...................................................................................................................................................................
The idiotic argument Americans use in almost any political debate
By Danielle Teller, July 15, 2016
After the US congress recently failed to pass any of the latest gun control bills, Arizona senator Jeff Flake argued on National Public Radio that if we’re going to bar people on a federal terrorism watch list from buying guns, “that argument could go further and say just put every American on the list.” His statement infuriated me, but not primarily because I am among the 90% of Americans who support more scrutiny of gun buyers. I was infuriated because Senator Flake used the dirtiest of all weapons to obliterate reasonable political discourse: the slippery slope fallacy.
Fallacious slippery slope arguments take the following form: If we allow A to happen, then extreme hypothetical event Z will eventually happen too; therefore we should never allow A to come about. No rational reason for why A would lead to Z is provided, nor is any plausible mechanism for getting from A to Z proposed. The speaker simply asserts that doing whatever it is that he or she objects to will lead to perdition.
The attraction of this false reasoning is that it allows the speaker to avoid grappling with the issue at hand. By shifting attention to scary hypotheticals, discussion of facts pertinent to the original argument is shut down. For instance, the argument that banning gay marriage is discriminatory and unconstitutional should have been met with counterarguments about why banning gay marriage is not discriminatory and unconstitutional. Since that’s a tough position to defend, many foes of gay marriage went with the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to incest, pedophilia, and even more bizarrely, human-turtle marriages. These sorts of claims skirt all of the thorny legal and ethical issues, and appeal to negative emotions instead. The argument at hand (the unconstitutionality of banning gay marriage) becomes unfairly tainted by the fear and revulsion attached to pedophilia and incest.
A logical fallacy like the fallacious slippery slope has no place in political discussions. In fact, there is no place for slippery slope arguments in human discourse at all, with the possible exception of, “If you eat that first chip, you’re going to finish the whole bag.” (This isn’t a real slippery slope argument, since there’s a plausible and compelling reason why A will lead to Z: the deliciousness of chips.) Even kindergarteners, who are the most absolutist of beings, understand that just because they can yell and run around outside, that doesn’t mean they can do the same thing inside; and just because the teacher won’t let them eat snacks whenever they want, that doesn’t mean that they’ll never have snacks. As adults, we must navigate an even more complex landscape of rights and restrictions, and for the most part, we do it pretty well.
Politicians, activists, and political commentators insult our intelligence when they invoke fallacious slippery slope arguments. We know from experience that seatbelt laws have not led to totalitarianism and longstanding restrictions on owning machine guns have not led to the ban of all firearms. None of us are wondering what to wear to a turtle-human wedding. We want to discuss the issues at hand like reasonable, rational adults. The only way we are going to have a constructive conversation about gun control is if we cut out the rhetoric and false reasoning. To that end, I am calling for an immediate nationwide ban on slippery slope arguments.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Another laughable Trump "online punchline" [snicker].
...................................................................................................................................................................
New Trump-Pence logo gives some people the giggles
By Michelle R. Smith, July 15, 2016
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump revealed a new campaign logo that’s giving some people the giggles.
The logo was released Friday as Trump announced his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.
It features an interlaced blue “T” and “P” next to red stripes, evoking the American flag. Trump’s name is featured above Pence’s name, which is smaller. Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again!” finishes off the logo.
The design was immediately mocked on social media. The “T” penetrating the loop of the “P” below it looked sexually suggestive to some. Others made the connection to T.P. being a common abbreviation for toilet paper.
The overall effect with the typography and image is pretty obvious, said Cyrus Highsmith, an internationally celebrated designer.
“I think that it’s very clear that Trump is the dominant partner in this relationship,” Highsmith said between chuckles. “The only thing I can guess is that Trump wants to make sure that everyone knows that he’s in charge. It’s totally in line with his personality.”
Other designers said it seemed amateurish.
Nancy Skolos, dean of architecture and design at the Rhode Island School of Design, called the design “fussy and overwrought,” and more like a “high school doodle.”
Matt Luckhurst, of the Collins design firm in San Francisco, whose work includes Facebook’s M app and Airbnb’s rebranding campaign, said they did not think the image through.
“I think it’s an oversight. I doubt they actually planned this,” Luckhurst said. “It’s something where they said good enough and they launched it out into the world.”
Trump’s is not the first logo to become an online punchline. Jeb Bush’s “Jeb!” logo was widely ridiculed.
While presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s logo has been praised by many designers, it prompted intra-party grousing last year. It features an “H” with an arrow pointing right, leading some Democrats to complain that the arrow did not point left.
Asked what a good logo should do, Skolos said it should be memorable. Highsmith said it should be recognizable quickly and not offensive, then hastened to add that he wasn’t offended by the Trump logo.
“I think it’s funny,” he said. “Maybe that’s another thing: Put it in enough focus groups to make sure you’re not going to get laughed at.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
New Trump-Pence logo gives some people the giggles
By Michelle R. Smith, July 15, 2016
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump revealed a new campaign logo that’s giving some people the giggles.
The logo was released Friday as Trump announced his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.
It features an interlaced blue “T” and “P” next to red stripes, evoking the American flag. Trump’s name is featured above Pence’s name, which is smaller. Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again!” finishes off the logo.
The design was immediately mocked on social media. The “T” penetrating the loop of the “P” below it looked sexually suggestive to some. Others made the connection to T.P. being a common abbreviation for toilet paper.
The overall effect with the typography and image is pretty obvious, said Cyrus Highsmith, an internationally celebrated designer.
“I think that it’s very clear that Trump is the dominant partner in this relationship,” Highsmith said between chuckles. “The only thing I can guess is that Trump wants to make sure that everyone knows that he’s in charge. It’s totally in line with his personality.”
Other designers said it seemed amateurish.
Nancy Skolos, dean of architecture and design at the Rhode Island School of Design, called the design “fussy and overwrought,” and more like a “high school doodle.”
Matt Luckhurst, of the Collins design firm in San Francisco, whose work includes Facebook’s M app and Airbnb’s rebranding campaign, said they did not think the image through.
“I think it’s an oversight. I doubt they actually planned this,” Luckhurst said. “It’s something where they said good enough and they launched it out into the world.”
Trump’s is not the first logo to become an online punchline. Jeb Bush’s “Jeb!” logo was widely ridiculed.
While presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s logo has been praised by many designers, it prompted intra-party grousing last year. It features an “H” with an arrow pointing right, leading some Democrats to complain that the arrow did not point left.
Asked what a good logo should do, Skolos said it should be memorable. Highsmith said it should be recognizable quickly and not offensive, then hastened to add that he wasn’t offended by the Trump logo.
“I think it’s funny,” he said. “Maybe that’s another thing: Put it in enough focus groups to make sure you’re not going to get laughed at.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Today's GOP is no longer the party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, not when the GOP is trying to destroy our heritage!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Yes, the Republican Party Literally Wants to Eliminate National Parks
By Charles P. Pierce, July 15, 2016
[snipped]
I missed this when the Republican Party released its platform, but the GOP essentially is calling for the elimination of America's national parks. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer brings us the details on this post-intelligent policy proposal.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Yes, the Republican Party Literally Wants to Eliminate National Parks
By Charles P. Pierce, July 15, 2016
[snipped]
I missed this when the Republican Party released its platform, but the GOP essentially is calling for the elimination of America's national parks. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer brings us the details on this post-intelligent policy proposal.
The drafters of the national 2016 Republican platform marked the anniversary by calling for a mass sell-off of federal lands in the West, and stepped-up logging in national forests. The platform is a kind of Theodore Roosevelt-in-reverse document, which renounces even policies of Ronald Reagan. Using the 1908 Antiquities Act, Roosevelt created national monuments in spots like the Grand Canyon and the Olympics where state and territorial governments were beholden to mining companies and timber barons. The 2016 GOP platform would require that national monuments be approved by both Congress and state legislatures.Knuckling the legacies of both TR and Saint Ronnie? That doesn't sound too conservative to me.
Republicans have helped give us treasured places: Ronald Reagan signed the Washington and Oregon Wilderness bills, and legislation creating the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. But very different Republicans are now in charge. Dan Evans used money from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to preserve parks and recreation lands across Washington. He is cofounder, with ex-Democratic Gov. Mike Lowry, of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition. Back in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, the GOP-run House took up a bill that slashes the LWCF by 30 percent. Don't do this, "This really matters," said Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., opposing the cuts.This should be a matter of great public debate. Most Americans don't own timber companies, but most of them love their national parks and, frankly, most Americans realize that an open-pit mine and/or a cleared mountain hillside aren't going to bring in those tourist dollars. Nobody's going to pack up the family in the minivan and drive 11 hours to look at an oil field. Well, Jim Inhofe, maybe.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, July 14, 2016
"Over his political career Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) has consistently carried the tobacco industry’s water ..." He is also the target of the "Periods for Pence" campaign [snicker].
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mike Pence, Cigarette Truther
By Josh Israel, July 14, 2016
Over his political career Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) has consistently carried the tobacco industry’s water, denying the dangers of cigarettes, opposing government regulation, and slashing smoking cessation efforts. In return, they rewarded him with more than $100,000 in campaign donations.
In 2000, Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), then running for an open U.S. House seat, came out against a proposed settlement between government and the tobacco industry, calling it “big government.” In a shocking editorial, he wrote: “Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.” Pence acknowledged that smoking is not “good for you,” but claimed that two-thirds of smokers do not die from smoking related illness and “9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer.” He warned of a slippery-slope in which government would soon seek to discourage fatty foods, caffeine, and SUVs.
In a debate that September, his Democratic opponent pressed him on the suggestion that smoking does not cause cancer and noted his contributions from tobacco companies. According to the Indianapolis Star’s coverage of the exchange, “Pence clarified that he wrote that there was no causal link medically identifying smoking as causing lung cancer.” While cigarette manufacturers might have been still claiming that there was not causal link between smoking and lung cancer, medical science had settled the question years earlier. A landmark report by the U.S. Surgeon General had documented the link — in 1964.
After the debate, the paper reported, Pence acknowledged he had received an estimated $5,000 and $10,000 in contributions from tobacco companies. His actual total was already at least $13,000 in contributions from the political action committees for Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and US Tobacco, according to Political MoneyLine data reviewed by ThinkProgress. A May 2000 letter from the Reynolds PAC to Pence, now available in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents archive archives, conveyed a $1,000 check and praised his “position on issues important to our company.”
CREDIT: TRUTH TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS ARCHIVE
This was only the beginning. Over his time in Congress, he would receive at least $39,000 from R.J. Reynolds and more than $60,000 from the National Association of Convenience Stores, which heavily relies on tobacco sales.
In 2009, Pence was one of just 97 people in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate cigarettes and blasted a 2009 bill to expand healthcare for kids as “a tax increase on smokers to pay for a new middle-class entitlement.”
Three years later, Pence ran for governor, again with significant tobacco industry support. Altria/Phillip Morris, Lorillard, and R.J. Reynolds/Reynolds American have combined to contribute at least $63,500 to his 2012 and 2016 campaigns, according to data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
CREDIT: TRUTH TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS ARCHIVE
And Indiana’s public health has paid the price. In 2015, Pence signed a law making it easier to create cigar bars in the state. And his administration slashed the already small amount of the tobacco tax and settlement money available for smoking prevention and cessation in 2013, well below the CDC’s recommended levels. According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, “Funding for Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation was down to $8 million per year when Pence took office in January 2013. And within his first week, the Pence administration slashed the agency’s budget to $5 million.”
Indiana now has the highest adult smoking rates of any state in the industrial midwest region and the seventh highest smoking rate in the nation. With among the lowest tobacco taxes of any state, public health experts warn the state is “really in bad shape.” Indeed a 2014 article noted that 17 percent of pregnant women smoke — nearly double the national average — and this has been linked to lower birth weights and higher rates of infant mortality. As a result, it noted, “the state spends $28 million a year on health costs for infants born to mothers who smoke.”
Pence rejected a plan put forth by his fellow Republicans in the state legislature in February that would have raised the state cigarette tax by 5 cents a pack to fund tranportation, saying “I’m very confident that we can meet the needs that Indiana has over the next four years to improve our roads and bridges without raising taxes.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mike Pence, Cigarette Truther
By Josh Israel, July 14, 2016
Over his political career Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) has consistently carried the tobacco industry’s water, denying the dangers of cigarettes, opposing government regulation, and slashing smoking cessation efforts. In return, they rewarded him with more than $100,000 in campaign donations.
In 2000, Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), then running for an open U.S. House seat, came out against a proposed settlement between government and the tobacco industry, calling it “big government.” In a shocking editorial, he wrote: “Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.” Pence acknowledged that smoking is not “good for you,” but claimed that two-thirds of smokers do not die from smoking related illness and “9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer.” He warned of a slippery-slope in which government would soon seek to discourage fatty foods, caffeine, and SUVs.
In a debate that September, his Democratic opponent pressed him on the suggestion that smoking does not cause cancer and noted his contributions from tobacco companies. According to the Indianapolis Star’s coverage of the exchange, “Pence clarified that he wrote that there was no causal link medically identifying smoking as causing lung cancer.” While cigarette manufacturers might have been still claiming that there was not causal link between smoking and lung cancer, medical science had settled the question years earlier. A landmark report by the U.S. Surgeon General had documented the link — in 1964.
