Donald Trump thread v2.0

[BTF]

9 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Anyone who believes that has rocks for brains. 

[Muda69]

Trump Falsely Claims That 'Homicides Are Skyrocketing,' an Imaginary Trend He Blames on Kamala Harris: https://reason.com/2024/08/13/trump-falsely-claims-that-homicides-are-skyrocketing-an-imaginary-trend-he-blames-on-kamala-harris/

Quote

"Homicides Are Skyrocketing in American Cities Under Kamala Harris," Donald Trump's campaign avers in a statement issued on Monday. Like Trump's assertion that "our crime rate is going up," this claim is completely at odds with reality.

According to FBI data, the homicide rate jumped by more than 27 percent in 2020, when Trump was president; rose slightly in 2021, the first year of the Biden administration; and fell by 7 percent in 2022. Preliminary FBI numbers show bigger drops in 2023 (about 13 percent) and this year (26 percent for the first quarter). So far this year, according to data from 277 cities, homicides are down by about 17 percent.

It obviously is not true, then, that "homicides are skyrocketing in American cities under Kamala Harris." The Trump campaign nevertheless takes issue with "a ridiculous story" in Axios "claiming that violent crime is falling under Kamala Harris," which it describes as "a lie."

Based on data from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Axios described "an overall 6% decline in violent crime among 69 cities during the first six months of 2024 compared to the same period last year." Axios "also found that the number of homicides in the 69 reported cities fell by more than 17% during the first half of 2024 compared to the [same] period last year."

The Trump campaign does not claim those numbers are wrong, as implied by the "lie" label. Instead it objects to the story's focus: "It may be true that in *some* cities, some categories of violent crime are lower for the first 6 months of 2024 than in 2023—but violent crime is still WAY UP compared to 2019 under President Trump. Axios can cherrypick all the crime data they like, but it won't change what Americans know: our communities are more dangerous under Kamala Harris."

Talk about cherry picking. It is true that the homicide rate, despite recent declines, remained higher in 2023 than it was in 2019. But the Council on Criminal Justice reports, based on data from 39 cities for the first half of this year, that "most violent crimes," including homicide, "are at or below levels seen in 2019." And the biggest spike in homicides, by far, happened in 2020. Remind me: Who was president then?

I am not suggesting that Trump can reasonably be blamed for the huge surge in homicides during the pandemic. Given all the other factors at work, and given that crime control is mainly a state and local function, it would be unrealistic to assume that any president has much influence on the murder rate.

Trump nevertheless wants us to believe that Harris, who as vice president had even less control over such things, is responsible for crime trends since January 2021. If so, Harris can claim credit for the recent dramatic reductions in homicide—a conclusion that Trump avoids only by pretending that they did not happen.

[This post has been updated with crime numbers from the Council on Criminal Justice for the first half of 2024.]

The reality distortion around both uni-party campaigns continue.  Lies in order to garner votes.

 

[Muda69]

Republicans Declare War on the American Economy: https://mises.org/mises-wire/republicans-declare-war-american-economy

Quote

The 2024 Republican National Convention will be remembered for the raw emotions evoked by an attempted assassination the preceding weekend of its presidential nominee Donald Trump and for the now mostly Trumpified Republicans posing as the populist champions of American workers against the elitist Democrats.

This convention, however, should be remembered for another reason too. It marks the entrenchment of an organized “national conservative” movement within the party that espouses an anti-free-market ideology, overtly scorning individual liberty in favor of a powerful nation-state. This shift in Republican thinking is most clearly evident in Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance as the party’s nominee for vice president (who recently explained his “NatCon” principles in a Foundation for American Innovation podcast) but is also hinted at in Trump’s advocacy of retaliatory tariffs in his acceptance speech:

“And right now as we speak large factories, just started, are being built across the border in Mexico. So with all the other things happening on our border and they’re being built by China to make cars and to sell them into our country, no tax, no anything. The United Auto Workers ought to be ashamed for allowing this to happen and the leader of the United Auto Workers should be fired immediately and every single auto worker, union and non-union should be voting for Donald Trump because we’re gonna bring back car manufacturing and we’re gonna bring it back fast. The ability, some of the largest auto plants anywhere in the world, think of it, in the world.

“We’re going to bring it back, we’re going to make them, we don’t, we don’t mind that happening. But those plants are going to be built in the United States and our people are going to man those plants and if they don’t agree with us, we’ll put a tariff of approximately 100 to 200% on each car, and they will be unsellable in the United States.”

For his part, Vance closely echoes the talking points of such NatCon champions as American Compass and the Claremont Institute. While conceding that free markets are better than government planners at allocating resources and empowering people to meet each other’s needs (Vance even cites the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek on that point), NatCons like Vance protest that America already has a de facto industrial policy that punishes capital-intensive industries while leaving them vulnerable to the malign policies of the Chinese Communists. According to the NatCons, Americans have a moral obligation to reorient their existing interventionism toward favoring American victims of Communist Chinese policies, not continue to favor the Wall Street and Big Tech elites that profit from the existing globalist order.

There are two fundamental errors in the NatCon portrait of America’s deindustrialization and the NatCon recommendation of “industrial policy” as a remedy, one theoretical, the other historical. From a theoretical perspective, the erection of new trade barriers and fresh governmental malinvestments of labor and other productive inputs can only diminish, not increase, the productivity of workers and thus can only lead to a deterioration of their living standards.

Only the removal of existing policies that hamper private investments in capital-intensive industries in America — that is, a shift toward laissez-faire policies — can demonstrably improve labor productivity and thus the real labor incomes of Americans. If the problem with the American economy is its existing globalist version of corporatism, then the solution is to get rid of such interventionism altogether, not hobble the productive sector further by layering a nationalist form of corporatist planning on top of existing interventions. Government investments can’t turn dying industries into a net gain for American workers, not even in counteracting deviations from laissez-faire by other governments.

Vance’s failure to understand the failures of industrial policy seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of the Austrian School critique of socialist central planning. A little over a century ago, Ludwig von Mises demonstrated that forward-looking cost/benefit calculations for comparing alternative investment plans are impossible without the use of prices for capital goods and factor inputs that are generated by competitive profit-and-loss-driven markets.

Central planners aren’t merely ignorant of things known to other actors and thus more liable to make costly mistakes in their calculations (a point often stressed by Hayek); they literally can’t come up with prices that are meaningful in the real world to plan with at all. When the NatCons grandly declare that mere individuals owe it to their nation to protect fellow citizens against losing their jobs due to interventions by foreign governments, they neglect to warn us that they have absolutely no idea what the costs of their job protection schemes will be, much like the unknowable costs of the equally muddle-headed environmental, social and governance policies that globalists of the World Economic Forum have been foisting onto the corporate world.

From a historical perspective, the deindustrialization of America — which started in the 1970s — can’t honestly be blamed on China, which didn’t even become a significant player in international trade until some 30 years later when China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 and didn’t catch up with America as a recipient of foreign direct investment until 2020. The Trumpian narrative that Wall Street financed a net offshoring of American industrial jobs to China thanks to rotten trade deals is fake news.

Communist Chinese policies over the first two decades of the 21st century in fact offered what could have been an enormous boon to American industries: China’s enormous merchandise trade surpluses with America contributed a great deal to the pool of savings available in America, since the Communist planners were loath to hurt Chinese exporters by repatriating their dollar earnings and making their export prices uncompetitive. China’s blundering industrial policy could have helped reverse the chronic long-term stagnation of American industries had more of the increased savings in America found their way into productive American investments.

Unfortunately, this opportunity to leverage greater savings to the advantage of American industries was squandered, and the well-being of American workers continued to deteriorate. Both Democratic and Republican politicians doubled down on their spendthrift ways to win votes, just as they have been doing since the dollar was cut off from its gold backing in 1971. The share of America’s gross domestic product devoted to net private domestic investment (i.e., the share that actually grows the American economy) has been languishing ever since then, largely displaced by a doubling of the GDP share devoted to Social Security, Medicare, and other governmental transfers.

Figure 1: Personal current transfer receipts as compared to net domestic investment, 1965-2024

Source: FRED.

