Showing posts with label oh holy trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oh holy trump. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2026

Trump picked a fight with the wrong pope

Trump picked a fight with the wrong pope

 https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/4/26/800027268/series/trump-pope-leo-polling/

 

Trump picked a fight with the wrong pope

Pope Leo, left, and President Donald Trump, right, appear together in a composite image.
Attribution: AP (original)Pope Leo, left, and President Donald Trump, shown in a composite image.

Survey Says is a weekly series rounding up the most important polling trends or data points you need to know about, plus a vibe check on a trend that’s driving politics or culture.


The president is belittling the pope as “weak on crime.” The president has circulated an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ.

The fact that these two incidents, which would have been unfathomable 15 years ago, don’t fry our brains speaks to how far Donald Trump has dragged us from common decency. But unlike with so much of his obscene behavior, the American public isn’t standing for these two vulgarities.

Just 33% of Americans say Trump’s recent criticism of the pope was acceptable, according to a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute. A majority (58%) say it was unacceptable.

That finding holds true across many religious groups as well. Fifty-four percent of Catholics consider Trump’s pope-bashing unacceptable, as do majorities of mainline Protestants (57%), atheists (80%), and religiously unaffiliated Americans (66%).

Evangelical Christians are split, with 44% deeming the criticism acceptable and 43% calling it unacceptable. Of course, white evangelicals have been overwhelmingly supportive of Trump, though that support has waned since his inauguration.

However, that split is telling. Even with one of his most loyal groups, Trump can’t muster majority support for his war on the pope. 

After all, Americans are broadly fond of Leo. A majority of the public (55%) has a favorable view of the pope, while only 24% have an unfavorable view, according to the latest Economist/YouGov poll. Leo’s net favorable rating of +31 points is leagues better than those for Trump (-16 points) and Vice President JD Vance (-14 points), who smugly told Leo, the leader of the Catholic Church, “to be careful” when discussing theology. 

Likely voters, in particular, hold Pope Leo in especially high esteem, per a new poll from Echelon Insights. Leo’s net favorability with that group is +42 points, while Vance’s is -11 points and Trump’s is -15 points.

Americans’ fondness for Leo is no surprise. The pontiff was born and raised in Chicago. He loves the White Sox and tennis. He has almost certainly eaten hot dogs and deep-dish pizza. Chicagoans rep Leo on T-shirts that say “Malört and savior,” referring to a vile yet locally popular liquor. As many have said, he is the people’s pope—and more than that, he is the American people’s pope.

Trump almost couldn’t pick a worse target, but he couldn’t help himself after Leo lambasted the deadly Iran war and war-hungry “tyrants,” though he never called out Trump by name. 

The thing is, Leo’s recent statements about war and peace are very popular with Americans.

The day after Trump launched his war on Iran, Leo told an audience, “Stability and peace are not built with mutual threats, nor with weapons, which sow destruction, pain, and death, but only through a reasonable, authentic, and responsible dialogue.” 

Just 16% of Americans disagree with that statement, according to the Economist/YouGov poll. And that number appears to be held up almost entirely by MAGA supporters, 42% of whom disagree with the statement.

Overall, only 24% of Americans disapprove of Leo’s general statements about the war. Just 28% say they agree more with Trump and Vance than the pope. And even after Trump’s anti-pope missives, less than one-third of Americans (31%) think Leo has gotten too involved in politics.

It doesn’t help Trump that his Iran war is deeply unpopular. As of Friday, only 38.4% of the American public support the war, while 54.8% oppose it, according to a polling average from election analyst Nate Silver.

But rather than cut his losses, Trump has made matters worse. Less than an hour after he attacked the pope as “weak on crime,” the president posted an AI-generated image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. The image instantly ignited a broad backlash, leading Trump to laughably spin it as “a picture of me being a doctor,” as he told CBS News. 

“That’s what most people thought,” he added. 

Except “most people” very much didn’t. Only 12% of Americans say the image depicts Trump as a doctor, according to Angus Reid’s poll. On top of that, a large majority (67%) say Trump’s image post “went too far,” while just 21% defended him as merely “joking.”

Even fewer say they like the image: just 11% of Americans, per the Economist/YouGov poll. 

Not even Trump’s MAGA movement is on board with the image. Only 34% of self-described MAGA supporters like the Trump-as-Jesus image. Another 30% dislike it but don’t think it’s important, and 9% say they outright hate it. 