After the debate, the paper reported, Pence acknowledged he had received an estimated $5,000 and $10,000 in contributions from tobacco companies. His actual total was already at least $13,000 in contributions from the political action committees for Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and US Tobacco, according to Political MoneyLine data reviewed by ThinkProgress. A May 2000 letter from the Reynolds PAC to Pence, now available in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents archive archives, conveyed a $1,000 check and praised his “position on issues important to our company.”
CREDIT: TRUTH TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS ARCHIVE
This was only the beginning. Over his time in Congress, he would receive at least $39,000 from R.J. Reynolds and more than $60,000 from the National Association of Convenience Stores, which heavily relies on tobacco sales.
In 2009, Pence was one of just 97 people in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate cigarettes and blasted a 2009 bill to expand healthcare for kids as “a tax increase on smokers to pay for a new middle-class entitlement.”
Three years later, Pence ran for governor, again with significant tobacco industry support. Altria/Phillip Morris, Lorillard, and R.J. Reynolds/Reynolds American have combined to contribute at least $63,500 to his 2012 and 2016 campaigns, according to data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
CREDIT: TRUTH TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS ARCHIVE
And Indiana’s public health has paid the price. In 2015, Pence signed a law making it easier to create cigar bars in the state. And his administration slashed the already small amount of the tobacco tax and settlement money available for smoking prevention and cessation in 2013, well below the CDC’s recommended levels. According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, “Funding for Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation was down to $8 million per year when Pence took office in January 2013. And within his first week, the Pence administration slashed the agency’s budget to $5 million.”
Indiana now has the highest adult smoking rates of any state in the industrial midwest region and the seventh highest smoking rate in the nation. With among the lowest tobacco taxes of any state, public health experts warn the state is “really in bad shape.” Indeed a 2014 article noted that 17 percent of pregnant women smoke — nearly double the national average — and this has been linked to lower birth weights and higher rates of infant mortality. As a result, it noted, “the state spends $28 million a year on health costs for infants born to mothers who smoke.”
Pence rejected a plan put forth by his fellow Republicans in the state legislature in February that would have raised the state cigarette tax by 5 cents a pack to fund tranportation, saying “I’m very confident that we can meet the needs that Indiana has over the next four years to improve our roads and bridges without raising taxes.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"How any LGBT individual can vote Republican is beyond me. How can you vote for a platform that says you are not equal?" How can ANY sensible person vote GOP?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Yesterday, Democrat Now
By Anthony Nicodemo, July 14, 2016
I was raised a Republican.
Many years ago, my uncle was heavily involved in our local GOP leadership. I can remember each summer looking forward to the annual picnic and attending with my grandfather and grandmother. I have great memories of those days.
Although we were registered Republicans, I remember my father despising Ronald Reagan. We were a pro-union house and my dad, a long time Teamster would never support someone who wasn’t a friend of the unions.
Over time my immediate family became independents. I choose to stay a Republican. I remember my cousin Jill calling me, “Alex P. Keaton,” comparing me to Michael J. Fox’s character in the television sitcom Family Ties.
As I grew into adulthood I began working with many at risk youth. Eventually I settled into a teaching job with mostly learning disabled, minority students. I also landed a coaching job in Yonkers, which is as diverse a community as you could live or work in.
What I found was that these students (my students) were not given ample educational,or economic opportunities. Their education was not as solid as mine. Resources were scarce and they would have a much more difficult time succeeding in life. The Republican party platform did not help these communities, but I remained a Republican.
Eventually I embraced being gay. I came out of the closet and took on a role of activism. Early on I was asked to attend a meeting of our county executives LGBT advisory board. I quickly learned that being a conservative Republican, they did little for the LGBT community. I watched the Ted Cruz’s and Mike Huckabee’s spout anti-LGBT rhetoric. I remained a Republican.
Today this changes! Amidst reports of bigoted and anti-LGBT Indiana governor Mike Pence being chosen as Donald Trump’s vice-Presidential candidate, it’s time to switch to the Democratic side. I just can’t take it anymore!
I’ve voted in six Presidential elections and I’ve never voted Republican. However, just to be affiliated with the party makes my skin crawl. I do not want to receive any more emails, calls or anymore political literature.
I have plenty of friends and family who are Republicans. They say how much they love and support me and “my community,” yet choose to vote Republican. If you support people who do not want [me] to have equal rights, you do not support me, nor my LGBT family.
Since coming out I’ve met and became friends with some wonderful leaders in the Democratic party. Brian Sims (PA Assemblyman), Shelley Mayer (NY Assemblywoman), Andrea Stewart-Cousins (NYS Senator), Mike Spano (Yonkers Mayor) and Michael Sabatino (Yonkers City Councilman). I apologize for not pulling the trigger earlier and for being complacent.
How any LGBT individual can vote Republican is beyond me. How can you vote for a platform that says you are not equal? This is the Republican party, anti-LGBT, divisive and filled with hate. It feels good to know that I will no longer have any affiliation with that party.... and in November I can proudly vote as a Democrat.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Yesterday, Democrat Now
By Anthony Nicodemo, July 14, 2016
I was raised a Republican.
Many years ago, my uncle was heavily involved in our local GOP leadership. I can remember each summer looking forward to the annual picnic and attending with my grandfather and grandmother. I have great memories of those days.
Although we were registered Republicans, I remember my father despising Ronald Reagan. We were a pro-union house and my dad, a long time Teamster would never support someone who wasn’t a friend of the unions.
Over time my immediate family became independents. I choose to stay a Republican. I remember my cousin Jill calling me, “Alex P. Keaton,” comparing me to Michael J. Fox’s character in the television sitcom Family Ties.
As I grew into adulthood I began working with many at risk youth. Eventually I settled into a teaching job with mostly learning disabled, minority students. I also landed a coaching job in Yonkers, which is as diverse a community as you could live or work in.
What I found was that these students (my students) were not given ample educational,or economic opportunities. Their education was not as solid as mine. Resources were scarce and they would have a much more difficult time succeeding in life. The Republican party platform did not help these communities, but I remained a Republican.
Eventually I embraced being gay. I came out of the closet and took on a role of activism. Early on I was asked to attend a meeting of our county executives LGBT advisory board. I quickly learned that being a conservative Republican, they did little for the LGBT community. I watched the Ted Cruz’s and Mike Huckabee’s spout anti-LGBT rhetoric. I remained a Republican.
Today this changes! Amidst reports of bigoted and anti-LGBT Indiana governor Mike Pence being chosen as Donald Trump’s vice-Presidential candidate, it’s time to switch to the Democratic side. I just can’t take it anymore!
I’ve voted in six Presidential elections and I’ve never voted Republican. However, just to be affiliated with the party makes my skin crawl. I do not want to receive any more emails, calls or anymore political literature.
I have plenty of friends and family who are Republicans. They say how much they love and support me and “my community,” yet choose to vote Republican. If you support people who do not want [me] to have equal rights, you do not support me, nor my LGBT family.
Since coming out I’ve met and became friends with some wonderful leaders in the Democratic party. Brian Sims (PA Assemblyman), Shelley Mayer (NY Assemblywoman), Andrea Stewart-Cousins (NYS Senator), Mike Spano (Yonkers Mayor) and Michael Sabatino (Yonkers City Councilman). I apologize for not pulling the trigger earlier and for being complacent.
How any LGBT individual can vote Republican is beyond me. How can you vote for a platform that says you are not equal? This is the Republican party, anti-LGBT, divisive and filled with hate. It feels good to know that I will no longer have any affiliation with that party.... and in November I can proudly vote as a Democrat.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'Trump isn’t gaining.'" ... "Trump’s numbers are 'still dreadful as always.'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Yes, Clinton is sinking in the polls. No, you should not panic. Here’s why.
By Greg Sargent, July 14, 2016
It’s another poll freakout day, apparently: The new New York Times/CBS poll finds that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are now tied among registered voters nationally, at 40-40, with the email story taking an obvious toll on Clinton’s numbers. The key findings:
I’ve drawn up a chart to make the point, using Huffpollster’s national polling averages:
Beyond the fact that Clinton still holds a lead after getting hit by sustained awful coverage, note that Trump has not hit 43 percent since last winter, and has not hit 42 percent since the spring. He remains at around 40 percent right now. Meanwhile, Clinton has fluctuated, hitting highs of 48 percent and 47 percent several times. She’s sliding now, but as Deace noted, that may reflect current negative information about her now bombarding voters. It could reverse again, just as it has in the past.
This basic difference isn’t just evident in the national polls. Mark Murray and the First Read Crew took a hard look at the multiple state polls released yesterday (which also prompted a freak-out), and concluded that while Trump is closing the gap, there is also this crucial point:
The goal is to prevent Trump, whose campaign is all about winning blue collar whites in the industrial Midwest, from making inroads among college educated whites, which would limit the potential of Trump’s strategy of courting white backlash. (This may also drive up turnout and Clinton’s vote share among nonwhite voters, which would make the white-backlash strategy even tougher to pull off.) Polls suggest Trump may end up being the first GOP nominee in decades to lose among college educated whites — see Ron Brownstein’s terrific analysis on this point — and Democrats are targeting suburban and Republican women in particular to try to make this happen.
Speaking at the site of Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton urged Americans to try to see through the eyes of police officers, African-Americans and Latinos, and Donald Trump supporters. Here is her full speech. (Reuters)
As Paul Begala, a senior adviser to Priorities USA, put it to me in an interview: “Trump wants to build a wall. I want to build a ceiling.”
Now, it is of course very possible that Trump will begin to rise, or that Clinton will continue falling. Things could change once Team Trump starts spending big on ads and Team Clinton’s ad barrage no longer goes unanswered. But the point is that, even if it is true that Clinton is sliding, there is still no evidence that Trump can expand his appeal in the manner he needs to. And that’s why senior Democratic pollsters are not terribly alarmed and believe we can’t really have a clear sense of where this race is going until the conventions have passed. We will learn whether Trump really can consolidate moderate Republicans who may be struggling to come to terms with him, and grow.
Meanwhile, the efforts to keep that ceiling firmly affixed in place are continuing today, with a new Clinton ad campaign. ...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Yes, Clinton is sinking in the polls. No, you should not panic. Here’s why.
By Greg Sargent, July 14, 2016
It’s another poll freakout day, apparently: The new New York Times/CBS poll finds that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are now tied among registered voters nationally, at 40-40, with the email story taking an obvious toll on Clinton’s numbers. The key findings:
Mrs. Clinton’s six-percentage-point lead over the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, in a CBS News poll last month has evaporated. The two candidates are now tied in a general election matchup, the new poll indicates, with each receiving the support of 40 percent of voters….Those are awful numbers. But as even some conservatives (who oppose Trump) quickly pointed out on twitter, the real story here is that even if Clinton is sinking, Trump is not rising. As John Podhoretz noted, the Times poll confirms that “Hillary is deflating,” but “Trump isn’t gaining.” Or as conservative Iowa radio host Steve Deace put it, Clinton is dropping because of the FBI findings, but Trump’s numbers are “still dreadful as always.” As polling analyst Will Jordan noted, until Trump breaks out of the high 30s and (extremely) low 40s, there’s no clear grounds for Dems to panic.
Just 28 percent of voters said they had a positive view of Mrs. Clinton, compared with 33 percent last month. Asked if her email practices were illegal, 46 percent of voters said yes, compared with 23 percent who said using a private server was improper but not illegal. Twenty-four percent said she did nothing wrong.
I’ve drawn up a chart to make the point, using Huffpollster’s national polling averages:
Beyond the fact that Clinton still holds a lead after getting hit by sustained awful coverage, note that Trump has not hit 43 percent since last winter, and has not hit 42 percent since the spring. He remains at around 40 percent right now. Meanwhile, Clinton has fluctuated, hitting highs of 48 percent and 47 percent several times. She’s sliding now, but as Deace noted, that may reflect current negative information about her now bombarding voters. It could reverse again, just as it has in the past.
This basic difference isn’t just evident in the national polls. Mark Murray and the First Read Crew took a hard look at the multiple state polls released yesterday (which also prompted a freak-out), and concluded that while Trump is closing the gap, there is also this crucial point:
These polls — which mostly show Clinton either ahead or tied in these battlegrounds — were all taken during or after Clinton’s roughest week of the general election, with FBI Director James Comey’s rebuke over her emails. So you could view these battleground numbers as a floor for Clinton, while Trump is still unable to break 40% in many of these states.This core dynamic is central to how Democrats view this race. They have undertaken a concerted effort to drive up Trump’s negatives with the explicit goal of preventing him from expanding his appeal. That’s why the pro-Clinton Super PAC, Priorities USA, has been pumping many millions of dollars of ads into the battleground states, ads that use Trump’s own words and antics to sow deep doubts about his temperament and fitness to be president.
The goal is to prevent Trump, whose campaign is all about winning blue collar whites in the industrial Midwest, from making inroads among college educated whites, which would limit the potential of Trump’s strategy of courting white backlash. (This may also drive up turnout and Clinton’s vote share among nonwhite voters, which would make the white-backlash strategy even tougher to pull off.) Polls suggest Trump may end up being the first GOP nominee in decades to lose among college educated whites — see Ron Brownstein’s terrific analysis on this point — and Democrats are targeting suburban and Republican women in particular to try to make this happen.
