#as well as when trump was talking about manufacturing jobs during his 2016 campaign

[1o1percentmilk]

if trump wins this election i am considering leaving the country

[andthemoonsingswisely]

ok I never thought it would get to this, but I’m gonna say it: I’m not old enough to vote yet, but if I was, I’d vote blue. I’m a centrist at best and some would even consider me to be conservative economically speaking, I think, even though both of them suck, that Harris is a much better candidate. I know some of y’all are skeptical, but let me break it down for you.

The economy: the main reason why so many people think Trump will be better is that the economy was good under Trump and bad under Biden, but studies show that Trump didn’t “make America great again”; rather, he inherited an America that was already great. this study shows that during the last 33 months of the Obama administration, non-farm job growth averaged 224000 per month. During the first 33 months of the Trump administration, it was 34,000 jobs per month less. Moreover, it also shows that during the last two years of the Obama Administration, annual median household income increased by $4800, more than three times the amount under the first two years of Trump. I’m too tired to quote the entire statistic, but if you read the study, you can see that the stock market increased at a greater pace under Obama as well.

Patriotism: Trump has repeatedly made anti-American statements, from his mocking of veterans to his “joke” on 9/11 that now his building was the biggest (a time when the entire country was grieving and shocked). Moreover, Trump has made racist statements against Mexican, Chinese, and Black people; with his father, he has historically discriminated against Black people when renting out buildings. Moreover, I see the claim that he increased funding for historically black colleges get thrown around a lot, but the truth is that the funding actually stayed the same as what Obama gave . The same source also confirms that the record low unemployment for black people under the Trump administration didn’t come because of trump’s policies, and instead only decreased at the same rate at which it had been decreasing before. Lastly, I’d like to talk about Springfield, a town in Ohio which’s economy was weakened due to the decline in manufacturing jobs, but was revived thanks to the Haitian immigrants. With his running mate, JD Vance, Trump spread baseless rumors of Haitian immigrants eating locals’ pets. Trump disrespects all of America, whether it be veterans, minorities, or immigrants, which is why I argue that he’s not the patriot that he claims he is.

Lastly, I’d like to say that I understand why people turned to Trump in 2016 (not talking about the people who voted for him out of bigotry here, I’m talking about people who genuinely thought he was the best for America). Manufacturing and industrial jobs had been lost to other countries, and Trump, with his MAGA campaign, promised to bring back those jobs. I know that Biden, with his incompetency, has made life harder for a lot of you. But you need to ask yourself: does Trump genuinely care about the American people? Because based on the evidence I listed above, I can very confidently assert that no, in fact, he does not. Trump cares about himself, and he’s obsessed with the attention he gets. It’s why Harris was so easily able to goad him during the debate by insulting his rallies: that man is obsessed with gaining an audience, and needs to believe that he is admired and liked. He feeds off of being worshipped. Personally, I say that this is not the type of person I want to represent me or my country. This is not a man I ever would trust to make decisions to benefit everyone.

this was longer than I expected. I’m not claiming I know everything, I’m not even claiming that Harris will be a good president. I could write an entire essay dissecting the flaws in her policy ideas and her candidacy. However, I’d still choose her over the man who ruined America’s history of peaceful transfers of power. I’d still trust her over the man who posts “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” in all caps like a middle schooler. Then again, maybe that’s just me.

[go-redgirl]

ORLANDO, Florida—Vice President Mike Pence rallied at a Latinos for Trump event here on Saturday as President Donald Trump now leads his Democrat opponent former Vice President Joe Biden in the Sunshine State.

“It’s great to be back in the Sunshine State with some great Americans who are going to drive a victory here in Florida and all across America,” Pence said as he took the stage here at Central Christian University. “Thank you, Latinos for Trump. I’m here for one reason, and one reason only: because Florida, and America, need four more years of Donald Trump in the White House. The road to victory runs right through Florida.”

Pence’s campaign swing through central Florida during which Breitbart News is traveling with him and is scheduled to interview him—he is also leading a Make America Great Again rally in the Villages later in the day—comes as the vice president has emerged as the Trump-Pence ticket’s top campaigner while the president continues his recovery from the coronavirus in the White House. 

Other Trump campaign leaders and first family surrogates have also stepped up campaign activities as part of what the team calls “Operation MAGA.” 

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, for instance is hitting the trail aggressively this coming week with more than two dozen scheduled events crisscrossing the nation.

Trump is scheduled to later on Saturday hold his first public event, at the White House, since contracting the virus. Trump was diagnosed a little over a week ago—last Thursday—and then later was transferred last weekend to Walter Reed hospital to begin his recovery. 

 After beginning his treatment there with a dose of Regeneron’s antibody cocktail medication, and treatment with remdesivir and the steroid dexamethosone, Trump returned to the White House earlier this week to continue his recovery.  

He began working again mid-week, visiting the Oval Office, and has also now started conducting interviews again as Friday he appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s and Mark Levin’s respective nationally broadcast radio programs as well as giving his first on-camera interview to Fox News’s Dr. Marc Siegel, which aired Friday evening on Tucker Carlson Tonight.  

Trump will resume campaigning on Monday with a rally nearby here, in Sanford, Florida, his first time back on the trail since the infection. 

But in the meantime, Pence—who earlier this week debated Democrat vice presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) in Salt Lake City, Utah—is the top dog out there for the Trump campaign. This weekend Florida swing comes after a Thursday post-debate campaign trip to Arizona and Nevada, western states the president split with Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016. Trump won the former, and Clinton won the latter.

“I don’t know if you all got to see it, but I was just in Utah the other night—we had a little debate with Kamala Harris,” Pence told the cheering crowd here in Orlando. “Some people think we did alright. But I want to clear: From where I was sitting, that debate was not just a debate between two candidates for vice president. It was a debate between two visions for America. 

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want higher taxes, open borders, socialized medicine; they want to abolish fossil fuels, and use taxpayer funding to pay for abortion. They want to defund the police. President Donald Trump’s vision is a little bit different. President Trump says rebuild our military. We cut taxes; we rolled back regulations, unleashed American energy, secured our border, supported law enforcement, life and liberty and the Constitution of the United States. When you compare the Biden-Harris agenda with our agenda, the choice is clear. 

If you cherish faith and freedom and law and order and life, then we need four more years of President Donald Trump in the White House.”Pence’s team is riding high into the Sunshine State, too, as the latest public polling here shows Trump leading Biden in the final weeks by three points. That poll, from Fox35, correctly predicted the 2008 and 2016 elections.  

It show Trump performing strongly among Hispanic and black voters, but like other surveys it shows the president’s ticket underperforming 2016 numbers among seniors—a demographic that Biden is making a push for. Pence is working to hit both key demographics—Hispanics and seniors—with his pair of campaign events here on Saturday.

Helping energize Hispanic voters for the president are multiple factors, including a key endorsement in recent weeks from Puerto Rico’s Gov. Wanda Vazquez Garced—an endorsement Pence hyped here—and strong support in the Cuban community in the state.

 Pence also made a key point to hype Trump’s word against Nicolas Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, and standing up the communists in Cuba.“Under President Donald Trump, we have stood for freedom across this hemisphere for all freedom-loving people,” Pence told the Latinos for Trump rally-goers here. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States was the first nation on earth to recognize President Juan Guaido as the only legitimate president of Venezuela. Under this president, America has been clear: Maduro must go and America will stand with the people of Venezuela.

 Under Joe Biden as vice president, he served at a time when America was appeasing the communist regime in Havana. President Donald Trump kept the promise that he made to Cuban Americans when he reversed the failed policies of the last administration toward Cuba. In this White House, it will always be Que Viva Cuba Libre.

President @realDonaldTrump kept his promise to Cuban Americans when he reversed the failed policies of the last administration. In this @WhiteHouse, it will always be que viva Cuba libre!3:22 PM · Oct 10, 2020

He also hyped economic successes the Trump administration has delivered for Hispanics.

“Nearly half of the jobs that were created in our first three years went to Hispanic Americans,” Pence said. “That’s what we call promises made and promises kept. So I’m excited to talk to you about that and see the enthusiasm here today on this cool and breezy day in Florida. President Trump is keeping his promises. It’s why Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vazquez Garced just endorsed President Donald Trump for re-election as President of the United States. This week, the governor of Puerto Rico asked people in that territory to vote for who’s been there for Puerto Rico in its most difficult moments. She said very plainly it is Donald Trump. 