China, by contrast, got rid of its Maoist “iron rice bowl,” with even the poorest Chinese taking to heart Deng Xiaoping’s admonition that “to get rich is glorious” and increasing their personal savings rates to much-higher levels than your typical American; it’s not hard to spot the enormous difference in the shares of GDP devoted to gross capital formation over this period.

China has reaped the rewards of its people’s thrift with a rapidly growing economy in spite of the shortcomings of its government’s interventionism. America, on the other hand, has reaped the whirlwind of both its major parties embracing the principle that all Americans are entitled to economic security at the federal government’s expense and of financing this expense by putting the dollar on a fiat basis so it can resort to unrestrained debt monetization. In short, America has resorted to a policy of capital consumption.

Trump made it clear in his acceptance speech that he has absolutely no intention of dealing with the Social Security/Medicare crisis nor have he or his NatCon allies expressed much interest in monetary or banking reforms that would restore serious fiscal discipline by shutting down the bipartisan debt monetization racket. Instead, he promised a stupendous miracle of simultaneously reducing interest rates, reducing government debt, reducing tax rates and reducing the rate of dollar depreciation while allowing Social Security and Medicare to grow unchecked.

He also promised not to provoke World War III, as if rival trade blocs resulting from a breakup of the international division of labor won’t be incentivized to fight over access to natural resources as was the case leading up to the first two world wars. Instead of addressing the actual causes of America’s decline, Trump and his party are blaming foreigners for America’s shortcomings and using that blame as a pretext for waging war on the American economy, creating yet a new set of vested interests to live at the expense of the declining productive sector.

 

[Muda69]

Trump watches himself get shot ‘over and over’ and campaign staff fear he has PTSD: report: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-campaign-shooting-ptsd-anger-b2596571.html

Quote

Donald Trump has watched a video clip of the attempt on his life at a Pennsylvania rally “over and over again,” leading to fears that he may be suffering from PTSD, according to a report.

The former president has viewed the “seven-second” clip, in which his right ear was grazed with a bullet, multiple times – an act which has not helped a reported mental spiral brought on by Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the 2024 race.

“He’s been watching that seven-second clip of how close he was to getting shot right in the head—over and over and over again,” the Republican close to the campaign told Vanity Fair. “He may actually legit have PTSD.”

A campaign official confirmed that the shooting continues to weigh on Trump, with an official adding: “he’s been through a lot.”

The Independent has reached out to the Trump campaign for comment on the claims made by the sources about the former president’s behavior.

Concerns about Trump’s mental wellbeing come as donors and allies have urged him to stay on message during his rallies, and stay away from conspiracy theories that stunt his ability to tackle the wave of momentum of Kamala Harris’ campaign.

The Republican close to the Trump campaign told Vanity Fair that the former president’s recent run of appearances and subsequent gaffes felt like he was “choosing to lose.”

Allies of Trump see his conspiratorial messages and insults based on race as anything but productive. They want him to focus his attacks on policy issues, such as immigration and the economy, rather than personal attacks against Harris.

During a bizarre and combative interview with the National Association of Black Journalists in Chicago, the former president accused Harris of hiding her racial identity, prompting fierce backlash.

At a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, the purpose of which was unclear, Trump also baselessly claimed that his crowd during his rally ahead of the January 6, 2021 insurrection was comparable to that of Martin Luther King Jr’s during the March on Washington in 1963, drawing consternation online.

The former president has begun to share rightwing conspiracy theories, such as that “nobody” attended Harris’ recent rally in Michigan, despite videos and photos showing thousands of people at a Detroit airport.

 

Former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy appeared on Fox this week, arguing that Trump must “Stop questioning the size of her crowds and start questioning her position.”

One source told CNN that Trump is “in a spiral” and that he needs to “snap out of it.”

 

[Muda69]

Americans Paid for the Trump Tariffs—and Would Do So Again: https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-paid-trump-tariffs-would-do-so-again

Quote

During a campaign stop in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, over the weekend (Aug. 17–18), former President Donald Trump told the audience that “a tariff is a tax on a foreign country. A lot of people like to say it’s a tax on us. No, […] it’s a tax that doesn’t affect our country.” The statement is consistent with his repeated assertions throughout his presidency, during which he levied heavy tariffs on imported solar products, washing machines, steel, aluminum, and about 70 percent of all products from China.

Despite the former president’s claims to the contrary, however, there is overwhelming evidence that Americans bore the brunt of his tariffs—and would do so again if he is reelected and fulfills his campaign pledge to impose more aggressive protectionism.

As the chart below makes clear, more than a dozen academic studies by university economists, think tanks, and government agencies have examined the tariffs that the Trump administration imposed (and, unfortunately, that the Biden administration has mostly maintained). Their conclusions are clear and consistent: American consumers (both firms and individuals), not foreigners, paid for—and continue to pay for—the tariffs.

Economists Mary Amiti, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein, for instance, estimate that the tariffs increased costs for average American households by about $830 per year, accounting for direct costs and efficiency losses. These and other economists find other tariff-related harms and net costs for the US economy overall.

Estimates of the pain vary depending on what aspect of the Trump tariffs was studied, but it is clear that Americans faced significant losses from the tariffs (and inevitable foreign retaliation), including higher tax burdens and prices, loss in wages and employment, reduced consumption, decreased investment, a decline in exports, and overall aggregate welfare.

 

Anecdotal evidence from Americans directly hurt by the tariffs supports the empirical studies summarized above. As part of the statutorily mandated review process of the Trump administration’s tariffs on imports from China, interested parties were able to submit comments about the tariffs to the US Trade Representative. Nearly 1,500 comments were submitted, most from affected American firms. As we noted at the time, respondents documented many of the real-world harms—higher costs for American companies, less investment in workers and capital—caused by the tariffs.

None of this is surprising—or, at least, it shouldn’t be. As the Tax Foundation’s Erica York wrote in an excellent essay for Cato’s Defending Globalization series, both economic theory and practice—as demonstrated in the interactive decision tree below—teach that unless foreign sellers deliberately lower their prices (and thus, render a tariff ineffective for protectionist purposes), the importers and exporters of the country that imposes the tariff end up paying its cost. In the case of the Trump-era tariffs, the outcome was clear: Americans paid the tab.

 

The Trump campaign surely believes tariffs and protectionism are a winning message, but there’s reason to be skeptical. A recent Cato Institute survey found that a mere 1 percent of Americans said that trade and globalization are a top three issue for them, and large majorities worried about and were unwilling to pay for tariffs’ costs, including higher prices or lost jobs. No wonder that Trump pretends those harms don’t exist.

These tariffs are bad for Americans, and should be repealed.  But Trump (and Biden) are too enamored with "sticking it to China" to actually care about the citizens there are supposed to be serving.

 

[Muda69]

Project 2025 Is No Match for MAGA Dysfunction: https://reason.com/2024/08/29/only-the-best-people/

Quote

If any two beliefs are shared by both critics and admirers of former President Donald Trump, they are these: His whims were frequently hamstrung by the people who surrounded him during his first term in office, and that won't be allowed to happen again.

Trump's victory in 2016 appeared to surprise his campaign as much as anyone. He boasted during the campaign that he hires "only the best people," but that was easier said than done. Bereft of institutional backing, with no serious plans for a postelection transition, the 45th president had no choice but to turn to the "Beltway establishment" to staff his administration. "When I first got to Washington," he lamented in April to Time, "I knew very few people."

Trump was supposed to be a repudiation of "Conservatism, Inc."—not just in tenor but in substance. Out were the commitments to limited government and free trade, the insistence on fiscal belt tightening and entitlement reform, and the largely sunny orientation toward immigrants associated with previous Republican leaders such as former House Speaker Paul Ryan. In were hardball politics that pulled no punches, minced no words, and had no qualms about a "muscular" state that interferes at will in people's lives.

But Trump had trouble getting the rest of the governing apparatus to line up behind him. Unfavorable court rulings bookended his presidency, overturning his Muslim travel ban in 2017 and rejecting his election fraud claims in 2021, with other losses along the way. After he left office, the conservative America First Policy Institute released a report complaining that "career bureaucrats resist[ed] Trump Administration policies" by withholding information, slow-walking priorities, and otherwise refusing to carry out work that didn't align with their ideological preferences.

