All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Jack Dracula]

Worst Liar Ever, lying about how much of a threat to national security his phone use is.

Trump has been ignoring the security protocols surrounding the use of the presidential cell-phones.
Evidently the established rules are "too inconvenient."

According to a report by Politico's Eliana Johnson, Emily Stephenson, and Daniel Lippman, Trump has resisted all efforts to get him to use a secured mobile device, instead relying on a pair of off-the-shelf cell phones—one for Twitter only and the other for placing calls. And while the phones used for calls are treated to a degree as "burner phones"—with devices being swapped out regularly—Trump has pushed back on regular security checks and swap-outs of his Twitter phone, calling them "too inconvenient." Two White House officials told Politico that Trump has gone as long as five months without having his Twitter device checked by IT or WHCA staff.

[zinderel]

I have made no excuse for domestic terrorism.

I also understand the point of terrorism, including the fact that exaggerating the impact can give the terrorists what they want.

The gist of your words, which WBE responded to, is, "It's no big deal, since most people aren't affected by it." So yeah, that's excusing right wing terrorism, Mets.

How can we tell the grieving survivors of people killed in car accidents that we will allow their loved ones to have died in vain, and refuse to have a national speed limit of 10 MPH?

And here we have you belittling concerns about right wing terrorism by comparing it to the totally unrelated deaths from auto accidents. See, there's this thing called 'bad faith argumentation'. You exhibit it here, by pretending that the one has anything to do with the other, and acting like you win for making the comparison no one else has made. Auto accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS. Not a deliberate attack on a minority to drum up fear, terror and anxiety. Not a deliberate attempt to suppress an entire segment of the population's sense of safety in their homes. So, good on you for making an argument that addresses nothing being discussed. *claps*

As for the responses to domestic terrorism, this isn't a matter of the authorities doing nothing. Heather Heyer's killer is prosecuted for first-degree murder and a lot of other crimes. The man who shot up the bible study group in South Carolina hoping to start a race war was sentenced to death. The authorities are going after the guy sending the explosives, just as they're going after whoever sent Susan Collins the Ricin threat.

What more should be done?

The authorities treat right wing domestic terrorism as lone wolf, zero provocation events, with no connection to the words and actions of political and religious leaders. Meanwhile, 9/11 was a concerted effort on behalf of all Muslims to destroy freedom. So, for starters, 'what more should be done' is treat the white man who shoots up a black church the same way we would treat a Muslim shooting up a gay bar. But, see, we don't. We don't hold white religious leaders to the same standards we hold PoC religious leaders. We don't hold Christian terrorists to the same standards as we hold Muslim terrorists. We don't even treat a white mass murderer the same way we treat a black man who was arrested for 'owning an illegal knife' - one got dinner at the burger joint of his choice, the other wound up dead in the back of a police van.

So, what more should be done? Hold white, right wing, Christian terrorists to the same bar as any other terrorist. And hold those who enable them to the same standard. So far, that's not happening. And if Republicans have their way, it never will be.

In my lifetime, there have been more Americans killed by radical Muslims than by right-wing terrorists.

That said, I do think we've gone overboard with some anti-terrorism measures post-9/11. And that there has been significant waste in the war on terror. Does anyone here disagree with either assertion.

I've never claimed that we shouldn't devote any resources to catching/ preventing right-wing terrorists. We should probably take it more seriously than the typical murders and attempted murders. But this is a question of how much resources/ focus this topic deserves.

9/11 was a tragedy. One followed up by the bigger tragedy of an endless war against nations and peoples who were not involved in the attack. An endless war that serves only to enrich those who profit from war. It also saw continued political and financial interactions with the nation who WAS responsible, which has led us to the point we are in currently, where their crown prince likely had a jounalist killed and our president still thinks he's a great guy. Muslim extremists did a HORRIBLE thing. No question. But it was also ONE event, whereas right wing terrorist acts - while taking less lives in total, to be certain - are far more common, and treated vastly differently than we have treated Muslims, post 9/11. It's GREAT that you think 'some' anti-terrorism measures are too much, but I would bet those measures are the ones that directly affect you - like the restrictions on footwear and carry on containers, and such. Where are the laws preventing white, Christian males from owning guns? Where are the demands for profiling any white person entering a black church/movie theater/Vegas casino hotel? Or the extradition camps for suspected white terrorists? Where is Abu Graib for the domestic terrorist? (Not that I think Abu Graib was in any way acceptable, mind you. That's KIND of my point.) Why have people like Tony Perkins, Scott Lively, Pat Robertson, et al been demonized the way Muslim clerics have? The way black pastors who suggest that white men are the devil (owing to centuries of white oppression of the minority) have?

