Skip to content

Month: April 2016

Trump strategy exposed. #yeshehasone

Trump strategy exposed.

by digby

Yes, he has one. I wrote about it for Salon this morning:

The consensus as of today is that Donald Trump is slipping because his poll numbers in Wisconsin don’t look great and his negatives just get higher and higher. But the truth is that Wisconsin was always likely to be Cruz country. The GOP there is very organized and in much of the state it’s highly ideological. A true blue conservative like Cruz (or Rubio if he’d stayed in) could always have been expected to do pretty well there. It’s the home of the Scott Walker, the vote suppressing, evangelical union slayer who, unsurprisingly, endorsed Cruz.
As of now, Trump is still expected to win big in New York and in the rest of the primaries even with his high negatives. There are a still lot of angry white men and women who love them in this country. Whether there are enough to guarantee him the nomination remains to be seen, but he’s done very well despite running a campaign that’s completely unique in the annals of modern politics.
It’s always tempting to think of Trump as operating entirely by the seat of the pants, but nobody runs for president without some kind of a plan. This piece from Gabriel Sherman at New York Magazine is a real eye-opener about Trump’s:
As early as 1987, Trump talked publicly about his desire to run for president. He toyed with mounting a campaign in 2000 on the Reform Party ticket, and again in 2012 as a Republican (this was at the height of his Obama birtherism).Two years later, Trump briefly explored running for governor of New York as a springboard to the White House. “I have much bigger plans in mind — stay tuned,” he tweeted in March 2014.
Trump taped another season of The Apprentice that year, but he kept a political organization intact. His team at the time consisted of three advisers: Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, and Sam Nunberg. Stone is a veteran operative, known for his gleeful use of dirty tricks and for ending Eliot Spitzer’s political career by leaking his patronage of prostitutes to the FBI. Cohen is Trump’s longtime in-house attorney. And Nunberg is a lawyer wired into right-wing politics who has long looked up to “Mr. Trump,” as he calls him. “I first met him at Wrestle­Mania when I was like 5 years old,” Nunberg told me.
Throughout 2014, the three fed Trump strategy memos and political intelligence. “I listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, and he was getting reports from me,” Nunberg recalled. What those reports said was that the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core. While Jeb Bush talked about crossing the border as an “act of love,” Trump was thinking about how high to build his wall. “We either have borders or we don’t,” Trump told the faithful who flocked to the annual CPAC conference in 2014.
Meanwhile, Trump used his wealth as a strategic tool to gather his own intelligence. When Citizens United president David Bossie or GOP chairman Reince Priebus called Trump for contributions, Trump used the conversations as opportunities to talk about 2016. “Reince called Trump thinking they were talking about donations, but Trump was asking him hard questions,” recalled Nunberg. From his conversations with Priebus, Trump learned that the 2016 field was likely to be crowded. “We knew it was going to be like a parliamentary election,” Nunberg said.
Which is how Trump’s scorched-earth strategy coalesced. To break out of the pack, he made what appears to be a deliberate decision to be provocative, even outrageous. “If I were totally presidential, I’d be one of the many people who are already out of the race,” Trump told me. And so, Trump openly stoked racial tensions and appealed to the latent misogyny of a base that thinks of Hillary as the world’s most horrible ballbuster.
First of all, let’s address this issue of “The Apprentice,” which his interview with Woodward and Costa in the Washington Post shows was a very important factor in his running for president. In fact, he couldn’t stop talking about it regardless of the question. He was terribly torn about giving up the show to run for president, evidently unsure about what was the best use of his time. After much deliberation he finally decided being leader of the free world would do more good.
But what’s most interesting about his early planning for the possible early presidential run is that talk radio formed the basis of his agenda. This explains how he caught on to the immigration zeitgeist when he did. Recall that Trump wasn’t the first to seize on it as the raging vote getter it’s turned out to be. That would be David Brat, the unknown outsider who unseated the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary back in 2014. He had some powerful help from talk radio hosts, particularly Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, who had been pushing the issue very hard for some time. The Central American refugee kids at the border drove the frenzy to fever pitch shortly thereafter. Trump’s claims that “nobody ever talked about immigration” before he brought it up has never been true but until this article nobody knew if he knew it was untrue. He did.
Trump’s use of intel from the likes of David Bossie is an important revelation as well. His confidant Roger Stone is probably the best known dirty trickster in GOP politics and many words have been written about him in this election; but Bossie comes in a close second. (I wrote about him for Salon here.) The political organization he runs is called Citizens United — yes, that Citizens United. It was Bossie who brought that famous case, and the subject was a partisan hit job called “Hillary: the Movie.” Bossie is a very effective character assassin going back decades. And he’s very well connected with the most thuggish members of the right wing machine, which is how he came to recommend hatchet man Corey Lewandowski to the Trump campaign. Bossie has been cagey about his loyalties throughout the primary but one thing is crystal clear: if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he doesn’t care what it takes to defeat her, he’s for it. He has been her archenemy since at least 1994.
The Sherman exposé contains a number of delicious tidbits such as the fact that Trump seems to have some juicy blackmail material on Fox News’ Roger Ailes resulting in the oddly docile treatment of Trump by the network even in the face of Trump’s outrageous insults toward its star Megyn Kelly. He and his team are also apparently exhausted by the rigors of campaigning which is rich considering Trump’s endless insults toward Clinton (and Jeb Bush as well) about not having “the strength and stamina” to be president. He has often looked as though he’s clinging to the podium at his events like he was hit with a tranquilizer dart, so he’s not one to talk. One thing you can be sure of: when Trump accuses someone else of something, it’s almost always a sign of something he’s insecure about in himself.
Sherman’s profile is the first to go inside his campaign in such an intimate way and reveal the strategy behind this most amazing, unorthodox presidential campaign in modern memory. And it comes down to this: Trump studies the right wing political environment and understood early on that he needed to wage a scorched earth negative campaign like nothing we’ve ever seen before. As Sherman memorably puts it:”Trump openly stoked racial tensions and appealed to the latent misogyny of a base that thinks of Hillary as the world’s most horrible ballbuster.” The result is that the racial tensions are now in full effect and the misogyny is no longer latent. His plan, so far, is working like clockwork.

