Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[JBS]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this impulse to dig through Trump's emissions for nuggets of corn.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I posted those links to show how much Trump's remarks differed from reality.

[SimonNZ]

GOP Sen. Murkowski 'disturbed' by McConnell comments about impeachment trial

"Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Tuesday she was "disturbed" that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would engage in "total coordination" with the White House regarding the upcoming Senate trial of President Donald Trump.

In an interview with Anchorage's local NBC affiliate KTUU broadcast Tuesday, Murkowski — who earlier in the year refused to defend Trump from the Democrats' impeachment inquiry — said McConnell's comments "has further confused" the impeachment process.

Her remarks suggest that there is at least a degree of dissension with the Republican Senate ranks as the chamber prepares to embark on a trial of Trump in 2020, following his impeachment in the House last week on two articles, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

"When I heard that I was disturbed," Murkowski told KTUU, in reference to McConnell's comments earlier this month that there would be "total coordination" on a Senate trial of Trump between him and other Senate Republicans and the White House and Trump's legal defense team.

Murkowski said that when it came to a Senate trial of the president, she'd prefer to see space between the White House and the Senate.

"To me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process," she said."[...]

[Ratliff]

It's my understanding the most important problem with wind farms is the amount of ground they require. You'd think a real estate developer like Trump would be interested in that topic.

I find concern for this issue somewhat baffling. The only place I have personally encountered windmills is in the California Central Valley, where from the highway you will see a huge stand of them spinning in the distance. It's to be regretted if some birds get killed by windmills, but the cause of the dramatic loss of birds in the U.S. is loss of habitat not windmills. I've read anecdotal accounts of a farmer in rural New York, or wherever, leasing his land for one, only to be driven mad by the incessant thwop-thwop-thwop sound. No one will claim they are the solution to all of our energy problems, but they certainly have their place.

[JBS]

I find concern for this issue somewhat baffling. The only place I have personally encountered windmills is in the California Central Valley, where from the highway you will see a huge stand of them spinning in the distance. It's to be regretted if some birds get killed by windmills, but the cause of the dramatic loss of birds in the U.S. is loss of habitat not windmills. I've read anecdotal accounts of a farmer in rural New York, or wherever, leasing his land for one, only to be driven mad by the incessant thwop-thwop-thwop sound. No one will claim they are the solution to all of our energy problems, but they certainly have their place.

Wind farms require locations where it can be depended on to be windy, and a large area per windmill which may or may not allow for use for additional purposes like pasturage, growing crops, etc. The energy produced by a wind farm might not justify the costs of constructing and maintaining it. Similar problem exists with solar energy.

At least, that's my understanding.

[SimonNZ]

A Trump Policy 'Clarification' All but Ends Punishment for Bird Deaths

"As the state of Virginia prepared for a major bridge and tunnel expansion in the tidewaters of the Chesapeake Bay last year, engineers understood that the nesting grounds of 25,000 gulls, black skimmers, royal terns and other seabirds were about to be plowed under.

To compensate, they considered developing an artificial island as a haven. Then in June 2018, the Trump administration stepped in. While the federal government "appreciates" the state's efforts, new rules in Washington had eliminated criminal penalties for "incidental" migratory bird deaths that came in the course of normal business, administration officials advised. Such conservation measures were now "purely voluntary."

The state ended its island planning.

The island is one of dozens of bird-preservation efforts that have fallen away in the wake of the policy change in 2017 that was billed merely as a technical clarification to a century-old law protecting migratory birds. Across the country birds have been killed and nests destroyed by oil spills, construction crews and chemical contamination, all with no response from the federal government, according to emails, memos and other documents viewed by The New York Times.

Not only has the administration stopped investigating most bird deaths, the documents show, it has discouraged local governments and businesses from taking precautionary measures to protect birds."[...]


GOP Lawmaker Plotted Insurrections to Establish Christian State

"Last year, the chair of the Republican caucus in Washington's state legislature acknowledged that he had written a manifesto on the "Biblical Basis for War." In that document, the lawmaker argued that – as far as Jesus Christ was concerned – American Christians have the right to "kill all males" who support abortion, same-sex marriage or communism (so long as they first give such infidels the opportunity to renounce their heresies).

The manifesto's revelation cost its author, Matt Shea, his chairmanship. But Shea insisted that his writings were merely "a summary of church sermons on Old Testament war that could help place current events in historical context." And so, the Washington GOP did not call for Shea to resign or expel him from its House caucus.