She thanked the president for rebuilding Puerto Rico not just with words but with actions. She said thanks to the president’s leadership, pharmaceutical manufacturing is coming back to the island. China is fired and Puerto Rico is hired.”

These events along the I-4 corridor, which stretches from Daytona through Orlando down to Tampa, are key to the Trump team wooing seniors back from clutches of Biden and the Democrats. A key focus from Pence’s messaging on the trail is zoning in on just how radical the left truly is, and what that would mean for the general public if Biden and Harris were to win and be able to implement their agenda. 

That’s something Pence focused on in Wednesday’s debate with Harris, putting her on the hot seat on court-packing, fracking, China, and her questionable-at-best record as a prosecutor in San Francisco and in California.

The vice president’s trip here also comes less than two days before Judge Amy Coney Barrett is set to begin her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday morning, after Trump nominated her a couple weeks ago to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats and the establishment media have unleashed a barrage of vicious attacks against Barrett, targeting her faith and even her adopted children, in what is expected to be a fierce showdown in the Senate and in the public eye just before the election.

“Last month as a nation we paused to honor the life and service of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Pence told the cheering crowd here. “When the memorials were over, President Trump fulfilled his duty under the Constitution of the United States and he nominated a principled, brilliant, conservative woman who believes in the Constitution to the Supreme Court. He nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

”As “Fill That Seat” chants broke out among the crowd, Pence turned and promised them that Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate will get it done. “Let me make you a promise: After the Senate gets done with the advisement and consent, we’re going to fill that seat,” Pence told the crowd which erupted in applause.“I got to tell you, I’m a big fan of Judge Amy Coney Barrett—not just because she’s from Indiana, but she’s a truly remarkable person,” Pence continued. 

“She deserves a dignified hearing, a dignified and respectful hearing in the United States Senate. But, men and women, we have reason to be concerned. You all remember when she was appointed to the court of appeals just two years ago, the Democrat chairman of the Judiciary Committee criticized her Catholic faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said ‘the dogma lives loudly within you.’ Hollywood elites have already begun to criticize Judge Barrett and her family for their faith. Well, I got news for the Democrats and their friends in Hollywood: That dogma lives loudly in me. 

That dogma lives loudly in you. That’s the right to live and to worship according to the dictates of our faith lives loudly in the Constitution of the United States.

”The president has the lead in Florida—and its 29 electoral votes are crucial to his path to re-election. Assuming the president can keep Georgia, Texas, and Arizona red—those are three traditionally red states that Biden and Democrats hope to flip—and hold onto Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and here in Florida, along with Maine’s Second District, he would be one state away from locking down a second term in the White House.Public polling out of Georgia and Texas show those two states firmly back in the president’s column, after months of concern on both, and Arizona seems to be trending back that way too with a recent Trafalgar Group poll this week showing Trump back in the lead there. 

The Trump campaign feels so confident about Iowa and Ohio, too, that they pulled down television ad buys in both states to focus resources more effectively elsewhere. North Carolina’s public polling has been shifting back Trump’s way, too, all while the Democrats’ U.S. Senate candidate there Cal Cunningham is rocked by a serious sexting scandal that has found him under investigation by the U.S. Army Reserves for the inappropriate relationship with an enlisted serviceman’s wife. 

Public polling out of Maine’s Second District, from the Bangor Daily News, shows the president with a healthy 8 percent lead over Biden. If Trump holds all those plus all the other traditional red states together, he would be at 260 electoral votes and winning just any one of the upper rust belt states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota—would put him over the top of the required 270 electoral votes necessary to win re-election.

[hillaryisaboss]

Roseanne proves Russian propaganda worked: 7 reasons we can't allow Roseanne to normalize Trump

I hope Roseanne’s reboot is all one big satire. One big “bait-and-switch.”  

What do I mean by that, exactly? What I mean is… I hope what Roseanne is secretly doing is showing us how the working-class lost its way and ended up voting for Donald Trump. And that through Darlene moving home, and presenting Roseanne with a gender-fluid grandson, she slowly starts to realize her vote for the #1 bully of all-time was a mistake.

I hope the entire 10th season of Roseanne shows this evolution in Roseanne’s character – Trump supporter realizing the errors of their thinking when presented with modern America.  And who knows… maybe Roseanne herself is the only person able to reach these misguided working-class voters.

But if that’s not the case, and this isn’t one big ploy by Roseanne to change the hearts of Trump supporters, this is required reading for all Americans.

For better or worse, we all know Roseanne Barr is a bit of a bully like Trump.

Roseanne constantly fired people from her show (sound familiar?), viciously attacked critics (I can’t wait for her to read this), threatened to sue people, and thrived on constant controversy, celebrity feuds, and tabloid sensationalism. Roseanne and Donny are more similar than one might think.    

Is Roseanne the female version of Trump? 

Many on her show thought she was a tyrant, something Donald Trump wishes he could be in real life. Which is why all of these similarities between Roseanne and Trump make it all the more ironic and hypocritical when Roseanne attacks the bullies her grandson faces at school for wearing girls clothing.

Roseanne… you literally voted for a man that enabled the bullies that attacked your grandson. To ignore this glaring hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is mind-boggling. Bullies across our nation were given the “green-light” to attack minorities when Trump won the Presidency. Roseanne should do some serious self-reflection and soul-searching on how her vote for Trump (the #1 bully of all-time) emboldened the very kids who bullied her grandson.

So all of this hypocrisy begs the question:

How did feminist hero Roseanne Barr go from supporting Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary (even writing a pro-Hillary article for the HuffingtonPost), to supporting Donald J. Trump (con-man and pussy-grabber) for President in 2016?

The answer is simple: Russian bots on Twitter.

After using Twitter to run for President in 2012, Roseanne submerged herself in political propaganda on Twitter (which she has since deleted).

There is no better proof than Roseanne herself that the Russians were successful with their online propaganda campaign. How else do you explain a feminist hero voting for a pussy-grabber over the most qualified woman to ever seek the Presidency?

Putin feared Hillary, and turning former supporters like Roseanne against Hillary was part of the mastermind. The ultimate con in American history to destabilize our nation in Putin’s favor.

Sadly, Roseanne is using her shows reboot to justify the unjustifiable: voting for a proud bigot who conned working-class people by scapegoating minorities and promising to return us to an America we will never be again.

So how will Roseanne go about justifying the unjustifiable?

By trying to say Hillary was an equally bad candidate – the “lesser of two evils” argument. Which was, after-all, Russia’s ultimate goal: muddy the waters so the American public thinks both candidates are equally bad.

“Neither Trump or Hillary will change anything, so why not give the finger to the establishment by voting for Trump? At least he gives the illusion of being on our side. He looks and sounds like us, right? Burn down the system!!”

This is a very petty and immature rationale from a group of people that have felt forgotten by the “establishment.” But it’s a rationale I fear far too many working-class people used to convince themselves that Trump (a 4-times bankrupt silver-spoon Daddy’s boy fraud) was somehow their guy.

Or maybe the working-class simply supported Trump in order to seek revenge against America for feeling ignored? But why is it always liberal America’s job to understand conservative America’s bigotry and ignorance? Didn’t 3 million more people vote for Hillary?

Given that blue America is the majority, don’t allow Roseanne to use her reboot to justify the unjustifiable. Never allow the minority support of bigot Trump be normalized or rationalized.

So in preparation of Roseanne’s reboot, I present to you 7 reasons why Roseanne is wrong about Hillary, Trump, and America:

1. Roseanne’s reboot tackles the skyrocketing cost of prescription medication.

Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for universal healthcare in the early 1990s, and eventually helped pass the Children’s Health Insurance Program – a program that covers 8 million children.

Hillary also secured healthcare for 9/11 first-responders as New York Senator, and President Bill Clinton passed the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I guess in addition to believing Russian propaganda, Roseanne doesn’t remember history, either.

The Clintons have been tackling the issue of healthcare for decades, and deserve credit for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Two achievements we take for granted now days but are actually a result of the pragmatic Clintons.

Heck, while Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, the Clintons helped expand access to healthcare in poor, poverty stricken communities. Around the same time, Donald Trump was being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination (doesn’t Roseanne have an African-American grandaughter in the reboot?).

The Clintons have a long record of achievements on healthcare. Why is this well-known history ignored by Roseanne? Did she forget?

2. Roseanne says Trump talked about “jobs.”

Hillary talked about jobs, too. But the media never covered it. Studies show that for the most part, the media only covered Hillary’s fake “e-mail scandal.”