I wasn't limiting my observation on wasted resources to violence, since there are many other things that kill people and prevent them from reaching their potential.

You're conflating terrorism with other problems. Callousness and disregard from right-wing politicians, and demonization from right wing media outlets are a different problem than some idiot mailing pipe bombs to former officials, so the solution to the latter wouldn't fix the former.

If it turns out that the terrorist is a Trump voter, I expect he'll be prosecuted. What do you think the result should be?

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am saying, bluntly, that right wing callousness and disregard, demonization, and dehumanization directly lead to right wing acts of violence against those demonized and dehumanized, and that the callousness and disregard we get from right wing politicians in the face of such acts embolden the terrorists. I am BLUNTLY stating that right wing terrorism is good for Republicans, and that is why they treat it with such callousness and disregard. How is it good for them? Well, it causes those victimized to do one of two things - cower and hide, which means they are less likely to vote and less likely to live openly; or make a fuss about it and the lack of response, which allows right wing politicians to claim they are being attacked for their traditional values and Christian faith, thus allowing them to turn the ACTUAL victimization of others into a narrative of their own made up victimization (which is called accountability, a thing Republicans claim to love, but HAAAAATE when applied to themselves) which plays into fundamentalist Christian hands. So solving the former - right wing callousness, disregard, demonization, dehumanization of minorities and their concerns - will help solve the latter - terrorist acts against the minorities that Republican pundits, preachers and leaders target as enemies.

And if it turns out the bomber IS a straight, white, Christian male Trump supporter (or any combination of those, or NONE of those) I think he should be prosecuted - in court and in the court of public opinion - in the same way that a Muslim bomber would be. However, I fully expect him to be treated with kid gloves by your party, I expect him to be the center of a narrative focusing on mental health and lone wolf acts. I expect your party to do everything in their power to deny their role in events and blame anyone trying to tie them to it of 'partisan politics' and 'dividing the nation' rather than actually addressing the corruption at the core of the party.

[Panfoot]

Oh, in regards to the earlier Sex/Gender discussion and whether or not it's tied to bigotry or just a definition change: DOJ: Businesses Can Discriminate Against Transgender Workers

Oh, but i'm sure someone can point out how this is a good thing, right...?

[Tendrin]

Oh, but i'm sure someone can point out how this is a good thing, right...?

And how people's rights ought to be argued over 'democratically'.

If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.

David Frum wrote that.

He just wrote it too late.

[Mister Mets]

The gist of your words, which WBE responded to, is, "It's no big deal, since most people aren't affected by it." So yeah, that's excusing right wing terrorism, Mets.



And here we have you belittling concerns about right wing terrorism by comparing it to the totally unrelated deaths from auto accidents. See, there's this thing called 'bad faith argumentation'. You exhibit it here, by pretending that the one has anything to do with the other, and acting like you win for making the comparison no one else has made. Auto accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS. Not a deliberate attack on a minority to drum up fear, terror and anxiety. Not a deliberate attempt to suppress an entire segment of the population's sense of safety in their homes. So, good on you for making an argument that addresses nothing being discussed. *claps*



The authorities treat right wing domestic terrorism as lone wolf, zero provocation events, with no connection to the words and actions of political and religious leaders. Meanwhile, 9/11 was a concerted effort on behalf of all Muslims to destroy freedom. So, for starters, 'what more should be done' is treat the white man who shoots up a black church the same way we would treat a Muslim shooting up a gay bar. But, see, we don't. We don't hold white religious leaders to the same standards we hold PoC religious leaders. We don't hold Christian terrorists to the same standards as we hold Muslim terrorists. We don't even treat a white mass murderer the same way we treat a black man who was arrested for 'owning an illegal knife' - one got dinner at the burger joint of his choice, the other wound up dead in the back of a police van.