Notably, 26% of MAGA supporters say they aren’t sure about their feelings, which is the highest “not sure” among any demographic group in the poll. That suggests his base is deeply uncomfortable with the image even if they can’t bring themselves to denounce it.

Though Trump may not literally see himself as the second coming of Jesus, he is undoubtedly the leader of a personality cult. And clearly, he believes that anyone who doesn’t lick his boots deserves to be kicked in the teeth, even if it’s the pope.

Any updates?

  • Following the Artemis II mission, “moon joy” has taken the United States—but that hasn’t translated into its citizens’ spending priorities. Though 57% of Americans see space missions as having a positive effect on society, only 48% say they’re a good use of taxpayer money, according to YouGov. A new poll from Echelon Insights finds a similar trend: 61% of likely voters say space exploration is a good use of resources, but just 41% think the U.S. should prioritize funding to send astronauts to the moon. Even fewer (33%) think funding should be prioritized for sending people to Mars. (Personally, I still want to go.)

Vibe check

Amid a ceaseless barrage of daily threats—war, economic insecurity, AI stealing jobs, and so on—Americans are feeling more and more depressed. 

In the first quarter of this year, 19.1% of U.S. adults said they had or were being treated for depression, according to new data from Gallup. While that is just shy of the all-time high—20.0%, recorded in the final quarter of last year—it is well above where things stood just a few years ago.

In the third quarter of 2020, about six months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the depression rate stood at 13.8%. 

The pandemic made Americans lonelier and more isolated, and politics didn’t help. 

As I wrote last September, Gallup also found that Americans were less satisfied with 26 of 28 national issues at the start of Trump’s second term than at the start of his first. The issue that saw the greatest drop in satisfaction was “the overall quality of life,” which fell 18 points between 2017 and 2025.

New data on those trends hasn’t been publicly released, but given that the national depression rate is higher now, it’s unlikely the situation has improved.

Daily Kos is free for everyone—no paywall, no barriers. Help keep it that way

Daily Kos is committed to keeping all our content free. That's why we don't have a paywall, and never will. However, Daily Kos' revenue is down, and we may not be able to continue producing the quality of work you have come to expect from us. Donations from our readers are our largest source of income. If you value independent, accessible, paywall-free journalism, please consider making a donation today.

$
OR
Donate with

Saturday, April 4, 2026

we need a state department, dhs, ice, white house, and Pentagon Exorcism of 2026

 we need a state department, dhs, ice, white house, and Pentagon Exorcism of 2026

https://reason.com/2017/10/20/the-great-pentagon-exorcism-of-67/

The Great Pentagon Exorcism of '67

  

 https://player.vimeo.com/video/239333605

 

The Great Pentagon Exorcism of '67

Friday A/V Club: Driving the demons from the Pentagon

https://vimeo.com/239333605

|

Fifty years ago tomorrow, thousands of antiwar protesters marched on the Pentagon. Armed troops formed a barrier outside the building; hippies stuck flowers in their weapons. Demonstrators dressed as cheerleaders chanted "Beat Army! Beat Army!" Other protesters tried to storm the structure, with a handful managing to get inside. And some of the political pranksters who would later form the Yippies led a ritual to exorcise the demons from the Pentagon and then levitate it into the air.

Abbie Hoffman claimed in Revolution for the Hell of It that his crew had come out to measure the building some time before:

Icarus Films

"67-68-69-70-"

"What do you think you guys are doing?

"Measuring the Pentagon. We have to see how many people we need to form a ring around it."

"You're what!"

"It's very simple. You see, the Pentagon is a symbol of evil in most religions. You're religious aren't you?"

"Unh."

"Well, the only way to exorcise the evil spirits here is to form a circle around the Pentagon. 87-88-89…"

The two scouts are soon surrounded by a corps of guards, FBI agents, soldiers and some mighty impressive brass.

"112-113-114-"

"Are you guys serious? It's against the law to measure the Pentagon."

"Are you guys serious? Show us the law. 237-238-239-240. That does it. Colonel, how much is 240 times 5?"

I suspect the dialogue didn't go exactly like that, but it's a funny story anyway. When the day of the demonstration arrived, the levitators chanted "Out, demons, out!" but did not in fact form a ring around the building, prompting Norman Mailer to declare that "exorcism without encirclement was like culinary art without a fire."

