Category: Politics
“In addition to the 45 percent pro-impeachment figure, the Monday poll found that 42 percent of Americans said Trump should not be impeached. The rest said they had no opinion.”
As I’ve pointed out before, probably too often, I never take the people’s answers to this question seriously, because I think about 90% of Americans do not understand what impeachment is.
Obvious enough, right?
But the details are absolutely terrifying. Author Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Big Short, Liar’s Poker) went around the government to study the so-called Deep State, and this book “The Fifth Risk,” details what he found.
Two things stand out as terrifying:
1. The non-existent transition: “Lewis describes the scene inside the Commerce Department the Monday after the election, where ‘dozens of civil servants sat all day waiting to deliver briefings’ to Trump’s transition team about their agencies’ role and responsibilities, ‘that would, in the end, never be heard.'”
2. The disappearing facts: “A lot of government data is now disappearing from government websites, data on climate change at the EPA, on animal abuse at the Department of Agriculture, on violent crime at the Department of Justice. ‘Under each act of data suppression,’ Lewis writes, ‘usually lay a narrow commercial motive: a gun lobbyist, a coal company, a poultry company.'”
“Every room at the Plaza could be filled at the ‘rack rate’ (list price) every night and the revenue still wouldn’t cover the monthly payment of the loan he’d taken out to buy the place. In other words, he’d made a ridiculous deal.”
I hate myself for defending Trump, but that deal was probably not so ridiculous.
If the plan had been to be the owner of the Plaza and nothing more, it was a preposterous deal, but that was never his intention. He was using the Plaza as part of his branding scheme, to make himself seem like New York’s most important developer by placing his name in very large letters atop some of Manhattan’s most notable landmarks. The losses at the Plaza didn’t matter much if the hotel was furthering his master plan, which was basically a long con. It also needs to be pointed out that the master con ultimately worked. By making media appearances, by slapping his name on prestige properties and by publishing his books, he sold himself to the world as a financial wizard and the ultimate Big Shot.
His salesmanship produced two important results:
1. He was eventually able to make money without capital investment, simply by franchising the rights to the Trump name. The Holy Grail of business is to continue to make money without spending any, and the effect of successful franchising is multiplicative. Because somebody licenses the Trump name to put atop an impressive and splashy hotel in City X, the fawning articles in glamorous magazines and upscale newspaper style sections inspire somebody else to do so in City Y, and so forth.
2. He was able to land his TV gig as a legendary business genius on The Apprentice, which viewers interpreted as a reflection of reality. That cemented his reputation while earning him a nice chunk of change from the network.
And all of that ultimately led to the Presidency, although I’m not sure he ever expected to win that election. He certainly would have made much more money by losing and thereafter continuing to splash his name atop the most lavish properties in the world’s glitziest downtowns (including Moscow).
There are other things to consider before you convince yourself that the Plaza deal was idiotic:
Context is critical. Did he have an out that isolated Plaza losses from his personal wealth? In other words, did his deal allow a default on the loan or a bankruptcy of that unit without requiring him to cover those moves with money from other business assets or his personal assets? If the bank(s) allowed him to take out that loan without guaranteeing it from some other source, then the Plaza deal may have been the work of an unscrupulous genius rather than a clueless buffoon.
Finally, he talked the bank(s) into making that loan. That in itself was a form of business genius. Their analysts were certainly capable of making the calculation showing that the Plaza could not pay back the loan even assuming 100% occupancy at the full rate, but the bank(s) gave him the money anyway.
(Most banks did eventually start treating Trump like a pariah after a few such deals, because of the “fool me once” rule, but he eventually found Deutsche Bank, which seemed to have a very high tolerance for risky ventures.)
My own personal take-away:
Some of the deals Trump made to acquire highly visible and prestigious properties might be seen as folly in isolation and/or viewed solely from the perspective of short term profits, but they paid off in the long run. Yes, maybe he lost a big chunk of change while entertaining oil sheikhs and the glitterati in the suites and ballrooms of his ostentatious hotels, country clubs and casinos. Big deal. In essence, all he was really doing was picking up the tab to impress his dinner companions, albeit on a very large scale. He was spending some dollars to create a myth. And he succeeded. People continued to believe in the image of the grand and glorious wizard even after they saw the little man in the booth.