So, what more should be done? Hold white, right wing, Christian terrorists to the same bar as any other terrorist. And hold those who enable them to the same standard. So far, that's not happening. And if Republicans have their way, it never will be.



9/11 was a tragedy. One followed up by the bigger tragedy of an endless war against nations and peoples who were not involved in the attack. An endless war that serves only to enrich those who profit from war. It also saw continued political and financial interactions with the nation who WAS responsible, which has led us to the point we are in currently, where their crown prince likely had a jounalist killed and our president still thinks he's a great guy. Muslim extremists did a HORRIBLE thing. No question. But it was also ONE event, whereas right wing terrorist acts - while taking less lives in total, to be certain - are far more common, and treated vastly differently than we have treated Muslims, post 9/11. It's GREAT that you think 'some' anti-terrorism measures are too much, but I would bet those measures are the ones that directly affect you - like the restrictions on footwear and carry on containers, and such. Where are the laws preventing white, Christian males from owning guns? Where are the demands for profiling any white person entering a black church/movie theater/Vegas casino hotel? Or the extradition camps for suspected white terrorists? Where is Abu Graib for the domestic terrorist? (Not that I think Abu Graib was in any way acceptable, mind you. That's KIND of my point.) Why have people like Tony Perkins, Scott Lively, Pat Robertson, et al been demonized the way Muslim clerics have? The way black pastors who suggest that white men are the devil (owing to centuries of white oppression of the minority) have?



I am doing nothing of the sort. I am saying, bluntly, that right wing callousness and disregard, demonization, and dehumanization directly lead to right wing acts of violence against those demonized and dehumanized, and that the callousness and disregard we get from right wing politicians in the face of such acts embolden the terrorists. I am BLUNTLY stating that right wing terrorism is good for Republicans, and that is why they treat it with such callousness and disregard. How is it good for them? Well, it causes those victimized to do one of two things - cower and hide, which means they are less likely to vote and less likely to live openly; or make a fuss about it and the lack of response, which allows right wing politicians to claim they are being attacked for their traditional values and Christian faith, thus allowing them to turn the ACTUAL victimization of others into a narrative of their own made up victimization (which is called accountability, a thing Republicans claim to love, but HAAAAATE when applied to themselves) which plays into fundamentalist Christian hands. So solving the former - right wing callousness, disregard, demonization, dehumanization of minorities and their concerns - will help solve the latter - terrorist acts against the minorities that Republican pundits, preachers and leaders target as enemies.

And if it turns out the bomber IS a straight, white, Christian male Trump supporter (or any combination of those, or NONE of those) I think he should be prosecuted - in court and in the court of public opinion - in the same way that a Muslim bomber would be. However, I fully expect him to be treated with kid gloves by your party, I expect him to be the center of a narrative focusing on mental health and lone wolf acts. I expect your party to do everything in their power to deny their role in events and blame anyone trying to tie them to it of 'partisan politics' and 'dividing the nation' rather than actually addressing the corruption at the core of the party.

The comment you mention in the beginning wasn't my most articulate, although it was in response to aja christopher's comment that I "see open and increasing right-wing terrorism as a virtual non-issue." In the context of things that kill Americans or prevent them from reaching their potential, I do think right-wing terrorism isn't that important. But that's not to say that it's excusable. When it happens, it should be prosecuted. The people who do it are terrible human beings. Fortunately, there aren't that many of them.

The relevance of the comparison to auto accidents was that it would be an example of an excessive solution to a real problem.

Is your comparison between Muslims and the Christian Right that the United States was too nasty on Muslims, or that it treated Muslims correctly and should treat conservative Christians the same way? With profiling, there is also a question of statistics, in that there are more conservative white Christians in the United States than Muslims, so the odds an individual will be involved in terrorism can be much lower even if the much larger group is responsible for more acts of violence. Tarizai noted that Muslims were responsible for 26 percent of terrorist attacks within the United States in 2017, but this is one percent of the population, so they are really punching above their weight.

In what ways did the United States treat the Muslim shooter of the gay bar in Orlando differently than the white supremacist shooter of the South Carolina church group?

I don't think right wing terrorism is good for Republicans, and it's certainly a leap to go from that to thinking that most Republicans agree with you, and make policies accordingly. That's kinda nuts.

And how people's rights ought to be argued over 'democratically'.