Speaking at the site of Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton urged Americans to try to see through the eyes of police officers, African-Americans and Latinos, and Donald Trump supporters. Here is her full speech. (Reuters)
As Paul Begala, a senior adviser to Priorities USA, put it to me in an interview: “Trump wants to build a wall. I want to build a ceiling.”
Now, it is of course very possible that Trump will begin to rise, or that Clinton will continue falling. Things could change once Team Trump starts spending big on ads and Team Clinton’s ad barrage no longer goes unanswered. But the point is that, even if it is true that Clinton is sliding, there is still no evidence that Trump can expand his appeal in the manner he needs to. And that’s why senior Democratic pollsters are not terribly alarmed and believe we can’t really have a clear sense of where this race is going until the conventions have passed. We will learn whether Trump really can consolidate moderate Republicans who may be struggling to come to terms with him, and grow.
Meanwhile, the efforts to keep that ceiling firmly affixed in place are continuing today, with a new Clinton ad campaign. ...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
"... how can Clinton plausibly be accused, alone, of showing 'extreme carelessness' because she 'should have' known what 300-plus government professionals did not? I don't think she can."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Three facts that prove Clinton wasn't 'careless' with her emails
By Lanny Davis, July 13, 2016
Hillary Clinton has acknowledged, with the wisdom of hindsight, that she made a mistake in using one device for sending personal and business emails rather than using two when she was secretary of State, and in sending all of her emails to a private server.
I respect and agree with FBI Director James Comey's conclusion, speaking on behalf of a unanimous team of FBI professionals, investigators and expert technologists, that there was no criminal conduct. Almost all of the former prosecutors and experts with whom I have consulted agree with that conclusion, including a former inspector general of the National Security Agency.
So Republicans were left with the awkward position of calling a congressional hearing to attack an FBI director who was appointed by a Republican president, George W. Bush, to serve as a top prosecutor in New York and subsequently as deputy attorney general. And Donald Trump, the Republican Party's standard-bearer? Surprise! He attacked the integrity of Comey and his entire team, declaring their investigation as "rigged" — similar to his racist attack on a federal judge's integrity due to the judge's heritage.
As to Comey's characterization that Clinton's handling of her official emails was "extremely careless," I believe there are three undisputed facts that undermine his subjective characterization.
First, as Clinton repeatedly has stated over the last year, she never received or sent any email that was marked as classified. At Comey's press conference on Tuesday, he appeared to contradict that claim, saying there were "very few" that had classified markings. But then at the congressional hearing on Thursday, he withdrew his claim. He said that three, out of more than 30,000, had a marking of a small "C" — something he said a classification expert would not regard as sufficient to know the document contained classified information.
Not surprisingly, the media on Tuesday and Wednesday hyped the fact that the FBI director had contradicted Clinton's repeated assertions that she had never sent or received emails marked as classified, but then when Comey later withdrew that claim, the media barely covered the reversal.
Second, despite accusations by partisan Republicans to the contrary, there is no evidence — none — that the former secretary of State in fact compromised national security by using a private server. Both the FBI director and the State Department inspector general confirmed that. Comey's statement that it is "possible" is pure speculation — questionable for the head of the FBI to use such a speculative word publicly.
He also did not point out at his press conference or during the hearing that using the State Department server, state.gov, was a known, definite risk; we know that the department server has been hacked multiple times by Chinese and Russian hackers.
Third, Comey used the expression "extreme carelessness" because he said Clinton "should have known" that more than 100 emails that were sent to her private server using nonsecure communications channels contained classified information, albeit without any classification markings. But what he did not say is that more than 300 State Department officials, including many longtime, nonpartisan career professionals and diplomats, also used the same nonclassified channels to send her these emails allegedly containing classified information.
If over 300 State professionals and experts didn't recognize classified information in the emails they sent to Clinton, and they used nonsecure channels to send them to her, then how can Clinton plausibly be accused, alone, of showing "extreme carelessness" because she "should have" known what 300-plus government professionals did not? I don't think she can.
My respectful suggestion to the media and to fair, open-minded voters — I still believe there are a lot of those left — is that if you look at these indisputable facts, you will conclude that Clinton may have made mistakes, but certainly not at the level of "extreme carelessness."
The subject of Clinton's emails at State has now been closed — except by partisan Republicans, who are desperate to pound away on the subject so they don't have to defend the racist, misogynistic and reckless statements of their own presumptive presidential nominee.
Now, I believe, the American people want both Clinton and Trump to give them specific solutions to address the serious problems facing the country at home and abroad. Clinton has been doing this week after week in detail. I seriously doubt that Trump has any intention of doing the same — or any ability to do so even if he wanted to.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Three facts that prove Clinton wasn't 'careless' with her emails
By Lanny Davis, July 13, 2016
Hillary Clinton has acknowledged, with the wisdom of hindsight, that she made a mistake in using one device for sending personal and business emails rather than using two when she was secretary of State, and in sending all of her emails to a private server.
I respect and agree with FBI Director James Comey's conclusion, speaking on behalf of a unanimous team of FBI professionals, investigators and expert technologists, that there was no criminal conduct. Almost all of the former prosecutors and experts with whom I have consulted agree with that conclusion, including a former inspector general of the National Security Agency.
So Republicans were left with the awkward position of calling a congressional hearing to attack an FBI director who was appointed by a Republican president, George W. Bush, to serve as a top prosecutor in New York and subsequently as deputy attorney general. And Donald Trump, the Republican Party's standard-bearer? Surprise! He attacked the integrity of Comey and his entire team, declaring their investigation as "rigged" — similar to his racist attack on a federal judge's integrity due to the judge's heritage.
As to Comey's characterization that Clinton's handling of her official emails was "extremely careless," I believe there are three undisputed facts that undermine his subjective characterization.
First, as Clinton repeatedly has stated over the last year, she never received or sent any email that was marked as classified. At Comey's press conference on Tuesday, he appeared to contradict that claim, saying there were "very few" that had classified markings. But then at the congressional hearing on Thursday, he withdrew his claim. He said that three, out of more than 30,000, had a marking of a small "C" — something he said a classification expert would not regard as sufficient to know the document contained classified information.
Not surprisingly, the media on Tuesday and Wednesday hyped the fact that the FBI director had contradicted Clinton's repeated assertions that she had never sent or received emails marked as classified, but then when Comey later withdrew that claim, the media barely covered the reversal.
Second, despite accusations by partisan Republicans to the contrary, there is no evidence — none — that the former secretary of State in fact compromised national security by using a private server. Both the FBI director and the State Department inspector general confirmed that. Comey's statement that it is "possible" is pure speculation — questionable for the head of the FBI to use such a speculative word publicly.
He also did not point out at his press conference or during the hearing that using the State Department server, state.gov, was a known, definite risk; we know that the department server has been hacked multiple times by Chinese and Russian hackers.
Third, Comey used the expression "extreme carelessness" because he said Clinton "should have known" that more than 100 emails that were sent to her private server using nonsecure communications channels contained classified information, albeit without any classification markings. But what he did not say is that more than 300 State Department officials, including many longtime, nonpartisan career professionals and diplomats, also used the same nonclassified channels to send her these emails allegedly containing classified information.
If over 300 State professionals and experts didn't recognize classified information in the emails they sent to Clinton, and they used nonsecure channels to send them to her, then how can Clinton plausibly be accused, alone, of showing "extreme carelessness" because she "should have" known what 300-plus government professionals did not? I don't think she can.
My respectful suggestion to the media and to fair, open-minded voters — I still believe there are a lot of those left — is that if you look at these indisputable facts, you will conclude that Clinton may have made mistakes, but certainly not at the level of "extreme carelessness."
The subject of Clinton's emails at State has now been closed — except by partisan Republicans, who are desperate to pound away on the subject so they don't have to defend the racist, misogynistic and reckless statements of their own presumptive presidential nominee.
Now, I believe, the American people want both Clinton and Trump to give them specific solutions to address the serious problems facing the country at home and abroad. Clinton has been doing this week after week in detail. I seriously doubt that Trump has any intention of doing the same — or any ability to do so even if he wanted to.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Once again, #TruthlessTrump is making a baseless claim.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Claims 'Some People' Called for a Moment of Silence for the Dallas Gunman
By Meghan Keneally, July 13, 2016
Donald Trump has spoken repeatedly about the fatal shooting of five police officers in Dallas, but one of his responses to the attack is now being called into question.
Trump has now said at least twice that some people have asked for a moment of silence for the shooter, Micah Johnson, who was killed when a police robot detonated a bomb near him.
During a Fox News interview, which was taped on Tuesday afternoon and aired later that evening, Trump mentioned the claim to Bill O'Reilly.
"It's very sad when somebody called for a moment of silence for this maniac that killed the five police, you know you just see what's going on and it's a very, very sad situation and hopefully it can be healed," Trump said.
Shortly after the Fox News interview aired on the East Coast, Trump appeared at a rally in Westfield, Indiana, where he made a similar claim.
While referencing the shooting, Trump said "some people asked for a moment of silence for him. For the killer."
ABC News has reached out to Trump's campaign for clarification on the remarks.
So far, ABC News has been able to find one person who posted on two of his social media accounts calling for a moment of silence.
The man's tweet was posted on the evening of July 8, hours after Johnson was killed during a standoff with Dallas police. The tweet was liked once and retweeted once. The matching Facebook post was liked 14 times.
ABC News has reached out to the man, who is not being identified, for comment.
Those two posts are being pointed to by a group called "Vets for Trump," whose Facebook page was launched in April and has 21 followers, as "proof that a moment of silence was called for Micah Johnson" after questions first arose about Trump's claims.
One of Trump's policy advisers, Sam Clovis, was questioned about the veracity of Trump's claims this morning on CNN. He said that he "personally had not" seen any calls for moments of silence.
"I've seen moments where I've seen in some of these demonstrations, I've seen there's a reverence paid to the shooter that is really startling. I think that is -- when you have a person who purposefully and with intent murders five police officers, that's terrible, and I don't think you should celebrate that in any way shape or form," Clovis said.
This is not the first time that claims made by Trump have been questioned. Earlier in the campaign, he said that he saw large groups of people in America cheering after the 9/11 attacks, though the claims were never officially confirmed.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Claims 'Some People' Called for a Moment of Silence for the Dallas Gunman
By Meghan Keneally, July 13, 2016
Donald Trump has spoken repeatedly about the fatal shooting of five police officers in Dallas, but one of his responses to the attack is now being called into question.
Trump has now said at least twice that some people have asked for a moment of silence for the shooter, Micah Johnson, who was killed when a police robot detonated a bomb near him.
During a Fox News interview, which was taped on Tuesday afternoon and aired later that evening, Trump mentioned the claim to Bill O'Reilly.
"It's very sad when somebody called for a moment of silence for this maniac that killed the five police, you know you just see what's going on and it's a very, very sad situation and hopefully it can be healed," Trump said.
Shortly after the Fox News interview aired on the East Coast, Trump appeared at a rally in Westfield, Indiana, where he made a similar claim.
While referencing the shooting, Trump said "some people asked for a moment of silence for him. For the killer."
ABC News has reached out to Trump's campaign for clarification on the remarks.
So far, ABC News has been able to find one person who posted on two of his social media accounts calling for a moment of silence.
The man's tweet was posted on the evening of July 8, hours after Johnson was killed during a standoff with Dallas police. The tweet was liked once and retweeted once. The matching Facebook post was liked 14 times.
ABC News has reached out to the man, who is not being identified, for comment.
Those two posts are being pointed to by a group called "Vets for Trump," whose Facebook page was launched in April and has 21 followers, as "proof that a moment of silence was called for Micah Johnson" after questions first arose about Trump's claims.
One of Trump's policy advisers, Sam Clovis, was questioned about the veracity of Trump's claims this morning on CNN. He said that he "personally had not" seen any calls for moments of silence.
"I've seen moments where I've seen in some of these demonstrations, I've seen there's a reverence paid to the shooter that is really startling. I think that is -- when you have a person who purposefully and with intent murders five police officers, that's terrible, and I don't think you should celebrate that in any way shape or form," Clovis said.
This is not the first time that claims made by Trump have been questioned. Earlier in the campaign, he said that he saw large groups of people in America cheering after the 9/11 attacks, though the claims were never officially confirmed.
...................................................................................................................................................................
#Lyin'Trump, Pence will NOT help with your "women problem"! Do NOT pick him!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s Potential VP Mike Pence vs. Women’s Periods
When Indiana Governor Mike Pence passed one of the nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion bills, Hoosier ladies trolled him by calling him up and talking about women’s health and Auntie Flo.
By Samantha Allen, July 13, 2016
Indiana Governor Mike Pence could be the next vice president of the United States, if he edges out the other names on Donald Trump’s rapidly-shrinking VP shortlist—but he’s probably not the guy to solve Trump’s “women problem.” That’s because Pence has supported, sponsored, and signed some of the country’s most extreme anti-abortion legislation in the past decade.