Those were the days – Not by @BloggersRUs

Those were the days – Not
by Tom Sullivan


Fugitive Slaves in the Dismal Swamp, Virginia
— by David Edward Cronin, 1888. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Not long ago, Derek Thompson explored the origin myth surrounding Thomas Carlyle coining the term “the dismal science” for economics. Thompson writes:

But Carlyle labeled the science “dismal” when writing about slavery in the West Indies. White plantation owners, he said, ought to force black plantation workers to be their servants. Economics, somewhat inconveniently for Carlyle, didn’t offer a hearty defense of slavery. Instead, the rules of supply and demand argued for “letting men alone” rather than thrashing them with whips for not being servile. Carlyle bashed political economy as “a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing [science]; what we might call … the dismal science.”

Today, when we hear the term “the dismal science,” it’s typically in reference to economics’ most depressing outcomes (e.g.: on globalization killing manufacturing jobs: “well, that’s why they call it the dismal science,” etc). In other words, we’ve tended to align ourselves with Carlyle to acknowledge that an inescapable element of economics is human misery.

Thompson cheerfully suggests that because Carlyle could not justify slavery through economics, this (by default?) aligns “the dismal science” with promoting morality and happiness. (No, really.) The paper Thompson cites says this about Carlyle:

Carlyle puts the view that ‘work’ is morally good and that if a “Black man” will not voluntarily work for the wages then prevailing he should be forced to work. He writes of those who argued that the forces of supply and demand rather than physical coercion should regulate the labour market that: “the Social Science … which finds the secret of this Universe in supply and demand and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone … is a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one; what we might call … the dismal science” (Volume 11, p 177).

Coercing people into working for whatever wages plantation owners deem “prevailing” rather than simply paying them more must sound as sensible to contemporary red-state legislators as it did to Carlyle over 150 years ago.

All that is prelude to sharing these observations on Republican governors by Ryan Cooper at The Week:

The party’s intellectual apparatus (distinct from the Trumpist insurgency) has more-or-less fully regressed to an economic libertarianism straight out of the 1920s. They view basically all government programs outside of the military and the courts as illegitimate, to be slashed or eliminated wherever possible. The only problem with this is that when you try it, the results are immediate disaster.