The protest was captured in The Sixth Side of the Pentagon, a short documentary by the French directors Chris Marker and François Reichenbach. (Marker is probably best known for La Jetee, the science-fiction film that inspired Terry Gilliam's Twelve Monkeys.) Antiwar veterans marching in formation, Castroites carrying "Avenge Che!" signs, Nazi counterdemonstrators, a preacher in a hydraulic crane denouncing communism: They're all here. And of course there's footage of the hippies trying to levitate the building—though not, alas, of the building actually leaving the ground. I guess the camera must have been pointed in a different direction when that happened.

Marker later reused some of that footage in A Grin Without a Cat, his mammoth 1977 documentary about the global New Left and its times. Besides the bigger canvas, there was a substantial change in tone between the two pictures. The Sixth Side of the Pentagon was made by a couple of radical partisans who believed the march had marked a shift from "protest" to "resistance." A Grin Without a Cat was made by a guy who still dreamed of a utopian society but had seen a lot of defeats and betrayals in the last 10 years.

Bonus links: For a Washington Post story on the anniversary, go here. For an oral history of the exorcism of the Pentagon, with appearances by everyone from Kenneth Anger to the Fugs, go here. For past editions of the Friday A/V Club, go here. For another Friday A/V Club with Yippies in it, go here.

 

OUT, DEMONS, OUT!: The 1967 Exorcism of the Pentagon and the Birth of ... 

 OUT, DEMONS, OUT!: The 1967 Exorcism of the Pentagon and the Birth of ...

 

Friday, April 3, 2026

The most transparent administration in history strikes again

 https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/4/3/2376175/-The-most-transparent-administration-in-history-strikes-again

 

21
Comments
21 New
no image description available
Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn of White House in June 2019.

Under President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice is attacking the real enemy: recordkeeping requirements. 

Yes, Trump just got his pet at the Office of Legal Counsel,  T. Elliot Gaiser,  to whip up a very aggro opinion saying that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional.

250826OLCElliotGaiserOfficialPortrait-20-MAT_0374.jpg

Such a great look to have a presidential appointee just baldly declaring that the law requiring the president to keep records is unconstitutional because Congress has no right to tell the president to keep records. It intrudes on his authority to make him do so, and there’s no legislative purpose, and it's burdensome, and on and on and on.

This sort of thing was inevitable once the DOJ became fully captured by Trump. Not just that he would begin treating the OLC like his own personal legal opinion factory, there to spit out whatever he likes, regardless of actual law, but that he would go after the PRA specifically. 

The PRA was enacted in the wake of Watergate and requires that presidential and vice-presidential records be available to the public. So, the president and vice president have to maintain records created during their tenure and leave them behind when they go, at which point they are transferred to the archivist. 

During his first term, Trump routinely violated the PRA by tearing up and throwing away records. Upon leaving office after his first term, he insisted that the PRA meant he could keep whatever presidential records he wanted, forever. You will note that is pretty much literally the opposite of what the law says. 


Related | Trump says executive privilege for me—but not for thee


The only reason Trump wasn’t indicted for violating the PRA over squirreling away classified documents in his fancy bathroom at Mar-a-Lago is that the PRA is a civil, not criminal, statute. So he was indicted under different laws for that little escapade until Aileen Cannon magicked it away for him.

Cartoon by Mike Luckovich

But of course, the PRA still had to go—and Gaiser was more than eager to do so.

Sure, the Supreme Court already ruled in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services that the PRA was not unconstitutional and did not infringe on Nixon’s rights, but per Gaiser, it’s totally different for… reasons.

Gaiser is a handy guy to have at the OLC if you are Donald Trump. Gaiser is a true, true believer. A 2012 Hillsdale College graduate who clerked for Justice Samuel Alito, Gaiser was part of Trump’s 2020 campaign team. During the investigations into January 6, Kayleigh McEnany named Gaiser as someone who was really trusted on “matters of election integrity” and that Gaiser had advised that the vice president had a “substantive” role in certifying elections.

Translation: Gaiser thought it would be totally legal for Mike Pence to refuse to certify an election if doing so would make Trump sad. Keen legal mind there, dude.

Speaking of keen legal minds, it probably bears mentioning that Gaiser clerked for Alito beginning in the fall of 2021. As in, after being a part of Trump’s merry band of election deniers and insurrection enthusiasts.

