Take a moment to listen.
And, yes, I understand that since the advent of Donald Trump's administration the chances for immigrants have lessened, but that will not help those who live in that other America, the one where chances are slim. That is not the solution.
A short excerpt of an interview with Anand Giridharadas on Bloomberg. They kind of cut it off at the end, but he gets his opinion across as to the reason we are where we are, both here and across the pond with Brexit. And perhaps the current protests in France today.
96 comments:
Oddly enough, the losers in this changing America keep voting for politicians who'll pledge to keep cutting taxes on the winners who're piling up more and more money into ever fewer and ever larger piles, and to prevent the government from meddling in the ongoing processes that are enhancing the stratification of society.
Don't make sense to me. Just don't.
Perhaps part of the problem is that there are voters out there who simply don't vote, because they feel whatever they do has no effect on the outcome.
The Trump Administration sent Rudy Guiliani on a tour of the Sunday morning politics shows. (Guiliani was quite animated in the role.)
I think this reveals a clear understanding on the part of Trump that his ‛Complete Exoneration’ spin isn't playing with the country's swingable voters (few of them remain, but he can't afford to lose them--his first election was a fluke, and he can't afford to lose anybody if he expects to pull off a reëlection).
The dedicated Trumpkins are, of course, with him solid, still. They'll remain with him even if evidence turns up later proving conspiracy and/or coördination between the Russians and the Trump campaign (the notion that their President might be enthralled to Putin bothers them considerably less than the idea that the Evil Democrats might impose universal health care on the nation and higher taxes on the rich).
But, he still can't afford to lose those few remaining ‛gettable’ voters.
I saw KellyAnne Conway on ABC's "This Week" in the place of Guiliani; she was equally animated.
I think this reveals a clear understanding on the part of Trump that his ‛Complete Exoneration’ spin isn't playing with the country's swingable voters (few of them remain, but he can't afford to lose them--his first election was a fluke, and he can't afford to lose anybody if he expects to pull off a reëlection).
There is that. There is also the possibility that there is real evidence out there of criminal actions by Trump. While this may not be a legal threat now it could be after he is no longer president.
My condolences to the people of Sri Lanka. It was a horrible loss of life. No, not the 134 million that Trump apparently tweeted, but bad enough.
"…a legal threat…after he is no longer president."
No chance Trump doesn't pardon himself after 10 November 2020, soon after.
"No, not the 134 million that Trump apparently tweeted…."
They'll have to look into the meta-data on that one to figure out if Trump actually did that one himself.
Andrew Sullivan wants Trump impeached. He has a good argument in favor of it.
I've switched back. I wanted Trump impeached even though I knew the Republican Senate would never convict. Now I want the Republican Senate tossed and Mitch McConnell turned into the Minority Leader there. I don't want to waste time and effort on trying to tarnish Republican Senators for supporting Trump (which is why I wanted Trump impeached before, make them save him); but, that won't work now--Trump avoided indictment and the swing voters/low information voters will let it go at that. Now we need to work on getting rid of Republican Senators on the grounds that they're ‛establishment’ Republicans--rich get richer Republicans. We need to get rid of those.
But, I'm still flagging arguments I don't actually agree with but which I think are decent arguments anyway.
No chance Trump doesn't pardon himself after 10 November 2020, soon after.
Can you do that preemptively?
I'm starting to think that's it's best that the American people get rid of Trump and then they can file a criminal case against him, if the evidence is there to convict.
"Can you do that preemptively?"
IF he can pardon himself, he can do ‛preëmptively’. Ford pardoned Nixon, for instance, before Nixon was ever charged, preëmpting any charges. Nor had Nixon actually been impeached (although that was certainly coming down the pike at him).
The question of whether a President can pardon himself has yet to be settled.
Trump won't let that stop him from issuing the pardon.
Politico says Trump has dropped 5 points in his job approval rating since the Mueller report was made public.