Hillary had detailed policy plans to create jobs in 2016 America, such as clean-energy jobs. She even gave numerous speeches on her plans – speeches that weren’t covered by the media.

Meanwhile, con-man Trump promised to bring back coal jobs that will never come back to America. The original Roseanne Conner would have easily seen through Trump’s deception. Unfortunately, Roseanne Barr spent too much time on Twitter being subjected to Russian propaganda. I guess technology has unfortunate, unintended consequences?

Roseanne should have spent more time doing independent research regarding Hillary’s jobs plan rather than re-tweeting Russian bots on Twitter. Hillary promised green energy jobs of the future. Con-man Trump promised coal jobs that will never come back to America.

Oh and does Roseanne remember that President Bill Clinton created 22 million new jobs during the 1990s?

If you want to talk about jobs, let’s remember the prosperous and pragmatic Clinton Era. Meanwhile, con-man Trump shipped jobs overseas to China, stiffed American workers out of contracts, and hired immigrants rather than American workers to build his buildings.

Hillary’s jobs plan was crafted for the future. Trump’s jobs plan was crafted to con Americans into thinking we could transport back in time.

3. Roseanne says Hillary is a “liar, liar, pantsuit on fire.”

That’s only if you believe Russian propaganda and 40 years of manufactured “Clinton scandals.” Hillary was rated by fact-checking websites as the most honest politician running for President in 2016.

Furthermore – Hillary has never been found guilty of anything in over 40 years of “investigations.” I guess that would make Hillary the best liar of all-time, right? 40 years and not a single guilty verdict. Personally, I hope one day there is a book written debunking every single Clinton conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, Trump has the all-time record for false and misleading statements. No President has ever lied at the rate Trump has lied. There is no distant second. Trump is in a league and category all on his own.

So making a joke about Hillary (who has never been found guilty of anything in 40 years) as being a liar rings hollow when you voted for a man who lies multiple times per-day (maybe even per-hour). I guess there was a true lack of self-awareness when this joke was written? Not only is it hypocritical, it proves Russian bots corrupted Roseanne’s mind.

Again – Hillary was rated by fact-checkers as the most honest 2016 candidate for President. Trump is the biggest liar of all-time. Hillary, unlike Trump, has never been found guilty of anything. Every single Hillary investigation has turned up nothing. No trial. No guilty verdict. The same can’t be said of Trump who has been found guilty or settled out of court hundreds of times.

This is yet another example of the Russians trying to muddy the waters and make Hillary seem like just as big of a liar as Trump is. Nothing could be further from the truth.

4. Roseanne says the Clintons are equally as corrupt as Trump.

Roseanne, just like Trump, consistently re-tweeted conspiracy theories about the Clinton Foundation, even though fact-checking websites debunked all of them.

Let us remember: the Clinton Foundation was given a higher charity rating than the Red Cross and provides 11.5 million people with HIV/AIDS medication – that’s more than half of all those affected by the virus worldwide.

Many of the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories pushed on Twitter made it seem as though Hillary was just as bad as Trump. However, the Trump Foundation illegally paid off Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to hide Trump University fraud. Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation helps treat millions of people affected by HIV/AIDS – treating more than half of all those affected by the virus worldwide.

Furthermore, the Clintons pay 35% in taxes (what do you pay, Roseanne?). We have yet to see all of Trump’s tax returns. Who truly is the corrupt one based on tax-rates?  

5. On Jimmy Kimmel, Roseanne said no American should want their President to fail.

So why did Roseanne support Trump, a man who led the racist birther movement against Barack Obama, the first African American President? And no, Hillary was not the “original” birther as Russian propaganda would have you believe.

Point is – why did Roseanne enable and spread the propaganda of those who made it their mission to make Obama a one-term President?

This is yet another example of Roseanne’s hypocrisy.

If Roseanne actually believes what she is saying, why did she enable and embolden those who wished for Obama to fail as President? The double standard is both maddening and terrifying all at once.

6. Roseanne hates Hillary’s foreign policy.

As Secretary of State, Hillary passed the first-ever U.N Resolution on gay rights (proclaiming: “human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights” on the world stage), and made it so trans Americans can legally change their gender on their passport. Hillary also rebuilt relations with every nation after the disastrous Bush Administration, traveling to 112 countries — more than any other Secretary of State. Our worldwide favorability rose 20% during Hillary’s tenure. Her primary focus was on women’s rights and health, bringing up issues such as forced abortion and maternal mortality rates. Hillary re-opened relations with Burma, enacted a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and killed Osama Bin Laden. She also was instrumental in putting together the Paris Climate Agreement, something Trump has since removed us from.

Roseanne supports Trump’s foreign policy because he enables Israel’s war crimes against the Palestinians. Remember: Trump appealed to all prejudices – including prejudices against the Palestinian people. As a Jewish woman, Roseanne is a hardcore supporter of Israel.

Trump’s foreign policy consists of Twitter wars with dangerous dictators. How is that better than what Hillary accomplished as Secretary of State?

7. Roseanne hates the Clintons because of NAFTA.

George Bush Senior originally put NAFTA together. Bill Clinton oversaw the implementation of NAFTA due to denying Bush Senior a second term. NAFTA was originally Bush’s baby (not Clinton’s).

Instead of only remember the negatives of the Clinton Era, let us also remember the numerous positives:

—4-balanced budgets due to the superb compromising ability of Bill Clinton—Surplus —22 million new jobs —7 million fewer Americans living in poverty —Minimum wage up 20% —Assault Weapons Ban —Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act —Northern Ireland peace process —Campaign Against Teen Pregnancy: all-time low abortion rates —Office on Violence Against Women —Violence Against Women Act —Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP): 9 million children insured —Tax-credit for low-income Americans —Family and Medical Leave Act —Incomes rising at all income levels

Didn’t Roseanne also do well during the 1990s? And yes –  Roseanne’s show may have helped Clinton win in 1992. But Clinton resoundingly won re-election in 1996 due to producing results for the American people. 

Incomes were rising at all income levels, 22 million new jobs were created, minimum wage was up 20%, more children had healthcare (9 million covered under CHIP), and our country had a blanched-budget and a surplus. We also passed the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Plus, in-case you were wondering, Glass Steagall had nothing to do with the 2008 financial collapse according to fact-checking websites (try blaming Republican George Bush for a change). And sure… welfare reform sucked. But that’s because we had a GOP-dominated Congress and Bill Clinton was a true pragmatist (exactly what we need in a leader).

On balance, the Clinton Era was a great era for most Americans (including Roseanne). Just look at the long list of accomplishments! Hillary’s platform would have ushered in another pragmatic Clinton era, which would be going far better than the current Administration.

The worst thing that ever happened to Roseanne Barr was her Twitter account. She was constantly subjected to pro-Trump and anti-Hillary propaganda, causing her to support the pussy-grabber over the first-female nominee for President. In her Russian corrupted brain, Hillary was just as bad, if not worse, than Trump.

It’s truly sad that a former feminist icon didn’t support the first-female candidate for President due to Russian propaganda. This former feminist icon opted instead for a well-known misogynist. (And please don’t bring up Bill Clinton as your defense because he had consensual affairs and was then held accountable for his transgressions). Trump has yet to be held accountable for his abuse of women, and a true feminist would never support a man like Trump for President.

Unfortunately, Roseanne is going to attempt to use her shows reboot to legitimize Trump and justify her vote for the pussy-grabber. However, as much as Roseanne may try, Trump is not a legitimate President. Donald lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and was elected with Russian help (treason).

I don’t care how “forgotten” you feel by the establishment – it is never acceptable to support bigotry, discrimination, scapegoating, sexism, bullying, or hatred. I will never root for this “President” to succeed so long as he is a bigot filled with hate. Because if Trump succeeds, bigotry will be validated. That is something I will never support and something the original Roseanne Conner never would have supported, either. But the original Roseanne, unlike the Roseanne of the present, wasn’t corrupted by the Russians.  

Trump’s victory –aided by Roseanne/Russians on Twitter– legitimized bigotry and discrimination everywhere. Roseanne helped the very bullies she defends her grandson against. The embodiment of hypocrisy and irony.

Roseanne fell for the con-man fraud who promised to bring back obsolete coal jobs instead of researching Hillary’s jobs plan the media never covered – a plan that would have led to huge job growth, powered primarily by clean energy jobs of the future.