This past spring, the Guardian obtained text messages in which Shea discussed targetting anti-fascist activists for surveillance, harassment, and violence. One of Shea's interlocutors, online radio personality Jack Robertson, offered this prescription for the treatment of a female antifa protester: "Fist full of hair, and face slam, to a Jersey barrier. Treat em like communist revolutionaries. Then shave her bald with a K-Bar USMC field knife."

The Republican lawmaker replied, "Ok. What BG [background] checks need to be done. Give me the list."

The leader of Washington's House Republicans JT Wilcox called Shea's participation in this chat "deeply upsetting," and promised that "My conversations with Matt and the leadership will continue." But Wilcox did not feel that Shea's actions required his expulsion from government.
Nevertheless, Shea's activities – which included working with Robertson on a plan for Eastern Washington to secede and reconstitute as "Liberty State" – concerned prominent conservatives in his corner of rural Washington. Spokane County's Trump-supporting sheriff, Ozzie Knezovich, had long sounded alarms about Shea's extremism. Meanwhile, one of Shea's former supporters, Jay Pounder, supplied the press and state legislature with documents detailing Shea's plans for establishing a theocratic government in Washington following some unspecified "collapse event."

All this led Washington's House of Representatives to commission a report on Shea from a former FBI agent. That report, which was released last week, alleges that Shea "as a leader in the Patriot Movement, planned, engaged in and promoted a total of three armed conflicts of political violence against the United States Government in three states outside the state of Washington over a three-year period."[...]

[71 dB]

Wind farms require locations where it can be depended on to be windy, and a large area per windmill which may or may not allow for use for additional purposes like pasturage, growing crops, etc. The energy produced by a wind farm might not justify the costs of constructing and maintaining it. Similar problem exists with solar energy.

At least, that's my understanding.

Both wind energy and solar energy have gotten more efficient over the years so that these days the energy produced by wind farms (solar energy oftenjustifies the costs of constructing and maintaining them.

[SimonNZ]

The Hill:

Demolishing the Trump campaign's holiday guide to debating liberal 'snowflakes'

"On Christmas Eve the Trump campaign launched a website to guide its supporters in holiday political debates with their liberal, "snowflake" relatives. To assist any "snowflakes" on the receiving end of the campaign's falsehoods and blatant distortions of fact, a point-by-point takedown follows:

The Trump Economy: In demonstrating how strong the "Trump economy" supposedly is, the campaign's holiday debate guide highlights job growth since Trump assumed office. But job creation has slowed significantly since January 2017. Despite Trump's relentless self-aggrandizing and bragging, a whopping 1 million fewer jobs were created during Trump's first 34 months in office compared to Obama's last 34. Period.

The Trump campaign also points to record low unemployment. In response, "snowflakes" should show their Trump-supporting friends and relatives a graph of the unemployment rate over the last decade and challenge them to point out where – exactly – things magically changed when Trump took over. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have no response. Unemployment has declined at a consistent rate since early 2010, meaning that nothing changed after Trump became president. Trump is loudly taking credit for the Obama administration's aggressive economic recovery measures which, according to the experts, saved the American economy.

Moreover, Trump promised to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. But the truth is that manufacturing now accounts for the smallest share of the American economy in 72 years.

Thanks to Trump's tariffs, which amounted to the largest tax increase on Americans in decades, farm bankruptcies and farmer suicides have spiked.

Meanwhile, median household income, an important economic measure, has remained largely stagnant over Trump's first three years in office. Trump administration spin aside, increases in household income trail those under Obama, which grew steadily toward the end of his administration.

Despite Trump's overblown boasts about the economy, his campaign is suspiciously silent on the most important economic measure of them all: Annual economic growth. With Trump's promises of "4 percent, 5 percent, even 6 percent" economic growth, his campaign's silence is not surprising. Growth will slow significantly this year, demolishing Trump's absurd predictions of "6 percent" growth. Indeed, Trump will end his first term with a high of 2.9 percent growth (in 2018), tying Obama's economic record."[...]


^hyperlinks throughout the article to data and sources

[SimonNZ]

Politico:

There's a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office
It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot. It's not hard to imagine what would happen then.

" By most everyone's judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn't have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it's actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will immediately move to hold a trial to adjudicate the articles of impeachment if and when the Senate receives them from the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution does not set many parameters for the trial, except to say that "the Chief Justice shall preside," and "no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." That means the Senate has sole authority to draft its own rules for the impeachment trial, without judicial or executive branch oversight.

During the last impeachment of a president, Bill Clinton, the rules were hammered out by Democrats and Republicans in a collaborative process, as then Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle recently pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed. The rules passed unanimously. That's unlikely this time, given the polarization that now defines our politics. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are much more likely to dictate the rules with little input from Democrats.