That is to say, dismal.

Former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback are the poster boys for tanking economies in pursuit of this born-again libertarianism. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker walks in their shadows, but aspires to greater (in effect lesser) things for his state. Louisiana is on life support. Brownback’s “quack economics” have left the state with a negative job growth and its schools underfunded in violation of the state constitution. Walker, who has raised underperforming to an art form, has taken Wisconsin to 32nd in job growth over five years. Obviously, he’s not working as hard at crushing his state’s economy as he is at destroying Wisconsin’s premier university system. Wrecking public education is theme here, if you need it pointed out. It would have been far worse for these states, Cooper writes, if the federal government (that is, the rest of us) weren’t backstopping these failed experiments.

Cooper concludes:

It took many years for Republicans to talk themselves out of the fact that Herbert Hoover’s presidency was a disastrous failure, but with the exception of Trump, Hooverism is where they stand. It’s an ideology that can gain wide popularity only insofar as it is not actually tried on a wide scale. It turns out that a vision of government that was already outdated a century ago (when farmers were over a quarter of the workforce) is not very well-suited to a modern economy. It’s just too bad the American people might have to be the collateral damage in re-learning that lesson.

Mister we could use a man

Like Herbert Hoover again.

Trump leads a parade in Japan

Trump leads a parade in Japan

by digby

Participants carry a large steel phallus during the Kanamara Festival in Kawasaki

Well, not personally. In effigy:

Shinto Kanamara Matsuri, aka the Festival of the Steel Phallus, sees giant manhood-shaped shrines take over streets in Kawasaki, Japan 

Held every year, the event sees visitors coming from far afield to watch parades and chow down on phallus-shaped lollipops. 

The event, which started in 1977 at the Kanayama Shrine , celebrates the male appendage and fertility . 

It is believed to have its roots in the 17th Century, following the gory tale of a sharp-toothed demon who fell in love with a beautiful woman.

Sounds like Trump.

.

Don’t stop beieving #yourownhype

Don ‘t stop believing

by digby

… your own hype:

Robert Costa reports:

When reached by phone, Bennett confirmed that he wrote the memo and sent it to his colleagues in the campaign. 

“Personally, it’s been a very hard time. You’ve got Republicans in Washington saying they’re keeping lists of people who work for Mr. Trump, who say you’ll never work in this town again,” Bennett said in a brief interview. “My point is that people should be pumped that the establishment is spinning.” 

When asked whether his ire was directed more at the national media or the GOP’s establishment wing, Bennett said, “Both.” 

“All of that is the establishment,” Bennett said. “The press is printing the narrative that the Republican establishment is setting. What’s necessary — what I’m saying here — is that we can’t let that influence how we see ourselves.” 

A veteran of Republican campaigns, Bennett previously served as campaign manager for former Trump rival Ben Carson and made his way into Trump’s orbit in late January.

Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo.

But what’s the big deal? Trump says if his feeling get hurt he might just blow everything up so everyone had better be nicer or something bad will happen, right?  So why so worried?

.

The abortion argument gets real

The abortion argument gets real

by digby

When it happned last week, I wrote that Trump uncharacteristically spoke in logical terms when he said that women would need to be punished for killing their fetuses, as did a lot of pro-choice people. These zealots want to evade the consequences of their extremist rhetoric but Trump brought it right out into the open.

And here’s someone at World Net daily not only praising him for it, but fine-tuning his argument for him.

No GOP candidate can seek the highest office in the world without being thoroughly grilled on every nuance of his or her position on abortion.

Leftists do this because any answer that supports the life of the baby in any way is fascist and anti-woman. They never grill pro-abortion candidates on their barbarism of their abortion-on-demand positions or the extremism of taxpayer financing of partial-birth abortion.

This week, it was Donald Trump who walked into the buzz saw. Did he make a gaffe or make all of us face an inconvenient truth?
[…]
When pressed by Chris Matthews, Trump said women who abort their unborn babies should perhaps receive some form of punishment if indeed the abortion in question was banned and, therefore, breaking the law. Trump said he hadn’t thought of what the punishment should be, but you could tell that he hadn’t seen the memo from the GOP consultants that said you aren’t supposed to discuss the personal responsibility of women in this scenario.