Roseanne is the ultimate example of the effectiveness that the Russian propaganda campaign had on Twitter. Roseanne was duped by Russian bots into thinking Hillary was as big of a liar as Trump (fact-checking websites confirm Hillary was the most honest 2016 Presidential candidate while Trump was rated the least honest). Luckily, even without Roseanne’s support, Hillary still won by 3 million votes. Roseanne will never be a member of the true American majority.

Roseanne is forever a member of the manipulated minority – manipulated by both Russian bots and a con-artist that was born with a silver-spoon in his mouth. A man who prides himself on bullying and sexism. A man who cheated working-class people out of contracts his entire life, shipped jobs to China, and hired immigrants over American workers to build his buildings. A man whose tax-plan only benefits people like himself.

The woman who always spoke truth to power and never fell for anyone’s manipulation finally did at the hands of Russian bots on Twitter. A true American tragedy.

Over 165 million Americans were subjected to Russian propaganda online saying both candidates were equally as bad. So for those that say Russia’s propaganda campaign had no impact on the election, look no further than Roseanne as “exhibit A” proof.

Roseanne preferred a “relatable” con-man over an overqualified “elitist” woman. Hillary was too “smug” for Roseanne’s taste. She preferred the pussy-grabber propaganda artist who looked and sounded like Dan Conner. A con-man who puts billionaires like himself above people like the Conners. A con-man who cheated drywallers like Dan Conner out of money his entire career.

I’m still holding out hope this is all satire and in the season finale of the 10th season, Roseanne will admit she was wrong about Trump and that she should have voted for Hillary (you know, the woman who worked for decades on healthcare and whose husband left us a booming economy and surplus). Because after 1 year of a Trump Presidency, can anyone really still say their vote was the right decision? I’d give anything to transport back to the Clinton years based on what we currently have now.

Roseanne Barr truly could do our country a great service by helping convince those who voted for Trump that they were wrong. Sadly, she’s still on Twitter submerging herself in Russian propaganda – believing that the Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. I guess that’s how Roseanne went from supporting Hillary in 2008 to now supporting Trump.

Thankfully, Hillary still won by 3 million votes despite Roseanne betraying women and supporting a sexist bigot. I’m proud to stand with the 66 million majority who voted for the slogan “Stronger Together.” Trump’s Electoral College victory will never represent me or the majority of Americans.  

Sadly, I guess false promises and scapegoating can even manipulate those you once viewed as idols. Maybe birds of the bullying feather truly do flock together?

So please defend Hillary and tweet @therealroseanne when she bashes Hillary with lies on her shows reboot.

Because we need to declare once and for all: Hillary is not nor has she ever been “just as bad as Trump.” Just ask the millions of people who receive HIV/AIDS medication from the Clinton Foundation – over half of all those affected by the virus worldwide. Or look at the hundreds of guilty Trump convictions vs. the zero guilty convictions for Hillary. Or the fact that the Clintons gave us 4-balanced-budgets while Trump had 4-bankruptcies. Or Hillary’s work at the Children’s Defense Fund investigating African American juveniles being placed in adult prisons. Or the Clintons working tirelessly on the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Face it Roseanne: you were duped by two abusive, sexist men (Putin and Trump) into hating Hillary, the first woman to run on a major party’s ticket for President, and who will become a bigger feminist icon than you could ever dream of becoming. Critics always said Roseanne hated other women who were more powerful than her. Did Hillary take your crown, Roseanne?

The old Roseanne Conner is a true feminist icon.

The new Roseanne Conner voted for the sexist pussy-grabber, which enabled bullies everywhere (ie: the kids who bullied her grandson).  

PS: Or maybe Roseanne simply wanted Trump to win so there would be a reason for her show to be given a reboot? 

Never normalize the con-man bigot silver-spoon fraud.

@roseanneonabc

[bountyofbeads]

Stone-Cold Loser https://nyti.ms/2S85c83

Roger Stone, who was arrested in a dawn raid at his home in Fort Lauderdale, has long been fond of the Somerset Maugham line that Florida is a "sunny place for shady people."

"Just as Nixon went down in history as a disgrace to the office of the president, so now will Stone go down as an accomplice to enemies of the republic," writes Eric Caine from Modesto in a comment on @MaureenDowd's column, "Stone-Cold Loser."

"Stone-Cold Loser"

By Maureen Dowd | New York Times Opinion | Published Jan. 26, 2019 |

Posted January 27, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — Roger Stone has always lived in a dog-eat-dog world.

So it was apt that he was charged with skulduggery in part for threatening to kidnap a therapy dog, a fluffy, sweet-faced Coton de Tuléar, belonging to Randy Credico, a New York radio host.

Robert Mueller believes that Credico, a pal of Julian Assange, served as an intermediary with WikiLeaks for Stone. Mueller’s indictment charges that Stone called Credico “a rat” and “a stoolie” because he believed that the radio host was not going to back up what the special counsel says is Stone’s false story about contacts with WikiLeaks, which disseminated Russia’s hacked emails from the D.N.C. and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Stone emailed Credico that he would “take that dog away from you,” the indictment says, later adding: “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die (expletive).”

As the owner of two Yorkies, Stone clearly knows how scary it is when a beloved dog is in harm’s way. When he emerged from court on Friday, he immediately complained that F.B.I. agents had “terrorized” his dogs when they came to arrest him at dawn at his home in Fort Lauderdale.

The last thing Stone posted on Instagram before his arrest was a video of a terrier, with a high-pitched voice-over, protesting, “Roger Stone did nothing wrong.”

Always bespoke and natty, living by the mantra that it’s better to be infamous than never famous, Stone looked strangely unadorned as he came out of court to meet the press in a navy polo shirt and bluejeans.

As the master of darkness who had been captured in darkness stepped into the bright light of Fort Lauderdale, he was his usual flamboyant, unapologetically meretricious self. He proclaimed his innocence, flashed the Nixon victory sign and reiterated the old saw from his mentor, Roy Cohn, that any attention is good attention.

But it fell flat. Being Roger Stone had finally caught up with him.

He has always said Florida suited him because “it was a sunny place for shady people,” borrowing a Somerset Maugham line. But now the cat’s cradle of lies and dirty tricks had tripped up the putative dognapper. And it went down on the very same day that Paul Manafort — his former associate in a seamy lobbying firm with rancid dictators as clients, and then later his pal in the seamy campaign of Donald Trump — was also in federal court on charges related to the Mueller probe. Manafort’s hair is now almost completely white.

One of Stone’s rules — along with soaking his martini olives in vermouth and never wearing a double-breasted suit with a button-down collar — is “Deny, deny, deny.” But his arrest for lying, obstructing and witness tampering raised the inevitable question about his on-and-off friend in the White House, the man who is the last jigsaw-puzzle piece in the investigation of Trumpworld’s alleged coordination with Russia: Is being Donald Trump finally about to catch up with Donald Trump?

Stone, who famously has Nixon’s face tattooed on his back, is the agent provocateur who is the through line from Nixon, and his impeachment, to Trump, and his possible impeachment.

As Manafort said in the 2017 documentary “Get Me Roger Stone,” Trump and Stone “see the world in a very similar way.” And that way is theatrical and cynical. Do whatever you have to do to get what you want; playing by the rules is for suckers.

In 1999, when I went on a trip to Miami to watch Trump test the presidential waters, Stone orchestrated Trump’s Castro-bashing speech to Cuban-Americans. The bodybuilding, swinging strategist, christened “the state-of-the-art sleazeball” by The New Republic in the 80s, said he was “a jockey looking for a horse.”

Stone, who was mixed up in Watergate at the tender age of 19, “made the transition from the Stone Age of dirty tricks to today,” as David Axelrod puts it.

He watched Nixon rally the silent majority with a law-and-order message and racial dog whistling. He helped Ronald Reagan create Reagan Democrats.

For decades, believing “past is prologue,” Stone urged Trump to be the successor to those pols, revving up angry, white working-class voters who felt belittled or scared of “the other.” It would be so easy to divide and stoke resentment, as Stone and Trump proved when they inflamed the birther controversy against Barack Obama.

“Hate is a stronger motivator than love,” Stone told the documentarians. “Human nature has never changed.”

The tribal tensions in America made Stone’s favorite tricks easier than ever; he didn’t have to operate in the shadows. He wore a T-shirt with Bill Clinton and the word “Rape” at 2016 campaign rallies. As Stone boasted in the documentary, his “slash-and-burn” tactics “are now in vogue.”