But, according to current Senate procedure, McConnell will still need a simple majority—51 of the 53 Senate Republicans—to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn't like. (Vice President Mike Pence can't break ties in impeachment matters.) Those three senators, in turn, could demand a secret ballot and condition their approval of the rest of the rules on getting one.

Some might say transparency in congressional deliberations and votes is inviolable, and it's true that none of the previous Senate impeachments have been conducted via secret ballot. But the Senate's role in an impeachment is analogous to a U.S. jury, where secret ballots are often used. When Electoral College gridlock has resulted in the House picking the president—the House elected Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824—that vote has been secret. And, of course, when citizens vote for president, they do so in private.

Trump and those around him seem confident that he won't lose the 20 Republican senators needed to block a guilty verdict. But it's not hard to imagine three senators supporting a secret ballot. Five sitting Republican senators have already announced their retirements; four of those are in their mid-70s or older and will never run for office again. They might well be willing to demand secrecy in order to give cover to their colleagues who would like to convict Trump but are afraid to do so because of politics in their home districts. There are also 10 Republican senators who aren't up for reelection until 2024 and who might figure Trumpism will be irrelevant by then. Senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski have been the most vocal Republicans in expressing concerns about Trump's behavior toward Ukraine. Other GOP senators have recently softened in their defense of him, as well—all before the House has held any public hearings."[...]

[Christabel]

All very interesting, Simon.  So, to what can we attribute Trump's popularity for many Americans?  Clearly, anti-wokeness and support for the working class is a major factor;  this is the reason Labour lost in the recent UK election.  But the bien pensant and woke Left will never understand that because they are committed to the idea that they alone have the monopoly on virtue - and that virtue in itself is reason enough to vote for somebody.

Have a read of this and transpose it into an American accent;  there you'll find the answer and no amount of argy bargy, impeachment and economic statistics will change the realities:  Trump is headed for victory again in 2020.  Time for those who despise him to do some serious soul-searching and put up credible candidates instead of the loony Left and superannuated socialists:  the people are VOTING AGAINST something rather than FOR an alternative!!

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/12/27/the-peoples-decade/

For what it's worth I dislike Trump but he's a weapon of war - a culture war where the bigger guns are required, so ingrained is the foul, new culture which the Left demands for us.

[SimonNZ]

The left are working-class workers too, you know. Now what does that do to your series of assumptions?

[JBS]

The left are working-class workers too, you know. Now what does that do to your series of assumptions?

That is increasingly becoming not true here in the States.  The unions that used to be the core of the American Left like the Teamsters and UAW don't have the membership they used to because the industries they work in are shedding employees for a multitude of reasons. Retail and service workers don't have effective unions. The two most politically potent unions now represent teachers and government workers, and therefore middle class, not  working class, membership.  Which means that the Left is represented in the public sphere either by intellectuals and politicians who are upper middle class (such as the Young Turks) or by people of color who generally focus on the needs of their own community (Ta-Nehisi Coates might be a good example of them). There's also the problem that the American Left seems to prioritize social justice and political correctness over economic issues.  Actual working class people who focus on the general working class concerns are far and few.  So Christabel is correct in saying the American Left doesn't represent a considerable swathe of the working class. Trump offers false solutions, but very often the Left is too busy offering solutions to other problems instead of offering its own solutions.

[SimonNZ]

That is increasingly becoming not true here in the States.  The unions that used to be the core of the American Left like the Teamsters and UAW don't have the membership they used to because the industries they work in are shedding employees for a multitude of reasons. Retail and service workers don't have effective unions. The two most politically potent unions now represent teachers and government workers, and therefore middle class, not  working class, membership.  Which means that the Left is represented in the public sphere either by intellectuals and politicians who are upper middle class (such as the Young Turks) or by people of color who generally focus on the needs of their own community (Ta-Nehisi Coates might be a good example of them). There's also the problem that the American Left seems to prioritize social justice and political correctness over economic issues.  Actual working class people who focus on the general working class concerns are far and few.  So Christabel is correct in saying the American Left doesn't represent a considerable swathe of the working class. Trump offers false solutions, but very often the Left is too busy offering solutions to other problems instead of offering its own solutions.

I was referring to the voters themselves, not their representatives.

Though from this distance it seems to me the D elected officials care more about their economic concerns that the Rs.

Also: "social justice" is an economic issue.

[JBS]

I was referring to the voters themselves, not their representatives.

Though from this distance it seems to me the D elected officials care more about their economic concerns that the Rs.

Also: "social justice" is an economic issue.