His view was consistent with many things conservatives say. He just didn’t know this was the unspeakable – kind of like saying we should stop illegal immigration was the unspeakable before Trump dared to say otherwise.

I have been a post-abortive counselor, and what Mr. Trump may not know is that many women are victimized by abortion, because the abortion industry spends millions of taxpayer dollars teaching little girls that pregnancies are just a bunch of tissue. Their $9 billion per year, taxpayer-funded industry depends on vulnerable women believing that lie.

But there are women who are older, wiser, repeat aborters who definitely know better.

Is there a pro-lifer out there that doesn’t think that in a perfect world – where we agreed abortion was, for example, illegal after the first trimester – that the woman could, if working with full knowledge, be held accountable for her complicity in the abortion? Shouldn’t this, like any law that is broken, be considered in a case-by-case manner?

Were abortion education really about abortion education instead of about propagating a multi-billion dollar industry, then maybe women would at that point be more knowledgeable. Is it crazy to think – with a solid law making abortion illegal after a certain point and millions of taxpayer dollars invested in informing women about how the industry preys on them – that women could be held to a standard? Is it crazy to think that a woman who aborts the day before her due date should be punished? The week before?

She goes o to talk about the many mentally disabled and emotionally disturbed women who are so addled they cannot possibly understand the ramification of their actions. (Unlike, say, schizophrenic murderers who are found guilty by application of the simple legal formula that they know right from wrong.) She has “compassion for these childlike simpletons who have abortions without having even the slightest clue what they are doing. And she worries about the millions and millions of women suffering terrible psychological problems.(All of this is, of course, utter nonsense. Women know what they’re doing and there is no evidence they are psychologically scarred afterwards.)

Nonetheless, she knows there are some women who deserve to be punished alright.

Republican consultants are afraid of the “war on women” narrative being used against their candidates, and in politically correct America, Republican politicians are given their talking points on how to talk about abortion.

When Trump took on the issue of illegal immigration, he ignored conventional wisdom and said that people who broke the law and came here illegally should be punished. The silent majority surprisingly cheered.

Trump came to his position on illegal immigration by using logic and defying political correctness.

After his comments in the MSNBC town hall, Donald Trump has arguably become the most pro-life candidate in the race for president. He is now even more pro-life than the some of the pro-life groups out there.

I wish I didn’t have to come to Donald Trump’s defense, but to jump on the gender identity “women are always victims” bandwagon against him over this issue would be intellectually dishonest of me. It’s time for authenticity in politics. If conservatives want to talk about the power of women, the rule of law and personal responsibility, gray areas in abortion cannot be glossed over.

Trump may been politically incorrect when he said that women should be punished for having abortions. But he’s hardly the first. They’ve just come upon this fatuous argument that women are addled creatures who don’t know their own minds in order to spare their movement having to explain why they think that one third of all American women are cold-blooded murderers.

This woman seems to have decided that only some of the women are mentally disabled and that it’s time they put the real murderers away. Like this one:

The prosecution of Purvi Patel began in sorrow and ended in more sadness this week. Patel, a 33-year-old woman who lives in Indiana, was accused of feticide — specifically, illegally inducing her own abortion — and accused of having a baby whom she allowed to die. The facts supporting each count are murky, but a jury convicted Patel in February, and on Monday she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

See? It’s already happening.

.

Arming up for revolution

Arming up for revolution

by digby

They certainly aren’t arming for hunting season:

Gun sales broke records yet again in the month of March.

The FBI performed 2,523,265 firearms-related background checks between March 1 and March 31, according to the agency’s records. That’s a new record for the month. It’s nearly 35,000 more checks than the previous record set in March 2014.

Despite the new record, March saw the fewest checks of any month so far in 2016.

The March record is the eleventh straight monthly record for background checks. The unprecedented streak, which began in May 2015, has included all-time records for both monthly and yearly sales. With 7,682,141 checks processed through the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System, 2016 is currently on pace to set another all time yearly sales record.