Trump has had periods of estrangement with Stone. In 2008, in an interview with The New Yorker, he called the strategist “a stone-cold loser,” a state Trump himself has been relegated to this past week, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi.

Stone will not go gently. When he is asked about the tattoo of Nixon, he says he got it to remind himself, “A man is not finished when he is defeated; he is only finished when he quits.”

At the moment, though, dogged by Mueller, Stone and Manafort are the dog’s breakfast. The pair has given practicing the dark arts a bad name.

"There's one piece of history about Roger Stone that never gets enough press, Ms. Dowd. That is, Roger Stone was involved in the "recount" in Florida and swinging it to George W. Bush. Specifically, he was behind a political group attacking three Democratic state Supreme Court justices threatening Bush's possible victory: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/07/11/fla-may-fine-gop-figure-for-2000-recount-actions/af72ec6a-082e-4292-913c-f8ed14c2fc62/?utm_term=.9e4d3fc6c5f3 These sleazy political operatives, from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove to Paul Manafort to Roger Stone on the Right have been getting away with this disgusting behavior for decades. Trump is a direct result of this cancer. Lock them all up." V of LA

"The ghost of Nixon past still haunts us. Just when you thought it was safe to trust our democracy, we get the Nixon salute and see his face on Stone’s back, just not quite low enough, in my opinion. The president was bad enough, but now it looks as though he’s merely the apex of a vast pyramid scheme so vile and full of duplicity that only Betsy DeVos could fully appreciate it. But it’s clear that the president didn’t accomplish his takeover on his own. He was socially promoted to a position higher than he could have ever reached without dirty tricks, lies and conspiracies galore. If today’s events aren’t disgusting enough, we’re even picking up echoes of Roy Cohen. There’s even a faint whiff of Joseph McCarthy that you can just make out while watching the nightly news. It recalls a time when powerful people weaponized fear and ignorance, and nearly turned us into animals at each others throats. We can only hope that people who voted for the president were among those fearful of going broke during the government shutdown. You can talk to people all day about why an unread, crotch-groping narcissistic moron is not a good candidate for president of the United States, but until they feel it in their guts, and their wallets, they’ll never fully understand. Do we have your attention now? Have you taken note of the sleazy, lying manipulators who manufactured this presidency with your help? Mueller might undo some of the damage, but it's up us not to let it happen again." gemli of Boston

"Imagine assembling a clown show of Trump, Junior, Jared, Manafort, Bannon, Stone, Flynn, KA Conway and some sideshow characters like Carter Page and Papadopoulus. Deliver some memorable campaign promises for America's future like "Lock her up" and "Build the Wall", while encouraging mobs to beat up reporters. Toss in a few surprise tapes about assaulting young women. Then openly conspire with Russian intelligence to interfere in the US election while being watched by the FBI, CIA and 6 European country intelligence services. And make plain as day efforts to relieve sanctions on Russia, support the pro-Russian cause in Ukraine, make over 100 contacts with Russian government officials during the campaign and transition and attempt to set up a secret communication channel through the Russian Embassy that US intelligence cannot monitor. Even after all of this, the chaos and the soaring deficits of the first two years of the Trump Administration, around 40% of Americans still think he is doing a great job. Based on personal experience working in all 50 states, I don't believe that part of the population is going to change much. But we need to take back the government on behalf of future generations and do it soon." Look Ahead of Washington

"Like Trump, Roger Stone is a man with no redeeming qualities and no morals at all. Cohen and Manafort as well. They admire and emulate the tough guys of organized crime without actually BEING those tough guys. But the Russians working for former KGB agent Putin are those tough guys, and that's who the phonies chose to do business with. Stone is blustering but he's counting on a Trump pardon, not realizing 3 things: 1) Trump WILL throw him under the bus. A pardon is unlikely. 2) A Trump pardon means he cannot use the 5th Amendment to keep from testifying--meaning he must tell the truth or face contempt or perjury charges. 3) He will still be liable to state charges, and the new NY AG would love get him in her cross-hairs. Stone is finished and doesn't even know it!"Dad of 2 /NJ

"Roger Stone is a truly mean-spirited figure. No wonder he, like Trump, his soul mate if you will, were proteges of Roy Cohn. One thing is certain, nobody is going to feel sorry for Stone, Manafort or any of Donald Trump's merry band of mean, vindictive misfits. Once our national nightmare is over, it will take a long time to heal, if we ever can. Because Stone and Trump poked the racist beast of a certain segment of the nation, unleashing virulent emotions, conservative-fed conspiracy theories, and disdain for truth, fact checking, and critical thinking. The president, a man who doesn't read, aligned himself with a man who did but used his reading to polish his dark arts, and tries to make ignorance seem cool. As a result, they got an entire political party to totally overhaul its thinking on foreign policy goals, belief in climate science (indeed, belief in any science) and even, I venture to say, the biggie: immigration. Trump, egged on by Stone, has done more damage to our politics, rule of law, and views of government than any foreign invader could have. Stone, more than Trump, grasped an essential truth: the worst damage a country can undergo is from within."Christine McM of Boston

"If Stone and The Donald have used "revving up angry white working-class voters" as a tactic to win elections, one wonders whether they are themselves authentic racists or whether they believe in nothing but power for its own sake. Are they "merely" impersonating bigots or are they true believers? Either way they represent a pestilence that needs to be driven out of the body politic, and yet if they're being disingenuous with respect to their own feelings about white supremacy (a disease that normally infects only the feeble-minded) one wonders how they manage to live with themselves. Can one ever attain enough wealth and power to compensate for the loss of one's soul? Perhaps it's a moot point but I somehow can't get past it."

Stu Freeman of Brooklyn

"No Stone left unturned, no creatures hiding under rocks. Spring IS coming, the flowers will bloom, the stench will dissipate, the gloom will dissolve. Thank you, Mr. Mueller." Stu Freeman of Brooklyn

Phyllis Dalmatian of Kansas

"Stone is Johnny two-face: he threatens to harm a security dog then uses his own two dogs' reaction to his early-morning arrest as proof of the FBI's perceived heavy-handed tactics. He trumpets his dedication to "the truth" while lying (all his life) and throughout the Mueller investigation--threatening former criminal associates if they cooperate with--i.e. tell the truth to--the feds. He professes patriotism while working in league with his country's greatest adversary to undermine an American presidential election. It is no wonder anyone this duplicitous should be an acolyte of Richard Nixon and a life-long driving force in the Republican Party. That's the way the GOP grows its alleged leaders--by rewarding them for wrecking American values without demonstrating any consciousness of guilt. "CMary of Chicago

"Concerning stones method of arrest, he merely found out how it is to be treated by law enforcement in many zip codes in this county, no sympathy whatsoever."No Party of FLA

"Why is it so many Americans believe whatever they are told? People like Trump and Stone commit crimes and lie in plain sight and many of our countrymen lap it up like duck soup. Was it growing up in the era of Disney and Spielberg that has made so much of the public susceptible to political special effects? "Of course President Obama is a Muslim, my TV said so." You can't fool all of the people, but you certainly will have no trouble fooling half of them. These remain dangerous times."Socrates of NJ

" Looking back....as you do in this piece....there is really only one question “Was your desperate focus on stopping Hilary from being elected worth it?”