In March, Pence signed a bill that, among other restrictions, bans abortion sought because of a fetal anomaly like Down syndrome and requires abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal tissue. Indiana is the only other state besides North Dakota to ban abortion motivated by fetal anomaly—a provision that a federal judge has already deemed unconstitutional.
It was a bill so extreme and so hastily-passed that, as AP reported, some Republican lawmakers in Indiana were even opposed to it.
In his statement on the bill, Pence said, “I sign this legislation with a prayer that God would continue to bless these precious children, mothers and families.”
After it was signed into law, Hoosier women began calling the governor’s office and, as NPR reported, leaving him detailed messages about women’s health issues—like abortion and menstruation—since the governor seemed to be taking such an avid interest in them. The campaign spread quickly on social media under the hashtag #PeriodsForPence, drawing national attention to the stringent state law in the process.
During his decade-plus in the U.S. House of Representatives, Pence voted for strict anti-abortion measures while state legislators back home were busy turning Indiana into the seventh-“most protective” state in the country, as ranked by the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life.
In 2011, long before the current controversy over Planned Parenthood’s legal donation of fetal tissue, Pence sponsored an amendment to prohibit any federal funding whatsoever for the women’s health organization.
This came after three attempts in three legislative sessions to keep federal Title X funds away from any organization that provides abortion, as Politico reported.
“Sadly abortion on demand is legal in America. This is about who pays for it,” Pence said in an impassioned speech on the floor of the House in support of the Pence Amendment. “Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in America but why do I have to pay for it?”
The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
Pence went on to say, “I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of
history, when we move past the broken hearts and the broken lives of the past 38 years.”
At the time, Pence’s laser focus on Planned Parenthood even put him at odds with some GOP leaders, as Politico noted in an article that referred to his efforts as a “war” and a “one-man crusade.”
He took his animus against abortion—and especially Planned Parenthood—back home to Indiana after becoming governor in 2013.
That same year, he signed legislation requiring abortion clinics that provide pill-based medical abortion to meet the same standards as surgical abortion facilities. The language in the bill was general but, as Rewire reported, it only affected one clinic in the state: a Planned Parenthood center in Lafayette that only provided medical abortions.
Two years later, after undercover videos produced by anti-abortion extremists showed Planned Parenthood officials discussing the practice of fetal tissue donation, Pence said on conservative talk radio that “every Hoosier should be appalled at what has come forward as allegations in this video.”
“I’m deeply troubled by it,” he added. “It is my obligation as governor of the state of Indiana to make sure that this not happening in Indiana.”
The subsequent investigation he ordered turned up nothing, as the Indianapolis Star reported, matching the results of similar investigations in a dozen or more other states.
Even though Pence didn’t succeed at tearing down Planned Parenthood, all of his hard work has paid off: He has maintained a 100 percent rating from the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, making him an ideal potential running mate for an unpredictable Republican presidential nominee who once called himself “very pro-choice.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s Potential VP Mike Pence vs. Women’s Periods
When Indiana Governor Mike Pence passed one of the nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion bills, Hoosier ladies trolled him by calling him up and talking about women’s health and Auntie Flo.
By Samantha Allen, July 13, 2016
Indiana Governor Mike Pence could be the next vice president of the United States, if he edges out the other names on Donald Trump’s rapidly-shrinking VP shortlist—but he’s probably not the guy to solve Trump’s “women problem.” That’s because Pence has supported, sponsored, and signed some of the country’s most extreme anti-abortion legislation in the past decade.
In March, Pence signed a bill that, among other restrictions, bans abortion sought because of a fetal anomaly like Down syndrome and requires abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal tissue. Indiana is the only other state besides North Dakota to ban abortion motivated by fetal anomaly—a provision that a federal judge has already deemed unconstitutional.
It was a bill so extreme and so hastily-passed that, as AP reported, some Republican lawmakers in Indiana were even opposed to it.
In his statement on the bill, Pence said, “I sign this legislation with a prayer that God would continue to bless these precious children, mothers and families.”
After it was signed into law, Hoosier women began calling the governor’s office and, as NPR reported, leaving him detailed messages about women’s health issues—like abortion and menstruation—since the governor seemed to be taking such an avid interest in them. The campaign spread quickly on social media under the hashtag #PeriodsForPence, drawing national attention to the stringent state law in the process.
AnastasiaBeaverhousn @NotAmused8
@periodsforpence I have cramps! Is it menstrual or the large number of politicians in my uterus? @GovPenceIN Please advise #periodsforpence
7:40 AM - 26 Apr 2016
Kati @katinixon
@GovPenceIN day 4 of my flow seems to be light #periodsforpence
6:19 AM - 12 Apr 2016
micki hunter @MitchHunnterBut Pence’s opposition to reproductive rights goes back a lot further than early 2016. In fact, his anti-abortion bona fides could help stabilize Trump’s often-tempestuous relationship with the pro-life movement.
Gov Pence, I'm 43 and will go through the change soon. Just want to make sure you will still care about my vagina. #periodsforpence
9:45 AM - 2 Apr 2016
During his decade-plus in the U.S. House of Representatives, Pence voted for strict anti-abortion measures while state legislators back home were busy turning Indiana into the seventh-“most protective” state in the country, as ranked by the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life.
In 2011, long before the current controversy over Planned Parenthood’s legal donation of fetal tissue, Pence sponsored an amendment to prohibit any federal funding whatsoever for the women’s health organization.
This came after three attempts in three legislative sessions to keep federal Title X funds away from any organization that provides abortion, as Politico reported.
“Sadly abortion on demand is legal in America. This is about who pays for it,” Pence said in an impassioned speech on the floor of the House in support of the Pence Amendment. “Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in America but why do I have to pay for it?”
The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
Pence went on to say, “I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of
history, when we move past the broken hearts and the broken lives of the past 38 years.”
At the time, Pence’s laser focus on Planned Parenthood even put him at odds with some GOP leaders, as Politico noted in an article that referred to his efforts as a “war” and a “one-man crusade.”
He took his animus against abortion—and especially Planned Parenthood—back home to Indiana after becoming governor in 2013.
That same year, he signed legislation requiring abortion clinics that provide pill-based medical abortion to meet the same standards as surgical abortion facilities. The language in the bill was general but, as Rewire reported, it only affected one clinic in the state: a Planned Parenthood center in Lafayette that only provided medical abortions.
Two years later, after undercover videos produced by anti-abortion extremists showed Planned Parenthood officials discussing the practice of fetal tissue donation, Pence said on conservative talk radio that “every Hoosier should be appalled at what has come forward as allegations in this video.”
“I’m deeply troubled by it,” he added. “It is my obligation as governor of the state of Indiana to make sure that this not happening in Indiana.”
The subsequent investigation he ordered turned up nothing, as the Indianapolis Star reported, matching the results of similar investigations in a dozen or more other states.
Even though Pence didn’t succeed at tearing down Planned Parenthood, all of his hard work has paid off: He has maintained a 100 percent rating from the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, making him an ideal potential running mate for an unpredictable Republican presidential nominee who once called himself “very pro-choice.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
May we suggest putting #TruthlessTrump in the casket instead?
......................................................................................
"'There’s one person who wants to let the whole [world] burn and it’s Donald Trump,' Beitman said. 'We can’t let him be President.'" So true.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Disagrees With the Rest of the World's Leaders on One Key Issue
By Chauncey L. Alcorn, July 12, 2016
Even Russia and North Korea are at odds with him
Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric on climate change has him at odds with every other leader in the free world, a new study reveals.
The Sierra Club environmental advocacy group released a report to the Associated Press today detailing all climate change-related statements given by leaders from 195 nations. The study points out Trump is the only potential world leader who’s said climate change isn’t real, setting him apart from all U.S. allies like the UK and Germany as well as China – the world’s largest polluter – and even rogue nations like North Korea.
“Donald Trump has said a lot about the kind of amazing deals he’ll make with foreign nations,” Sierra Club Spokesman Adam Beitman tells Fortune. “What’s clear from this study is he’s going to be starting out in total disagreement from the very beginning on a very key issue that the rest of the world is in total agreement with.”
In earlier statements, Trump has referred to climate change as a “myth” and a “con job,” promising to renegotiate America’s position in the legally binding Paris accord signed by all participating nations at the inaugural Paris Climate Change Conference last year.
In contrast, Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose country leads the world in CO2 emissions, has called for a reduction of the number of coal-fired power plants in his nation and a conversion to alternative energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi King Salman also disagree with Trump.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be engaged in several actions to address climate change and make its development more sustainable,” the Saudi Government wrote in a statement last year.
The Sierra Club wants its report serves as a warning to voters.
“There’s one person who wants to let the whole [world] burn and it’s Donald Trump,” Beitman said. “We can’t let him be President.”
The Trump campaign did not return calls for comment.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Disagrees With the Rest of the World's Leaders on One Key Issue
By Chauncey L. Alcorn, July 12, 2016
Even Russia and North Korea are at odds with him
Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric on climate change has him at odds with every other leader in the free world, a new study reveals.
The Sierra Club environmental advocacy group released a report to the Associated Press today detailing all climate change-related statements given by leaders from 195 nations. The study points out Trump is the only potential world leader who’s said climate change isn’t real, setting him apart from all U.S. allies like the UK and Germany as well as China – the world’s largest polluter – and even rogue nations like North Korea.
“Donald Trump has said a lot about the kind of amazing deals he’ll make with foreign nations,” Sierra Club Spokesman Adam Beitman tells Fortune. “What’s clear from this study is he’s going to be starting out in total disagreement from the very beginning on a very key issue that the rest of the world is in total agreement with.”
In earlier statements, Trump has referred to climate change as a “myth” and a “con job,” promising to renegotiate America’s position in the legally binding Paris accord signed by all participating nations at the inaugural Paris Climate Change Conference last year.
In contrast, Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose country leads the world in CO2 emissions, has called for a reduction of the number of coal-fired power plants in his nation and a conversion to alternative energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi King Salman also disagree with Trump.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be engaged in several actions to address climate change and make its development more sustainable,” the Saudi Government wrote in a statement last year.
The Sierra Club wants its report serves as a warning to voters.
“There’s one person who wants to let the whole [world] burn and it’s Donald Trump,” Beitman said. “We can’t let him be President.”
The Trump campaign did not return calls for comment.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Dems are trying to scare the sh-t out of you, and there’s plenty of fodder with which to do it [thank you, #Lyin'Donald]." Go for it, Dems!!
...................................................................................................................................................................
The deadliest weapon against Donald Trump? His own words.
By Greg Sargent, July 12, 2016
Top Democrats are launching a new, $500,000 ad campaign today aimed specifically at winning over millennial voters and women in presidential swing states, and the chief weapon used in the spots is this: Donald Trump’s own words about abortion, immigrants, wages, and climate change.
The new ads — which were provided to this blog in advance of their release — are being launched by the pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA, and combine footage of Trump with animation and a “WTF” theme, which suggest a particular focus on young voters. They are digital spots, and will run on Facebook, Instagram, Pandora, and Pre-Roll in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. Here they are:
— The first ad, called “Chauvinist,” shows footage of Trump saying: “When I come home, if dinner is not ready, I go through the roof.” It then asks: “A chauvinist for president? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The second ad, called “Choice,” shows footage of Trump saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for abortion. It then asks: “Punishment for women? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The third ad, called “Deportation Force,” shows footage of Trump saying that there will be a “deportation force” to carry out mass removals. It then asks: “A deportation force? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The fourth ad, called “Climate Change,” shows footage of Trump saying: “Global warming? A lot of it’s a hoax.” It then asks: “Climate change — a hoax? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The fifth ad, called “Minimum Wage,” shows footage of Trump saying: “Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country.” It then asks: “Since when are low wages a good thing? WTF? Not in our America”
— The sixth ad, called “Education,” shows footage of Trump saying: “We’re going to cut the Department of Education.” It then asks: “Cut the Department of Education? And Pell grants? WTF? Not in our America!”
Justin Barasky, a spokesman for Priorities USA, tells me that all this signals that Dems will make major investments in targeting millennials in coming weeks and months. This is interesting in the context of Bernie Sanders’s expected endorsement of Hillary Clinton today, which could also help drive young voters to get behind Clinton. It’s notable that highlighting Trump’s stance on specific issues — and not just his awful quotes — is seen as the way to reach these voters. The focus on climate in particular as a motivator of millennials is an underappreciated facet of this election.
Beyond this, the ads — which were launched in conjunction with other groups, such as Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, the Latino Victory Fund, and EMILY’s List — also once again reveal two core assumptions driving Dem strategy against Trump. First, Dems believe that one of the most potent tools for generating enthusiasm among key Dem constituencies, and key swing constituencies such as college educated white women, remains Trump’s rich store of disgusting quotes and ideas. Second, for all of Trump’s widespread media exposure during the last year, Dems remain convinced that many of these voters are still unaware of the full existing range of specific quotes and ideas in all their Trumpian wretchedness. When voters are exposed to them, Dems believe, they will conclude that a Trump presidency could be nothing short of a full blown catastrophe for this country and its future. In other words, Dems are trying to scare the sh-t out of you, and there’s plenty of fodder with which to do it.