FBI background checks are widely considered a reliable gauge for gun sales because all sales conducted through federally licensed firearms dealers must include one. Some states also require private sales between non-dealers to include a background check. However, many states do not.

Many states also require FBI background checks as a part of the process for obtaining a gun carry permit. The FBI does not consider background checks a perfect record for the exact number of guns sold each month. “Based on varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale,” the agency noted on their background check report.

The reason? The “gun-grabbers are comin’ for yer firearms” what else? And they have to be able to defend the constitution when Big Gummint sends in the army to take ’em!

Alan Gottlieb, who founded the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation, said the political rhetoric combined with recent acts of terror and economic uncertainty have driven gun sales. “These ongoing new monthly records reflect the concerns Americans have about crime, terrorism, economic turmoil and the political class gun prohibition attempts to disarm them,” he said.”They are voting with their checkbooks and buying more firearms and ammunition.”

“People have a real fear about where we are headed.”

Yeah, these pants-wetting paranoids are scared of their shadows these days. Having a bunch of guns makes ’em feel like real men. And then they shoot a kid by mistake. That’s the price they pay for freedom.

.

Headline O’ the Day: Taser-time

Headline O’ the Day: Taser-time

by digby

So LAPD is saying that tasers don’t work very well necessitating a resort to firearms. They used to work but now they don’t and so they have no choice but to shoot unarmed suspects. And because they don’t work officers no longer like to use them and instead are turning to their guns out of fear for their lives from these unarmed suspects.

Weirdly, one of their primary complaints is that the taser won’t work on the suspect who then grabs it and turns it on the officer who is left incapacitated. This could happen if the dart don’t deploy at all and then do deploy in the hands of the suspect so it’s possible.  But it’s not likely to be something tht could happen very often.

All of this may be true.  Maybe Taser is making a lot of defective weapons these days and LAPD is using a new model that might not work as well. But sadly, considering everything we know about how modern policing works, this seems a likely explanation in at least some of these cases:

Dan Stormer, an attorney representing Keunang’s family in their wrongful death lawsuit, was skeptical that the problems with Tasers are so widespread. He said he believed officers blame the devices when explaining later why they fired their guns.
“I think it is often used as an excuse for police officers who become panicked and go to lethal force rather than wait for the Taser,” he said.

And, as I mentioned, the mere fact that the reputation of Tasers is that they’re unreliable makes officers less likely to use them for anything but punishment.

.

The surreal roadshow continues

The surreal roadshow continues


by digby

He’ll shave the deficit like he shaved Vince McMahon’s head

I wrote a little bit about Trump’s surreal interview with Bob Woodward and Robert Costa over the week-end for Salon this morning:

A 7th grader recently gave this answer when he was asked why Abraham Lincoln succeeded:
“Well, I think Lincoln succeeded for numerous reasons. He was a man who was of great intelligence, which most presidents would be. But he was a man of great intelligence, but he was also a man that did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time. Ten years before or 20 years before, what he was doing would never have even been thought possible. So he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time.”
No, that wasn’t actually a 7th grader who didn’t do his homework. That was the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump, who has obviously not given a thought to history of any kind since he put away his Prince Valiant comics. That comment is from the latest in a series of bizarre long form interviews with the press which was conducted by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa of the Washington Post and may give the most insight into the mind of Donald Trump of all of them.
Many politicians robotically stick to their talking points. (Recall Marco Rubio’s spectacular meltdown earlier this year.) But that is a calculated and practiced tactic in which the candidate uses every opportunity to get his or her message out regardless of the question. Trump appears to be doing something much more common and prosaic: He changes the subject when he doesn’t have an answer to the question.  He does return again and again to his talking points, but they are unrelated to policies and issues.  Everything is personalized and refers back to his own experiences which appear to be quite limited for a man of his wealth and opportunity. Indeed, he seems to have decided very early in life on a set of simple beliefs about the way the world works and has never questioned them.
Pressed by Bob Woodward on the fact that he’s alienated so many people in the party and will need to reach out and build alliances, he said this:
“The coalition building for me will be when I win. Vince Lombardi, I saw this. He was not a big man. And I was sitting in a place with some very, very tough football players. Big, strong football players. He came in — these are tough cookies — he came in, years ago — and I’ll never forget it, I was a young man. He came in, screaming, into this place. And screaming at one of these guys who was three times bigger than him, literally. And very physical, grabbing him by the shirt. Now, this guy could’ve whisked him away and thrown him out the window in two seconds. This guy — the player — was shaking. A friend of mine. There were four players, and Vince Lombardi walked in. He was angry. And he grabbed — I was a young guy — he grabbed him by the shirt, screaming at him, and the guy was literally. . . . And I said, wow. And I realized the only way Vince Lombardi got away with that was because he won. This was after he had won so much, okay? And when you have these coaches that are just as tough as him but they don’t win, there’s revolutions. Okay? Nobody. . . . But Vince Lombardi was able to win, and he got — I have never seen anything like it. It was such a vivid impression. You had this big powerful guy, and you had Vince Lombardi, and he grabbed him by the shirt and he was screaming at him, he was angry at him.”
The assumption is that once he vanquishes all his rivals everyone will fear him and do his bidding. In other words, if you win you can get away with anything. That is his definition of leadership.
Lately the public and the political establishment are pressing him harder on substance — or perhaps they’re just taking him seriously at long last. Last week he stunned the country with his comments about punishing women for having abortions, a position he meandered into by failing to understand that the right has its own kind of political correctness. But what he has been saying about nuclear policy is so reckless that President Obama was moved to comment on it, saying “the person who made the statements doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally.”
Unfortunately, Trump didn’t get the message and continued to insist that Japan and South Korea either hand over more money to the United States or build their own nuclear weapons. This comment at a campaign event on Saturday was chilling:
“I would rather have them not arm, but I’m not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money. And frankly, the case could be made that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick. If they fight, you know what, that’d be a terrible thing. Terrible. … But if they do, they do.”
Nuclear war would certainly be a terrible thing, no doubt about it. But what are you going to do?
The Woodward/Costa interview spent more time trying to get him to talk about economics and, as usual, he meandered around talking about himself and his business, repeating all his stock lines. But he did say a few things that made some headlines, particularly his belief that the country is currently in a “bubble” that’s going to burst soon and throw the country into a terrible recession.
Basically, his “theory,” if you want to call it that, is that the bubble has something to do with the 19 trillion dollar national debt and an outrageously high 20 percent unemployment rate (which he is aware of because his rallies are so popular) and a stock market inflated by cheap money that only rich people can access. This “economic bubble” is also due to the fact that the smart bankers who make $50 million a year aren’t allowed to run the banks anymore and government regulators have taken over. So he is determined to slash taxes to the bone and also pay off the 19 trillion in 8 years. Needless to say the economy will be roaring because he will have made America great again.
And then there are all the foreigners who are humiliating us:
“Part of the reason it’s precarious is because we are being ripped so badly by other countries. We are being ripped so badly by China. It just never ends. Nobody’s ever going to stop it. And the reason they’re not going to stop it is one of two. They’re either living in a world of the make-believe, or they’re totally controlled by their lobbyists and their special interests. Meaning people that want it to continue. Because what China, what Mexico, what Japan – I don’t want to name too many countries, because I actually do business in a lot of these countries – but what these countries are doing to us is unbelievable. They are draining our jobs. They are draining our money.
“I can fix it. I can fix it pretty quickly. … What I would do – and before I talk about legislation, because I think frankly this is more important – number one, it’s going to be a very big tax cut.  You know, I put in a plan for tax cuts, and I’ve gotten some very good reviews. I would do a tax cut. You have to do a tax cut. Because we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world But I would start … I would immediately start renegotiating our trade deals with Mexico, China, Japan and all of these countries that are just absolutely destroying us.
“We’re not a rich country. We’re a debtor nation. We’ve got to get rid of – I talked about bubble. We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” How long would that take? “Well, I would say over a period of eight years.”
This post at the Washington Post’s Wonkblog examines the specific claims and explains why they’re bonkers although the idea that massive tax cuts and renegotiating trade deals would retire $19 trillion in debt in 8 years is so mind-boggling it’s probably unnecessary to think too much about this.
You don’t need to be an economist to question Trump’s expertise. When Woodward pushed on the bubble issue, Trump tooted his own horn as an economic “prognosticator”
People would pay me money for speeches on success. So I would do that, before this. And I would tell people, don’t invest that, don’t go – I was pretty good at prognostication, at telling people what to do in terms of. . . . Now, I’d talk about success, but I’d say, this is a bad time to invest. I also said, this is a good time to invest.
If the past is any indication, if Trump says it’s a good time to invest, your best bet is to take your money and run:
In the spring of 2006, the tycoon hosted a glitzy event at Trump Tower to introduce Trump Mortgage LLC, a new firm that specialized in selling residential and commercial real estate loans. He devoted a floor of the Trump Organization headquarters at 40 Wall Street to the new business. And his picture appeared atop the company website with the instruction: “Talk to My Mortgage Professionals now!”
 “I think it’s a great time to start a mortgage company,”  Trump told a CNBC interviewer in April 2006, adding that “the real estate market is going to be very strong for a long time to come.”
Within 18 months the housing market was in free fall. Trump Mortgage closed its doors, leaving some of it’s bills outstanding and Trump blamed his employees for the failure.
The interview is long but it’s well worth reading. It does leave you with a sense of a Donald Trump you don’t normally see in such an extended way and it’s downright surreal that he’s very close to winning the Republican nomination for president. How is it possible that a man with such overwhelming solipsism and titanic ego can have so little knowledge to show for it?