David Martin of Paris

"Meanwhile, Trump can't stop telling us about women in vans with duct tape on their mouths. Perhaps his past is catching up with him involuntarily." Jerry Summer of NC

Another day, another Trump associate is arrested... What was that you were saying about HRC's emails again, Ms Dowd? Nick Adam of Mississippi

[orbemnews]

Carbon County, Wyoming, Knows Which Way the Wind Is Blowing RAWLINS, Wyo. — The coal layered underground helped bring settlers to this scrubby, wind-whipped part of southern Wyoming, where generations found a steady paycheck in the mines and took pride in powering the nation. But now, it is energy from the region’s other abundant energy resource — the wind itself — that is creating jobs and much-needed tax revenues in Carbon County. Despite its historic ties to coal, as well as local denialism about climate change, the county is soon to be home to one of the biggest wind farms in the nation. The United States gets only 7 percent of its energy from wind, far less than most experts believe will have a significant environmental effect. And resistance remains outspoken: Just last month, the politicization of wind energy was on full display as numerous Republicans and conservative pundits falsely blamed frozen wind turbines as a chief cause of widespread blackouts in Texas. On Sunday, former President Donald J. Trump, joined in, disparaging wind power in a speech before a conservative group. Carbon County shows how the energy transformation that America needs to make is possible, but may happen reluctantly, driven by pragmatism more than a desire to stop burning the coal and oil that release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Here, at least, it comes down to the reality that mines are closing nationwide, and buyers of coal are simply disappearing. In Wyoming, many residents like Terry Weickum support the coal industry and disapprove of the way the glossy turbines interrupt the emptiness of the sagebrush-spotted landscape. Nevertheless, Mr. Weickum helped bring wind energy to Carbon County, knowing it would help ​Rawlins — a community of 9,000 ​with its downtown gym, coffee shop and the Rifleman Club Bar — to avoid becoming yet another ghost town, forgotten as mining passes into history. “You can stand at the tracks when the train is coming at you, or you can stand at the switch,” said Mr. Weickum, explaining his decisions to usher in wind during his tenure on the Carbon County Commissioners Association. “I chose to stand at the switch.” The pandemic, which has driven down the price of coal, oil and gas, has only heightened the urgency for Wyoming to resolve an identity crisis over whether to let go of one of its richest assets: emissions-spewing fossil fuels. Officials are planning for devastating budget cuts in a state that some economists describe as suffering from a “resource curse,” a term often used for developing nations that underperform economically despite having an abundance of natural resources. “The old joke in Wyoming is all you need to use to go coal mining is a three-iron. People were told that coal will always be here, that these are lifetime jobs,” said Rob Godby, an economist at the University of Wyoming. “We’re at a crossing the Rubicon moment — it went from ‘It’s never going to happen’ to ‘Now it’s happening.’” In the midst of this economic despair, Carbon County, on the edge of the Red Desert, ended last year as one of only three counties in the state with budget surpluses, largely thanks to tax revenues from wind projects. “If it wasn’t for wind farms, we’d be in terrible shape,” said Mr. Weickum, who recently became mayor of Rawlins, the windiest city in the state by some measures and the Carbon County seat. The high desert landscape with vistas that stretch to the horizon makes Wyoming one of the best spots in the nation for wind. Some of the strongest, most regular gusts in America blow down from the Rocky Mountains, so fierce that freeway signs flash with warnings of gales of more than 60 miles per hour, so strong they yank sideways at cars and trucks driving down the interstate. Wyoming’s ample wind will keep the blades spinning on the immense new project near Rawlins, featuring perhaps as many as 1,000 turbines. It’s being built by a company tied to the billionaire Philip Anschutz and could produce enough electricity to power about 1 million homes. Smaller wind farms such as Ekola Flats are coming online elsewhere in Carbon County from Rocky Mountain Power, a utility that closed one coal mine and plans to close another. The company hired about 300 workers to build Ekola Flats, which will employ about 10 once it’s operational. Wyoming’s 16 working mines still make up nearly 40 percent of the country’s coal production — more than three times as much as West Virginia. Wyoming, with a population of just 582,000, has abundant oil and natural gas reserves that often land it among the nation’s top 10 producers. Wyoming’s fossil fuel industry employed about 14,900 people last year, a more than 28 percent drop from the year before. Jobs in the wind industry amount to only a few hundred, state economists estimate, with most of the work available during construction of wind farms. But, unlike the coal industry, the wind sector is growing. Tax revenue from fossil fuels account for at least half the state’s entire budget. And Wyoming residents cheered in 2016 when Donald J. Trump, campaigning for president, met with West Virginia coal miners and told them, “Get ready because you’re going to be working your asses off.” He posed with signs that read, “Trump digs coal.” Trump easily won Wyoming in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential races. But America’s desire to burn more coal didn’t materialize. Wyoming’s reckoning came into sharp focus last month when President Biden announced a moratorium on drilling on federal lands, where the bulk of Wyoming’s oil fields are located. Officials have said the state could lose about $300 million in annual tax revenue from a long-term ban, along with numerous jobs. Wyoming, with its vast wind resources, has the potential to lead the country in renewables. But the clean energy revolution espoused by Mr. Biden is not what is pushing officials here to embrace wind. In this heavily Republican state, people raise climate change issues “only if they want to be punched in the face,” Mr. Weickum said. What’s driving the change is pragmatism. At least six coal companies have filed for bankruptcy in the past six years, and the state’s coal mining sector last year alone lost 761 jobs. Two decades ago, coal generated 96 percent of the electricity in Wyoming; by 2019, it had dropped to 84 percent. Meanwhile, in that same time period wind grew from almost nothing to 10 percent. Despite the stark economic reality of the coal industry’s decline, state officials are still trying to preserve Wyoming’s fossil fuel resources, particularly coal. The state has dedicated $15 million to creating the Wyoming Integrated Test Center to study the capture of carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants. And Gov. Mark Gordon talks about pitching Boeing on ideas to use Wyoming coal for carbon fiber airplane wings or persuading auto manufacturers to use its coal for carbon fiber vehicle bodies. Mr. Gordon welcomes the development of renewable energy, and says he believes climate change is a threat, but also promised this week in his state of the state speech to protect coal, lamenting what he called the Biden administration’s “crazed pursuit of 100 percent ‘green’ energy.” Mr. Weickum, 68, has watched the decline of coal since he moved to Rawlins four decades ago in hopes of profiting off the industry. Recently, he has felt the shift in his own printing and sign-making business that once relied on coal companies as customers. Last year he had no business from coal, and $150,000 of business from wind companies. Describing himself as “a crazy old man who can’t sit still for 10 minutes,” Mr. Weickum likes to emphasize that he is not “pro-wind.” Like a number of public officials and residents in this part of the state, he also questions whether human activity is causing the climate to change, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that it is. “I think our climate is changing because the earth is in a cycle,” Mr. Weickum said. “Do I agree with Al Gore? No.” While Rawlins is trying to transition, a cautionary tale stands just a few miles east on the interstate. The community of Hanna was so economically devastated by the loss of its mines in the mid-2000s that people lifted homes off their foundations and carted them away, hoping to preserve their value. In Carbon County, dozens of wind companies began approaching Mr. Weickum and other local politicians during the Obama Administration. County officials were intrigued by the prospect of jobs and tax revenues that wind projects would bring, particularly during construction. They would never provide enough jobs to replace the large numbers offered by workers needed in mines and oil fields, but it was something, they reasoned. Yet officials wrestled with the idea of interrupting the wild vistas so cherished that the wide-open landscapes are etched onto headstones at the Rawlins cemetery. “It scared us,” said Mr. Weickum. “There were 50-some wind projects coming at us, and that would destroy our way of life.” Mr. Weickum worked for months with other officials to adopt statewide standards for wind projects and to come up with a taxation structure that aimed to ensure revenue but not discourage new companies. His support for wind projects came with a political cost. He believes he lost his seat on the Carbon County Commissioners Association because of wind farms he approved when he was head of the group’s wind task force. In the state capitol, several lawmakers have tried to levy new taxes on wind farms. State Senator Cale Case, a Republican and an economist by training, issues perennial calls for wind companies to pay more taxes because he said projects are so “land intensive.” “When people look at the situation in Wyoming and think, ‘Oh my God, coal is dead, we’ve got to find something to fill the gap,’ we rush and do this,” Senator Case said, speaking about wind companies that hoist turbines almost five times as tall as the highest building in the state. “This is one of the largest undeveloped places in the United States. There’s a pure existence value on its own to see what the early people saw, what the pioneers saw, just to be able to breathe.” In Wyoming, even as wind farms are increasingly common, residents still have concerns. The projects take over hunting land. The lights on some turbines pollute the Stygian sky. And even though residents brag about powering the nation with coal, they complain that wind energy is mostly transmitted out of state, for use by people elsewhere. And the towering wind farms threaten migration patterns for antelope, elk and even the mule deer, which some people consider pests as they graze in the cemetery, in front yards and on the high school football field, menacing Rawlins “like 200-pound rats,” Mr. Weickum said. Several years ago, he noted, his own beloved dog, a Chihuahua named Cujo, was stomped to death by a mule deer. But the worry on most people’s minds is whether welcoming the wind industry will speed job losses in the fossil fuel industry. “They feel like wind energy is somehow in competition with coal, oil and gas,” Mr. Weickum said. “In an abstract way, it is.” He isn’t the only local official with mixed feelings. In Campbell County, in the northeastern part of the state and the most active coal mining area in Wyoming, hundreds of workers lost mining jobs last year. And more job losses are on the horizon. Rusty Bell, a county commissioner there, is eager to find other uses for the coal underfoot. He recalled the time he visited Washington and peered up at all the government office buildings. They “look like giant hospitals,” he said, and in each room, he thought to himself, was someone who was writing policy that would affect him yet who had little idea about his way of life. “This is not just our coal, this is your coal,” he said. “If that’s a resource we’re going to say we’re just never going to use, then obviously our community is going to have to change a lot.” Source link Orbem News #Blowing #Carbon #County #Wind #Wyoming

[veale2006-blog]

THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME!!! October 6, 2020 In terms of Earth years, how old is our universe?  10,000 years?  4.6 billion years?  How about 15+ billion?  Take your pick.  Now, try calculate how far back infinity goes.  More than 900 googol, which has 103 digits?  Fifteen billion has only 11 digits. So, what is the point?  If God (Yehovah) created our universe even 15 billion years ago, what was He doing to occupy Himself from 103 digits in the past, down to only 11 digits in the past?  “Young Earth” creationists have even a bigger problem with this.

