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

[BasilValentine]

Previously, you went on about the right to vote existing in the Constitution prior to and/or outside the 15th and 19th Amendments, and now you adopt a non-textual interpretation of the First Amendment.  In both instances, you ignore case law.  Curious.

That isn't quite right. First of all, "I didn't go on about it." The 15th and 19th were necessary historically to establish and protect voting rights of disenfranchised groups. My point was that anyone with a modern view of personhood would take these rights for granted based on the unamended text of the constitution. My claim (theory?) was that the essential element in the current state of equal voting rights was a shift in the definition of personhood and the amendments were an expression of this change. I don't know why I thought this was worth saying.

I don't know what you mean by a "non-textual interpretation of the First Amendment." I quoted the text and observed that it applies to people and groups. My basis for this is a literal interpretation of the words. "No law ... infringing the right of free speech," unless otherwise qualified, must be read as applying to anyone, including any representative of a group, who can "speak." I wasn't aware case law was required to clarify this reading. Was it? And if so, did they decide it the same way I just did?

In any case, your prodding has been a good thing for me because it inspired me to read the constitution more carefully.

[Karl Henning]

This has had me chuckling all day.

Literal battleships don't drain literal swamps. And the metaphorical battleship most certainly has not drained the metaphorical swamp.

I think you've captured something there about the Trump voter

Ayyup. I suppose, if one is capable of swallowing the con that he is A Successful Businessman, one can believe he means to "drain the swamp."

[arpeggio]

When you are up to your neck in alligators it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

[kishnevi]

Hear, hear!

Now, Trump talks and tweets a lot; what I'd like to know is whether he actually does something to improve the eonomy and raise the standard of living especially of those people and communities which voted him precisely because he promised them to do that. What do the official data say? One year into Trump's term, is the US economy better, stagnant or worse than before he was sworn in? Do the average American live better, the same or worse?

Wage growth is probably a good indicator. 

In December 2017 Nancy Pelosi  said wages have not really gone up during Trump's first year, and Politifact said that was Mostly False
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/12/nancy-pelosi/have-wages-failed-go-donald-trumps-watch/
In January  2018 Donald Trump said the reverse, and Politifact said that was Mostly False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/30/donald-trump/us-finally-seeing-rising-wages-donald-trump-said/

That may say more about Polifact than the economy,  but the links have the data to view for yourself.

[Baron Scarpia]

The numbers indicate no significant change from previous trends. After the recovery from the 2008 crisis/recession got underway the US economy added an average of 200,000 jobs per month with broad fluctuations, this has continued. Economic growth has been in the range between 1.5% and 3% during the previous adminstration. It came in at 2.3% this year, down slightly from 2.5% the previous year. Unemployment has been slowly trending down, it has gone down a little more. There have been some indications that wage growth has been picking up a recently, there have been quarters during the Obama administration where the same claim has been made. We have to see if that is sustained. The stock market has been pretty consistently rising during the last 7 years of the Obama administration. It started to rise faster during Trump's fast year, but with the correction the overall performance of the stock market is a bit off of Obama's pace.

The tax cut will give the economy a positive jolt. But the consensus among economists seems to be that the economy has already been growing as fast as it reasonably could. The question is whether that positive jolt will do more harm than good, by triggering inflation and subsequent economic disruption. If Trump's immigration policy succeeds in expelling a lot of perfectly productive people and preventing others from immigrating, the potential for economic growth could actually decrease.

[SimonNZ]

Hear, hear!

Now, Trump talks and tweets a lot; what I'd like to know is whether he actually does something to improve the eonomy and raise the standard of living especially of those people and communities which voted him precisely because he promised them to do that. What do the official data say? One year into Trump's term, is the US economy better, stagnant or worse than before he was sworn in? Do the average American live better, the same or worse?

Your assumption is that "living better" can be shown by an extra twenty dollars in their pay packet, while ignoring all other indicators and expectations of wellbeing and happiness.