Worse, Trump's own advisers and appointees often seemed to be working at cross-purposes. "His White House was hastily staffed by a mix of underqualified true believers, opportunistic hacks and experienced but disloyal swamp creatures who colluded with journalists and permanent bureaucrats to undermine the president's populist agenda," wrote Sam Adler-Bell in The New York Times in January, summarizing the MAGA view. "The solution, then, should be simple: Find, vet and train the right people, and everything will be different."

And so, almost immediately after Trump left office in January 2021, conservatives in Washington began mobilizing to prepare for his return.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has been releasing presidential policy blueprints, known as Mandate for Leadership, for decades. This time around, under the "Project 2025" banner, it announced a plan to supplement its policy work with a personnel database: a "conservative LinkedIn" that would "provide an opportunity for rock-solid conservatives to place themselves in contention for roles in the next administration," the think tank explained.

Meanwhile, veterans of Trump's first term launched the aforementioned America First Policy Institute, a rival group with much the same mission. Similar entities have been proliferating and expanding ever since: the Conservative Partnership Institute (led by former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint), American Moment (which focuses on identifying Trump-friendly young conservatives), the Society for American Civic Renewal (a spinoff of the Claremont Institute, home to attorney John Eastman, who is currently under indictment for helping Trump attempt to overturn the 2020 election), a new Association of Republican Presidential Appointees, and on and on.

A general telos unites many of these groups: to ensure, if Trump wins again, that his vision for America won't be stymied by personnel who don't fully embrace it. As Paul Dans, the director of Heritage's Project 2025, put it on C-SPAN, "It's incumbent on us to get the right people and make sure they have the right ethos."

That strategy was on display in July with Trump's selection of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate. The pick stood in contrast to 2016, when Trump chose then–Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to balance the ticket and calm any misgivings that evangelical Christians and other traditional conservatives might have had about voting for a philandering TV star. Today, the only truly important qualification is loyalty. After the 2020 election, Pence refused an order from Trump to interfere with Congress' certification of Joe Biden's victory. Vance, a power-hungry populist who once mused to a friend that Trump might be "America's Hitler," later said publicly that he can be counted on to do what his predecessor would not.

This explosion of activity has caused agita in Democratic circles and among the press, and there are a number of real causes for concern in these developments. Yet a clear-eyed analysis of the situation offers at least one source of comfort: Many of the things that prevented Trump from putting his worst impulses into action during his first term would likely do the same in a second one.

Be Afraid

The last public address Tucker Carlson gave before Fox News ousted him in April 2023 was a keynote speech at a dinner celebrating Heritage's 50th anniversary. Hailing Carlson as a hero, Kevin Roberts, the foundation's president, noted afterward that "if things go south for you at Fox News, there's always a job for you at Heritage."

Carlson by that time had earned a reputation for dabbling in conspiracy theories, racially tinged and otherwise, and questioning the free markets that Heritage had long claimed to defend. His appearance at the gala, alongside other changes then afoot at the think tank, caused many observers to wonder what in the world had happened to the once-staid Heritage Foundation.

I spoke with multiple people formerly associated with Heritage, from research fellows to senior staff. They painted a picture of an organization that has, in the 14 years since launching its lobbying arm, Heritage Action for America, come to care less about getting conservative policies into law and more about getting friendly Republicans into power. During the Trump era, that has increasingly meant defending the 45th president and attacking his enemies, full stop, no matter what.

Standing by Trump after the events of January 6, 2021, was apparently a bridge too far for some Heritage insiders. Then-President Kay Coles James and then–Executive Vice President Kim Holmes announced their resignations in March of that year. Many more departures would follow—some voluntary, others less so.

In contrast, Roberts, who succeeded James in late 2021, has seemed unbothered by Trump's continued insistence that the 2020 vote was stolen. Asked in a January interview with The New York Times whether he believes Biden won that election, he was quick to say "no." This, mind you, was after Trump declared that "a Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

Heritage under Roberts has embraced a decidedly authoritarian rhetorical style. "The conservative movement increasingly knows what time it is in America," one staffer wrote in a blog post about Project 2025. "More and more of our politicians are willing to use the government to achieve our vision, because the neutrality of 'keeping the government out of it' will lose every time to the left's vast power."

"This is our moment to demand that our politicians use the power they have," Roberts told The American Conservative last year. "This is the moment for us to demand of companies, whether they're Google, or Facebook, or Disney, that you listen to us, rather than ram down our throats and into our own families all of the garbage that you've been pushing on us. This is our time to demand that you do what we say. And it's glorious."

More recently, the Heritage president said on the War Room podcast that "we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be"—a remark one longtime conservative foundation leader described to me as "grotesque and dangerous" and evidence that Roberts "lacks the judgment and maturity to lead the Heritage Foundation or any other institution in our movement."

Offered a chance to clarify, Roberts passed along a statement asserting that Americans "are committed to peaceful revolution at the ballot box. Unfortunately, it's the Left that has a long history of violence, so it's up to them to allow a peaceful transfer of power." It made no mention of January 6.

Even sharp departures from positions that Heritage has championed for decades don't seem to faze Roberts. At the 2022 National Conservatism Conference, he astonished onlookers by proclaiming that "I come not to invite national conservatives to join our conservative movement but to acknowledge the plain truth that Heritage is already part of yours." Though the Heritage mission statement lists "free enterprise," "limited government," and "individual freedom" as core values, national conservatism seeks to concentrate power at the national level and is comfortable with many government interventions into the economy, such as industrial subsidies and tariffs.

Admittedly, some responses to the policy components of Project 2025 have been overwrought. Opponents claim the agenda would limit access to contraception, for example—verbiage that suggests a desire to throw up legal barriers to the purchase or use of birth control. What it actually says is that a conservative president should allow religious organizations to opt out of paying for contraceptives and not force employers to cover "potential abortifacient" drugs, two pre–Trump GOP views supported by many if not most Americans. The bulk of the program is just this sort of run-of-the-mill Reaganism: deregulation, welfare and entitlement reform, "drill, baby, drill," etc.

Yet there are disquieting aspects of Project 2025, and of Heritage leadership's broader decision to cozy up to hardline anti-liberal elements on the right. This summer's National Conservatism Conference, where Roberts also spoke, included sessions repudiating the idea of separation of church and state; promoting "mass deportations" as necessary to "decolonize America"; calling on Republican officials to criminally prosecute their political opponents ("unfortunately, we're going to have to use banana republic means," warned the former George W. Bush administration lawyer John Yoo); and supporting laws "governing the internal affairs of corporations" to ensure they're run in accordance with a right-wing understanding of the common good.

The latest Mandate for Leadership also departs from prior iterations by taking a Trumpier approach to immigration (proposing "the civil arrest, detention, and removal of immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate") and wavering on international trade.

If it looks as if the contemporary Heritage Foundation has become primarily a vehicle for ensuring Trump's will is realized, whatever that will might be at a given moment, Roberts doesn't seem to disagree. In the same New York Times interview where he refused to say that Biden's election was legitimate, he described Heritage's role as "institutionalizing Trumpism."

That switch from standing for a set of principles, regardless of who espouses them, to standing for a candidate, regardless of his principles, has put Heritage in bed with some unsavory characters, from Steve Bannon to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

At an institutional level, consider the Bull Moose Project, a startup run by edgy young activists with a history of posting such statements as "White lives matter" and "Libertarians contribute nothing of use to the conservative movement." In 2023, Heritage sponsored the Bull Moose Leadership Summit even after critics pointed out that one of the group's executives had proudly defended "blood and soil" nationalism and allied himself with the antisemitic influencer Nick Fuentes. (Veep hopeful Vance was an advisory board member for American Moment, another sponsor of the event.*)

What was the Bull Moose worldview that a Roberts-led Heritage was keen to bolster? "National populism is the future of the Right. All other competing philosophies will be eliminated," tweeted former Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini beside a photo of himself with fellow summit attendees. Or as former Bull Moose staffer Gabe Guidarini said at a different conference a few months later, "We have to build a conservative movement that doesn't shy away from achieving victory by any means necessary." Behold the will to power.

After Fox sent Carlson packing, Roberts released a statement claiming that "no one in America has demonstrated more courage in speaking truth to power than Tucker" and that "the entire Heritage family is deeply upset." A year later, after Carlson traveled to Russia and then released a series of bizarre propaganda videos glorifying life under Vladimir Putin, Reason asked Heritage if it wished to distance itself from its onetime keynote speaker. The think tank did not respond. But in June, Roberts announced that he would appear with Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) at an event this fall.