David Frum wrote that.

He just wrote it too late.

What's the alternative to arguing over people's rights 'democratically'? Who should have the power to make undemocratic decisions?

[Mister Mets]

Michael Avenatti has proven, yet again, that he isn't bluffing. After coming forward with the supposed "outlandish claims" (as Republican Senators and our one confirmed CBR party member view them) from Swetnick...

There's now a sworn affidavit from a second woman that confirms she attended 20 house parties where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present, and they were spiking drinks to get women too inebriated to consent to sexual encounters. This witness not only places Kavanaugh & Judge as there... she knows both Swetnick AND Christine Blasey Ford. If that's not enough... the affidavit also indicates she will not be the only witness coming forward to say that Brett & his pals were drugging and raping women. More to come, but this looks to bolster both Ford AND Swetnick's stories.

In discussions with NBC, Avenatti's second witness suggested he lied.

When Sen. Chuck Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation Thursday, he cited Swetnick's interview with NBC News as evidence the two were trying to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick back-tracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys."

NBC News also found other apparent inconsistencies in a second sworn statement from another woman whose statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bid to bolster Swetnick's claims.

In the second statement, the unidentified woman said she witnessed Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at high school parties in order to sexually take advantage of girls. But less than 48 hours before Avenatti released her sworn statement on Twitter, the same woman told NBC News a different story.

Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, "I didn't ever think it was Brett," the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick's claims. As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.

When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, "no."

According to the second woman's declaration that Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said: "During the years 1981-82, I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say 'No.'"

The statement also said that Kavanaugh was "overly aggressive and verbally abusive to girls. This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature."

But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: "I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female."

It would have been better had this come out at the time of NBC's interviews.

[Tendrin]

What's the alternative to arguing over people's rights 'democratically'? Who should have the power to make undemocratic decisions?

Segregation didn't end because it was voted out, Mets. It took countless legal decisions extending the fundamental rights that were offered by the constitution to people who were supposed to have them all along because a majority didn't think they deserved them and, frequently, still doesn't. Society is always having a conversation, but having a 'democratic conversation' presupposes the notion that binding votes on the status of people's personhood and right to exist is something that ought to happen. It's not as if the courts haven't been used to do this too, after all. Just ask Dred Scott.


Conservatives only ever seem to care about 'democratic conversations' when it comes to denying or stalling extending rights to people who aren't like them.

In what ways did the United States treat the Muslim shooter of the gay bar in Orlando differently than the white supremacist shooter of the South Carolina church group?

I can't believe you're seriously asking this.

[worstblogever]

I have made no excuse for domestic terrorism.

Really?

Well then. I'd like you see to try to make a statement like that while looking Heather Heyer's mother in the eye, since you feel it doesn't.

[JCAll]

"We should abolish the Electoral College."
-Tyranny of the majority

"We should extend the rights of minorities."
-Undemocratic, leave it up to majority vote

Or something, I dunno.

[aja_christopher]

In what ways did the United States treat the Muslim shooter of the gay bar in Orlando differently than the white supremacist shooter of the South Carolina church group?

Narrative -- "Islamic terrorist" (Muslim) vs. "lone wolf" (white male).

It's the same thing that happened with Timothy McVeigh and many other white "domestic terrorists": when it's a person of color, then all other people of a similar color or religion are examined in kind, but when the criminal is a white male, the dialogue generally turns to the "lone wolf" theory.

Because branding white men as terrorists seems to be problematic for many people -- especially the Republican white "nationalist" president known as Trump.

-----
"When White Men Turn into Lone Wolves"

"He became a wolf very suddenly.

The change came upon him almost as soon as he lowered the gun. His words became unintelligible. He ceased to belong to anyone. He became that most dreaded of creatures: the “lone wolf.”

Once he was a white middle-aged man. He was a son, a brother, a boyfriend. Words accrued to him like “normal” and “regular.” “He did stuff, ate burritos,” his brother said. But the second he did this horrible thing, opened fire on a crowd with an automatic weapon — a transformation took place.

And he is not the only one of this kind.

There is an epidemic ravaging America. Not gun violence. These mass shootings, as the president so sagely points out, are simply “pure evil,” not the work of human hands and cannot be stopped by human efforts.

I am talking about the wolves.