[Karl Henning]

Consistently, but generally by dog whistle. Among many others, the frequent puffing up of his own "good genes."

And of course, the whole birth certificate canard is shot clean through with racism.

[SimonNZ]

Trump Wants a Parade. Maybe the Kids Who Only Get Four Days of Public School Could Give It to Him.

"Spend too much time staring at the terribleness around Trump—looking at you, Rob Porter—and you risk missing arguably bigger outrages, like the Oklahoma children going to school just four days a week, which received some fresh attention this week as the state is forced to grapple with its budget crisis.

That maybe doesn't make our heads explode the way Trump does, but it should. While our brains are all Trump-Trump-Trump, this is the kind of horrible thing that's going down off-camera. The four-day school week has actually been ongoing in some parts of the Sooner State for a couple years now, and it's only part of the story. Prisons are on the edge of crisis, they're so overcrowded. Rural hospitals and nursing homes are on the brink of closing. State highway patrol officers have had mileage limits imposed on them. Over the last several years, the state has the distinction of making the biggest cuts to education of any state in the union—nearly 25 percent per pupil.

Why? Massive tax cuts. Oklahoma's hardly alone here."

[SimonNZ]

Breaking with tradition, Trump skips president's written intelligence report and relies on oral briefings

"For much of the past year, President Trump has declined to participate in a practice followed by the past seven of his predecessors: He rarely if ever reads the President's Daily Brief, a document that lays out the most pressing information collected by U.S. intelligence agencies from hot spots around the world.

Trump has opted to rely on an oral briefing of select intelligence issues in the Oval Office rather than getting the full written document delivered to review separately each day, according to three people familiar with his briefings.

Reading the traditionally dense intelligence book is not Trump's preferred "style of learning," according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

The arrangement underscores Trump's impatience with exhaustive classified documents that go to the commander in chief — material that he has said he prefers condensed as much as possible. But by not reading the daily briefing, the president could hamper his ability to respond to crises in the most effective manner, intelligence experts warned.

Soon after Trump took office, analysts sought to tailor their intelligence sessions for a president with a famously short attention span, who is known for taking in much of his information from the conservative Fox News Channel. The oral briefings were augmented with photos, videos and graphics."

[milk]

Breaking with tradition, Trump skips president's written intelligence report and relies on oral briefings

"For much of the past year, President Trump has declined to participate in a practice followed by the past seven of his predecessors: He rarely if ever reads the President's Daily Brief, a document that lays out the most pressing information collected by U.S. intelligence agencies from hot spots around the world.

Trump has opted to rely on an oral briefing of select intelligence issues in the Oval Office rather than getting the full written document delivered to review separately each day, according to three people familiar with his briefings.

Reading the traditionally dense intelligence book is not Trump's preferred "style of learning," according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

The arrangement underscores Trump's impatience with exhaustive classified documents that go to the commander in chief — material that he has said he prefers condensed as much as possible. But by not reading the daily briefing, the president could hamper his ability to respond to crises in the most effective manner, intelligence experts warned.

Soon after Trump took office, analysts sought to tailor their intelligence sessions for a president with a famously short attention span, who is known for taking in much of his information from the conservative Fox News Channel. The oral briefings were augmented with photos, videos and graphics."

They should act out the daily briefing with finger puppets. 

[SimonNZ]

They should act out the daily briefing with finger puppets.

Heh. The problem, though, isn't just that he'll be getting considerably less information and less context - though that's bad enough - but that it will come selected, tailored and with the emphasis and interpretation decided on by the person presenting it.

[BasilValentine]

The Koch brothers have formed their own non-profit (Americans for Prosperity) which has its own high-minded mission and accepts donations, just as the NAACP does. There is no clear distinction, except that the people who donate to Americans for Prosperity are mostly very wealthy.

You are back to the idea that only people you agree with are entitle to political speech.