“If they do, they do”

“If they do, they do”

by digby

Hiroshima August 6, 1945

Trump over the week-end:

“I would rather have them not arm, but I’m not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money. And frankly, the case could be made that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick. If they fight, you know what, that’d be a terrible thing. Terrible. … But if they do, they do.”

He’s talking about nuclear war. 


.

‘Moral Revolution’ tour kicks off in NYC by @BloggersRUs

‘Moral Revolution’ tour kicks off in NYC
by Tom Sullivan

When Rev. William J. Barber II spoke at Netroots-Detroit in 2014, no one left the hall. The man is riveting. All the more so because he is right—in the moral sense of the word. Barber, North Carolina’s NAACP state chair and Moral Mondays organizer, is taking his moral message on the road. And with a little more fire under him after the state legislature passed on March 23 the now-infamous HB2 law targeting not just the LGBT community, but citizens’ ability to sue employers over discrimination and cities’ ability to pass their own anti-discrimination ordinances. He began a 15-state tour yesterday in New York City:

The leader of the “Moral Mondays” movement and a prominent New York minister are joining forces for a 15-state “moral revolution” tour to counter the nation’s conservative voices.

Barber told a March 28 press conference:

“Far too much of our national political discourse and activity has been poisoned by the dominance of regressive, immoral and hateful policies directed toward communities of color, the poor, the sick, our children, immigrants, women, voting rights, environment and religious minorities,” said Barber, who founded the Moral Monday movement. “Our country is in need of a revolution of moral values to champion the sacred values of love, justice and mercy in the public square.”

An email announcing the Sunday kickoff spoke to the tour’s goals:

The Revival: Time for a Moral Revolution of Values aims to be a catalyst for renewed political activism among faith leaders. At each stop, Reverends Barber and Forbes will convene revival services with a twist. Each tour stop will feature a liturgy of musical arts reflective of our deepest moral traditions; testimonies from impacted people; and exhortations from Reverends Barber, Forbes, Blackmon and Sister Simone. The Revival will help bring an end to oppressive governmental policies that threaten public education, impoverish millions, block access to health care, and erect new barriers to voting and political participation, threatening the fabric of American democracy.

Wish them well. Staring in New York City, from April 2016 through January 2017 the tour plans to visit North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, and Washington DC.

“We have seven new branches of the NAACP in Western North Carolina that are predominantly White, but we didn’t get there by going up there and talking about left and right — that language is too puny, we didn’t talk about Democrat vs. Republican — we talked about issues being Constitutionally consistent, morally defensible, and economically sane, and it has allowed us a new way of organizing that is really taking grip in our state.”

This clip is from 2014, but gives a sense of the fight they are taking to 15 states. “Here. We. Come!”