Biden runs up a 32-point lead on Bernie
No respondents expressed support for Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska). In other words, they finished below the Hickenlooper line, the political equivalent of the Mendoza line.
“Falwell subsequently barnstormed with Trump and vouched for the candidate’s Christian virtues.”
Talk about tit-for-tat.
(I’m assuming there were “tits” in those photos. At least. There was probably a lot more. Cohen said, “I actually have one of the photos. It’s terrible.” Jeez … terrible? I hope it’s really kinky shit!)
“While The Times did not obtain the president’s actual tax returns, it received the information contained in the returns from someone who had legal access to it. The Times was then able to find matching results in the I.R.S. information on top earners — a publicly available database that each year comprises a one-third sampling of those taxpayers, with identifying details removed.”
Fun fact: In 1990 and 1991, based on the people in that public info, Trump had the lowest income of anyone in the United States! He was such a big loser that he lost twice as much money as the second-biggest loser! His losses were so big that in 1991 he alone accounted for fully 1% of all business losses declared that year by all individual American taxpayers. His stats dominated the list of losers like Wayne Gretzky’s stats dominated hockey in his prime, or Babe Ruth’s dominated baseball in his youth. Trump is to losing as Babe Ruth was to winning!
(We’re number one! We’re number one!)
Now, I don’t know the rules of journalism and wouldn’t respect them if I did, but as I see it, the Times went about this all wrong. The way to do it would be to write the story based on the details of the “anonymous taxpayer,” claiming it was Trump, but not demonstrating how you know for sure. In that case, his response would be to deny that the person they called the country’s biggest loser was him. He would probably even use the term “country’s biggest loser”! Only THEN comes the revelation that you know it is him because …
They learned nothing from Omarosa. The way to deal with Trump when you can prove several negatives about him is to make a single claim based on your most solid evidence, without telling him you have the proof. He will then lie, scream “fake news” and deny everything, at which point you produce the irrefutable proof, thereby catching him in both the original negative and the lie. At that point, you introduce another negative point you can prove, but again without the proof, just daring him to do any more denying. At that point he’s trapped, just as he was with Omarosa, and has to keep his mouth shut. Then you keep revealing the negatives one at a time, day after day, to keep the story alive and dominating the news cycle, so he can’t pull off some misdirection and change the narrative.
Omarosa had dealt with him so long, and is so cagey, that she knew exactly how to proceed. Cohen had a pretty good idea, but didn’t fully commit to the recording idea. The rest of the world doesn’t seem to have figured it out yet.
I downloaded the data and analyzed who the 650 former federal prosecutors are. Average years at DOJ=13. Most years at DOJ, 41. 63% had hired in under Republican presidents, so it's not like they're biased against Republican presidents. Here's more info:https://t.co/9UItK3sSIg
— Jane Boon, Ph.D. (@JaneEBoon) May 7, 2019
I’m still leaving my car idling all night as part of my modest effort to speed up global warming. If you all join me, I think we can open up those Arctic sea lanes in a week or two!
OK, we might lose Miami Beach, but how much Art Deco do we really need?
And Ocean City, New Jersey? Fuggitaboudit!
He has now topped Barack Obama’s job-approval rating at the same point in his presidency
I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2019
This is so dumb in so many ways.
First of all, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations or organizations, only to the government. Twitter is a corporation and can ban whoever the hell they care to ban. In fact, Twitter can ban President Trump or Bernie Sanders if they care to. They do not because it would be a foolish business move, not because they respect freedom of speech. Their goal is to have as many (real) users as possible, so if they ban anyone, the must believe there is a good reason for it. If you get banned and don’t like it, use a different form of communication or start your own social network. (That’s basically how Fox News was born. People thought that conservative voices were not adequately represented on the major networks.)
Second, social media is global, not American. If some Twitter user makes posts in violation of European hate speech laws, or libel laws, he’s going to get banned, even if he hasn’t broken any American laws. Different countries have different opinions about whether Twitter is responsible for the content posted by its users, so Twitter has to take a cautious position.
Third, Trump has no clue who on Twitter is an American, or a foreigner, or even a bot, so how exactly would he know if Americans are being systematically censored?
Gee, Mr. Clark, I give it a 90. Good beat and easy to dance to.