Are you forgetting that we aren't actually talking about speech here, unless one believes money=speech? The issue is campaign finance law. I'm not talking about restricting anyone's speech (verbal expression). In the examples I cited the issue raised wasn't what political position is being advocated, but whether the assets being deployed in supporting whatever position were willingly given for that purpose.

[SimonNZ]

They should act out the daily briefing with finger puppets.

Also reminded me of this classic (click to enlarge):

[Mahlerian]

They should act out the daily briefing with finger puppets.

Love it!

[Karl Henning]

Heh. The problem, though, isn't just that he'll be getting considerably less information and less context - though that's bad enough - but that it will come selected, tailored and with the emphasis and interpretation decided on by the person presenting it.

He watches Fox & Friends, what more does he need?

[Todd]

My claim (theory?) was that the essential element in the current state of equal voting rights was a shift in the definition of personhood and the amendments were an expression of this change. I don't know why I thought this was worth saying.

When you wrote about the topic previously, you initially made ahistorical claims that did not rely on the amendments in question.

I quoted the text and observed that it applies to people and groups.

You quoted part of the text and provided your interpretation, which does not align with case law.

[kishnevi]

In other news
Trump has announced he will not declassify the Schiff memo (the Democratic memo meant to serve as anti-matter to the matter of the Nunes memo)

The No 3 at the DoJ has decided a job at Walmart is a good option. She would have been next after Rosenstein if he left/was fired.

Another WH staffer is leaving because of accusations that he beat his wife.
(At least the Trump administration has something in common with the NFL.)

Dwayne Wade has rejoined the Miami Heat.  This has nothing to with Trump, but is nevertheless A Good Thing.

[Todd]

The numbers indicate no significant change from previous trends.

True, but you didn't included two rather important trends.  First, real GDP growth has been trending down for decades, through Republican and Democrat administrations.



Second, the U3 unemployment rate is very low, but the U6 unemployment rate is still much higher (around 8%) and the labor force participation rate has dropped, especially since the 2007 financial crisis. 

Neither party has offered effective policy responses to change these two trends, and it is not entirely clear whether they can.  The current fiscal double whammy of a tax cut and increased spending - though the spending numbers are notional and have not and likely will not be appropriated as outlined - will provide an interesting experiment.  We will learn if the US economy really is at full employment.  If so, we may experience the consequences of a decade of practically free money.

Trump has announced he will not declassify the Schiff memo (the Democratic memo meant to serve as anti-matter to the matter of the Nunes memo)

Tee-hee.

[Florestan]

Your assumption is that "living better" can be shown by an extra twenty dollars in their pay packet, while ignoring all other indicators and expectations of wellbeing and happiness.

You might have noticed that I asked whether the average Americans live better, not whether they  earn more. The first answer I got suggested that "wage growth is probably a good indicator", so you should address your rejoinder to Jeffrey.

Anyway, while I agree that money is not the only ingredient in the quality of life, I disagree that an increase/decrease in earnings has no overall impact on it.

And I think "expectations of happiness" as an indicator has no place in economic and social statistics and analysis, both terms being vague and susceptible to endless stretches and interpretations, ie unmeasurable.

[SimonNZ]

You might have noticed that I asked whether the average Americans live better, not whether they  earn more. The first answer I got suggested that "wage growth is probably a good indicator", so you should address your rejoinder to Jeffrey.

Anyway, while I agree that money is not the only ingredient in the quality of life, I disagree that an increase/decrease in earnings has no overall impact on it.

And I think "expectations of happiness" as an indicator has no place in economic and social statistics and analysis, both terms being vague and susceptible to endless stretches and interpretations, ie unmeasurable.

"Living better" is just as "vague and susceptible to endless stretches and interpretations, ie unmeasurable."

Unlike you, it would seem, for me "living better" would include clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, it would include quality of education for oneself and ones children, availability of afordable medical care, no tollerance of corruption, it would mean freedom from a manufactured sense of fear, and freedom from not being hated for being in any way non-WASPy, and any number of other considerations. You were the one who framed it solely in economic terms.