I would caution against reading too much into any one poll. Trump's average on the RCP average of polls (here) doesn't seem to show much in the way of movement.
It's just unfathomable how he can still poll that high.
Just a small aside, apparently the cost of not just washing machines but also dryers is up. Dryers were up about $92 last year. Researchers estimate that consumers bore between 125% and 225% of the cost of the washing machine tariffs.
Consumers are soon to bear the costs of Trump's holy war against Obama's nuclear deal with Iran as well.
One hopes they are smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. But lately I wonder...
"But lately I wonder..."
It's not as bad as you seem to think. Trump has a floor in the 35-38 percent range. These are the dedicated Trumpkins to whom fuckin' over the ‛other’ America is adequate perfomance from Trump. As long as he gives them that much they'll continue to back 'im.
And then there's a percentage who're willing to say he's done an adequate job as President simply because he's not screwed up the financial recovery that the Obama administration engineered.
That latter percentage isn't necessarily going to vote for him again just 'cause he ain't screwed up the economy yet. (In truth, the only reason he's been able to keep it from tanking is the artificial ‛sugar high’ we're getting from the massive deficit spending we're engaged in--called "stimulus" spending when Democrats do it, but the Republicans never apply that terminology to themselves.)
Sometimes it feels rather like fiddling while Rome burns.
A defection and perhaps the sign of a savvy politician reading the winds?
Iowa's longest-serving Republican state lawmaker is ditching the party in a protest of what he called President Donald Trump's "unacceptable behavior" and is joining the Democrats.
I'd seen a note on that before, but I don't recognize the name of the Iowa pol who switched. I'm not sure what to make of that. As an isolated anecdote it doesn't mean much to me.
On the other hand, the morning TrumpTweets are about half about the Mueller investigation. Not good news for the Republicans that Trump can't seem to let it go.
Rumor mill surrounding the White House is that Trump's advisors and aids all want ‛the Russia Thing’ to go away now but Trump seems dead set on trying to take revenge (and he ain't exactly got footing to mount that charge now that the Mueller Report is being read in detail and nobody's listening anymore to the Trump-friendly faerie tale summary advanced by William Barr)
Politico says the congressional Republicans are hangin' in there with Trump. More afraid of the primary than the general election.
It seems that Trump has decided to go for broke now. He's escaped indictment or even getting named as an unindicted co-conspirator on a charge of conspiring with Russia to put the fix in on the 2016 election, and now he thinks it's time to up the ante. He thinks this is the time to make his move to govern as an unrestrained and unrestrainable autocrat. His instincts on how to play the Radio-Right-Wing audience, now his ‛base’, has been exceptional to date.
But I really do hope he's wrong on this one.
He does appear to be thumbing his nose at Congress.
The William Barr spin ain't holding; the Mueller Report actually looks really bad for him if ya stop to look at what it says.
He needs an atmosphere of semi-hysteria that drowns out any thoughtful consideration of what Mueller actually did say about his campaign and his White House.
He needs a new fight to change the subject, distract the press, (and excite the dedicated Trumpkins).
Perhaps now's the time for a beer hall rebellion, or a reichstagsbrand. We shall soon see.
Really, looonnng book review of the book "How Democracies Die" takes a look at the challenge to American democracy exposed by the (temporary) triumph of Trump.
Been a full day thinking on it, and I'm still thinking that Trump's recent announcement that his administration will "fight all the subpoenas" is about as close to a real strategy as Trump has ever come up with.
This could be his preliminary move to see if he can overwhelm the American experiment in democracy in his first term, hedging against a loss in 2020. (With backing from the Supreme Trumpkins he can hope to maybe pull it off. So, the first move would be to put them to the test of backing his most obviously unconstitutional moves--with two more members of the Federalist Society on the High Court, it's now possible--outside possibility I would reckon it, but still possible.)
He needs a new fight to change the subject, distract the press, (and excite the dedicated Trumpkins).
Perhaps Biden could provide a little diversion. More fodder for Trump's twittering.
