK shipyard, was part of a vessel that played “a critical role during the war in the Pacific,” according to the king.

“May it stand as a testimony to our nations’ shared history and shining future,” Charles said, describing the offering as his “personal gift.”

It would certainly be nice if Britain moved closer to the US, but it certainly hasn’t been happening in recent years.

I don’t envy Charles and Camilla, having to be photographed standing next to the tall Trump and statuesque Melania:

Trump actually looks surprisingly good in formal attire. But Charles has that sash, after all.

SCOTUS rules on gerrymandering on racial grounds

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s considered a huge decision, and it’s considered to generally favor the GOP. But if you deeply understand the details of today’s SCOTUS decision on drawing districts on racial lines, my hat is off to you. I’ve read four or five articles on the subject and I must humbly say the details are still somewhat opaque to me.

Anyway:

… [T]he Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the scope of a key Voting Rights Act provision that restricts how states draw districts affecting minority voters, constraining states’ use of race as a factor when drawing congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Justices ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, which was redrawn to create a second majority-Black district, constituted an “illegal” racial gerrymander. The court’s decision sharply narrows states’ use of race as a factor when drawing their congressional districts, effectively watering down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in question designed to protect minority voters.

Pretty straightforward. And maybe that’s all ye need to know. But then there’s this sort of thing:

The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centered on whether Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, which had added a second majority-Black district, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Though the justices acknowledged that compliance with the Voting Rights Act can be considered by states as a compelling interest in redistricting, they said that it did not require Louisiana to add the creation of a second, majority Black district, siding with a lower court that had also blocked the state’s use of the map.

So obviously something changed in the interpretation of “racial gerrymander.” What was it that made Louisiana think it was in compliance, and what changed in the definition to make it non-compliant? Something narrowed down, but what?

SCOTUSblog has a lot more information, for example:

The decision was the latest, and presumably final, chapter in a long-running dispute arising from Louisiana’s efforts to adopt a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. The first map that the state adopted, in 2022, had one majority-Black district out of the six allotted to the state. A group of Black voters – who comprise roughly one-third of the state’s population – went to federal court, where they alleged that the map violated Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits discrimination in voting.

A federal judge agreed that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling. It instructed Louisiana to draw a new map by January 2024 or risk having the court adopt one for it.

The map that Louisiana drew in 2024 created a second majority-Black district, leading to the election in November of that year of Cleo Fields, a former member of Congress who had represented another majority-Black district during the 1990s.

The map also prompted the lawsuit leading to Wednesday’s opinion. It was filed by a group of “non-African American” voters who contended that the 2024 map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by sorting voters based on race. A three-judge federal district court agreed with them and barred the state from using the 2024 map in future elections, but a divided Supreme Court temporarily paused that ruling in May 2024.

The Supreme Court took up the case and heard oral arguments for the first time in March 2025. Defending the 2022 map, Louisiana contended that once the lower courts determined that the 2022 map was likely invalid and ordered it to adopt a new map with a second majority-Black district, its focus was not on race but on creating a map that would protect the state’s powerful Republican incumbents in Congress, such as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Rep. Julia Letlow, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee.

The “non-African American” voters challenging the 2024 map told the justices that it was “utterly implausible” that both race and politics were equally responsible for the 2024 map.

I know that SCOTUS doesn’t forbid politically partisan gerrymandering; it allows states to do that. But it is willing to step in when racial gerrymandering is involved. It seems to me that, in this case, the defenders of the new black district’s creation were arguing that the district had been drawn for mere partisan political purposes, and today the SCOTUS majority didn’t buy the argument and said the reason was race rather than politics.

Race and politics are intertwined, of course, for example in the sense that black Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat. So it’s not always easy to tease out the relative balance between the two in terms of the motive for the creation of districts. I assume that often it’s both reasons.

The SCOTUSblog article goes into a lengthy and complex discussion of how something called the Gingles test is applied. This is the conclusion:

If the three preconditions are met, courts move to the final step of the Gingles analysis to consider whether, when all of the circumstances are considered, the political process is not equally open to minority voters. Alito emphasized that this inquiry should “focus on evidence that has more than a remote bearing on what the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits: present-day intentional racial discrimination regarding voting.” Quoting the Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act used to determine which state and local governments were required to obtain approval from the Department of Justice before making changes to their voting laws and practices, Alito wrote that “‘things have changed dramatically’” in the South “in the decades since the passage of the Voting Rights Act.” When the law was enacted, he noted, “the Nation had faced nearly a century of ‘entrenched racial discrimination in voting,’” but “Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate.”