1)That's just it: non-minority working class voters now generally vote Republican, not Democratic.

2)Here in the States, "social justice" means addressing the social and cultural problems caused by racism, patriarchy, etc. If economic issues are addressed, they are done so either incidentally, or only in the context of the social/cultural problems.

Statement 1 is in large part caused by Statement 2.

[SimonNZ]

1)That's just it: non-minority working class voters now generally vote Republican, not Democratic.

Is there data for that? Because that's not the sense I get from all the forums I'm on, or from what I read in reporting, or from the protests I see.

[JBS]

Is there data for that? Because that's not the sense I get from all the forums I'm on, or from what I read in reporting, or from the protests I see.

Here's two links from the Pew Center, one for 2016 and one for 2018, with demographic breakdowns of Republican  and Democratic voters. I think "non college educated" can be used as a good equivalent  of "working class".  White working class voters now vote strongly Republican, especially males.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

[SimonNZ]

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

I'm not sure being college educated stops anyone from being working class anymore, though.

Why separate white and black voters? Why do you assume working class black voters are voting solely for "social justice" issues and not plain old working class issues?

[JBS]

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

I'm not sure being college educated stops anyone from being working class anymore, though.

Why separate white and black voters? Why do you assume working class black voters are voting solely for "social justice" issues and not plain old working class issues?

Your first point is correct, but here in the US class is very much oriented to culture and social markers. You can have poor people who think of themselves as middle class and millionaires who think of themselves as lower class. A college educated barista will think of themselves as middle class but stuck at the moment in a low paying job.

As for your second point...what I was trying to say is that the emphasis on social justice results in the Left not having much to offer to non minority voters.  Especially when a loud segment of the Left dogmatically views being white and male as negatives per se.  It's not who blacks are voting for. It's who whites are not voting for.

[Daverz]

Your first point is correct, but here in the US class is very much oriented to culture and social markers. You can have poor people who think of themselves as middle class and millionaires who think of themselves as lower class. A college educated barista will think of themselves as middle class but stuck at the moment in a low paying job.

As for your second point...what I was trying to say is that the emphasis on social justice results in the Left not having much to offer to non minority voters.  Especially when a loud segment of the Left dogmatically views being white and male as negatives per se.  It's not who blacks are voting for. It's who whites are not voting for.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

― Lyndon B. Johnson

[71 dB]

That is increasingly becoming not true here in the States.  The unions that used to be the core of the American Left like the Teamsters and UAW don't have the membership they used to because the industries they work in are shedding employees for a multitude of reasons. Retail and service workers don't have effective unions. The two most politically potent unions now represent teachers and government workers, and therefore middle class, not  working class, membership.  Which means that the Left is represented in the public sphere either by intellectuals and politicians who are upper middle class (such as the Young Turks) or by people of color who generally focus on the needs of their own community (Ta-Nehisi Coates might be a good example of them). There's also the problem that the American Left seems to prioritize social justice and political correctness over economic issues.  Actual working class people who focus on the general working class concerns are far and few.  So Christabel is correct in saying the American Left doesn't represent a considerable swathe of the working class. Trump offers false solutions, but very often the Left is too busy offering solutions to other problems instead of offering its own solutions.

Those on the "left" who don't offer solutions for economic issues are not real left. They are centrists and corporates. From European perspective Nancy Pelosi is a right winger. They are the reason why working class vote for Republicans. The real "left" (e.g. Bernie Sanders who from European perspective is little left from center) are those who offer solutions: Living wage, medicare for all, tuition free education etc. People with lower education are easier to brainwash to believe corporate propaganda. The right is good at upholding the false narrative that the reason you are doing poorly is because of brown skinned immigrants from the south when the real reason is the top 1 % who has rigged the system against the 99 %. The Democrats are totally hopeless in fighting this narrative. In fact, they don't even want to fight it, because most of them serve the same 1 %. They just keep quiet in hopes for appearing less racist. They don't NEED real solutions, because they are comfortable with the status quo.

[drogulus]

   

As for your second point...what I was trying to say is that the emphasis on social justice results in the Left not having much to offer to non minority voters.  Especially when a loud segment of the Left dogmatically views being white and male as negatives per se.  It's not who blacks are voting for. It's who whites are not voting for.

     There's an assumption operating here that Blue voters should reach out to Red voters and give them assurances that they are included too, in economic and social justice programs. The left should help and be seen to help, not only in their bastions but in areas where they have no power.

     This is a validation, overt or not, of how the left views its mission. The right can't create any version of social progress from the wreckage of its own concepts. Only the left can "get it" enough to "get it wrong".