Recall that the avowed purpose of Project 2025 is "to get the right people and make sure they have the right ethos" to serve in the next Republican administration. If this is the ethos that groups like Heritage will be looking for as they offer staffing advice, it's hard not to be afraid.

But Don't Panic

The regnant narrative on the right is that the first Trump administration suffered from being populated by a combination of establishment conservatives who weren't truly devoted to implementing the president's vision and Kool-Aid-drinking MAGA warriors without the know-how to get things done.

By all accounts, the various groups preparing to staff a second Trump administration are laser-focused on solving the first problem by demanding absolute fealty to the big man and his desires. Saurabh Sharma, the youthful head of American Moment, "is prescriptive about what gets a person on his list," reported Axios' Jonathan Swan in 2022. "He wants applicants who want to cut not just illegal but also legal immigration into the United States. He favors people who are protectionist on trade and anti-interventionist on foreign policy. They must be eager to fight the 'culture war.' Credentials are almost irrelevant."

John McEntee, a veteran of the Trump White House's personnel office who went on to advise Heritage, takes a similar view. "A red flag went up if a prospective employee answered 'deregulation and judges' when asked to name their favorite Trump policies," Swan wrote, also in 2022. "It was a sure sign the applicant could be a weak-kneed member of the establishment."

But the solution to Trump's first problem—ensuring his new staff is fully ideologically aligned with him—pulls against the solution to his second. He can have people who are true believers or he can have people who are competent; he probably can't have both, because there are simply too few of them. Stacking the government with folks from outside the establishment, without relevant experience, leaves you with a work force that is unlikely to be effective at implementing an agenda.

"The best way to describe these lists is it looks like they're looking for incompetence as the chief qualification," says Cato Institute Senior Fellow Thomas Firey. "The bureaucracy, whether you love it or hate it, is an extremely complex machine that is extremely hard to operate….It's like giving my 8-year-old the keys to a steam shovel. Nothing's going to happen but a disaster."

Much press coverage has focused on "Schedule F," shorthand for an executive order that could in theory allow a president to fire as many as 50,000 members of the permanent bureaucracy and replace them with his own political cronies. The effort has been described in apocalyptic terms, as something very like a coup, by mainstream and left-of-center outlets.

In June, the Associated Press reported that a new group called the American Accountability Foundation, with funding from Heritage, had begun "digging into the backgrounds, social media posts and commentary of key high-ranking government employees, starting with the Department of Homeland Security." Its aim is to identify figures hostile to Trump's goals—described by Heritage as "anti-American bad actors"—who could be targeted under Schedule F.

The issue is a tricky one to approach from libertarian first principles. The bloated and biased executive bureaucracy, and the "civil service protections" that make it almost impossible to get rid of lazy federal workers—these are longstanding and legitimate complaints of limited-government types. On the other hand, Congress did statutorily establish the civil service system with an eye to shielding career employees, who are supposed to be nonpolitical subject matter experts, from rank electoral considerations. If things haven't worked out as intended, it ought to be Congress' responsibility to pass a structural fix. There's something unsettlingly Soviet about the image of a president hunting for thought criminals to cast into the darkness.

But wherever you come down on the appropriateness of Schedule F, it probably won't matter much in practice. "Given Trump's frequent vows to deliver 'retribution' against his critics and political opponents if he returns to office, it is unnerving to think of a federal bureaucracy of loyalists carrying out his commands," wrote Firey in a recent Cato report. "But a Trump restoration of Schedule F and takeover of the federal bureaucracy is unlikely to play out the way either he or his critics imagine."

Presidents already have the ability to make some 4,000 political appointments. Trump could not manage it last time—and many of the people he did appoint turned out to be insufficiently sycophantic for his taste. (It seems most folks do have some lines they're unwilling to cross.) The idea that Trump's team could fill tens of thousands of additional openings with workers who are even mostly aligned and minimally competent beggars belief. "I think a lot of these positions are just going to sit empty," Firey says.

Yes, a whole brood of groups, new and old, have positioned themselves to help a second Trump administration do better. But there are reasons to be skeptical that they're up to the task. Behind the scenes, the various organizations are busy squabbling among themselves and jockeying for prominence. And several of them are gimcrack enterprises headed up by 20-somethings whose biggest claim to fame is acting out online via inflammatory social media posts.

There's also an incredible amount of money sloshing through and around these efforts, which makes them an inevitable magnet for grifters—the kind of political operatives who specialize in lightening donors' pocketbooks rather than actually accomplishing things. A May New York Times exposé found that the Conservative Partnership Institute, which contributed to Project 2025, had paid millions of dollars "to corporations led by its own leaders or their relatives" in a pattern of "insider transactions" that "raise concerns about self-dealing." People just looking to get paid are not exactly known for their ability to tackle complicated strategic and administrative challenges.

Finally, there's the problem of Trump himself: that even as he demands unswerving loyalty from his subordinates, he exhibits zero hesitation about throwing those around him under the bus when doing so suits his interests or his mood.

Multiple groups have gone all in on backing the 45th president. If they hoped for gratitude, they must be feeling disappointed. Initially, Trump seemed to stand behind the work being done at places like Heritage and the America First Policy Institute. But over the last year, his campaign managers have issued a series of escalating bulletins warning that "unless a message is coming directly from President Trump or an authorized member of his campaign team, no aspect of future presidential staffing or policy announcements should be deemed official."

In July—following bad press regarding the Heritage policy agenda and Roberts' "bloodless revolution" comments—the former president apparently decided he'd had enough. "I know nothing about Project 2025," he posted on his Truth Social platform. "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

A campaign aide went further, telling Semafor that "if you're an organization that is purporting to be pushing 'Trump policies,' it's probably the last organization that we'll take references from for personnel." That smackdown by the Trump team, Semafor added, could "signal to conservative donors that Heritage, a power inside the movement for more than 50 years, would have less clout in a second administration."

A few weeks later, Project 2025 chief Dans announced his departure from the think tank. "Reports of Project 2025's demise would be greatly welcomed," the campaign said in a statement, "and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump."

It's hardly certain that, push coming to shove, a future Trump White House would turn away help from groups such as Roberts'; staffing the executive branch may necessarily be an all-hands-on-deck effort. Still, the episode typifies the chaos that seems ever to follow in Trump's wake.

Democrats are trying hard to paint Project 2025 as part of a "playbook for Trump to achieve his dream of being a dictator on day one." Yet the former president isn't even disciplined enough to play nice with a guy who sold out a venerable conservative policy institution in order to put it entirely at the disposal of Trumpian whims. The will to power is strong in MAGA world, but the dysfunction may be stronger.

 

[swordfish]

[Muda69]

The Second Trump Shooter Believed Exactly What the Establishment Media Wanted Him to Believe: https://mises.org/mises-wire/second-trump-shooter-believed-exactly-what-establishment-media-wanted-him-believe

Quote

On Sunday, for the second time this election cycle, a man was able to get close to Donald Trump with a rifle. The former president was golfing when Secret Service agents spotted a rifle barrel poking out of some bushes just off the course, near a hole Trump would soon play. Agents fired on the suspect, causing him to flee as Trump was rushed off the course. Shortly after, the man was apprehended by police.

A scoped rifle, two backpacks, and a video camera were recovered from the woods where the suspect was hiding. The FBI said it was investigating the incident as an attempted assassination. The suspect, Ryan Routh, has so far been charged with two gun-related crimes. 

While there are clearly some major differences between this incident and the first assassination attempt in July—when Trump was shot in the ear during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania—the fact that an armed man was able to get so close to the former president and remain undetected until the last moment for the second time in two months is a big deal.

Yet the reaction from the political establishment and the establishment media has been notably different. Back in July, there was broad agreement within the establishment that they needed to “lower the temperature.” This week, the rhetoric has changed. While most go through the motion of denouncing political violence, establishment figures and outlets have downplayed the assassination attempt, obscured the attempted shooter’s political ideology, and even blamed Trump himself for provoking people into trying to kill him.

It’s not surprising that the political establishment and their friends in the media want to dismiss or play down what happened on Sunday. Because Ryan Routh, the suspect, appears to have been motivated by the exact narrative of the war in Ukraine and the prospect of a second Trump term that the establishment is trying so hard to get the American public to accept. 