While Trump’s antics and utterances have rendered him the most unpopular major party nominee in recent memory, Clinton’s negatives are also quite high, and she is weighed down with a number of vulnerabilities. So Dems still expect the election could be very close. And they see massive investments in energizing core Dem constituencies against Trump — as well as turning key swing constituencies such as independent and suburban women against him — as key to victory.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The deadliest weapon against Donald Trump? His own words.
By Greg Sargent, July 12, 2016
Top Democrats are launching a new, $500,000 ad campaign today aimed specifically at winning over millennial voters and women in presidential swing states, and the chief weapon used in the spots is this: Donald Trump’s own words about abortion, immigrants, wages, and climate change.
The new ads — which were provided to this blog in advance of their release — are being launched by the pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA, and combine footage of Trump with animation and a “WTF” theme, which suggest a particular focus on young voters. They are digital spots, and will run on Facebook, Instagram, Pandora, and Pre-Roll in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. Here they are:
— The first ad, called “Chauvinist,” shows footage of Trump saying: “When I come home, if dinner is not ready, I go through the roof.” It then asks: “A chauvinist for president? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The second ad, called “Choice,” shows footage of Trump saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for abortion. It then asks: “Punishment for women? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The third ad, called “Deportation Force,” shows footage of Trump saying that there will be a “deportation force” to carry out mass removals. It then asks: “A deportation force? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The fourth ad, called “Climate Change,” shows footage of Trump saying: “Global warming? A lot of it’s a hoax.” It then asks: “Climate change — a hoax? WTF? Not in our America!”
— The fifth ad, called “Minimum Wage,” shows footage of Trump saying: “Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country.” It then asks: “Since when are low wages a good thing? WTF? Not in our America”
— The sixth ad, called “Education,” shows footage of Trump saying: “We’re going to cut the Department of Education.” It then asks: “Cut the Department of Education? And Pell grants? WTF? Not in our America!”
Justin Barasky, a spokesman for Priorities USA, tells me that all this signals that Dems will make major investments in targeting millennials in coming weeks and months. This is interesting in the context of Bernie Sanders’s expected endorsement of Hillary Clinton today, which could also help drive young voters to get behind Clinton. It’s notable that highlighting Trump’s stance on specific issues — and not just his awful quotes — is seen as the way to reach these voters. The focus on climate in particular as a motivator of millennials is an underappreciated facet of this election.
Beyond this, the ads — which were launched in conjunction with other groups, such as Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, the Latino Victory Fund, and EMILY’s List — also once again reveal two core assumptions driving Dem strategy against Trump. First, Dems believe that one of the most potent tools for generating enthusiasm among key Dem constituencies, and key swing constituencies such as college educated white women, remains Trump’s rich store of disgusting quotes and ideas. Second, for all of Trump’s widespread media exposure during the last year, Dems remain convinced that many of these voters are still unaware of the full existing range of specific quotes and ideas in all their Trumpian wretchedness. When voters are exposed to them, Dems believe, they will conclude that a Trump presidency could be nothing short of a full blown catastrophe for this country and its future. In other words, Dems are trying to scare the sh-t out of you, and there’s plenty of fodder with which to do it.
While Trump’s antics and utterances have rendered him the most unpopular major party nominee in recent memory, Clinton’s negatives are also quite high, and she is weighed down with a number of vulnerabilities. So Dems still expect the election could be very close. And they see massive investments in energizing core Dem constituencies against Trump — as well as turning key swing constituencies such as independent and suburban women against him — as key to victory.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Cutting taxes and then stoking fiscal panic after the deficit increases is an attempt to use the 'starve the beast' strategy to dismantle the safety net and slash middle-class investments." Typical of the GOP!
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP Uses Debt They Created As An Excuse For Program Cuts
By Harry Stein, July 12, 2016
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an updated outlook on the country’s long-term fiscal future on Tuesday. The budget outlook projects that the national debt will grow at a faster rate than the CBO projected in last year’s outlook, and some Republicans have already seized the news to attack programs that support low- and middle-income Americans.
Shortly after the CBO published the new data, House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) said in a statement, “These debt projections portend a horrible fiscal legacy,” and specifically expressed alarm about “insolvent Medicare and Social Security programs.” Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) also singled out Social Security and Medicare in a statement that claimed, “We’re past the tipping point in this debt crisis.”
But the higher debt projections in this year’s outlook are not surprising – they are the predictable consequence of tax cuts that Congress passed last year. Republican leaders in Congress insisted on passing those tax cuts without paying for them, despite a veto threat from the White House due to the lack of offsetting deficit reduction. President Barack Obama only signed the tax cuts into law after Congress also included important tax relief for working families alongside the tax cuts for businesses.
Republican leaders brushed aside deficit concerns when the tax deal passed at the end of last year. And just a few weeks ago, House Republicans unveiled a tax plan that would increase deficits even more with tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans.
But now some are saying that higher debt projections mean we cannot afford programs that work for low- and middle-income families. Fortunately for the American people, their warning of a looming fiscal crisis is greatly exaggerated. Annual budget deficits have fallen dramatically in recent years, and are currently in line with their historical average. The United States is not facing an immediate fiscal crisis.
Markets are fully confident in the full faith and credit of the United States. The interest rate on 5-year Treasury bonds is currently negative after adjusting for inflation, meaning that investors are literally paying to make a loan to the United States – showing their confidence that the country will be able to afford to pay them back in the future. Even 30-year inflation-adjusted Treasury rates are less than 1 percent, which reflects the fundamental long-term fiscal strength of the United States.
Only moderate changes are needed to sustain programs like Social Security and Medicare. The United States is an extremely low-tax country by international standards. In 2013, U.S. federal, state, and local taxes equaled just 25.4 percent of GDP, much lower than the average tax burden for industrialized nations in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of 34.2 percent of GDP. The new CBO report estimates that the federal government would need to reduce annual deficits by 1.7 percent of GDP in order to prevent the long-term debt from increasing over the next 30 years as a share of the economy. Even if this was done entirely by raising taxes, the U.S. would still be an extremely low tax country.
Cutting taxes and then stoking fiscal panic after the deficit increases is an attempt to use the “starve the beast” strategy to dismantle the safety net and slash middle-class investments. The most recent House Republican budget, which was written by Chairman Price, raises the specter of a “devastating fiscal crisis,” which it claims to solve by cutting non-defense programs – such as health care, nutrition assistance, and Pell Grants – by $6 trillion over 10 years. More than 60 percent of these cuts would hit programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans. Yet the budget doesn’t contemplate solving the fiscal picture by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans at all.
The new budget data from CBO largely confirms what we already know. The national debt is stable right now, and long-term fiscal shortfalls can be addressed with relatively modest changes. Dire warnings of a debt crisis are a common tactic to justify slashing effective and popular federal programs, and those warnings should be taken even less seriously when they come from politicians who have no problem with higher deficits when they want to cut taxes.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP Uses Debt They Created As An Excuse For Program Cuts
By Harry Stein, July 12, 2016
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an updated outlook on the country’s long-term fiscal future on Tuesday. The budget outlook projects that the national debt will grow at a faster rate than the CBO projected in last year’s outlook, and some Republicans have already seized the news to attack programs that support low- and middle-income Americans.
Shortly after the CBO published the new data, House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) said in a statement, “These debt projections portend a horrible fiscal legacy,” and specifically expressed alarm about “insolvent Medicare and Social Security programs.” Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) also singled out Social Security and Medicare in a statement that claimed, “We’re past the tipping point in this debt crisis.”
But the higher debt projections in this year’s outlook are not surprising – they are the predictable consequence of tax cuts that Congress passed last year. Republican leaders in Congress insisted on passing those tax cuts without paying for them, despite a veto threat from the White House due to the lack of offsetting deficit reduction. President Barack Obama only signed the tax cuts into law after Congress also included important tax relief for working families alongside the tax cuts for businesses.
Republican leaders brushed aside deficit concerns when the tax deal passed at the end of last year. And just a few weeks ago, House Republicans unveiled a tax plan that would increase deficits even more with tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans.
But now some are saying that higher debt projections mean we cannot afford programs that work for low- and middle-income families. Fortunately for the American people, their warning of a looming fiscal crisis is greatly exaggerated. Annual budget deficits have fallen dramatically in recent years, and are currently in line with their historical average. The United States is not facing an immediate fiscal crisis.
Markets are fully confident in the full faith and credit of the United States. The interest rate on 5-year Treasury bonds is currently negative after adjusting for inflation, meaning that investors are literally paying to make a loan to the United States – showing their confidence that the country will be able to afford to pay them back in the future. Even 30-year inflation-adjusted Treasury rates are less than 1 percent, which reflects the fundamental long-term fiscal strength of the United States.
Only moderate changes are needed to sustain programs like Social Security and Medicare. The United States is an extremely low-tax country by international standards. In 2013, U.S. federal, state, and local taxes equaled just 25.4 percent of GDP, much lower than the average tax burden for industrialized nations in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of 34.2 percent of GDP. The new CBO report estimates that the federal government would need to reduce annual deficits by 1.7 percent of GDP in order to prevent the long-term debt from increasing over the next 30 years as a share of the economy. Even if this was done entirely by raising taxes, the U.S. would still be an extremely low tax country.
Cutting taxes and then stoking fiscal panic after the deficit increases is an attempt to use the “starve the beast” strategy to dismantle the safety net and slash middle-class investments. The most recent House Republican budget, which was written by Chairman Price, raises the specter of a “devastating fiscal crisis,” which it claims to solve by cutting non-defense programs – such as health care, nutrition assistance, and Pell Grants – by $6 trillion over 10 years. More than 60 percent of these cuts would hit programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans. Yet the budget doesn’t contemplate solving the fiscal picture by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans at all.
The new budget data from CBO largely confirms what we already know. The national debt is stable right now, and long-term fiscal shortfalls can be addressed with relatively modest changes. Dire warnings of a debt crisis are a common tactic to justify slashing effective and popular federal programs, and those warnings should be taken even less seriously when they come from politicians who have no problem with higher deficits when they want to cut taxes.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, July 11, 2016
Reincarnation of the GOP's "finest hour".
.....................................................................................
Trump, "'... we do express our unequivocal stance against the xenophobia, sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry that you have actively and implicitly endorsed in your campaign.'" It comes home to roost, #Lyin'Donald.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wharton students to Trump: 'You do not represent us'
By Julia Manchester, July 10, 2016
Students at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance have penned a scathing, open letter to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, claiming the business mogul-turned-politician does not represent them.
Trump regularly reminds the public he attended Wharton, and often credits the school for his business knowledge. However, on Friday over 1,400 current Wharton students and alumni expressed their disdain for Trump, saying they were "deeply disappointed" by his candidacy.
"We, proud students, alumni, and faculty of Wharton, are outraged that an affiliation with our school is being used to legitimize prejudice and intolerance," the letter read. "Although we do not aim to make any political endorsements with this letter, we do express our unequivocal stance against the xenophobia, sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry that you have actively and implicitly endorsed in your campaign."
Huffington Post first reported on the letter.
Trump earned his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School in 1968, after transferring from Fordham University, where he spent two years studying.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wharton students to Trump: 'You do not represent us'
By Julia Manchester, July 10, 2016
Students at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance have penned a scathing, open letter to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, claiming the business mogul-turned-politician does not represent them.
Trump regularly reminds the public he attended Wharton, and often credits the school for his business knowledge. However, on Friday over 1,400 current Wharton students and alumni expressed their disdain for Trump, saying they were "deeply disappointed" by his candidacy.
"We, proud students, alumni, and faculty of Wharton, are outraged that an affiliation with our school is being used to legitimize prejudice and intolerance," the letter read. "Although we do not aim to make any political endorsements with this letter, we do express our unequivocal stance against the xenophobia, sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry that you have actively and implicitly endorsed in your campaign."
Huffington Post first reported on the letter.
Trump earned his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School in 1968, after transferring from Fordham University, where he spent two years studying.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — as even responsible Republicans should be able to recognize." "Responsible"-- that's the key word, isn't it?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Both are unpopular. Only one is a threat.
By Washington Post Editorial Board, July 10, 2016
“This election,” a spokesman for Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Thursday, “remains a dumpster fire.” Well, yes, the two major-party candidates for president are historically unpopular. But if this election is unusually bad, it is not because both parties chose bad candidates. There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — as even responsible Republicans should be able to recognize.
Ms. Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times over. She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. She knows policy. She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as pressing through an important children’s health insurance program during her husband’s administration. As a senator, she was respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She completed four years as secretary of state to generally positive reviews. She began her presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.
None of this means you have to like Ms. Clinton or believe she would be a good president. You may disagree with her views; we have done so often enough and will do so again when we think she is wrong. You may believe she was foolish to push for the Libya intervention, arrogant to keep her emails out of the official State Department server, greedy to take large speaking fees as a private citizen. But measured against other major-party candidates of recent times, Ms. Clinton is well within established bounds of competence, knowledge, commitment and integrity. She is not a dumpster candidate.