Besides throwing out a major recordkeeping act, Gaiser was also happy to whip up a little opinion saying that it’s unconstitutional to ban sending firearms through the U.S. mail. He was also eager to crank out dozens of pages striking down as unconstitutional nearly all programs the Department of Education managed that helped increase school enrollment and achievement for non-white students. 

Dude probably waited his whole life for that, let’s be honest. 

Gaiser’s opinions are denser and longer, but at root, they also hold the exact same legal authority as Trump’s executive orders do: absolutely none. If Trump wants the PRA to go away, he can get Congress to change the law, or he can bring a legal challenge to the law, perhaps, in his personal capacity. It isn’t like he has any qualms about maintaining a robust stack of private lawsuits while president. 


Related | How many personal lawsuits does Trump have going right now, anyway?


This isn’t just about Trump not wanting the public to see what he’s doing. It’s about his belief that everything is his—the White House, the Kennedy Center,  you name it. In his mind, his records belong to him, not us. He can toss or keep them as he pleases, but they’re not ours.

It’s the exact opposite of democracy.

Daily Kos relies on small donations to make ends meet

Ad revenue can't support Daily Kos operations—and it hasn't been able to for more than a decade.

Digital ad revenue has declined everywhere, especially for news organizations for whom it was once their lifeblood. Companies are spending less money on ads, and Amazon, Facebook and Google are gobbling up an ever-greater share of what remains. This has left almost nothing for places like Daily Kos. The only reason we've been able to survive is because of the support of readers like you. That's why we're asking:

Can you take one minute right now to donate $5 or more to Daily Kos? It would mean so much to us.

$
ORDonate with
1 group republished

Was this story worth reading?

Recommending and sharing stories helps us decide which stories are most
important to show our readers.
21Comments

Thursday, March 5, 2026

Why are the US and Israel framing the ongoing conflict as a religious war?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/4/why-are-the-us-and-israel-framing-the-ongoing-conflict-as-a-religious-war 

Why are the US and Israel framing the ongoing conflict as a religious war?

US troops reportedly told the war in Iran is intended to bring about biblical end times, Armageddon.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stand at the Knesset on the day Trump addresses it, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Jerusalem, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/Pool/File Photo
The Trump administration and Netanyahu have repeatedly used religious language to describe the attacks in Iran [File: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters]

As conflict in the Middle East enters its fifth day on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials are pushing rhetoric suggesting that the campaign against Iran is a religious war.

On Tuesday, Muslim civil rights organisation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), condemned the Pentagon’s use of this rhetoric, deeming it “dangerous” and “anti-Muslim”.

The United States and Israel began their attack on Iran on Saturday and have continued to carry out strikes on Iran since then. In retaliation, Iran has hit back at targets in Israel, and US military assets in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.

A US watchdog has reported that US troops have been told the war is intended to “induce the biblical end of times”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also recently stated that Iran is run by “religious fanatic lunatics”.

What are American and Israeli leaders saying?

US watchdog Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) said it has received emailed complaints that US service members were told the war with Iran is meant to “cause Armageddon”, or the biblical “end times”.

An unnamed noncommissioned officer wrote in an email to MRFF that a commander had urged officers “to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.

The MRFF is a nonprofit organisation dedicated to upholding religious freedom for US service members.

The officer claimed the commander had told the unit that Trump “has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth”.

Israeli and US leaders have also resorted to religious rhetoric in public.

Last month, Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, told conservative US commentator Tucker Carlson during an interview that it would be “fine” if Israel took “essentially the entire Middle East” because it was promised the land in the Bible. However, Huckabee added that Israel was not seeking to do so.

Speaking to the media on Tuesday this week, Rubio said: “Iran is run by lunatics – religious fanatic lunatics. They have an ambition to have nuclear weapons.”

And, the previous day in a Pentagon news briefing, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said: “Crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons.”

In its statement, CAIR claimed that Hegseth’s words are “an apparent reference to Shia beliefs about religious figures arising near the end times”.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referenced the Torah, comparing Iran with an ancient biblical enemy, the Amalekites. The “Amalek” are known in Jewish tradition as representing “pure evil”.

“We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember – and we act.”

CAIR said: “We are not surprised to see Benjamin Netanyahu once again using the biblical story of Amalek – which claims that God commanded the Israelites to murder every man, woman, child and animal in a pagan nation that attacked them – to justify Israel’s mass murder of civilians in Iran, just as it did in Gaza.”