In early 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the American establishment went into overdrive to whitewash all the developments that had led to the invasion. They instead defined Vladamir Putin as an expansionist tyrant bent on conquering all of Europe simply because he hates freedom and democracy.

Because of unearthed social media posts, numerous interviews with major outlets like The New York Times, and a self-published book, we can clearly see that Routh was completely convinced by the establishment’s characterization of the war. So much so that in the months after the war broke out, Routh traveled to Ukraine to try and join the fight. He was turned away, apparently due to his age, but stuck around to try and recruit other foreigners to join Ukraine’s ranks.

In one interview with Newsweek, Routh laid out how he views the war:

To me, a lot of the other conflicts are gray, but this conflict is definitely black-and-white. This is about good versus evil. This is a storybook— you know, any movie we’ve ever watched, this is definitely evil against good. … It seems asinine that we have a leader and a country that does not understand the concept of being unselfish, and being generous, and being kind, and just the basic moral values that are required by human beings these days. It blows my mind.

That is exactly how the pundits and politicians who make up the American political establishment want us thinking about this war. Not as an unnecessary geopolitical conflict that escalated for decades before erupting into the conventional war we see today, but simply as a black-and-white showdown with an evil country.

Importantly, as can be seen in the opening to Biden’s State of the Union address from earlier this year, the establishment has explicitly conflated this threat abroad with what they call the threat at home—meaning Trump and the MAGA movement. So if a disturbed person like Ryan Routh was convinced that he would be a hero if he went and fought the evil Russians in Ukraine only to be turned away because of his age, it’s not much of a jump to expect that he concluded he could still be a hero if he set his sights on, what he was told, is the same threat at home.

That’s not to say that the establishment voices pushing the simplistic narratives that captured Routh directly incited his assassination attempt—although it would under the standard they apply to Trump and January 6. Only that the establishment is using misleading and sometimes wholly fictional narratives about the war in Ukraine and the populist anger directed toward them to try to scare us into voting in ways that support their interests. It shouldn’t surprise anyone when these contrived, simplistic, overly dramatic narratives lead some people to decide voting isn’t enough.

 

[swordfish]

So Former President Trump had a little shin-dig at MSG yesterday......Spelled out his policy positions (again - that haven't changed, but haven't yet been truly reported) with 29 different speakers like Speaker Mike Johnson, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson but the only thing the MSM has been able to report on is how vulgar a comedian was......Newsflash - He's a Comedian!  Get over it......Even the Latinos laughed.....

With a record crowd of over 20,000 inside and another 10,000 outside, SF thinks we are witnessing the true rising of the silent majority making this election "too big to rig"......Either that or the Cackle Queen is more popular than I anticipated......

We will see next week....

[temptation]

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

So Former President Trump had a little shin-dig at MSG yesterday......Spelled out his policy positions (again - that haven't changed, but haven't yet been truly reported) with 29 different speakers like Speaker Mike Johnson, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson but the only thing the MSM has been able to report on is how vulgar a comedian was......Newsflash - He's a Comedian!  Get over it......Even the Latinos laughed.....

With a record crowd of over 20,000 inside and another 10,000 outside, SF thinks we are witnessing the true rising of the silent majority making this election "too big to rig"......Either that or the Cackle Queen is more popular than I anticipated......

We will see next week....

I had never seen so many Jewish folks and Israel flags at a supposed "Nazi rally" as I had yesterday...

[swordfish]

On 10/28/2024 at 8:40 AM, swordfish said:

 but the only thing the MSM has been able to report on is how vulgar a comedian was......Newsflash - He's a Comedian!  Get over it......Even the Latinos laughed.....

 

SF is remembering the MSM defending this comedian back in 2017......"Free Speech" and all.....  

[Muda69]

Trump Thinks News Outlets Should Lose Their Broadcast Licenses, Even When They Have None: https://reason.com/2024/10/28/trump-thinks-news-outlets-should-lose-their-broadcast-licenses-even-when-they-have-none/?itm_source=parsely-api

Quote

During his first year as president, Donald Trump suggested that "NBC and the Networks" should lose their "licenses" because their "partisan, distorted and fake" news coverage was "bad for [the] country" and "not fair to [the] public." Ajit Pai, the Republican chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), pushed back, saying, "The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment, and under the law the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast."

Undeterred by that rebuke, Trump has repeatedly re-upped the idea that broadcast licenses should be contingent on whether they are used to air content that offends him. Last November, for instance, he complained that MSNBC "uses FREE government approved airwaves" to execute "a 24 hour hit job on Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party for purposes of ELECTION INTERFERENCE." He declared that "our so-called 'government' should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity."

That jeremiad was nonsensical in at least two ways. First, there is nothing "illegal" about MSNBC's anti-Trump content; to the contrary, the criticism to which Trump objects is constitutionally protected speech. Second, MSNBC is a cable channel, so it does not use "government approved airwaves" to transmit its programming and therefore does not need a broadcast license to operate.

Trump's confusion presents a familiar question that has become especially important in the lead-up to next week's presidential election. Should his frequently reiterated desire to punish his political enemies be dismissed as meaningless bluster, or does it reflect authoritarian impulses that should repel voters who values civil liberties and the rule of law? Whether you take Trump literally or seriously, the answer seems clear.

"In the past two years," CNN's Brian Stelter noted last week, "Trump has called for every major American TV news network to be punished….He has imprecisely but repeatedly invoked the government's licensing of broadcast TV airwaves and has said on at least 15 occasions that certain licenses should be revoked."

The most recent target of Trump's ire is CBS, which aired a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, on October 7. Trump, who declined to be interviewed by the show, complained that the edited version of Harris' remarks made her response to a question about Israel seem more cogent and concise than it actually was. The result, Trump said on Truth Social the next day, was "a giant Fake News Scam by CBS & 60 Minutes." Because "her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB," he averred, "they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better."

Last week, 60 Minutes rejected Trump's charge of "deceitful editing," although its response was ambiguous enough to keep the controversy alive. The show "gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes," it said. "Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment."

60 Minutes, in others words, conceded the gravamen of Trump's complaint while insisting that there was nothing untoward about its editing, which it presented as routine practice. Whatever you make of that defense, the most notable thing about this flap was the response that Trump thought was appropriate. He claimed the editing, like MSNBC's "ELECTION INTERFERENCE," was "totally illegal," meaning the FCC should "TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE."

Strictly speaking, there is no "CBS LICENSE." CBS Entertainment, a division of Paramount Global, owns and operates 28 stations, 14 of which are part of the CBS network, which also includes more than 200 affiliates across the country that carry CBS programming. The implication of Trump's demand, then, is that all of those stations should lose their broadcast licenses because he did not like the way that 60 Minutes edited its interview with Harris.

"It's a very embarrassing moment for them," Trump told conservative podcaster Dan Bongino on October 18. "But the media is not pressing it. You would think the media would be pressing it. And I go a step further. It's so bad they should lose their license, and they should take '60 Minutes' off the air."

Trump's reaction to his experience during his September 10 debate with Harris on ABC was similar. In that case, his complaint was that the network's moderators had fact-checked him in real time while letting Harris' misrepresentations slide. As with the 60 Minutes interview, Trump's beef was arguably legitimate. But in both cases, he took it for granted that the FCC could and should punish the perceived unfairness by imposing a regulatory death sentence.

"I think ABC took a big hit last night," Trump said on Fox & Friends the day after the debate. "I mean, to be honest, they're a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that."

Again, Trump's understanding of FCC regulation, even after four years as president, remains hazy. A news organization does not "have to be licensed," a situation that would be anathema to freedom of the press. But as with CBS, ABC's network-owned stations and affiliates do hold broadcast licenses, which presumably would be revoked if it were up to Trump.

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, rejected that suggestion, echoing what her Republican predecessor, Pai, had said in 2017. "The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy," Rosenworcel said. "The Commission does not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage."

Trump obviously sees the FCC's mission differently. He not only thinks the agency should penalize broadcast news outlets for treating him unfairly; he imagines that it also has authority over cable content, which he conflates with broadcasting. "FAKE NEWS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO 'STINK UP' OUR AIRWAVES!" he declared in January, referring to CNN and MSNBC, both cable channels.

