The media is desperate to push Biden out so they can get more money. The papers that Stephanopoulos quoted are owned and run by well known tRump conservatives like Rupert Murdock. Stephanopoulos kept hammering Biden was too old, was not fit, was kidding himself how fit he was, stuff like that no matter what Biden answered. After Biden would list his accomplishments Stephanopoulos said yes but aren’t you frail, then when they talked about the future Stephanopoulos asked if Biden had it to finish the next few years, which Biden talked of what he did recently Stephanopoulos asked yes but what did it cost you physically and mentally. He just was desperate to break Biden, and Biden was getting sick of him hammering on the same thing and not acknowledging anything Biden said. I thought Biden did great during the interview, but I would have demanded to know who was paying Stephanopoulos to push the republican talking point. Even when Biden brought up tRump’s lies and actions, Stephanopoulos did not talk about it, only again turning to ask if Biden was not too old and mentally gone to do the job. Hugs. Scottie
I don’t care if Biden is in a wheelchair and shakes like an out of balance washing machine on spin cycle or a tea cup Chihuahua, I will vote for him. The people he puts in positions, in departments, the judges he appoints are far too important to not vote for him. No do not switch him out now, too late, plus the people saying to do it admit they don’t all want the same person to replace him. Regardless of how old Biden is, tRump is a hateful tyrant con man crook. Hugs. Scottie
Photo illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios. Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images
Former President Trump, if re-elected, plans to immediately test the boundaries of presidential and governing power, knowing the restraints of Congress and the courts are dramatically looser than during his first term, his advisers tell us.
Why it matters: It’s not just the Supreme Court ruling on Monday that presidents enjoy substantial legal immunity for actions in office. Trump would come to office with a Cabinet and staff pre-vetted for loyalty, and a fully compliant Republican coalition in Congress — devoid of critics in positions of real power.
That’s a big reason many Democrats worry President Biden is making one of the biggest gambles in U.S. history by staying in the race amid acute concerns about his age.
The big picture: Trump promises an unabashedly imperial presidency — one that would turn the Justice Department against critics, deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally, slap 10% tariffs on thousands of products, and fire perhaps tens of thousands of government staff deemed insufficiently loyal.
He’d stretch the powers of the presidency in ways not seen in our lifetime. He says this consistently and clearly — so it’s not conjecture.
You might like this or loathe this. But it’s coming, fast and furious, if he’s elected.
Thanks to Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Trump could pursue his plans without fear of punishment or restraint.
What to watch: To hear Trump and his allies tell it, this is how early 2025 would unfold if he wins:
1. A re-elected Trump would quickly set up vast camps and deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally. He could invoke the Insurrection Act and use troops to lock down the southern border.
3. He’d centralize power over the Justice Department, historically an independent check on presidential power. He plans to nominate a trusted loyalist for attorney general, and has threatened to target and even imprison critics. He could demand the federal cases against him cease immediately.
4. Many of the Jan. 6 convictscould be pardoned — a promise Trump has made at campaign rallies, where he hails them as patriots, not criminals. Investigations of the Bidens would begin.
5. Trump says he’d slap 10% tariffs on most imported goods, igniting a possible trade war and risking short-term inflation. He argues this would give him leverage to create better trade terms to benefit consumers.
6. Conversation would intensify about when Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Sam Alito, 74, would retire.
Lists of potential successors are already drawn up.
President Biden said last month that “the next president is likely to have two new Supreme Court nominees.”
If Trump were to win and the two oldest justices retired, five of the nine justices would have been handpicked by Trump.
Top Democrats privately predict Republican majorities in the House and Senate if Biden loses.
Most of Trump’s most prominent critics — Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, et al. — will be gone. Even the few who remain, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), will be substantially less powerful.
Trump would be backed by an overwhelmingly Trump-friendly Senate and House — loaded with loyalists, top to bottom. Many were elected since his 2016 win, and many thanks to his endorsement.
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) in the spin room after the CNN debate in Atlanta. Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
What they’re saying: Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a top prospect as Trump’s VP, told us Trump would have more allies — and more loyal allies — in Congress this time.