The statement added that every American should be “deeply disturbed by the ‘holy war’ rhetoric” being spread by the US military, Hegseth and Netanyahu to justify the war on Iran.

“Mr Hegseth’s derisive comment about ‘Islamist prophetic delusions’, an apparent reference to Shia beliefs about religious figures arising near the end times, was unacceptable. So is US military commanders telling troops that war with Iran is a biblical step towards Armageddon.”

Why are US and Israeli leaders framing the conflict with Iran as a religious war?

By attempting to frame the conflict as a holy war, leaders are using theological beliefs to “justify action, mobilise political opinion, and leverage support”, Jolyon Mitchell, a professor at Durham University in the UK, told Al Jazeera.

“Many on both sides of this conflict believe that they have God on their side. God is enlisted in this conflict, as with many others, to support acts of violence. The demonisation and dehumanisation of the enemy, the ‘other’, will inevitably make building peace after the conflict even harder,” Mitchell said.

“There are several overlapping reasons, and they operate at different levels: domestic mobilisation, civilisational framing, and strategic narrative construction,” Ibrahim Abusharif, an associate professor at Northwestern University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera.

Domestic mobilisation refers to rallying a country’s own people. Leaders can frame conflict as religious and hence morally clear and urgent, rallying public support, he said.

In a video circulating on social media this week, Christian Zionist pastor and televangelist John Hagee is seen delivering a sermon promoting the US assault on Iran. Hagee said that Russia, Turkiye, “what’s left of Iran” and “groups of Islamics” will march into Israel. He said that God will “crush” the “adversaries of Israel”.

“Religious language mobilises domestic constituencies,” Abusharif said, explaining that in the US, this connects deeply with many evangelicals and Christian Zionists, because they already see Middle East wars as part of a religious “end times” story.

“References to the ‘end times’, the Book of Revelation, or biblical enemies are not incidental; they activate a cultural script already present in American political theology.”

Civilisational framing refers to the creation of an “us vs them” dichotomy, casting the conflict as a clash between whole ways of life or faiths, not just a dispute over borders or policy, he added. Hence, statements such as Hegseth’s reference to “prophetic Islamic delusions” simplify the terms of the war in the minds of ordinary people.

“Wars are difficult to justify in technical strategic language,” Abusharif said.

“Casting the conflict as a struggle between ‘civilisation and fanaticism’, or between biblical ‘good and evil’, transforms a complicated regional confrontation into a moral drama that ordinary audiences can easily grasp.”

“Israeli leadership has long used biblical referents as political language. We all are familiar with it. The narratives have become globalised. In Israeli political discourse, this language situates contemporary conflict within a long historical narrative of Jewish survival, and it signals existential stakes,” Abusharif said.

Have US or Israeli leaders made religious references before?

Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have used the term “Amalek” before in reference to Palestinians in Gaza during Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Historically, during wars or military confrontations, US presidents and senior officials have also invoked the Bible or used Christian language.

President George W Bush invoked similar language after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On September 16, 2001, Bush said: “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” The Crusades were a series of religiously framed wars, mainly between the 11th and 13th centuries, in which the papacy fought against Muslim rulers for territory.

The White House later tried to distance Bush from the word “crusade” to clarify that Bush was not waging a war against Muslims.

Abusharif said that the war on Iran is about power and politics, but using religious rhetoric energises supporters and “moralises” the conflict.

“The war itself is not theological. It is geopolitical. But the language surrounding it increasingly draws on sacred imagery and civilisational narratives. That rhetoric can mobilise supporters and frame the conflict in morally absolute terms,” Abusharif said.

“Yet it also carries risks: once a war is cast in sacred language, political compromise becomes harder, expectations become higher, and the global perception of the conflict can shift in ways that complicate diplomacy.”

25:59
  • Now Playing
    25:59
    Trump, Iran and geopolitical mind games

    Trump, Iran and geopolitical mind games

  • Next
    01:06
    Nepal elections frame new era after youth protests toppled leaders

    Nepal elections frame new era after youth protests toppled leaders

  • 02:08
    Gaza flotilla activists confronted by Tunisian police

    Gaza flotilla activists confronted by Tunisian police

  • 02:16
    France allowing US to use some of its air bases in the Middle East 'temporarily'

    France allowing US to use some of its air bases in the Middle East 'temporarily'

  • 02:59
    Game Theory: What would happen if Iran pulled out of the World Cup?

    Game Theory: What would happen if Iran pulled out of the World Cup?