Even Fox News has not escaped the former and possibly future president's wrath, although Trump has stopped short of his go-to solution while criticizing the channel's choice of pundits. "FoxNews puts on the WORST people, and all done very purposely," he complained on July 6, citing Wall Street Journal Associate Editor John Bussey, who "refuses to say, even though he knows it to be true, that everything I got accused of is a Biden inspired HOAX for purposes of Election Interference."

That was the beginning of an anti-Fox tear. "Why does FoxNews keep putting all of these warped Biden Apologists on, one after another, like failed former Congressman Patrick Murphy?" Trump asked on July 7. "FoxNews: STOP PUTTING ON THE ENEMY!" he demanded on July 8.

As president, Trump would not have the power to unilaterally enforce such demands, especially with respect to cable stations such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Stelter suggests that Trump nevertheless could cause trouble for broadcasters, noting that he has promised to "bring the independent regulatory agencies such as the FCC and the FTC back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands." That vow is ostensibly part of Trump's deregulatory agenda, but it is reasonable to question that gloss given his persistent advocacy of regulatory penalties for news outlets that irk him.

The FCC, which by law cannot include more than three members of the same party, currently consists of three Democrats (Rosenworcel, Geoffrey Starks, and Anna M. Gomez) and two Republicans (Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington). Carr and Simington have both weighed in on the controversy over the 60 Minutes interview with Harris, citing the FCC's authority to address complaints of "broadcast news distortion."

The FCC describes that authority as "narrow" and notes that it does not apply to "cable news networks, newspapers or newsletters (whether online or print), social media platforms, online-only streaming outlets, or any other non-broadcast news platform." The FCC "is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press," the commission notes. "News distortion 'must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report.' In weighing the constitutionality of the policy, courts have recognized that the policy 'makes a crucial distinction between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion.' As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable."

Simington alluded to those principles in a comment on X last week. "Broadcast news distortion is an extraordinarily narrow complaint category," he wrote. "CBS could easily remove the predicate for any further discussion by releasing the transcript" of the Harris interview. Carr concurred. "In my view," he told Glenn Beck, "that's the best way forward here: release the transcript, and there's no reason to have this before the FCC."

Although CBS so far has declined to release the full transcript, the FCC as currently composed is clearly not inclined to take up this matter or Trump's other complaints about allegedly biased news coverage. But Rosenworcel's term expires at the end of June 2025, meaning that Trump, if elected, would have a chance to appoint her replacement and designate a new chair.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) seems worried about what might happen then. "From our country's beginning, the right of the press to challenge the government, root out corruption and speak freely without fear of recrimination has been central to our democracy," NAB CEO Curtis LeGeyt told CNN. "Times may have changed, but that principle—enshrined in the First Amendment—has not. The threat from any politician to revoke a broadcast license simply because they disagree with the station's content undermines this basic freedom."

Media attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman thinks Trump will have trouble delivering on his threats to yank broadcast licenses. The process "is so time consuming that no license renewal could be denied before the end of a hypothetical second Trump term," he told CNN. Furthermore, Schwartzman said, "decades of regulatory capture [have] made case law that strongly favors incumbent licensees." He added that "the more cynical among us would observe that going after broadcasters is not a good thing to have on one's résumé for post-FCC employment."

If Trump had never been president and did not aspire to hold that office again, his confusion about the current regulatory system would be understandable. Notionally, the FCC can decline to renew a broadcast license based on considerations of "public convenience, interest, and necessity," but it almost never does so, and such decisions are constrained by the First Amendment. For news outlets that do not hold broadcast licenses, no such review applies, even when they offer content that is indistinguishable from broadcasters' programming.

Historically, that legal distinction was based on the "scarcity" of the radio spectrum—a rationale that makes little sense in the current media environment. From the perspective of viewers or listeners, the specific route that content travels before reaching them makes no difference, and it is hard to see why it should have constitutional significance.

Trump's take on this admittedly baffling situation is nevertheless telling. He thinks federal regulators should have a say about anything that appears on TV, regardless of whether it actually involves "the public airwaves," and he thinks they should use that imagined power to squelch content he identifies as "fake news" or "election interference." As usual, what matters for Trump is whether people are saying "nasty" things about him, and he has no compunction about using state power to punish his critics. While his specific fantasy of doing that via the FCC may come to nought, I am not keen to find out what else he might try if voters give him the chance.

 

[swordfish]

Interesting turn of events.....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-department-looking-wind-down-trump-criminal-cases-ahead-inauguration

The Justice Department is looking to wind down two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump as he prepares to be sworn in to a second term in the White House – a decision that upholds long-standing policy that prevents Justice Department attorneys from prosecuting a sitting president. 

In making this argument, Justice Department officials cited a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel filed in 2000, which upholds a Watergate-era argument that asserts it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the Justice Department to investigate a sitting president. 

It further notes that such proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."  

"In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’" the memo said in conclusion.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr also backed this contention Wednesday in an interview with Fox News Digital, noting that after Trump takes office in January, prosecutors will be unable to continue the cases during his term. 

Barr told Fox News Digital that a Trump-appointed attorney general could immediately halt all federal cases brought by current Special Counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., and Florida. 

The charges in D.C. stem from Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In Florida, they are centered on Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2020.

And though Trump would be powerless to halt two state cases filed in Georgia and New York, Barr said local prosecutors and judges need to move on from the "spectacle" of prosecuting the president-elect.

"Further maneuvering on these cases in the weeks ahead would serve no legitimate purpose and only distract the country and the incoming administration from the task at hand," Barr said.

He also noted that voters were well aware of the criminal allegations against Trump when they voted to re-elect him for a second term.

"The American people have rendered their verdict on President Trump, and decisively chosen him to lead the country for the next four years," Barr said. 

"They did that with full knowledge of the claims against him by prosecutors around the country and I think Attorney General Garland and the state prosecutors should respect the people’s decision and dismiss the cases against President Trump now."

[temptation]

Well, the “sexist, racist, fascist” president elect used his first promotion in hiring the first ever female chief of staff just hours after getting record (best in 48 years) voter support from African-American voters, Jewish voters and Latino voters all while getting 45 percent of the female vote (52 percent of white women).  

All the while, he won THE MOST IMPORTANT swing state, Pennsylvania, due in large part to a member of the LGBTQ community who aided in record Republican voter registration and early voter turnout, specifically the Amish community.

I mean, it wasn’t even close.  The people spoke…LOUDLY.

If you don’t question where you absorb your media from at this point or look in the mirror and reasses your party’s campaign strategy, I don’t know what to tell you.

Love or hate the guy, the numbers don’t lie.

[Bobref]

Can we agree that the initial decision to run Biden for re-election was the worst decision by a political party in the last 100 years?

[temptation]

19 hours ago, Bobref said:

Can we agree that the initial decision to run Biden for re-election was the worst decision by a political party in the last 100 years?

A tie.

1.  Not holding a primary.

2.  Attempting to elevate someone who did not make it past Iowa in the 2020 primaries.

3.  The timing of the exit.

4.  Ignoring the border for 3 1/2 years and then trying to slide across some sort of fake ass bill that had a bunch of aid for Ukraine and other fat to the border months before the election.

5.  Consistently insulting Trump supporters as fascist, racist Nazis that are garbage.  

6.  Running on Trump‘s shortcomings as opposed to any real policies that you have that would differentiate you from the most recent party who had an approval rating of under 40% for the second half of their tenure.

7.  Embracing identity politics.

8.  Denying Biden’s cognitive ability despite what every person in America’s eyes and ears had told them for years.

9.  The nightmarish Afghanistan withdrawal.

10.  Insulting minority voters with the insinuation that they need the help of others in order to obtain voting rights and ID…then throwing in “legalizing weed.”

Those are just off the top of my head for now, I’m sure I could list more if given time.

And seems the media still hasn’t learned their lesson.  They need to take a long hard look in the mirror or 2028 will be more of the same.

Edited November 9, 2024 by temptation

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, temptation said:

A tie.

1.  Not holding a primary.

2.  Attempting to elevate someone who did not make it past Iowa in the 2020 primaries.

3.  The timing of the exit.

4.  Ignoring the border for 3 1/2 years and then trying to slide across some sort of fake ass bill that had a bunch of aid for Ukraine and other fat to the border months before the election.