“You have to ask yourself: How many true allies of the agenda existed in the United States Capitol in January 2017, and how many will exist in January of 2025?” Vance told us.
“You have a Republican Party that, in some ways, was divided against itself in January of 2017,” Vance added. “I think now it recognizes that Trump is effectively leader of the party. And you’ll see that in governing style and certainly in agenda,” with “much less infighting between Republicans, which will make us much more effective as a governing coalition.”
The freshman senator said that while Trump was “very much a newcomer to politics” when he ran the first time, he now “understands how to pull the levers of power much better, because he’s coming at this as a subject matter expert.”
The media would investigate, report, and illuminate all of it — but probably with less impact. A second Trump term would start with TV ratings in the tank, mainstream media shrinking, and public attention shattering into dozens of information ecosystems, many built around popular and often partisan celebrities.
So the ability to do more with fewer real restraints is real — and hard to change.
The bottom line: Think of Trump 2025 as a better prepared, much better organized, much more powerful version of Trump 2017 — minus Republican brakes and any mystery about immunity.
John Oliver discusses Donald Trump’s plans for a second term, why it could be much worse than his first term, and what Trump has in common with a hamster.
The power of the public needs to wake up and fight back. Yes the wealthy and businesses have made it ever harder to find any time to even read news much less take action. But unless we do the past will be our future. The wealthy bought the republican party and even some in the democratic party to support the oligarchy and return to the gilded age of robber barons and a government too small and powerless to stop them. Back then the US was basically run by wealthy corporations and business interests. The people, the public not only did not have a real voice, they simply did not matter. They were only livestock to make the companies more money and when they couldn’t do that anymore, they suffered and died. A life span for the worker was 47, the life span for the wealthy was into the late 70s. Is that what we want for the US? Please people rise up, vote for Biden, the wealthy are desperate and funding all the challenges to him. RFK, Jill Stein, Cornell West none of them can win. Period. The math doesn’t work, the system doesn’t allow it. There are only two candidates that can get the needed 270 electoral votes to win, to be president. These others are simply spoilers paid to tank Biden and help tRump. Don’t let them do it. Hugs. Scottie
The Cass report was a complete ideological bias hit job. Yes, it got great traction at first as the anti-trans haters ran with it. But like all hate driven junk science it withered on the vine. Hugs. Scottie
Many of the largest medical and psychological organizations have rejected the Cass Review’s recommendations on trans youth. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is the latest.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Subscribe
Two months ago, the Cass Review was released in the United Kingdom. This review, guided and advised by individuals with ties to SPLC-designated hate groups and who met with Governor Ron DeSantis’ medical board—handpicked to ban care in Florida—has led to severe restrictions in the U.K., including criminalizing the possession of puberty blockers. The response outside the U.K. has been much more critical, with numerous medical organizations and doctors worldwide rejecting its recommendations. The latest major medical body to speak out is the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP), the leading organization for training psychiatrists in both countries.
The Cass Review, a highly criticized evaluation of transgender care, was developed in the United Kingdom by Dr. Hillary Cass, a pediatrician without direct experience in transgender care. Although it was presented as an unbiased and neutral review, intentionally excluding transgender individuals from the decision-making process, it was later revealed that advisors with ties to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, an SPLC-designated hate group, were involved. Dr. Cass has since controversially blamed being trans on pornography and labeled the American Academy of Pediatrics as a “left-leaning organization” due to its support for the medical care of transgender youth.
Last month, a handful of members of the RANZCP, some of which are notable figures in anti-trans activism in the country, wrote a letter to the organization stating that they had “serious concerns” about gender affirming care for transgender youth. They pointed to the Cass Review as justification for their concerns. The top signature on the letter is that of Jillian Spencer, who stated in an interview that she was fired for “being a danger to trans and gender-diverse children.” Now, the college has responded.