Mr. Trump, by contrast, has waged a campaign based on bigotry, ignorance and resentment. He has no experience as a public servant, and his private record of bankruptcies and exploitation should be disqualifying. He regularly circulates falsehoods. He has no dis-cern-ible interest in or knowledge of policy. Just in recent days, Mr. Trump tweeted out an anti-Semitic image circulating on neo-Nazi websites and attacked the media for reporting as much. He called one sitting senator a loser and threatened another while proving that he lacks even a passing familiarity with the Constitution. He praised one of the most vile dictators of the 20th century.
Those Republicans with enough self-respect to be mortified by the man their party is about to nominate continually hold out hope for some magical transformation. Yet even if Mr. Trump flipped his agenda — not a problem for a man with almost no fixed beliefs — he would still be the candidate who mocked a disabled reporter, proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States, attacked a judge based on his ethnicity, celebrated violence at his rallies, demeaned women and promised to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants . He would still be the candidate who vaulted to political prominence with race-based attacks on the incumbent president and launched his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists.
Mr. Sasse has proved to be a rare Republican official with the moral courage to speak as honestly about Mr. Trump after he clinched the nomination as he did before. It’s not surprising that the senator would want to dismiss the whole campaign as a mess, and we don’t doubt that he genuinely fears the direction in which Ms. Clinton would lead the nation.
But to equate the two candidates as indistinguishably unqualified products of a rigged or failed system only feeds public cynicism while blurring distinctions that should not be blurred. Ms. Clinton is a politician, long in the arena, whom you may or may not support. Mr. Trump is a danger to the republic.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Both are unpopular. Only one is a threat.
By Washington Post Editorial Board, July 10, 2016
“This election,” a spokesman for Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Thursday, “remains a dumpster fire.” Well, yes, the two major-party candidates for president are historically unpopular. But if this election is unusually bad, it is not because both parties chose bad candidates. There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — as even responsible Republicans should be able to recognize.
Ms. Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times over. She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. She knows policy. She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as pressing through an important children’s health insurance program during her husband’s administration. As a senator, she was respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She completed four years as secretary of state to generally positive reviews. She began her presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.
None of this means you have to like Ms. Clinton or believe she would be a good president. You may disagree with her views; we have done so often enough and will do so again when we think she is wrong. You may believe she was foolish to push for the Libya intervention, arrogant to keep her emails out of the official State Department server, greedy to take large speaking fees as a private citizen. But measured against other major-party candidates of recent times, Ms. Clinton is well within established bounds of competence, knowledge, commitment and integrity. She is not a dumpster candidate.
Mr. Trump, by contrast, has waged a campaign based on bigotry, ignorance and resentment. He has no experience as a public servant, and his private record of bankruptcies and exploitation should be disqualifying. He regularly circulates falsehoods. He has no dis-cern-ible interest in or knowledge of policy. Just in recent days, Mr. Trump tweeted out an anti-Semitic image circulating on neo-Nazi websites and attacked the media for reporting as much. He called one sitting senator a loser and threatened another while proving that he lacks even a passing familiarity with the Constitution. He praised one of the most vile dictators of the 20th century.
Those Republicans with enough self-respect to be mortified by the man their party is about to nominate continually hold out hope for some magical transformation. Yet even if Mr. Trump flipped his agenda — not a problem for a man with almost no fixed beliefs — he would still be the candidate who mocked a disabled reporter, proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States, attacked a judge based on his ethnicity, celebrated violence at his rallies, demeaned women and promised to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants . He would still be the candidate who vaulted to political prominence with race-based attacks on the incumbent president and launched his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists.
Mr. Sasse has proved to be a rare Republican official with the moral courage to speak as honestly about Mr. Trump after he clinched the nomination as he did before. It’s not surprising that the senator would want to dismiss the whole campaign as a mess, and we don’t doubt that he genuinely fears the direction in which Ms. Clinton would lead the nation.
But to equate the two candidates as indistinguishably unqualified products of a rigged or failed system only feeds public cynicism while blurring distinctions that should not be blurred. Ms. Clinton is a politician, long in the arena, whom you may or may not support. Mr. Trump is a danger to the republic.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, July 10, 2016
"Trump’s life is filled with so many examples of his effort to humiliate others as 'losers' (one of his favorite words) or 'dummies,' or 'ugly,' that it becomes clear that the concept of shame is always lurking in his psyche and ready to be flung at anyone who comes near."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Inside Trump's Paranoid Style of Politics
Ever since he got pushed around at that military academy, Trump has been all about shame—avoiding it himself, and inflicting it on others.
By Michael D'Antonio, July 9, 2016
Always deeply psychological endeavors, presidential campaigns reveal, in remarkably accurate ways, the hearts and minds of the candidates. The sweating and resentful Richard Nixon of 1960 became the disgraced president driven from office 1974. The cool and efficient Barack Obama of 2008 was the no-drama president of 2011, who authorized the mission that saw Osama bin Laden killed and then knocked ’em dead with his jokes at the White House correspondent’s dinner while the raid was in progress.
In 2016, with Donald Trump, we have a candidate who has spewed anger and bigotry and lurched from one controversy to the next. More performance art than stump speeches, his campaign appearances are such florid emotional displays that it’s difficult to keep track of the message he wants to deliver. But if you pay attention to his style, and the unique themes he returns to again and again, you start to recognize a pattern.
From the day he declared his candidacy, Trump has repeatedly talked about competitors who “beat” America in trade and how very smart foreign leaders secretly denigrate the United States. He’s especially upset about Mexico. “They beat us all the time,” said Trump during the Trump Tower speech. “When do we beat Mexico at the border? They are laughing at us, at our stupidity.”
Superficially, the problem that torments Trump, is trade. But his language -- they “beat” us and “laugh” at us -- provokes the emotional power of shame. Almost nothing hurts us more than this feeling, which fills us with the sense that others see as weak, ineffective, and unworthy. Inevitably, then, shame is followed by anger, as we burn at the injustice of being diminished and yearn to recover our dignity.
Trump, who told me in 2014 that he sees life as an endless struggle to win and avoid losing, recognizes that the pain of humiliation can be an extraordinary motivator. He felt it himself, when he lost his Trump Airline and the Plaza Hotel and became a symbol of failure in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Out of this defeat he fashioned a comeback that saw him become richer and more famous than ever. Now, when he says “every country” is “beating us,” he wants us to experience the sting of being identified as losers and then feel motivated to back him as the hero who will restore our honor.
Trump is not the first political leader to declare America imperiled and offer himself as a protector. In the 1950s Sen. Joseph McCarthy practiced the same trick with his investigation of so-called Communists in the U.S. government. McCarthy’s hearings in the United States Senate became pageants of fear, intimidation, and shame. But McCarthy and Trump share more than the techniques of fear mongering and self-promotion. McCarthy added an element of sexual innuendo to his terror campaign, alleging that some of his targets were secretly homosexual and, according to the law at the time, ineligible for government service. Trump doesn’t engage in the same kind of baiting, but he does evoke fears of sexual violence with fairly frequent use of the word “rape.”
In his announcement speech Trump said the undocumented Mexican immigrants are, among other terrible things, “rapists. Weeks later, in an interview on CNN, he pushed back against criticism by saying, “somebody’s doing the raping.” Next came his lawyer, Michael Cohen, arguing, falsely that under the law, “You cannot rape your spouse.” In May Trump said, in reference to trade, “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country.” He’s also said backers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty “want to rape our country.”
When has a presidential candidate for a major political party ever before used the word rape, even once, let alone in the varied ways Trump has used it? It’s possible that some have offered words of comfort to victims of sexual assault or advocated support for services to them. But my own thorough search has turned up no previous examples of a modern candidate speaking of America being subject to even metaphorical rape or of classes of people – undocumented Mexican immigrants for example – as “rapists.” This kind of talk is so unusual that, when combined with his complaints about those who beat us and laugh at us, it begs to be analyzed.
To understand how referencing rape can amplify the theme of shame it helps to acknowledge that sexual violence is often accompanied by feelings of humiliation. Victims of rape often overcome their shame in order to bring charges and help prosecutors. Similarly, a man’s failure to protect a partner from violence, especially sexual violence, is regarded in many cultures as especially shameful. The use of the word rape to suggest a humiliation on a geopolitical scale has a long history. In centuries past Britannia was portrayed as a woman being rapes by France. More recently, far-right agitator Jean Marie Le Pen has talked about France being raped by immigrants with syphilis. Whatever the era, throwing the word rape into a political speech is reliably inflammatory.
Rape can also be evoked to create racial panic, which is why the specter of black men raping white women was so commonly used in the past by racists eager to whip up bigotry. It seems no coincidence that in 2016, it is again nonwhite people, from Mexico and China, who are being accused. In the arena of trade the United States sometimes struggles to compete against European competitors in various industries like precision machinery, fashion, and even wine. But Trump doesn’t talk about those countries “raping” America, or people from those countries who overstay visas and commit sexual assaults. Instead it’s “Chinese” and Mexicans” who are to be feared.
Outside of politics, Trump has often used ridicule to shame people who were his critics or rivals. Women like Arianna Huffington and Rose O’Donnell were dismissed by Trump on the basis of their appearance. As a young man he even shamed his older brother Fred Trump Jr., telling him that his work as an airline pilot was comparable to driving a bus. In his 1993 biography of Trump, writer Harry Hurt recounted an episode in which Trump excoriated his other brother Robert in front of other executives. Trump’s sister Maryanne Barry has told a story about how a grown-up Donald took a young nephew out for a game of catch and tried to overwhelm him with fast-and-faster throws. He was going to prove who was stronger, and shame the boy in the process.
Trump’s life is filled with so many examples of his effort to humiliate others as “losers” (one of his favorite words) or” dummies,” or “ugly,” that it becomes clear that the concept of shame is always lurking in his psyche and ready to be flung at anyone who comes near. Displeased with his campaign staff, he recently chose to humiliate them in a conference call with his network of surrogates. According to Bloomberg news, Trump said he had contacted his prominent backers “because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people who are not that smart.”
The supply of shame inside Trump is so great and near the surface that it comes bubbling up in his campaign that we naturally look for its source. As his biographer, I see it in his struggle to satisfy a strict and demanding father and his banishment, at age 13, to a military academy in Upstate New York where, Trump has said, he was subject to violence at the hands of Army veterans who staffed the school. Trump was sent away by his father Fred Sr. because of bad behavior. Could Fred have found a more effective way to shame his son than sending him away to be brutalized by grown men holding make-believe ranks in a pretend military environment?
In his early adulthood Trump adopted the notorious New York lawyer and political fixer Roy Cohn as his mentor. A Jew and a closeted gay man who spewed anti-Semitic and anti-gay remarks, Cohn had been Joe McCarthy’s chief aide during his witch hunt. He guided the senator to whatever evidence suggested an accused person was gay, or had once belonged to a suspect organization. Trump became a client of Cohn’s law practice and was introduced by him at fancy clubs. Cohn was a master manipulator of the press, as Trump is today, and a practitioner of the dark political arts.
Trump first dabbled in the politics of shame in 1987 when he called public attention to Japanese businessmen who would secretly “laugh like hell” after negotiating with Americans. At the time he was also pretty worked up about Arab oil states. In a full page advertisement he bought in various big city papers he said he wanted to “make Japan, Saudi Arabia and others pay for the protection we extend as allies.” The ad concluded with a plea: “Let's not let our great country be laughed at anymore.”
When Trump returned to national politics in 1999, with a run at the Reform Party’s presidential nomination, he turned his sneer upon the other candidates in the race. “They’re losers,” he said of men who stressed their humble beginnings. “Who the hell wants to have a person like this for president?” More recently Trump did his best to shame Barack Obama by suggesting he might not be an American citizen. When this tactic started to fail he voiced doubts about Obama’s admission to elite universities, trying to undermine his legitimacy through innuendo.
Which brings us back to 2011 and the White House Correspondents dinner where Obama kept the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound secret while poking fun at his political rivals and critics. His sharpest jabs were directed at Trump, whom he praised for his displays of leadership on his TV show The Celebrity Apprentice. “You didn’t blame ‘Lil John, Jon, or Meatloaf. You fired Gary Busey. And these are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night.”
Trump attended the dinner and TV cameras showed that his face was frozen throughout Obama’s talk. Later he would insist he wasn’t affected by the jokes, even though he failed to laugh along, as custom would require. Given the ferocity of Trump’s attacks on Obama in the time since that experience, and his own emotional repertoire, it’s hard to accept that he felt nothing that night. It’s a safer bet that he felt plenty of shame and the anger.
Volumes have been written about how the shame dynamic works. Some men will try to get rid of this feeling by picking a fight, which gives them the chance to show they are strong, and someone else is weak. Always a fighter, Trump has taken his shame on the road in the form of a political campaign that gives him the chance to bellow and bray against enemies real and imagined. As he smears his opponents with nicknames and complains that America is being raped, Trump may be soothing his own pain but he is transferring it to us. In some cases the result has been violence at his campaign rallies. More typically we find ourselves riveting by his performance, disturbed and confused and fearing what comes next.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Inside Trump's Paranoid Style of Politics
Ever since he got pushed around at that military academy, Trump has been all about shame—avoiding it himself, and inflicting it on others.