5.  Consistently insulting Trump supporters as fascist, racist Nazis that are garbage.  

6.  Running on Trump‘s shortcomings as opposed to any real policies that you have that would differentiate you from the most recent party who had an approval rating of under 40% for the second half of their tenure.

7.  Embracing identity politics.

8.  Denying Biden’s cognitive ability despite what every person in America’s eyes and ears had told them for years.

9.  The nightmarish Afghanistan withdrawal.

10.  Insulting minority voters with the insinuation that they need the help of others in order to obtain voting rights and ID…then throwing in “legalizing weed.”

Those are just off the top of my head for now, I’m sure I could list more if given time.

And seems the media still hasn’t learned their lesson.  They need to take a long hard look in the mirror or 2028 will be more of the same.

## 3 & 8 are basically what I said.

[swordfish]

He tried it their way last time......He's a different President this time.....

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hegseth-defense-secretary-pentagon-2d8030921ecef933778cf92afd40ec72

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump stunned the Pentagon and the broader defense world by nominating Fox News host Pete Hegseth to serve as his defense secretary, tapping someone largely inexperienced and untested on the global stage to take over the world’s largest and most powerful military.

The news was met with bewilderment and worry among many in Washington as Trump passed on a number of established national security heavy-hitters and chose an Army National Guard captain well known in conservative circles as a co-host of Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends Weekend.”

While some Republican lawmakers had a muted response to the announcement, others called his combat experience an asset or said he was “tremendously capable.”

Hegseth’s choice could bring sweeping changes to the military. He has made it clear on his show and in interviews that, like Trump, he is opposed to “woke” programs that promote equity and inclusion. He also has questioned the role of women in combat and advocated pardoning service members charged with war crimes.

https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-news/special-coounsel-jack-smith-plans-to-retire-before-trump-takes-office/

Probably a good idea - Retire before your incoming boss fires you "within 2 seconds"........

[temptation]

The appointees to Trump’s cabinet (“unqualified ”) making lefties heads explode is rich from the folks who are all about DEI.

[swordfish]

[Muda69]

Trump's Immigration Picks Are Terrible

https://reason.com/2024/11/14/trumps-immigration-picks-are-terrible/

Quote

Just over a week after winning the presidential election, Donald Trump has begun to assemble a team that leaves no doubt he intends to implement a punitive immigration platform come 2025.

Trump has announced that South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem will serve as secretary of Homeland Security, former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Thomas Homan will serve as "border czar," and former immigration adviser Stephen Miller will serve as deputy chief of staff for policy. Homan and Miller are both known hard-liners who served in much-publicized roles during the first Trump administration, and Noem has emerged as an active-on-the-border governor. All three picks are a sign that Trump will again lean into—and hire people willing to realize—his worst impulses on immigration policy.

Noem, who served for eight years in the House of Representatives before becoming governor of South Dakota in 2019, has scant immigration policy experience at the federal level. After Trump suspended refugee resettlement and barred the entry of people from seven Muslim-majority countries for several months in 2017, she praised the move, saying she supported a "temporary pause on accepting refugees from terrorist-held areas."

 

Noem has been far more active in border policy as governor, and Trump has taken notice. "She was the first Governor to send National Guard Soldiers to help Texas fight the Biden Border Crisis, and they were sent a total of eight times," said Trump in a statement Wednesday. Noem has called the U.S.-Mexico border a "war zone" and argued an "invasion" is taking place there. Though she marketed the National Guard deployment as a way to stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a 2022 Associated Press report indicated that "the South Dakota troops didn't seize any drugs" during their two-month deployment and "had little if anything to do" some days.

Noem will work closely with Homan, who has decades of experience in immigration enforcement and previously served as acting director of ICE under Trump. Controversial—and cruel—episodes dotted his tenure. Homan was an unapologetic proponent of separating migrant families as a deterrent policy, first pitching the idea during the Obama administration. (The Trump administration separated thousands of children from their families, and many of them still haven't been reunited.) Homan once argued that politicians who govern sanctuary cities should be charged with crimes, and ICE under his watch swept up undocumented immigrants trying to make an honest living.

This time around, Homan will likely play a central part in Trump's mass deportation effort, which the president-elect claims could target millions of undocumented immigrants. Workplace raids will again be on the table, Homan has said, and on Monday, he warned blue-state governors to "get the hell out of the way" of the administration's enforcement activities. Like before, Homan's efforts could put migrant families in the crosshairs. When 60 Minutes host Cecilia Vega asked Homan whether there is "a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families," he replied, "Of course there is. Families can be deported together." Over 4 million U.S. citizen kids live with at least one undocumented parent, the Congressional Research Service estimated in 2022.

 

Even among a cast of controversial staff picks, Miller stands apart. As a senior adviser to Trump during his first term, Miller was behind some of the administration's worst immigration policies. He was an architect of the family separation policy and the ban on travelers from Muslim-majority countries. Miller repeatedly tried to get the administration to use public health law to keep out migrants, which Trump ultimately did in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He lobbied for policies curtailing legal immigration, including by "adding new requirements on approving visa applications that slowed processing and drove up denial rates," per The Wall Street Journal.

Miller appears to be fully on board with Trump's vision for immigration enforcement in the coming term. Miller has "suggested supplementing ICE resources with military planes and National Guard troops, including sending troops from Republican-governed states into neighboring states with Democratic governors," The Washington Post reported. "The immigration discussion" needs to move beyond just a "legal/illegal" distinction, Miller posted on X in January, deriding refugee resettlement, "chain migration," the diversity visa lottery, and "Islamist green card migration" as "'legal,'" in scare quotes.

Trump's second-term team is still growing, but the immigration-related picks so far signal a return to restrictive and often logic-defying policymaking. Noem, Homan, and Miller peddle a narrative about immigration that is seemingly devoid of any benefits. They describe a problem that must be solved by a punishing, militaristic government—an approach that will inevitably tear apart families, face legal challenges, and incur a hefty price tag. These all happened during the first Trump administration, and given the people the president-elect has chosen to staff his next, he's decided they're simply part of the mission.

 

[swordfish]

It's time the country gets serious about the Southern border.  Unfortunately, not much is going to change until term limits can begin to break the stalemate attitude in both houses of Congress.  These"policies" brought in by each differing administrations do little unless laws are actually enforced.

However, given the past 3 2/3 years of the open border policy that started on day 1 of the Biden administration, and has resulted in almost 20 million undocumented migrants entering the US, the country is ready for a change in border policy that restricts unfettered entry into the country and reinstates a "remain in Mexico" system of vetting the true asylum seekers. 

Congress wouldn't approve a $6 Billion request from Trump to build the wall, but is willing to send funds all over the world to help other countries defend their borders.

[Muda69]

Trump Targets Birthright Citizenship and Calls for Military Role in Deportations

https://reason.com/2024/11/19/trump-targets-birthright-citizenship-and-calls-for-military-role-in-deportations/

Quote

On Monday, President-elect Donald Trump shared a post written earlier this month by Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal nonprofit Judicial Watch, that suggested the incoming Trump administration was "prepared to declare a national emergency" and "use military assets" to implement "a mass deportation program." Trump added, "TRUE!!!"

Stephen Miller, a top immigration adviser during the first Trump administration who has been tapped for a policy role in the second, told The New York Times last year that the military would construct "vast holding facilities" for detained migrants. State National Guard troops (along with local police officers) would be directed to carry out immigration enforcement, Miller explained, and Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act as a legal basis for deputizing the armed forces to arrest migrants.

Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Monday said the president-elect planned to "marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers in American history." Trump himself has suggested that 15 million to 20 million migrants might be unlawfully present in the U.S. and thus subject to his deportation operation (most estimates put the undocumented population at around 11 million). Whatever the discrepancy, it seems that Trump has more than just "illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers" in his sights.

The fact that Trump wants to use military assets to carry out deportations conveys just how disruptive, difficult, and even violent such an operation could be. Even if the administration deports a more modest 1 million people per year, as Vice President–elect J.D. Vance has suggested, people will be forcibly separated from their jobs, communities, and families in gut-wrenching ways.