Why the question? It is to try to open your eyes to a reality that most everyone ignores.  What is the origin of Satan?  Where did he get the rebel angels that sided with him? Certainly not from Heaven.  He couldn’t recruit rebels right under Yehovah’s nose.  Besides, what could he offer them worth their while in return which they didn’t already have?  Think about that for a while. So where did those rebel angels come from?  To answer that, you have to go way back in ancient time to learn what was occurring before our universe was created.

So what does that have to do with President Trump? To learn why certain people hate Trump, you have to go back to AD 1933, with the attempted overthrow of our government.  Look up Prescott (granddaddy) Bush, the firm Brown Brothers Harriman, and the man who saved the country, General Smedley Butler.  The US bankers (who helped the Nazis to power) tried to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictator.

Now, let’s talk about George (daddy) Bush, who, before being selected as Vice-President, was the CIA director. The US Congress would not allot funding to the CIA for “certain operations”.  So, sources convey that the CIA went into the illegal drug business, trafficking cocaine.  Look up Mena Airport, and the pilot Barry Seal.  

Daddy Bush went on to be Vice-President, then President. Remember him proclaiming the “New World Order” (globalism)? Certain “investigations” were getting close to him.  He couldn’t stay in office.  His successor, had to be someone who would not take the investigations further, so that he could “get off”.  Who was his replacement?  Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton? If you looked up Mena Airport, you should have seen where there were allegations of CIA trafficking, and Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport, smuggling weapons and ammunition to the Contras in Nicaragua, and drugs back into the United States.  The name Oliver North is also involved.  Also, you should look up the “dead body count” associated with the Clintons during their time as governor of Arkansas.  They were the perfect “sidekicks” to replace daddy Bush.

What did the Clintons do while in office? They invited the Chinese to sensitive areas of military concern (look this stuff up). They replaced Social Security funds with “IOU’s”.  They instituted the terrible NAFTA agreement.  When investigated concerning their “secret” communications with China, “oh my, we accidently deleted all records”.  Sound familiar?

Who succeeded the Clintons?  It was George (Junior) Bush. This is the third Bush we’ve written about.  Is it now that the Clintons and the Bushes planned to pass back and forth the Presidency?   Hillary was next in line, but she needed a federal position. How about US Senator for New York, the same seat that John F. Kennedy Jr. was running for?  Was it sabotage that His private plane went down in clear weather?

To cover any wrong doing, the Bushes would follow the Clintons, and vice versa. That was the plan, until America had been “conquered”, becoming a victim of globalism.  What did the Bushes and Cheneys do?  How about our Air Defense system being put on “lockdown” the day of 9/11?  Was the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans an inside job?  Was this the excuse used to give rise to “Homeland Security”, and the TSA?  Flying is no longer a joy.  It’s a hassle.

How about the rise of “sanctuary cities”. What are they for? To give refuge to criminal illegal aliens?  What about the regulations imposed that ran away our manufacturing jobs overseas, so that the USA would depend on other countries for goods, which is the ideology of globalism?

After the (Junior) Bushes, it was the Clinton’s turn. But wait!! A third party wanted to have a crack at destroying America.  The Obamas.  Birds of a feather, flock together.  The Obamas and Clintons had a secret meeting.  Remember that?  It was agreed that Obama could have his hand at destroying America economically, and morally.  Remember “I’m a Christian”, “I believe in traditional marriage”, and “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, and you can keep your doctor too”?  All lies.  If a person has to lie to get elected, they plan to do disservice to the office.

So what was the secret deal?  Hillary got to be Secretary of State, sending classified emails “regular class”, so that foreign operatives could gain certain information.  To cover her tracks, she erased disk drives and put hammers to cell phones.  Was she trying to hide treason?  Was the Obama administration gunrunning in Benghazi?  Is that why they told rescue forces to “stand down”, so that their criminal acts would not be uncovered?

After the Bush-Clinton merry-go-round was put on an eight year hold by Obama, Her Majesty was ready to ascend to her waiting throne room, the White House. The Democrats and Deep State all knew what was going on.  War with Russia, who also was against the Globalist agenda, was already planned.  The US Constitution and Bill Of Rights was ready to be tossed into the fire.  The eighty year plan was three months from being completed.  The plan was for Jeb Bush (brother of “Junior”) to be the Republican nominee, so whomever won, the Iron Gate would be shut.

But wait. What when wrong in November of 2016? Yehovah inserted a monkey wrench, named Donald J. Trump. He was not “one of the boys”.  He promised to improve America, and bring back American prosperity.  This was against the globalist’s plans.  They had made plans for eighty years for the fall of America.  The establishment had to somehow (short of assassination if possible) get rid of this guy.  He alone was standing in the way of bringing down the country to tyranny.  He would give the people what America wanted.  A return to prosperity, employment, and greatness.

Why do you think the Democrats and Deep State want to disarm America? So that Americans can’t fight back against a cruel and oppressive government. Remember “Russian Collusion”?  Adam Schiff supposedly has solid proof of Russian collusion.  It has been declassified that Hillary Clinton approved the campaign to wage a Russian collusion hoax against Donald J. Trump in order to distract from her email scandal.

Why didn’t Congress and the Justice Department ever convict Hillary? What did President Trump do to deserve impeachment? Was it because he was investigating corruption by “one of the good old boys”?  Or was it because they knew that he had done such a good job, that he would win a second term?  Or was it both?  They hate President Trump because he may expose their wrong doing, and possibly have them convicted and jailed.  For example, what group do you think is behind the kidnapping and exploitation of children?

Television news stations (who have all been compromised by the Deep State) have twisted the news and told half-truths, if they told the truth at all.  Unfortunately, those of “low information” blindly believe them.  Why do people hate President Trump?  Why did the scribes and Pharisees hate Jesus?  If you collaborate with evil, you will be found guilty at the White Throne Judgment.  

In this coming election, you will discover that the Democrats will have cheated. Why do you think that they want illegal aliens to vote? There is not enough blind and foolish people voting for them to win an honest election.  So they have “the dead” casting ballots…., all for the Democrats of course.  If mail in ballots are somehow “lost”, they would be all for the Republicans.  If “new” ballots are suddenly found, by coincidence, they would be all for the Democrats.  Go figure, and wake up to the evil at hand.

By God’s grace, America escaped disaster in 2016. What about 2020?  One man can’t do it all by himself. President Trump is nearly like Daniel, all alone in the lion’s den. America must defeat her evil domestic enemies, and vote the Deep State and Democrats out of office, or else the era of tribulation will come before the time.  Make the righteous and wise choice.  

Ask a “never Trumper” why they hate Trump. What good reason, other than wanting the Democrats in power, can they give? Are they caught up in the liberal hateful frenzy that has no solid foundation?  President Trump is trying to save America.  The Democrats are trying to destroy the middle class, and swallow the USA into globalism.

Who has been threatening civil war if Trump wins? Who has been rioting in the streets, and stealing “Vote for Trump” signs in people’s yard? Have you heard of anyone trying to steal a “Biden/Harris” sign?  Who is being evil?  Do not give in to these puppets of Satan.  What do you think will happen if the Democrats gain power?  What happened to Germany when evil Hitler gained power?  Learn from history, and vote against the Democrats.                            