The midterms have made it plausible to believe that the answer to democracy’s problems is not to reempower the gatekeepers—after all, the gatekeepers on the right caved to Trump and keep on enabling him—but rather to get more people to participate.
Probably the most important observation in that review. Because I suspect that if more people had participated in the 2016 election we wouldn't have Trump now.
"I suspect that if more people had participated in the 2016
election we wouldn't have Trump now."
Statistical analyses done in the days since seem to bear that out. A lot of "NeverTrump" people didn't bother to vote because they didn't really like Hillary either. They assumed she had it in the bag, and couldn't quite work up the enthusiasm necessary to get them to the polls ‛cause she had it in the bag already, or so they thought; Trump was gonna lose but they weren't all that thrilled that their other choice was Hillary. So, they didn't bother….
It was a low turnout election for a Presidential election, and Republicans have traditionally made their enthusiasm count in low turnout elections (‛fanaticism’ be a better word choice there maybe?).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I think I've been seeing an increase here lately in what I'll call "agitation" among America's intelligence community. It's looking like they think that Trump is angling for Russian help in the upcoming 2020 election. (Rudy Guiliani, for instance, giving a Sunday morning public announcement that “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”)
There's also leaks appearing that suggest the "intelligence community" thinks Trump is doing nothing to prevent a repeat of Russian assistance in 2020, giving a green light to Russia (and Saudi Arabia, among others) to help get Trump reëlected. Quid now; quo to be called in later.
Oh, yeah, and let us not forget that Jared Kushner early this week told us that "a couple of Facebook ads" by the Russians was nothing to worry about. The Russians didn't miss that hint.
There's also leaks appearing that suggest the "intelligence community" thinks Trump is doing nothing to prevent a repeat of Russian assistance in 2020, giving a green light to Russia (and Saudi Arabia, among others) to help get Trump reëlected. Quid now; quo to be called in later.
It's funny you should mention that. I just picked up a book on Friday by Malcolm Nance, The Plot to Destroy Democracy. I wasn't sure if it might be over the top, knowing little about Malcolm Nance, but I have long thought that Russia has a reason for meddling, not just because Putin is mad at Hillary. It may turn out to be too conspiracy theorist, but I will give it a read and judge for myself. I see Maria Butina, the Russian agent who played fast and loose with the NRA, was just sentenced to 18 months. It's stories like that that make me want to read Nance's book to see if he has any more similar incidents to impart.
Perhaps this is why Mueller wanted to wrap up his investigation quickly, because he knew the Russians are not backing off and he wanted to put out an additional warning.
I've been reading rumors that Mueller wrapped up his investigation without fully exploring his mandate because he was afraid Trump would shut him down if he pressed to complete his investigation, i.e. depose Trump, or depose Trump Jr., or Kushner, or otherwise threaten to get too close to the core connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians. In short, he wimped out.
But if he was right and Trump did shut him down then we wouldn't have heard any of what he found. I suspect Mueller isn't a gambling man, he goes for the sure thing.
His sure thing was to pass the buck.
Andrew Sullivan still wants Trump impeached. He's put down a fair rant on it this time. I find this one somewhat less convincing than some of his other arguments in favor of impeachment.
I've lately been running across Op-Eds by traditional Republican talking heads about how an impeachment action by the Democrats would only make Trump stronger (Mark Theismann here; Rich Lowry here).
I find this a most curious argument for them to be making. Presumably they want Trump to be stronger going into the election season. Trying to talk the Democrats out of making him stronger would seem counter productive from their point of view.
Quare: What happens if the Democrats impeach Trump and the voters then reëlect him?
The Democratic candidates need to be clear about domestic policy and focus on it as a way to remove Trump by the ballot box — but they shouldn’t duck the gravity of our current constitutional crisis. It’s real and it’s important.
Personally, I still think that Trump deserves to be impeached. I think what he has done is far worse than anything that Clinton, with his wandering hands, ever did.