All across America white men, some young, some of middle-age, are turning into wolves. Always, after they commit acts of terror, it is revealed out that these perpetrators were not men after all. They were beasts, mindless monsters whose evil was abstract and cold and terrible. It is unclear when the transformation happens. Somewhere after they commit a horrible act of violence but before it needs to be pronounced terrorism. Then comes the horrifying revelation: This act was not done by a man at all. It was the work of an unknown and unknowable monster, motivated only by pure evil, unstoppable.

So this is not the time to call for gun control. As the governor of Kentucky tweeted, “you can’t regulate evil.”

One thing is clear: These are not terrorists. You know what a terrorist is. A Terrorist must be Something Else, or the people who apply labels to such things would have to look in the mirror every day and see a potential terrorist. They would have to admit that what they are afraid of is not the same as terrorism. They would have to admit that the horrible violence that happened in Las Vegas is not an aberration. And then —

No. The shooter was alone. He was a fluke. He was a wolf.

Some horrors are too big to wrap your head around. We have a special language invented to convince ourselves that these things are out of the ordinary, but the language is too familiar now to be believed. We know all these words too well.

We know who is allowed to become a wolf.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...o-lone-wolves/

[aja_christopher]

"Man Who Killed 2 at Kroger Tried to Enter Black Church Before Attack, Police Say"



"A gunman who killed two people at a Kroger supermarket in Jeffersontown, Ky., on Wednesday tried to enter a predominantly black church minutes before the attack, the police said on Thursday.

The man, Gregory Bush, 51, of Louisville, was arraigned Thursday on two counts of murder and 10 counts of wanton endangerment. He was ordered held with bail set at $5 million. The police said they were investigating the motive for the attack, which killed Vickie Lee Jones, 67, and Maurice E. Stallard, 69.

Both were black, while Mr. Bush is white, and the son of a witness said his father heard the gunman make a racist remark during the episode, though the police said they could not confirm that account. Mr. Bush has a history of mental illness, Chief Sam Rogers of the Jeffersontown Police Department said at a news conference on Thursday.

The police said there was no indication that Mr. Bush knew either of the victims, nor did he have any known connection to the grocery store.

Chief Rogers and church officials said that surveillance video had recorded Mr. Bush’s unsuccessful attempt to enter the nearby First Baptist Church of Jeffersontown shortly before the attack. Billy Williams, the church administrator, said eight to 10 people were inside the church when Mr. Bush arrived after a midweek service. A church member in the parking lot grew alarmed when she saw him aggressively pulling on the historic church’s front doors. Mr. Bush drove away after less than 10 minutes.

“There were 70 people here at our weekly meeting service just an hour before he came by,” said Mr. Williams, who was among them. “I’m just thankful that all of our doors and security was in place..."

After leaving the church, the police said, Mr. Bush headed to the Kroger. They said he entered just before 3 p.m. and fired multiple rounds at Mr. Stallard. He then exited and fired at Ms. Jones in the parking lot, Chief Rogers said, striking her several times.

Mr. Bush was stopped by an armed bystander who shot at him in the parking lot, and whose name the police have not released. Mr. Bush tried to flee, but he was caught by police officers. Chief Rogers said Mr. Bush was taken into custody four minutes after the police received the first call for help.

Both Mr. Stallard and Ms. Jones were declared dead at the scene.

Chief Rogers said there were conflicting reports about a second armed bystander in the supermarket, and he could not confirm the account of a local man who spoke to reporters on Wednesday.

That man, Steve Zinninger, told a local TV station that his father had also confronted Mr. Bush with a firearm. Mr. Zinninger said the gunman told his father, “Whites don’t kill whites,” and moved on."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/u...-shooting.html

[Malvolio]

I have made no excuse for domestic terrorism.

I also understand the point of terrorism, including the fact that exaggerating the impact can give the terrorists what they want.


How can we tell the grieving survivors of people killed in car accidents that we will allow their loved ones to have died in vain, and refuse to have a national speed limit of 10 MPH?

As for the responses to domestic terrorism, this isn't a matter of the authorities doing nothing. Heather Heyer's killer is prosecuted for first-degree murder and a lot of other crimes. The man who shot up the bible study group in South Carolina hoping to start a race war was sentenced to death. The authorities are going after the guy sending the explosives, just as they're going after whoever sent Susan Collins the Ricin threat.