But why waste it in a dance club? For years people have been saying we need a new national anthem.
If this becomes law, it seems that the legendary Bill Weld (who?) may win the Republican primary in California
I’m assuming ol’ Bill has no problem releasing his tax returns. He doesn’t even seem to have a job, so they should be pretty uncomplicated.
“His seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy cost British taxpayers $21 million, and the judge said he sought asylum as a ‘deliberate attempt to delay justice.’”
That may be a good outcome for him. He’s better off in British prison for jumping bail than he would be if he had to face serious criminal charges in Sweden (rape) and the USA (conspiracy to hack intelligence files). He may even get to enjoy a year or two of relative freedom in England after he’s released from prison, because his extradition to Sweden is expected to involve at least two years’ worth of paper-shuffling and legal wrangling.
He would be considered a risk to flee to Russia after his incarceration, but he’s probably better off if he doesn’t. I’m guessing that life in Swedish prison is probably better than life in Russia.
“16 year old Selina Soule Speaks Up: Connecticut State Championships and the Equality Act”
There is no way that genetic females can run against genetic males in sprints. The transgender student who won the Connecticut state woman’s championship would not have placed in the top 100 among the men. The women who complained about this situation have been painted by the media as bigots and sore losers and, worst of all, have been told that they should try harder! To really rub it in, the transgenders are being given not only the medals, but some “courage awards” as well!
This is really a mine field for the “woke,” with (for them) only lose-lose options. Whichever side they take, they offend some minority. Even the LGBTQ community is not united on this front. It’s not just hetero women that don’t want to run against genetic males. Lesbian athletes don’t want to either.
So far this subject has not received much national attention because there’s not much money involved. Some genetic women stand to lose college scholarships. Or maybe they won’t. We don’t know. But as Deep Throat wisely counseled, we had better follow the money. There’s not much moola in track, but what should the rules be when transgender athletes start to take millions away from genetic females in lucrative women’s sports like tennis and golf? At this point, our culture does not seem to have the universal ethical basis that would allow us to lay the groundwork for these rules.
The judge’s ruling really doesn’t mean much. This will go through many layers of appeals, and ultimately will probably be a song for the Supremes.
As I have noted before, the basis for the case is obvious. If the suit is denied, it means that Joe President can accept any level of bribe from a foreign nation as long as he does it though a business. In that case, a President could not accept a billion dollar personal bribe from the country of Musialstan, but he could own an antique store with one item on sale – an old beat-up couch, for example, worth five bucks. As long as he lets his son run the antique store day-to-day, the son can slap a billion dollar price tag on that couch, and sell it to the Musialstanis. That’s exactly the same in intent and effect as the billion dollar direct bribe. It seems to me pretty obvious that we can’t allow our President to be in that position.
That said, it doesn’t matter that the case obviously has merit. What matters is what the courts ultimately rule, and I can’t predict that.
Mueller wrote this letter to Barr on March 27.
Barr has some ‘splainin’ to do. This letter indicates that AG Barr apparently lied to Congress in April when he claimed he was not aware of Mueller’s position on his summary. Needless to say, Barr thought he was safe with this lie. He did not expect Mueller’s letter to become public, since nobody in Mueller’s group ever leaks anything.
But there’s an interesting sub-plot here. The WaPo’s release seems have been created from Barr’s copy of the letter, not from the original. (There is a hand-written acknowledgement stamp, indicating that it was received on March 28 by the OAG.). Barr seems to have a snitch in his own department.
“The president thinks out loud. Do you treat it like an order? Or do you treat it as part of a longer conversation? We treated it as part of a longer conversation.”
While that may be true in the abstract, it falls apart when the real world is introduced.
Trump always fares poorly against “unspecified opponent,” because people know he is distasteful, and because about 60% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. The problem is that people also hate the individual Democrats, and come to distrust them more and more once all the internet propaganda and attack ads begin to expose their real and imagined flaws. When the question progresses from the general “Trump vs unspecified” to the specific, i.e. “Trump vs Warren,” many people admit they will hold their noses and vote for Trump.
Trump is currently running ahead of Warren and Buttigieg and is about even with Harris, for example, so the “55% against him” concept is malleable. He is running 6-8 points behind Biden at the moment.