But, more importantly, we as a nation need to get back to the ideals this country was founded on, one of which is government by the people, for the people. A democracy, not an autocracy. We need to make sure that the checks and balances that the founding fathers set up still hold. The judicial branch has been trying to do its part, even while Trump has undermined its neutrality by choosing candidates who may show more loyalty to him rather than those ideals and attacking its integrity at every opportunity. Unfortunately, until the 2018 mid-terms Congress had slacked off on its duty to act as a check.
The biggest problem may not be Trump but those who support him. It would be hard to "impeach" all of them. It will take something else to make them understand that their behavior weakens, not strengthens, us.
"I still think that Trump deserves to be impeached."
Not the only question. I wish it were that simple.
Quare: What happens if the Democrats impeach Trump and the voters then reëlect him?
We don't want to see that. While I haven't been a fan, I do think that Nancy Pelosi is smart and politically savvy. There is a reason she is downplaying impeachment.
I wish it were that simple.
Me too. It isn't just Trump, but the mentality of those who support him that we have to deal with. And perhaps, those lurking in the shadows of the internet.
It appears that Trump okayed, according to Tillerson, an agreement to pay $2 million for Warmbier's release. Why am I not surprised?
"It appears that Trump okayed, according to Tillerson,
an agreement to pay $2 million for Warmbier's release."
And then denied it to the American public (of course). I think the question remains open as to whether or not they actually paid it (either directly or through a proxy).
I would be okay with a Biden/Klobuchar ticket.
There is an attempted coup, maybe, taking place in Venezuela. I wonder if Trump has noticed or if he is too busy attacking Biden and the New York authorities for investigating the NRA?
Trump has tweeted on the Venezuela uprising just a few minutes ago.
I'm not sure Biden is the right horse for this race, but if he gets the nomination I'll be supporting him for the general election; #NeverTrump.
#NeverTrump...indeed.
Mohamed Noor, black police officer from Minneapolis, was convicted of murder yesterday for shooting an unarmed white woman in an alley two years ago.
I'm not questioning the verdict, just pointing out that police officers who shoot unarmed black men in alleys are very seldom convicted of anything.
I noticed the same thing. While there have been various cases of police shootings, the Philandro Castile case comes to mind, this is the first one where a police officer was ever convicted of murder, to any degree.
I understand that the cases differ, and I think the Noor verdict was correct. But I still wonder what would have happened if it had been a white police officer and a black woman?
It appears that Mueller wasn't too thrilled with Barr's characterization of his report and the slant given it by the media. It seems he wrote a letter to Barr expressing an opinion on the matter.
Kind of telling, considering Mueller is a by the book type of person.
So, it begs the question, should Barr be impeached for misleading the American people?
And how should Congress deal with the White House's delaying tactics on all sorts of matters brought by the House Oversight Committee?
Can, and should, they jail people for contempt of Congress?
Attorney General, Bill Barr, supposedly goes before the House in a few minutes. Just minutes ago the DOJ released the text of the Mueller letter to Barr, complaining of Barr's characterizations of the Mueller Report.
I've only had time to glance at it. It looks hard on Barr at first glance.
(Barr will be a trickie witness, he's a fella of the Dick Cheney mold, and I don't know that they're ready for him in the House yet--although, he's starting today with an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee--a friendly forum run by Republicans.)
It's a slippery slope to authoritarianism and for those who really do believe in democracy, and the rights of individual people, the actions of this White House and those who enable them are, and should be, a concern.
I've only had time to glance at it. It looks hard on Barr at first glance.
I haven't read it yet, either, I just saw the headline this morning. But given the fact that Mueller even wrote a letter commenting on this means there is something "rotten in Denmark". Or perhaps I should say Washington. And, no, I don't think it is a Democratic House. They appear to be the only check that is working in that town.
"Can, and should, they jail people for contempt of Congress?"