What more should be done?

In my lifetime, there have been more Americans killed by radical Muslims than by right-wing terrorists.

That said, I do think we've gone overboard with some anti-terrorism measures post-9/11. And that there has been significant waste in the war on terror. Does anyone here disagree with either assertion.

I've never claimed that we shouldn't devote any resources to catching/ preventing right-wing terrorists. We should probably take it more seriously than the typical murders and attempted murders. But this is a question of how much resources/ focus this topic deserves.

I wasn't limiting my observation on wasted resources to violence, since there are many other things that kill people and prevent them from reaching their potential.

You're conflating terrorism with other problems. Callousness and disregard from right-wing politicians, and demonization from right wing media outlets are a different problem than some idiot mailing pipe bombs to former officials, so the solution to the latter wouldn't fix the former.

If it turns out that the terrorist is a Trump voter, I expect he'll be prosecuted. What do you think the result should be?

What more should be done? Well, for starters, how about a few Republicans calling for their own party to tone down the rhetoric just a bit? You know, maybe not paint people like Maxine Waters as "calling for violence" when she stands up for herself and her constituents?

[Tendrin]

We need a ban of white men entering the country until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

[Tendrin]

As of August 2018, the New America Foundation placed the number killed in terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 as follows: 104 killed in jihadist terrorist attacks, 73 killed in far-right attacks, and 8 killed in black separatist/nationalist/supremacist attacks.[38] The politically conservative Daily Caller News Foundation using data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), found 92% of all "ideologically motivated homicide incidents" committed in the United States from 2007 to 2016 were motivated by right-wing extremism or white supremacism.[39] According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right-wing extremist groups.[40][41]
New America's tally shows that since September 11, 2001, incidents of right-wing extremism have caused 73 deaths. Incidents causing death were:[38]

We want to put bans on Muslims but right wing violence is far more common.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, as well as 2017, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of the U.S. House Representative from South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, Mark Sanford, a man who while Governor of South Carolina, was once considered a possible future president. That, of course, came to a screeching halt after he went “hiking the Appalachian Trail”. And by that, we mean that he said he was hiking when he actually was taking personal trips to see his Argentinian mistress. This led to Sanford leaving office in disgrace, and of course, an ugly divorce from his wife with a settlement agreement that Sanford has repeatedly been accused of violating, including letting himself over to her place while she wasn’t home to watch the Super Bowl without her knowledge. The last time we checked, Jenny Sanford had forced him to undergo a psychiatric exam for some of his bizarre behavior, like digging holes with a tractor on his property. In typical hypocritical GOP fashion, the adulterer Sanford also was a self-professed champion of “the sanctity of marriage” who wanted to protect the institution from all those gay folks who might threaten it while he was busy sneaking off to see his mistress and shirking his duties as governor. He returned to the Congressional seat he vacated while serving as Governor by winning a public debate he held between himself and a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi (really), and then made the classy move of breaking up with the mistress who he nearly ruined his career for over Facebook while she was in Paris.

Mark Sanford survived a decent scare in the 2016 GOP Primary for his Congressional seat with 55% of the vote, before going on to win another term in his highly conservative district in the general election with 59%. Thus, he’s been participating in one of the most exhaustingly stupid terms of Congress in recent memory (and that’s saying something):

As far as Mark Sanford’s 2018 prospects go… the close primary he saw in 2016 was partially by his own hand… Sanford bizarrely spent almost no money on his campaign in that race, befuddling South Carolina Republicans, who know that just invites others to take a shot at knocking him off in 2018. That likelihood is even greater given reports that the Congressman’s fundraising efforts were abysmal. Remember, Sanford’s ex-wife Jenny’s family fortune and connections had a lot to do with his political success prior to his affair. He parlayed what he had into a political comeback in 2012, faced no challenger in 2014, and seems like he was just going through the motions in 2016. As money was looking scarce, he was joking about himself as a “dead man walking”, who was openly critical of Donald Trump and his insane policy ideas, like trying to undo NAFTA. That made Trump endorse Sanford’s challenger, Katie Arrington, and she ended up beating Sanford in the 2018 Primary.

It looks like Mark Sanford’s about to have free time to go digging holes in the yard again here in January.