In a response posted to the RANZCP website, the college announced that the Cass Review is one of “a number of reviews,” and that it rejects the call for a “government inquiry” into trans care in the countries it represents. It further states that transgender care should be “patient centered” and individualized to a patient’s needs. Lastly, it expresses a full support for transgender youth and rejects claims that being transgender is a “mental health condition”:
“The College is committed to respectful, sensitive and appropriate mental health care being provided to individuals who identify as LGBTIQ+. Being Trans or Gender Diverse is not a mental health condition, and the RANZCP unequivocally supports the rights of trans and gender diverse people to have equal access to safe and effective mental health care that is underpinned by dignity, empathy and respect.
…
The College emphasises that assessment and treatment should be patient centred, evidence-informed and responsive to and supportive of the child or young person’s needs and that psychiatrists have a responsibility to counter stigma and discrimination directed towards trans and gender diverse people.”
The statement from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is the latest in a series of rejections of the Cass Review’s findings by medical organizations worldwide. Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics responded to the review, disagreeing with many of its claims and asserting that the organization supports “individualized health care for each patient, in consultation with their family and health care team” when it comes to transgender youth. The Endocrine Society also dismissed the recommendations, stating, “Medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions.”
In Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Society rejected the Cass Review’s recommendations, announcing that “current evidence shows puberty blockers to be safe when used appropriately, and they remain an option to be considered within a wider view of the patient’s mental and psychosocial health.” Children’s Healthcare Canada, which oversees the country’s children’s hospitals, concurred, stating, “Our position remains unchanged on the topic.”
Evidence continues to support the use of gender affirming care for transgender youth. A Cornell review of more than 51 studies found “gender transition is effective in treating gender dysphoria and can significantly improve the well-being of transgender individuals.” Numerous studies show lower suicidality, with as much as a 73% reduction in suicidality for trans youth who are allowed care. In a recent article that was not considered by the Cass Review in the Journal of Adolescent Health, puberty blockers reduced depression and anxiety significantly. In Germany, a recent review by over 27 medical organizations has judged that “not providing treatment can do harm” to transgender youth. Due to strong evidence around transgender care, the American Psychological Association released a historic policy resolution condemning bans on gender affirming care. Notably, they are the largest psychological association in the world, with representatives elected to represent 157,000 members.
The lack of credibility given to the Cass Review outside the United Kingdom, especially in the United States, has frustrated its proponents. In a recent article published in The BMJ titled “Gender medicine in the US: how the Cass review failed to land,” anti-trans writer Jennifer Block laments that Erin Reed, the author of this article, highlighted the review’s anti-trans political ties with DeSantis’ picks, which hampered its acceptance. Although Block incorrectly claims that only a single meeting took place (Cass advisor Dr. Kaltiala attended several meetings and even advocated for the ban as a primary witness), she accurately demonstrates that the document’s political roots have been detrimental to its acceptance among credible scientific organizations. These political roots were recently confirmed when Conservative Women and Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch, admitted that “gender critical” individuals were placed in health roles to facilitate the Cass Review—a mechanism remarkably similar to how Florida’s review led to the banning of care in the state, borrowing from DeSantis’ strategy.
Despite its lack of acceptance abroad, the Cass Review continues to do tremendous damage in places predisposed to targeting transgender healthcare. It has already been cited in the United States to ban care in South Carolina, a Republican-controlled state. In the United Kingdom, it has led to the criminalization of possessing puberty blockers. As more medical organizations reject its findings, politicians will undoubtedly use its conclusions to push forward with bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, despite having little evidence to justify such decisions.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Watch as GreaterSapien, usually the voice of reason, loses his grip while discussing Donald Trump and the MAGA movement! This video can’t mask the underlying meltdown as he rants against Trump’s policies and MAGA’s influence with shaking fury. From calling Trump the “titanic of presidents” to labeling MAGA hats as “brain cell repellents,” GreaterSapien pulls no punches in this comically exaggerated takedown. It’s all absurdly civil on the surface, but the subtext screams satire! Come for the supposed meltdown, stay for the clever critiques. #UnhingedLogic#TrumpTirade#MAGAchaos
Scottie's Playtime 