By Michael D'Antonio, July 9, 2016
Always deeply psychological endeavors, presidential campaigns reveal, in remarkably accurate ways, the hearts and minds of the candidates. The sweating and resentful Richard Nixon of 1960 became the disgraced president driven from office 1974. The cool and efficient Barack Obama of 2008 was the no-drama president of 2011, who authorized the mission that saw Osama bin Laden killed and then knocked ’em dead with his jokes at the White House correspondent’s dinner while the raid was in progress.
In 2016, with Donald Trump, we have a candidate who has spewed anger and bigotry and lurched from one controversy to the next. More performance art than stump speeches, his campaign appearances are such florid emotional displays that it’s difficult to keep track of the message he wants to deliver. But if you pay attention to his style, and the unique themes he returns to again and again, you start to recognize a pattern.
From the day he declared his candidacy, Trump has repeatedly talked about competitors who “beat” America in trade and how very smart foreign leaders secretly denigrate the United States. He’s especially upset about Mexico. “They beat us all the time,” said Trump during the Trump Tower speech. “When do we beat Mexico at the border? They are laughing at us, at our stupidity.”
Superficially, the problem that torments Trump, is trade. But his language -- they “beat” us and “laugh” at us -- provokes the emotional power of shame. Almost nothing hurts us more than this feeling, which fills us with the sense that others see as weak, ineffective, and unworthy. Inevitably, then, shame is followed by anger, as we burn at the injustice of being diminished and yearn to recover our dignity.
Trump, who told me in 2014 that he sees life as an endless struggle to win and avoid losing, recognizes that the pain of humiliation can be an extraordinary motivator. He felt it himself, when he lost his Trump Airline and the Plaza Hotel and became a symbol of failure in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Out of this defeat he fashioned a comeback that saw him become richer and more famous than ever. Now, when he says “every country” is “beating us,” he wants us to experience the sting of being identified as losers and then feel motivated to back him as the hero who will restore our honor.
Trump is not the first political leader to declare America imperiled and offer himself as a protector. In the 1950s Sen. Joseph McCarthy practiced the same trick with his investigation of so-called Communists in the U.S. government. McCarthy’s hearings in the United States Senate became pageants of fear, intimidation, and shame. But McCarthy and Trump share more than the techniques of fear mongering and self-promotion. McCarthy added an element of sexual innuendo to his terror campaign, alleging that some of his targets were secretly homosexual and, according to the law at the time, ineligible for government service. Trump doesn’t engage in the same kind of baiting, but he does evoke fears of sexual violence with fairly frequent use of the word “rape.”
In his announcement speech Trump said the undocumented Mexican immigrants are, among other terrible things, “rapists. Weeks later, in an interview on CNN, he pushed back against criticism by saying, “somebody’s doing the raping.” Next came his lawyer, Michael Cohen, arguing, falsely that under the law, “You cannot rape your spouse.” In May Trump said, in reference to trade, “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country.” He’s also said backers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty “want to rape our country.”
When has a presidential candidate for a major political party ever before used the word rape, even once, let alone in the varied ways Trump has used it? It’s possible that some have offered words of comfort to victims of sexual assault or advocated support for services to them. But my own thorough search has turned up no previous examples of a modern candidate speaking of America being subject to even metaphorical rape or of classes of people – undocumented Mexican immigrants for example – as “rapists.” This kind of talk is so unusual that, when combined with his complaints about those who beat us and laugh at us, it begs to be analyzed.
To understand how referencing rape can amplify the theme of shame it helps to acknowledge that sexual violence is often accompanied by feelings of humiliation. Victims of rape often overcome their shame in order to bring charges and help prosecutors. Similarly, a man’s failure to protect a partner from violence, especially sexual violence, is regarded in many cultures as especially shameful. The use of the word rape to suggest a humiliation on a geopolitical scale has a long history. In centuries past Britannia was portrayed as a woman being rapes by France. More recently, far-right agitator Jean Marie Le Pen has talked about France being raped by immigrants with syphilis. Whatever the era, throwing the word rape into a political speech is reliably inflammatory.
Rape can also be evoked to create racial panic, which is why the specter of black men raping white women was so commonly used in the past by racists eager to whip up bigotry. It seems no coincidence that in 2016, it is again nonwhite people, from Mexico and China, who are being accused. In the arena of trade the United States sometimes struggles to compete against European competitors in various industries like precision machinery, fashion, and even wine. But Trump doesn’t talk about those countries “raping” America, or people from those countries who overstay visas and commit sexual assaults. Instead it’s “Chinese” and Mexicans” who are to be feared.
Outside of politics, Trump has often used ridicule to shame people who were his critics or rivals. Women like Arianna Huffington and Rose O’Donnell were dismissed by Trump on the basis of their appearance. As a young man he even shamed his older brother Fred Trump Jr., telling him that his work as an airline pilot was comparable to driving a bus. In his 1993 biography of Trump, writer Harry Hurt recounted an episode in which Trump excoriated his other brother Robert in front of other executives. Trump’s sister Maryanne Barry has told a story about how a grown-up Donald took a young nephew out for a game of catch and tried to overwhelm him with fast-and-faster throws. He was going to prove who was stronger, and shame the boy in the process.
Trump’s life is filled with so many examples of his effort to humiliate others as “losers” (one of his favorite words) or” dummies,” or “ugly,” that it becomes clear that the concept of shame is always lurking in his psyche and ready to be flung at anyone who comes near. Displeased with his campaign staff, he recently chose to humiliate them in a conference call with his network of surrogates. According to Bloomberg news, Trump said he had contacted his prominent backers “because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people who are not that smart.”
The supply of shame inside Trump is so great and near the surface that it comes bubbling up in his campaign that we naturally look for its source. As his biographer, I see it in his struggle to satisfy a strict and demanding father and his banishment, at age 13, to a military academy in Upstate New York where, Trump has said, he was subject to violence at the hands of Army veterans who staffed the school. Trump was sent away by his father Fred Sr. because of bad behavior. Could Fred have found a more effective way to shame his son than sending him away to be brutalized by grown men holding make-believe ranks in a pretend military environment?
In his early adulthood Trump adopted the notorious New York lawyer and political fixer Roy Cohn as his mentor. A Jew and a closeted gay man who spewed anti-Semitic and anti-gay remarks, Cohn had been Joe McCarthy’s chief aide during his witch hunt. He guided the senator to whatever evidence suggested an accused person was gay, or had once belonged to a suspect organization. Trump became a client of Cohn’s law practice and was introduced by him at fancy clubs. Cohn was a master manipulator of the press, as Trump is today, and a practitioner of the dark political arts.
Trump first dabbled in the politics of shame in 1987 when he called public attention to Japanese businessmen who would secretly “laugh like hell” after negotiating with Americans. At the time he was also pretty worked up about Arab oil states. In a full page advertisement he bought in various big city papers he said he wanted to “make Japan, Saudi Arabia and others pay for the protection we extend as allies.” The ad concluded with a plea: “Let's not let our great country be laughed at anymore.”
When Trump returned to national politics in 1999, with a run at the Reform Party’s presidential nomination, he turned his sneer upon the other candidates in the race. “They’re losers,” he said of men who stressed their humble beginnings. “Who the hell wants to have a person like this for president?” More recently Trump did his best to shame Barack Obama by suggesting he might not be an American citizen. When this tactic started to fail he voiced doubts about Obama’s admission to elite universities, trying to undermine his legitimacy through innuendo.
Which brings us back to 2011 and the White House Correspondents dinner where Obama kept the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound secret while poking fun at his political rivals and critics. His sharpest jabs were directed at Trump, whom he praised for his displays of leadership on his TV show The Celebrity Apprentice. “You didn’t blame ‘Lil John, Jon, or Meatloaf. You fired Gary Busey. And these are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night.”
Trump attended the dinner and TV cameras showed that his face was frozen throughout Obama’s talk. Later he would insist he wasn’t affected by the jokes, even though he failed to laugh along, as custom would require. Given the ferocity of Trump’s attacks on Obama in the time since that experience, and his own emotional repertoire, it’s hard to accept that he felt nothing that night. It’s a safer bet that he felt plenty of shame and the anger.
Volumes have been written about how the shame dynamic works. Some men will try to get rid of this feeling by picking a fight, which gives them the chance to show they are strong, and someone else is weak. Always a fighter, Trump has taken his shame on the road in the form of a political campaign that gives him the chance to bellow and bray against enemies real and imagined. As he smears his opponents with nicknames and complains that America is being raped, Trump may be soothing his own pain but he is transferring it to us. In some cases the result has been violence at his campaign rallies. More typically we find ourselves riveting by his performance, disturbed and confused and fearing what comes next.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Wish and hope — weak words, admittedly. But it’s all the crumbs that we political orphans, an underserved majority, can count on over the next month."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Political Orphans
By Timothy Egan, July 8, 2016
In barely two weeks, Republicans will converge in Cleveland for the Trumpocalypse, a fact-free and hate-filled gathering likely to be as scary as it will be entertaining. A week later the Democrats will assemble in Philadelphia in a focus-group-tested pander fest, as tightly scripted as the visualize-world-peace answers at a Miss Universe contest.
If you feel left out, you have plenty of company. You can search across the fruited plain and nowhere will you find a political convention for the affiliation that more Americans identify with than any other — independents. According to Pew Research, the share of indies now stands at its highest point in more than 75 years of polling: 39 percent. And although other surveys slightly disagree, the point is the same: a plurality of voters has no place to call political home.
This large island of independents is a habitat of shruggers, doubters and contrarians. There’s room for nuance in their thinking. Millions of these middle-grounders are actually leaners who sorta, kinda, maybe like most of what one party stands for — and then find out that they share a label with Sarah Palin.
As someone who thinks Democrats are ossified on education and afraid to speak out against the P.C. censors in their midst, and who finds Republicans horrific on science, guns and nearly everything else, I went online looking for a party hookup. In one quiz, after answering a dozen questions, I was found to be a moderate Democrat. In another, said to test your political DNA, the result was scornful. “You’re not much of a joiner” was the conclusion. “We’re kind of surprised you took the quiz.”
You get dinged as more of a lefty for saying you “mostly agree” that the government needs to do more to make health care affordable and accessible, and sometimes doubt the existence of God. What sentient human doesn’t share those thoughts? And I was labeled “apolitical” in the other analysis largely because I loathe tedious gatherings of the self-righteous and long-winded — “active political participation,” as it’s called.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t vote in every election, a dutiful citizen, hoping for a day when my kids can attend college without going broke or my Congress will actually investigate things that matter to everyday people.
A few years ago Gallup found that 58 percent of voters said a third party was needed because Republicans and Democrats do such a poor job representing average Americans. There is hope of that happening this year.
The Republicans, on the verge of nominating a man with the temperament of a sociopath, someone who praises a murderous dictator while damning the American troops who fought him, should crack up and break apart.
For years, this party stood for something — lower taxes, a lighter government hand, personal responsibility, global engagement. After Cleveland, they will stand for nothing but the bombastic tyrant who lets the smallest thing get under his very thin, very orange skin. From Trump, you hear more praise of Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin than for Lincoln or Reagan. The Republican base created this monster; by the power of hubris, he should destroy their party.
More important, Republicans have shown no interest in governing. After at least seven probes, more time has been spent investigating the four American deaths at Benghazi than was spent on the attacks of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. All to conclude that the crazy conspiracy theories concocted about this tragedy have no basis in fact.
Where are the exhaustive inquiries into why so many Americans are falling behind? Where are the subpoenas of the people who rigged the financial system to a point where it crashed the global economy? What is the legislative response to ideas favored by huge majorities of the people — simple gun measures to keep terrorists from getting assault rifles, or a boost of the minimum wage? And how are the people’s representatives dealing with an epidemic of murder of our fellow citizens by police officers?
Well, you know the answers. Attacking the opponent’s party is the only game in town. The leaders of this Congress do not legislate. They stage show hearings to keep them in office.
The Democrats, though more representative of issues that people care about, need to call out the fringe of their party on campus, in town halls and elsewhere who are enemies of free speech. When Bernie Sanders had his microphone forcefully taken away from him by a Black Lives Matter protester, it was, in fact, a shameful thing — no matter how important the cause. Instead, too many Dems let it pass.
So wish for a crackup in Cleveland, where Trump and maybe Newt Gingrich — with six wives between them — will represent the party of family values. And hope for a course correction in Philly, where Democrats might listen to working-class voters who feel betrayed by the corporate elites in power suites. Wish and hope — weak words, admittedly. But it’s all the crumbs that we political orphans, an underserved majority, can count on over the next month.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Political Orphans
By Timothy Egan, July 8, 2016
In barely two weeks, Republicans will converge in Cleveland for the Trumpocalypse, a fact-free and hate-filled gathering likely to be as scary as it will be entertaining. A week later the Democrats will assemble in Philadelphia in a focus-group-tested pander fest, as tightly scripted as the visualize-world-peace answers at a Miss Universe contest.
If you feel left out, you have plenty of company. You can search across the fruited plain and nowhere will you find a political convention for the affiliation that more Americans identify with than any other — independents. According to Pew Research, the share of indies now stands at its highest point in more than 75 years of polling: 39 percent. And although other surveys slightly disagree, the point is the same: a plurality of voters has no place to call political home.