In this case, Alito said, Louisiana’s goal in adopting the 2024 map “was racial”: the state enacted it in the wake of the lower court’s finding that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, and sought to avoid having the court impose a different map that would have created a second majority-Black district but which would also “have imperiled one of the influential incumbents the legislature sought to protect.”

The state did not have the kind of compelling interest that would have justified considering race in drawing the 2024 map, Alito wrote, because “the State did not need to create a new majority-minority district to comply with the Act. That is because,” he explained, “at every step of the Gingles framework,” the Black voters challenging the 2022 map “failed to prove their §2 case.”

Among other things, Alito said, the Black voters “did not provide an illustrative map that” protected the state’s Republican incumbents. Alito acknowledged that the Black voters had “offered evidence that black and white voters consistently supported different candidates, but their analysis did not control for partisan preference.” “And none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

“In sum,” Alito concluded, “because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”

That last paragraph is the most important one, but somewhere along the way my eyes glassed over. The bottom line seems to be that, in order to have gerrymandered majority black districts, states need to present more strongly compelling reasons than before for why it’s necessary.

More here:

[Justice] Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court “should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’” Wednesday’s decision, Thomas wrote, “should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence.” Thomas would have held, he added, that Section 2 “does not regulate districting at all.”

This decision will be followed by a host of redistricting effects, in particular that of Florida, which just passed a new law:

State lawmakers on Wednesday passed redrawn congressional lines that create an additional four GOP-leaning seats in Florida, making it the eighth state to complete mid-decade redistricting in the 2026 election cycle — and likely setting up a historic legal challenge in the state. …

DeSantis and Republicans have essentially acknowledged his map is out of line with the current state constitution, but they believe the state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings will eventually make the proposal constitutional. …

DeSantis’ argument rests on the idea that the Fair Districts provisions protecting minority-performing districts are unconstitutional …

“Properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government from divvying up the citizenry based in whole or in part upon race,” read a memo penned by DeSantis general counsel David Axelman.

During a Tuesday committee hearing, DeSantis administration map drawer Jason Parada acknowledged he used political performance data when creating his proposal, something Democrats argue is at odds with Fair Districts. But Parada said he did not consider at all racial data, which is in line with the governor’s direction.

It’s not just Florida, either. More states will be attempting something of the sort. It may not be possible for it to happen before the midterms, however.

What Norah O’Donnell said during the Trump interview after she quoted the shooter’s “manifesto”

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes in which Norah O’Donnell asked him to comment on the shooter’s written letter, the so-called “manifesto.” This article is typical of the coverage of the incident:

O’Donnell on Sunday began reading a portion of the reported manifesto to Trump, saying, “The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, ‘Administration officials, they are targets.’ And he also wrote this, ‘I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.’”

“Yeah, he did write that. I’m — I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody,” Trump said. “I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all — stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated,” he said, later calling the CBS News senior correspondent “disgraceful.”

“You know, he’s a sick person,” Trump continued. “But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”

Critics of O’Donnell on the right agree with Trump that it was a kind of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question that amplified the quote on a major TV program, without O’Donnell remarking on the obvious falsity of the allegations – probably because the media and Democrats have fostered such allegations. “Pedophile” is connected to the constant Epstein misrepresentations, “rapist” is a misreading of the court case won by E. Jean Carroll, and “traitor” could apply to anything from fake Russiagate to fake Nazi.

So yes, O’Donnell’s question was both inappropriate and designed to harm Trump. But I’m surprised that no articles and no videos I’ve seen discussing the exchange mentioned her truly pernicious followup question, which I bring you here:

Did you catch the statement of O’Donnell’s that has commonly been left out, the one I’m referring to as her followup question?: “Oh, you think, you think he was referring to you?” coupled with a mildly incredulous look? That sentence in particular reveals the duplicitous, disingenuous nature of O’Donnell’s approach. She knows full well that Trump would interpret the manifesto quote as referring to him because of course it does (for one thing, it levels charges that have become common against him, and for another the charges are against a single person and not a group). And yet she pretends the subject of the quote is in doubt and she uses Trump’s understandable interpretation – really, there is no other one possible – to imply some sort of consciousness of guilt on Trump’s part.