The "jailing people" part has to be enforced through the Department of Justice (AG, Bill Barr, presiding). Barr ain't gonna do squat to reign in Trump.
He's a proponent of the ‛Unitary Presidency’ theory which holds that the President holds all powers necessary to achieve his desired ends (otherwise known as KING, in the 17™ century mold). Of course, the framers of the Constitution took great pains to make sure the President held no such powers, but members of the Federalist Society, including Bill Barr, often have a peculiar view of American history, especially Constitutional history.
That would be ‛rein in Trump…’
And, that would be ‛17ᵗʰ century…’, not ‛17™’….
(Some folks may wonder about the ‛sudden’ appearance of mentions of the ‛Federalist Society’. After all, they've been around for years. Well, it's like this: Suddenly their peculiar, anti-democratic views are important instead of merely being peculiar. With the addition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh they now have a solid, and mostly young, 5 man majority on bench of the nation's highest court, they are now the Supreme Trumpkins.)
TrumpTweets: Damn! He's on a rampage. Biden's got 'im spooked.
AG, Bill Barr, is blaming ‛the press’ for ‛confusion’ over Barr's spinning of the Mueller Report. CBSNews (video clip)
Yeah, right.
I've been going over the media reviews of William Barr's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Mostly the internet sites affiliated with the major TV networks.
Suffice it to say the reviews ain't good for Barr, and that's pretty much across the board (save for FoxNews, which website tends to concentrate on the idea that Barr "fired back" at the Democrats).
This is gonna make Mueller's testimony into a really big deal.
Barr is a no show at the hearing today. They are using some excuse to give the House Democrats the finger, in effect.
But this really does come down to challenging the equal power given to the three branches of government. They are trying to put the Executive branch, in this case Trump, above any oversight. As you say reincarnating a monarch.
I have no more patience with any of the Republicans who are protecting a sleazy character like Trump.
This is gonna make Mueller's testimony into a really big deal.
Yes.
"As you say reincarnating a monarch."
With one significant difference, of course. There is no claim of ‛divine right’ functioning, no imprimatur of God (and, therefore no established order of succession as supposedly ordained by God). It's a simple matter of raw power. And without the supposed imprimatur of God, there's no theological expectation that the dictator must govern with the good of the nation in mind--there are those who rule, and those who are ruled. (The dictator will, of course, claim to be governing for the good of the nation, but that's usually only an expedient to help keep down the unrest and insurgencies.)
But, yes, these people are anti-democratic. Remember though, the United States was originally designed to be an aristocracy, not a democracy. Only white males of sufficient, landed, social status were originally to be allowed the vote. It was only afterwards that the United States evolved into a democratic republic.
Today's Republican Party, and the Federalist Society in particular, are attempting to reverse that evolution.
And, just because I'm not above tossing out an ‛I told you so’ now and again…
I note that there are now mutterings among the House Democrats about impeaching William Barr along with Trump.
Tiger Woods is going to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Trump, next week.
I don't get that one.
I note that there are now mutterings among the House Democrats about impeaching William Barr along with Trump.
Pelosi is commenting on Barr's lying to Congress, a crime. Trump is pushing and she has started to push back.
I don't get that one.
Nope, neither do I. He doesn't really rank up there with Jesse Owens. Although I doubt Trump would have given Medal of Freedom to Owens.
"Trump is pushing…"
And I'm starting to give serious thought to the possibility that Trump just might decide to not go along with being voted out of office in 2020, just refuse to surrender the office.
NBCNews: Reports on a sudden up-tick in foreign governments renting luxury accommodations in Trump Tower (NYC) after Trump won the Presidency, all approved by the State Department, but kept hidden from Congress (which has to approve all "gifts or payments" to U.S. officials by foreign governments, according to the Constitution's "emoluments" clause).
The Editor-in-Chief of the periodical Lawfare writes in TheAtlantic detailing the various willful misrepresentations made by William Barr, to the American people and to Congress, in his descriptions of the Mueller Report. It's not as long as some Atlantic articles, but it's long enough, and it's not a particularly easy read--tightly logical and layered.