A major question lingering over Trump's mass deportation plan is the extent to which it will target—and separate—families. Estimates vary, but between 4 million and 5 million U.S. citizen children live with at least one undocumented parent, and additional U.S.-born kids live with an undocumented family member. Incoming "border czar" Thomas Homan, when asked on 60 Minutes whether there is "a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families," answered, "Of course there is. Families can be deported together."

The incoming administration has other plans to target mixed–immigration status families. Officials intend "to stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents in a bid to end birthright citizenship," reported the Times. That amounts to "a de facto suspension of the Constitution," argued Michael Clemens, an economics professor at George Mason University.

The 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is something that only a few dozen countries guarantee, and it is a key component of the idea that anyone can be an American. The Supreme Court found in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that a child born on U.S. soil to Chinese immigrant parents had, in fact, become "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." Trump wants to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants via executive order, but it's not at all clear that he can do so (nor is it clear that Congress could do so through legislation). It would likely take a constitutional amendment, the success of which seems far-fetched.

Still, the next Trump administration appears to be banking on its ability to challenge longstanding aspects of the U.S. immigration system that it wasn't able to tackle the first time around. Getting the military involved in deportations, whatever form that takes, will be far more visible than the quieter administrative matter of withholding passports and Social Security cards from certain U.S.-born children, but both plans completely contradict America's image as a nation of immigrants.

Agreed.  Good luck with getting a constitutional amendment passed to effectively nullify birthright citizenship. 

And using the military to enforce deportations should be illegal, not the that legality of something ever stopped Mr. Trump.  

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

And using the military to enforce deportations should be illegal, not the that legality of something ever stopped Mr. Trump.  

Arguably, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of active duty military personnel to enforce civil laws. There are certain exceptions like disaster relief.

[swordfish]

All the talk about Trump deporting a million undocumented immigrants illegal aliens has certainly got the left's panties in a twist while they conveniently forget about the DICK "Deporter In Chief" (K added for emphasis) Former President Barack Hussein Obama who deported over 3 million illegal aliens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_and_removal_from_the_United_States

Between 1993 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported.^[3] Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2.0 million people were deported, while between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 3.2 million people were deported.^[4]

Many legal Latinos are actually in favor of Trump's planned aggressive policy (although US news won't report it) 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxjj0j55o

Undocumented migrants hope Trump mass deportations only 'for criminals'

Bernd Debusmann Jr & Angélica María Casas

BBC News

Gabriela entered the United States more than two decades ago, gasping for breath under a pile of corn stalks in the boot of a smuggler's car.

Now a housekeeper in Maryland, the Bolivian national is one of at least 13 million undocumented migrants living in the US - an umbrella term that includes those who entered the US illegally, overstayed their visas or have protected status to avoid deportation.

Across the US, migrants like Gabriela are grappling with what the incoming Trump administration's vow to conduct mass deportations could mean for their future.

In over a dozen interviews, undocumented immigrants said it was a topic of heated discussion in their communities, WhatsApp groups and social media.

Some, like Gabriela, believe it won't impact them at all.

"I'm not scared at all, actually," she said. "That's for criminals to worry about. I pay taxes, and I work."

"In any case, I'm undocumented," she added. "[So] how would they even know about me?"

In an election campaign where immigration loomed large as a major concern of US voters, Trump frequently pledged to deport migrants en masse from US soil from his first day in office if he were to return to the presidency.

But nearly two weeks after his sweeping election win, it remains unclear what exactly these immigration enforcement operations will look like.

The president-elect has insisted cost won't be an issue, and has confirmed he plans to declare a national emergency to secure the necessary resources. But experts have cautioned that his promises may run into enormous financial and logistics challenges.

His newly appointed "border tsar", Tom Homan, has said that undocumented migrants deemed to be national security or public safety threats will be a priority. And he has suggested workplace raids - a practice ended by the Biden administration - could return.

Speaking to Fox News on Saturday, the former acting director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement during Trump's first term challenged the notion that "those who enforce the law are the bad guys and those who break the law are the victims".

"What member of Congress, what governor or what mayor is against taking public safety threats out of their community?" he asked, adding that the new administration would "follow through on the mandate that American people gave President Trump".

US authorities deporting migrants is nothing new. More than 1.5 million people have been expelled under President Joe Biden, in addition to millions swiftly turned away from the border during the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

During the eight-year administration of Barack Obama - whom some dubbed the "deporter-in-chief" - about three million people were deported, with a focus on single men from Mexico that could easily be deported from border regions.

Trump's promised plans, however, are more wide-ranging and aggressive, including enforcement operations in the US far from the border. Officials are reportedly also mulling using the National Guard and military aircraft to detain and ultimately deport people.

JD Vance, Trump's running mate and incoming vice-president, has said that the deportations could "start" with one million people.

Still, some undocumented migrants believe that they will benefit from a Trump presidency instead of being kicked out.

"A lot of Latinos, those who can vote, did so because they think he [Trump] can improve the economy. That would be very good for us too," said Carlos, an undocumented Mexican who lives in New York City. His son is a US citizen.

According to the American Immigration Council - a non-partisan organisation that conducts research and advocates for an overhaul of the US immigration system - there are more than five million Americans who were born to undocumented parents and have the security of US citizenship.

Carlos says he is "a little" worried about getting swept up in immigration raids. But that fear is tempered by the possibility of an improved economy under Trump and more work.

"Things may be a bit tense right in our communities right now, but being worried isn't a solution," he said. "The best thing to do is avoid problems and not commit any crimes."

There are many others who don't share in this optimism, and are living in fear.

Among them is California resident Eric Bautista, a so-called "Dreamer", who benefits from a longstanding programme that protects from deportation those who were brought illegally into the US as children.

At 29, Mr Bautista has only fleeting memories of life in Mexico, the country in which he was born and left at the age of seven.

For the last four years, he has taught US history to high schoolers - including details of how waves of immigrants from Italy, Ireland, China, Japan and Mexico settled in the country, and often faced xenophobia.

"I don't think I've ever felt this way, even after more than 20 years here," Mr Bautista told the BBC. "It feels like we're at a turning point, a new wave of nativism like those I teach about.

"It's just a future of fear and uncertainty for us."

Advocates and legal experts said there was no guarantee that undocumented migrants without criminal convictions would not be ensnared in ramped-up deportation efforts.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, said that he foresaw an uptick in "collateral arrests" - a term used in the first Trump administration to describe immigrants swept up during enforcement actions even though they may not have been the original targets.

"Let's say they go after somebody with a criminal record, and that person lives in a house with four other [undocumented] people," he said. "We saw with the first Trump administration, they'll arrest those people as well."

In a recent interview with CBS, the BBC's US partner, Homan was asked about a hypothetical situation in which a grandmother was caught up in a "targeted" enforcement operation going after criminals.

When asked if she would be deported, Homan responded "it depends".

"Let the judge decide," he said. "We're gonna remove people that a judge has ordered deported."

The arrest and potential removal of such collateral arrests would mark a drastic departure from the Biden administration, which has focused on public safety threats and deporting people soon after their apprehension at the border.

While Homan recently dismissed suggestions that there could be "a mass sweep of neighbourhoods" or large detention camps set up, the stock prices of companies that could be involved in building detention facilities have jumped by as much as 90% since the election. They include publicly traded prison firms GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Undocumented migrants are employed throughout the US economy - from agricultural fields to warehouses and construction sites.

Mr Reichlin-Melnick said operations targeting such workplaces could lead to "indiscriminate" detentions.

"I don't think that being a person with no criminal record [who] pays taxes protects anybody," he said. "One of the first things that Trump will do is get rid of the Biden administration's enforcement priorities. And we've seen that when there are no priorities, they will go after whoever are the easiest targets."

The possibility of becoming "an easy target" has worried many migrants - particularly those from families with mixed legal statuses. Their biggest fear is finding themselves separated.

Brenda, a 37-year-old Mexico-born "Dreamer" in Texas, is currently protected from deportation but her husband and her mother are not.

Her two children were born in the US and are American citizens.

While Brenda told the BBC she does not believe that "good people" would be the first targets for deportation, she can't escape the thought that her husband could be sent back to Mexico.

"It's important for us that we see our sons grow up," she said. "Of course, the thought of being separated leaves one frightened."

Can we at least agree that something needs to be done to close the porous southern border?