This large island of independents is a habitat of shruggers, doubters and contrarians. There’s room for nuance in their thinking. Millions of these middle-grounders are actually leaners who sorta, kinda, maybe like most of what one party stands for — and then find out that they share a label with Sarah Palin.
As someone who thinks Democrats are ossified on education and afraid to speak out against the P.C. censors in their midst, and who finds Republicans horrific on science, guns and nearly everything else, I went online looking for a party hookup. In one quiz, after answering a dozen questions, I was found to be a moderate Democrat. In another, said to test your political DNA, the result was scornful. “You’re not much of a joiner” was the conclusion. “We’re kind of surprised you took the quiz.”
You get dinged as more of a lefty for saying you “mostly agree” that the government needs to do more to make health care affordable and accessible, and sometimes doubt the existence of God. What sentient human doesn’t share those thoughts? And I was labeled “apolitical” in the other analysis largely because I loathe tedious gatherings of the self-righteous and long-winded — “active political participation,” as it’s called.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t vote in every election, a dutiful citizen, hoping for a day when my kids can attend college without going broke or my Congress will actually investigate things that matter to everyday people.
A few years ago Gallup found that 58 percent of voters said a third party was needed because Republicans and Democrats do such a poor job representing average Americans. There is hope of that happening this year.
The Republicans, on the verge of nominating a man with the temperament of a sociopath, someone who praises a murderous dictator while damning the American troops who fought him, should crack up and break apart.
For years, this party stood for something — lower taxes, a lighter government hand, personal responsibility, global engagement. After Cleveland, they will stand for nothing but the bombastic tyrant who lets the smallest thing get under his very thin, very orange skin. From Trump, you hear more praise of Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin than for Lincoln or Reagan. The Republican base created this monster; by the power of hubris, he should destroy their party.
More important, Republicans have shown no interest in governing. After at least seven probes, more time has been spent investigating the four American deaths at Benghazi than was spent on the attacks of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. All to conclude that the crazy conspiracy theories concocted about this tragedy have no basis in fact.
Where are the exhaustive inquiries into why so many Americans are falling behind? Where are the subpoenas of the people who rigged the financial system to a point where it crashed the global economy? What is the legislative response to ideas favored by huge majorities of the people — simple gun measures to keep terrorists from getting assault rifles, or a boost of the minimum wage? And how are the people’s representatives dealing with an epidemic of murder of our fellow citizens by police officers?
Well, you know the answers. Attacking the opponent’s party is the only game in town. The leaders of this Congress do not legislate. They stage show hearings to keep them in office.
The Democrats, though more representative of issues that people care about, need to call out the fringe of their party on campus, in town halls and elsewhere who are enemies of free speech. When Bernie Sanders had his microphone forcefully taken away from him by a Black Lives Matter protester, it was, in fact, a shameful thing — no matter how important the cause. Instead, too many Dems let it pass.
So wish for a crackup in Cleveland, where Trump and maybe Newt Gingrich — with six wives between them — will represent the party of family values. And hope for a course correction in Philly, where Democrats might listen to working-class voters who feel betrayed by the corporate elites in power suites. Wish and hope — weak words, admittedly. But it’s all the crumbs that we political orphans, an underserved majority, can count on over the next month.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the stark reality is that Trump didn’t deal with each of the situations as an effective communicator. To the contrary, he actually made each one worse than it otherwise would have been." And he always will!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump Clearly Spinning Political Gold Into Lead
By Stan Collender, July 10, 2016
It took less than 24 hours for Donald Trump to prove that my last post was right: at least as a communicator he’s not ready for presidential campaign prime time.
My previous post was all about whether Trump would be able to respond appropriately to unplanned and unexpected events, that is, to the kinds of things a president has to deal with every day. I said I had serious doubts about his ability to do that. I assumed, however, that we wouldn’t know until after the GOP convention whether Trump would be able to take advantage of whatever happens to communicate in a way that would widen his appeal to a much broader audience.
I was wrong about the timing but not about Trump’s ability to communicate. Starting last Monday – the day after my post and about 2 weeks before the Republican convention even started – Trump showed that he’s a reverse alchemist: he took what should have been a golden week for his campaign and turned into pure political lead .
Consider the following.
On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey’s press conference was a damaging blow for Hillary Clinton. Presumably this wasn’t a partisan attack on the likely Democratic presidential candidate; it was a condemnation from a very high-level law enforcement official. This was criticism from what communications professionals call a “third-party validator” and it’s usually quite effective.
What Trump should have done when this situation occurred was to go silent for several days, let Comey’s comments speak for themselves and dominate the news and allow the political situation to fester.
But Trump did the exact opposite. The same day the FBI director announced his agency’s findings, Trump made a controversial speech in North Carolina that praised Saddam Hussein. That immediately pulled focus away from Comey and Clinton and raised the question about his support for and approval of dictators.
Then Trump significantly increased the controversy over his retweet of a graphic that used a six-point star by making repeated statements that showed him to be overly defensive and oblivious to the controversy the original tweet created. The multiple explanations made by a variety of spokespeople demonstrated that neither Trump nor anyone else was in control of the situation.
Trump then ended the week with two mostly disastrous meetings on Capital Hill with House and Senate Republicans.
Given all of the previously reported concerns of GOP representatives and senators about Trump’s nomination and the steady drip of announcements about senior Republican officials’ decisions not to attend the convention, Trump needed to communicate that this was a kumbaya moment. He needed to show that the party was coming together at exactly the right time, that he saw Clinton and the Democrats as the real opponents and that he was going to help the GOP maintain its House and Senate majorities.
But Trump squandered the opportunity. Instead of reports about everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya, the leaks from the Republicans in the two meetings were almost all about Trump being combative, threatening and refusing to acknowledge that the concerns of those in the rooms might be legitimate.
How you feel about the substance of the Saddam Hussein, six-point star and Hill meetings issues is completely beside the point. As he also did with the Comey situation, the stark reality is that Trump didn’t deal with each of the situations as an effective communicator. To the contrary, he actually made each one worse than it otherwise would have been.
In doing this Trump demonstrated that he’s more than ready and certainly able to make what should be a positive situation into a big negative. He also showed a remarkable level of insensitivity that is almost impossible to ignore by all those who are not fierce Trump loyalists. He also raised questions about his willingness and ability to work with Congress (and vice versa) even if there are Republican majorities in both houses.
And he did all this – turning what should have been a truly golden week into political lead — in just one week.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump Clearly Spinning Political Gold Into Lead
By Stan Collender, July 10, 2016
It took less than 24 hours for Donald Trump to prove that my last post was right: at least as a communicator he’s not ready for presidential campaign prime time.
My previous post was all about whether Trump would be able to respond appropriately to unplanned and unexpected events, that is, to the kinds of things a president has to deal with every day. I said I had serious doubts about his ability to do that. I assumed, however, that we wouldn’t know until after the GOP convention whether Trump would be able to take advantage of whatever happens to communicate in a way that would widen his appeal to a much broader audience.
I was wrong about the timing but not about Trump’s ability to communicate. Starting last Monday – the day after my post and about 2 weeks before the Republican convention even started – Trump showed that he’s a reverse alchemist: he took what should have been a golden week for his campaign and turned into pure political lead .
Consider the following.
On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey’s press conference was a damaging blow for Hillary Clinton. Presumably this wasn’t a partisan attack on the likely Democratic presidential candidate; it was a condemnation from a very high-level law enforcement official. This was criticism from what communications professionals call a “third-party validator” and it’s usually quite effective.
What Trump should have done when this situation occurred was to go silent for several days, let Comey’s comments speak for themselves and dominate the news and allow the political situation to fester.
But Trump did the exact opposite. The same day the FBI director announced his agency’s findings, Trump made a controversial speech in North Carolina that praised Saddam Hussein. That immediately pulled focus away from Comey and Clinton and raised the question about his support for and approval of dictators.
Then Trump significantly increased the controversy over his retweet of a graphic that used a six-point star by making repeated statements that showed him to be overly defensive and oblivious to the controversy the original tweet created. The multiple explanations made by a variety of spokespeople demonstrated that neither Trump nor anyone else was in control of the situation.
Trump then ended the week with two mostly disastrous meetings on Capital Hill with House and Senate Republicans.
Given all of the previously reported concerns of GOP representatives and senators about Trump’s nomination and the steady drip of announcements about senior Republican officials’ decisions not to attend the convention, Trump needed to communicate that this was a kumbaya moment. He needed to show that the party was coming together at exactly the right time, that he saw Clinton and the Democrats as the real opponents and that he was going to help the GOP maintain its House and Senate majorities.
But Trump squandered the opportunity. Instead of reports about everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya, the leaks from the Republicans in the two meetings were almost all about Trump being combative, threatening and refusing to acknowledge that the concerns of those in the rooms might be legitimate.
How you feel about the substance of the Saddam Hussein, six-point star and Hill meetings issues is completely beside the point. As he also did with the Comey situation, the stark reality is that Trump didn’t deal with each of the situations as an effective communicator. To the contrary, he actually made each one worse than it otherwise would have been.
In doing this Trump demonstrated that he’s more than ready and certainly able to make what should be a positive situation into a big negative. He also showed a remarkable level of insensitivity that is almost impossible to ignore by all those who are not fierce Trump loyalists. He also raised questions about his willingness and ability to work with Congress (and vice versa) even if there are Republican majorities in both houses.
And he did all this – turning what should have been a truly golden week into political lead — in just one week.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Write in "DOLLY" for Prez!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Dolly The Cat Is The President America Deserves
This presidential candidate isn’t racist or sexist, and she doesn’t have any email scandals.
And while we hate to be superficial, she’s definitely the cutest candidate in the running.
Dolly, Pittsburgh cat and official mascot for WearWoof, a nonprofit dedicated to pets in western Pennsylvania, has announced her campaign for president of the United States, running on the platform #FixAmerica. And don’t worry if that sounds a little too similar to the slogan of a certain orange man ― by “fix,” Dolly is talking about spaying and neutering your pets. Donations to the campaign go toward providing low-cost spaying and neutering services, as well as procedures for feral and stray cats through trap-neuter-return programs.
“Health and behavior benefits aside, spay-neuter is essential to reducing the number of unwanted animals entering shelters every year,” Nancy Lee, WearWoof founder and Dolly’s campaign manager, told The Huffington Post. About 2.7 million animals in shelters are euthanized annually, according to statistics from the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
And Dolly has a life story Americans can get behind. A former street cat, she went through the shelter system and ultimately established herself as a successful business-cat: she is the resident feline at the clothing resale store that funds many of WearWoof’s projects.
We asked the tabby about her plans for the U.S. economy.
“The economy that I’m the most interested in is the Charitable Economy,” said Dolly in a statement we have to assume was typed up by Lee. “Although we cats rule the internet and Americans spend over $60 billion a year on pet products and services, only a couple percent of the $300+ billion dollars donated to all charitable causes every year in the US go to animal causes.”
OK, so maybe Dolly is a bit of a single-issue candidate. But while some other candidates have made impossible promises about what they’d do on their first day in office, Dolly is nothing but realistic about what her first move would be.
“After having my morning kibble topped off, I plan to stare at my food bowl with a scowl of contempt until ultimately turning away in pure disgust,” she said.
Dolly 4 Prez.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Dolly The Cat Is The President America Deserves
The perfect choice for those who think the other candidates are real dogs.
By Hilary Hanson, July 9, 2016This presidential candidate isn’t racist or sexist, and she doesn’t have any email scandals.
And while we hate to be superficial, she’s definitely the cutest candidate in the running.
Dolly, Pittsburgh cat and official mascot for WearWoof, a nonprofit dedicated to pets in western Pennsylvania, has announced her campaign for president of the United States, running on the platform #FixAmerica. And don’t worry if that sounds a little too similar to the slogan of a certain orange man ― by “fix,” Dolly is talking about spaying and neutering your pets. Donations to the campaign go toward providing low-cost spaying and neutering services, as well as procedures for feral and stray cats through trap-neuter-return programs.
“Health and behavior benefits aside, spay-neuter is essential to reducing the number of unwanted animals entering shelters every year,” Nancy Lee, WearWoof founder and Dolly’s campaign manager, told The Huffington Post. About 2.7 million animals in shelters are euthanized annually, according to statistics from the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
And Dolly has a life story Americans can get behind. A former street cat, she went through the shelter system and ultimately established herself as a successful business-cat: she is the resident feline at the clothing resale store that funds many of WearWoof’s projects.
We asked the tabby about her plans for the U.S. economy.
“The economy that I’m the most interested in is the Charitable Economy,” said Dolly in a statement we have to assume was typed up by Lee. “Although we cats rule the internet and Americans spend over $60 billion a year on pet products and services, only a couple percent of the $300+ billion dollars donated to all charitable causes every year in the US go to animal causes.”
OK, so maybe Dolly is a bit of a single-issue candidate. But while some other candidates have made impossible promises about what they’d do on their first day in office, Dolly is nothing but realistic about what her first move would be.
“After having my morning kibble topped off, I plan to stare at my food bowl with a scowl of contempt until ultimately turning away in pure disgust,” she said.
Dolly 4 Prez.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, July 9, 2016
#Lyin'Trump, clean up your own gerrymandered backyard first.
..................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)