That’s what tells me what a nasty piece of work O’Donnell is, even more than the “pedophile, etc.” quote itself. And she sets it up by starting with another manifesto quote, “Administration officials, they are targets.” This is an attempt to establish that the shooter was also targeting the entire group, so that her later “oh, you think he was referring to you?” question might give her pose of feigned doubt some supposed credibility.

The entire thing was a setup, IMHO. O’Donnell almost certainly knew that reading the quotes might get a rise out of Trump – as well it should – and would cause the interview to be discussed and watched more widely.

NOTE: If you watch the whole clip, instead of just the part I cued up, you’ll see how the left is spinning it.

Monk bust

The New Neo Posted on by

I must say this story rather surprised me:

Twenty-two Sri Lankan monks returning from Thailand were arrested on Sunday at the main international airport in Sri Lanka with a record 242 pounds of powerful cannabis, officials said.

A Sri Lanka Customs spokesman said the group, returning home after a four-day vacation in the Thai capital, had Kush — a potent strain of cannabis — hidden in their luggage.

“Each carried about five kilos of the narcotic concealed within false walls in their luggage,” the spokesman said, adding that the monks had been handed over to police. …

The monks were mostly young students from temples across Sri Lanka and had been on a holiday sponsored by a businessman.

I didn’t know monks went on vacation, much less on a vacation sponsored by a businessman – although perhaps these were actually student monks. Then again, this seems to have been something of a working vacation.

However, had I been keeping up with recent monk events, I probably wouldn’t have been quite as surprised by the drug bust:

In 2022, every single monk at a Buddhist temple in central Thailand was defrocked after they tested positive for methamphetamine. The monks were sent to a health clinic to undergo drug rehabilitation.

In 2017, police said a Buddhist monk was arrested in Myanmar after authorities found more than 4 million meth pills in his car and in his monastery.

Meth surprises me even more than cannabis. But both go against the monks’ general prohibition on the use of any intoxicants.

How political hatred works

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “phsicsguy” has a request:

,,, [I]n every other aspect of [the lives of the Democrats I know who want Trump dead], they act within the general morality of our culture. They don’t beat puppies and babies, they don’t steal, they’ll lend a helping hand to their neighbors, etc. My BiL is extremely active in the Catholic Church. Yet…..when it comes to Trump, and now through the relentless propaganda, conservatives and republicans in general, the “violent minds” turn on. I keep wishing that someone well-versed in psychology could explain this phenomenon to me, and also provide a solution. I haven’t seen such. If it exists it might even save the country from some terrible consequences.

It does certainly seem like a contagion, but there seems to be no antibiotic to employ.

I have no solution. But I’ll have a go at an explanation. The analogy to contagion is a good one, although obviously there are no microbes involved. People come to believe Trump is a Hitler equivalent, tremendously evil and otherwise unstoppable politically, so it follows that he must be killed. The analogy to Hitler is not an idle one because there were indeed many failed attempts on Hitler’s life and most people consider those who tried to do so to be heroes. The fact that Trump bears no resemblance to Hitler is irrelevant, because most people don’t evaluate things for themselves and their sources – their trusted sources – say Trump is tremendously evil, Hitlerian, and out to destroy our country and must be stopped.

Why those sources are trusted is another story. It’s different for different populations. For older people, it’s the news media amplified by social media. For younger people, the source is other online platforms such as TikTok and Twitch (Hasam Piker is a huge Twitch personality, for example). For many of all ages, they live in communities where pretty much everyone thinks this way, whether it be a blue city or just their own family or their own ethnic group. Often a clergyman or church or synagogue group is part of the echo chamber (in which case Trump-hate is not a religious substitute but is considered consistent with their religion as a sort of “just war”), and of course many Democrat politicians and spokespeople, as well as celebrities, artists, authors, and public intellectuals.

In my case I am often the only Trump supporter friends and family members know. Some have cooled, but some have “grandfathered” me in, as it were, because they’ve known me so long and know I’m not evil.

In addition, some of my Democrat friends simply don’t care. It’s not that they don’t care about politics, but they don’t care in the same very personal way. They never talk politics to me and never mention my curious support of Trump; it simply is not an issue they take into the personal realm. They are my friends (at least so far), they’ve been my friends for years, and that’s that. Nor do they ever mention wanting to kill Trump or wanting him dead, although they’ve made a few remarks indicating they detest him.