And I'm starting to give serious thought to the possibility that Trump just might decide to not go along with being voted out of office in 2020, just refuse to surrender the office.
I am starting to become rather concerned with the actions of the White House, but perhaps, even worse the actions of the Republicans in Congress. Congress was supposed to be a check to the Executive branch, but what I am seeing are Republicans in Congress supporting and enabling Trump's unethical behavior. This is the path towards authoritarian rule.
The election in 2020 is shaping up to be extremely critical to the health of our democracy.
"…even worse the actions of the Republicans in Congress…"
I've been hoping to see the Republicans lose their Senate majority. That's probably the only thing that will make the Republican "leadership" rethink their surrender en mass to Trump and his Trumpkins.
According to the White House, Putin has just today personally vouched for Trump's ‛No Collusion’ mantra. NBCNews
Strongest job figures in modern times. Thank U Donald!
Myself on holiday in Berlin right now. Great hotel. Nice enough place, but nowhere near Prague or Paris. Imo.
Prolly shoulda gone to Munich instead, IF I was goin to Germany to begin with.
Actually, Donald's been hiring at a record low rate. The White House, indeed the whole executive branch in general, is way understaffed.
Next trip prolly London. Mayhaps Prague again before that.
Understaffing of taxpayer leeches can only be a good thing Lee. it's Jobs in thé REAL economy that mattrrs.
They have Currywurst here though. And decent Döner Kebab. So not all is unwell.
Even in ‛the REAL economy’ the Trump Company tends to hire illegals whenever they can.
IF I was goin to Germany to begin with.
Ahhh...take a wrong turn?
They have Currywurst here though. And decent Döner Kebab. So not all is unwell.
One of the best things about traveling, trying the food.
This is so reassuring.
"This" ???
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It occurs to me that Trump may have had that statement issued about Putin "agreeing" that there was no Trumpian "collusion" solely to piss off his political adversaries. Trump's a compulsive, and quite probably pathological liar. So, that conversation may never have happened.
But, poking for reaction, just for the sake of enjoying the reaction, is a go-to Trump move.
"This" ???
Huh! I didn't notice the quote was missing! I meant:
According to the White House, Putin has just today personally vouched for Trump's ‛No Collusion’ mantra.
"This is so reassuring."
I was in a sarcastic frame of mind and totally spoiled it by having the quote go missing.
I sent see Herta BSC Win 3-1 against Stuttgart this afternoon. But the bast of IT all was a paprika-chili-krackawuer wurzt that I ate w a cold pilsner on the side.
My iPad spells like shit. Sry.
Seriös thing bout Berlin - there are NO attraktive women here. Strange, and maybe as à swede im spoiled, but such à big city and only drab women. STrange.
Berlin Nice to visit. Will not be coming back.
WashingtonPost: Mueller has tentatively agreed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on 15 May; that's a Wednesday.
And Trump has tweeted his opposition. Why doesn't that surprise me?
I think Trump's stated opposition presents two interesting questions (which will probably both be answered in the next couple of days).
First, will Mueller defer to Trump's will on this? Mueller is now a private citizen again. (And technically didn't answer to Trump in the first place, although Trump doesn't seem to understand that part.) Be interesting to see how Mueller handles this.
Second, will Barr now reverse himself and try to order Mueller to not testify? And will private citizen Mueller then defer to Barr (to whom he did answer when he was Special Counsel)?
I am wondering the same thing, what will Mueller do? Given the fact that he is now a private citizen I would think he can do as he pleases. While he may not be able to go into details of any evidence he found I would think he could testify as to his real characterization of Trump's behavior, especially if it doesn't equate to Barr's summary.
Personally if I were Mueller I would want to make perfectly clear to people exactly what I meant in my report, rather than let someone else misinterpret it.
Post a Comment