What distinguishes these two groups from each other? I think it’s the personalization of politics and the transformation of it into a religious substitute, plus the intensity with which they view it. But why do people belong to one group rather than another? I don’t know. I have found no specific characteristics that I can see that differentiate between the two groups: neither is predominantly male or female, neither is religious, nor do they differ in education or the way they habitually vote. They also do not differ in the intensity of their personalities in other areas of their lives.

Qatar isn’t so fond of Hamas at the moment

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “sdferr.”]

Of interest:

The gist of it is that Hamas’ sponsor Qatar is withdrawing some of its support from Hamas, due to Hamas’ tepid response to the Iran War in which Iran decided on the brilliant move to attack Qatar.

It’s become the norm to talk about wanting to kill Trump or at the very least wanting him to die – and to be proud of it

The New Neo Posted on by

It was early in Trump’s first term that I noticed people talking about killing Trump. These were people I knew and had known for five decades or more. I’d never talked about politics before with these people, and I hadn’t been aware that they’d had any especially deeply-held feelings about politics. But all of a sudden, each of them stated in a casual manner that they wanted Trump killed.

It was the casual manner that got me. Neither knew my political leanings, but it was assumed that I agreed with them – didn’t everyone who didn’t sport a tail, horns, and a swastika tattoo? With the first person I was so stunned I said nothing. But later, with the second person, I challenged him – to no avail.

You’ve probably seen similar public statements from Trump-haters over the years – on TV and on social media, for example. It’s become standard. In the last year I’ve heard it again from two different friends, each of them people I’ve known for many years and who’ve never spoken this way before. Neither have any history of being leftist firebrands and in fact each have long been political moderates.

But not on the topic of Trump, apparently. The first was over the phone, and my long-time friend said that if she ever was given a terminal diagnosis she would try to kill Trump. This seemed only slightly tongue-in-cheek and deeply unfunny. She went on to vent quite a bit on how much she hated him. My response was that I hope she never receives a terminal diagnosis.

The most recent person to express this was even more disturbing. This was from an old friend who’s one of the most mild-mannered people I know – ordinarily. We were having lunch and catching up, since I hadn’t seen him in a long while, and towards the end of the meal he said that if he had a rifle (which he doesn’t) and if Trump came anywhere on his property (which Trump won’t) he would kill him. With the previous people saying this, they’d only given very general reasons why; I guess they thought his evil was so very obvious it needed no explanation. But this time I asked him why, and his answer stunned me: it was that Trump wasn’t even human. This was said with vehemence and a kind of fervor and certainty that indicated a very deeply held belief.

Again, I asked why he said that. I wish I could remember his exact words, but it was something to the effect that it was obvious just by looking at him – that he cared about no one and nothing but himself, and that he didn’t love America but hated it. He offered no particular evidence and I didn’t press it; to pursue the conversation was going to be counterproductive. This was a person who already knew my general politics, but I think he assumed that despite being on the right that I, as a moral and upright person, would be a Trump-hater too.

There are a great many people like this, and their sentiments are considered perfectly okay and even moral by other people just like them, people I would never have described as political activists or leftists, but who want Trump dead and probably are surrounded by others who want him dead too. The sentiment has been mainstreamed, and it happened quite early in Trump’s first term although it’s only gotten worse..

A couple of days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jimmy Kimmel did a sketch about the coming festivities. It was supposedly funny, and there certainly were plenty of people or bots in the comments to this video who seem to think it was indeed funny. Here are a few seconds that got a lot of attention in retrospect, for obvious reasons:

Today Melania Trump issued a reaction:

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America.” …

“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him,” she said. “Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”

Good luck with that; I don’t think it’s going to happen. There’s an audience for it and an appetite for it, and although Kimmel doesn’t have high ratings I don’t see them pulling him.

Last night I came across the following video and clicked on it because of the title. I kept watching it because it periodically featured people – I believe mostly from TikTok? – expressing the most outrageous death wishes on Trump, with a venom that is extraordinary and no sense of needing to hide their sentiments. For example, two very short segments:

Those aren’t even the worst ones. Here’s the whole thing, in case you’re interested:

There’s plenty more where that came from. What’s happened is not just a norming of such behavior – although there’s that – but a message that it’s not only okay but that’s it’s cool and virtuous, something of which to be proud.

It spreads like a contagion. Some people are more vulnerable to it than others, but I couldn’t have predicted in advance who among my friends would be most vulnerable to it. I also have plenty of friends and relatives who are Democrats and who detest Trump, but at least I’ve never heard them wish him dead.