Our election system must be cleaned up. The Democrats want illegal aliens, criminals, and the dead to vote. Why?  Is that godly? I urge all, to please use righteous common sense, and vote all Democrats out of office, especially this 2020 election.  If you vote for Democrats, you might as well vote for the Communists and Socialists. Vote for President Trump, and vote Republican. But do not vote for the ungodly Democrats.  Come Judgment day, you may have to explain why.

VOTE FOR AMERICA, VOTE FOR FREEDOM OR YOU ARE VOTING FOR SOCIALISM AND THE LOST OF AMERICA. MAKE YOUR CHOICE!!!

[khalilhumam]

More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/

More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America

By Ryan Hass, Abraham Denmark As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump built his argument for the presidency around his claimed acumen as a dealmaker. As the 2020 election draws nearer, President Trump and his surrogates are doubling down on that assertion, including by calling attention to what he has deemed “the biggest deal ever seen”: the “phase one” trade deal with China. The agreement reportedly includes a Chinese commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion in American goods above 2017 levels by the end of 2021. Six months after the deal was inked, the costs and benefits of this agreement are coming into clearer focus. Despite Trump’s claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” the ultimate results of the phase one trade deal between China and the United States — and the trade war that preceded it — have significantly hurt the American economy without solving the underlying economic concerns that the trade war was meant to resolve. The effects of the trade war go beyond economics, though. Trump’s prioritization on the trade deal and de-prioritization of all other dimensions of the relationship produced a more permissive environment for China to advance its interests abroad and oppress its own people at home, secure in the knowledge that American responses would be muted by a president who was reluctant to risk losing the deal.

Origins of the trade war

During the 2016 presidential campaign, a consistent refrain from then-candidate Trump was to point to U.S. trade with China, and the agreements that enabled it, as a primary cause of the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs and intellectual property. He said China was responsible for “the greatest theft in the history of the world” and lambasted the U.S. trade deficit with China, which in 2016 stood at around $346 billion. He declared, “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country.” Building on the image of Donald Trump as the ultimate dealmaker, his campaign released a strategy to reform the U.S.-China trade relationship, in which it pledged to “cut a better deal with China that helps American businesses and workers compete.” Trump laid out a four-part plan to secure a better deal with China: declare China a currency manipulator; confront China on intellectual property and forced technology transfer concerns; end China’s use of export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards; and lower America’s corporate tax rate to make U.S. manufacturing more competitive. Upon entering office, Trump sought to engage Beijing directly to address structural concerns about China’s economic policies. Just three months into his administration, he met with Chinese leader Xí Jìnpíng 习近平 at Mar-a-Largo, where they agreed to establish a 100-Day Action Plan to resolve trade differences. The next month, China agreed to open its economy (slightly) to U.S. firms and services in exchange for greater Chinese access on bilateral trade and U.S. recognition of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Yet follow-on negotiations fizzled as Washington pushed Beijing for more concessions and Beijing rebuffed American pressure. The 100 days concluded in July 2017 with no agreement, no press conference, and no joint statement out of the first meeting of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (which was declared dead by the Trump administration four months later). President Trump launched the trade war to pressure Beijing to implement significant changes to aspects of its economic system that facilitate unfair Chinese trade practices, including forced technology transfer, limited market access, intellectual property theft, and subsidies to state-owned enterprises. Trump argued that unilateral tariffs would shrink the U.S. trade deficit with China and cause companies to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Between July 2018 and August 2019, the United States announced plans to impose tariffs on more than $550 billion of Chinese products, and China retaliated with tariffs on more than $185 billion of U.S. goods.

Economic costs of the trade war

The trade war caused economic pain on both sides and led to diversion of trade flows away from both China and the United States. As described by Heather Long at the Washington Post, “U.S. economic growth slowed, business investment froze, and companies didn’t hire as many people. Across the nation, a lot of farmers went bankrupt, and the manufacturing and freight transportation sectors have hit lows not seen since the last recession. Trump’s actions amounted to one of the largest tax increases in years.” A September 2019 study by Moody’s Analytics found that the trade war had already cost the U.S. economy nearly 300,000 jobs and an estimated 0.3% of real GDP. Other studies put the cost to U.S. GDP at about 0.7%. A 2019 report from Bloomberg Economics estimated that the trade war would cost the U.S. economy $316 billion by the end of 2020, while more recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Columbia University found that U.S. companies lost at least $1.7 trillion in the price of their stocks as a result of U.S. tariffs imposed on imports from China. Numerous studies have found that U.S. companies primarily paid for U.S. tariffs, with the cost estimated at nearly $46 billion. The tariffs forced American companies to accept lower profit margins, cut wages and jobs for U.S. workers, defer potential wage hikes or expansions, and raise prices for American consumers or companies. A spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau stated that “farmers have lost the vast majority of what was once a $24 billion market in China” as a result of Chinese retaliatory actions. Meanwhile, the U.S. goods trade deficit with China continued to grow, reaching a record $419.2 billion in 2018. By 2019, the trade deficit had shrunk to $345 billion, roughly the same level as 2016, largely as a result of reduced trade flows. It should be noted that, while the U.S. deficit with China decreased, its overall trade deficit did not. Trump’s unilateral tariffs on China diverted trade flows from China, causing the U.S. trade deficit with Europe, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to increase as a result. China also felt economic pain as a result of the trade war, though apparently not enough to capitulate to the Trump administration’s core demands for major structural reform. Indeed, as the trade war dragged on, Beijing lowered its tariffs for its other trading partners as it reduced its  reliance on U.S. markets. The final deal that both sides announced on January 15, 2020, largely resembled the offer Beijing had put on the table from the start — increased goods purchases plus commitments on improved intellectual property protection, currency, and forced technology transfer. Missing from the deal was any forward movement on subsidies, state-owned enterprises, and China’s uses of industrial policy to advantage its own firms over foreign competitors. Progress on market access also proved underwhelming outside of the financial sector. These and other challenges were put off for a phase two negotiation, which Trump recently said is not under consideration.

A more permissive environment for Chinese aggression and suppression  

Throughout this period, President Trump made efforts to develop a smooth and positive relationship with China — and especially with Xi Jinping — and explained his efforts as serving the purpose of advancing trade negotiations. Trump lauded Xi’s strength and leadership publicly while shying away from points of sharp bilateral friction in private engagements. Instead, Trump reportedly used his private exchanges with Xi to urge him to act on his personal priorities, most of which related to the trade negotiations, and, for a time, North Korea. In June 2019, Trump reportedly promised Xi Jinping in a private phone call that the United States would refrain from criticizing China over Hong Kong while trade negotiations were ongoing. The following month, Trump said he believed that Xi Jinping had acted “very responsibly” with the protests in Hong Kong, adding, “We’re working on trade deals right now. We’ll see what happens.” He expressed similar sentiments publicly in November when he shied away from criticizing Xi about Hong Kong and linked the issue to trade negotiations, saying, “We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I’m also standing with President Xi.” He further said that Xi is “a friend of mine, he’s an incredible guy,” and described the Hong Kong protests as a “complicating factor” in trade talks. On January 10, 2020, when Laura Ingraham on Fox News asked Trump about “the human rights issue in China” and referenced “a million people in reeducation camps, internment camps,” he replied, “Well, I’m riding a fine line, because we’re making…great trade deals.” John Bolton, then national security adviser, claims that the reasons behind President Trump’s prioritization of a trade deal above other considerations with China were made clear in a private meeting with Xi Jinping at the June 2019 G-20 summit in Japan. According to Bolton, Trump told Xi to go ahead with building camps to detain 1 million or more Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, saying it was exactly the right thing to do, and asked Xi Jinping to help him win the upcoming presidential election by increasing purchases of soybeans and wheat. Trump later challenged Bolton’s characterization of events, tweeting that Bolton’s book “is a compilation of lies and made up stories”; Trump specifically denied Bolton’s claims about Xinjiang. Yet at a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, on February 10, 2020, Trump declared, “Last month, we signed a groundbreaking trade agreement with China that will defeat so many of our opponents.” Although other members of the Trump administration, including Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have been outspoken in their criticism of China’s repression at home and aggression abroad, their statements have not been seen in Beijing as a substitute for presidential opprobrium. During this period, the Trump administration did take a wide range of actions against China, including tightening export controls, enhancing investment screening, challenging Chinese technology companies, and blunting the Belt and Road Initiative. In Beijing’s top-down Leninist system, though, the signals that other leaders send to Xi Jinping, and Xi’s responses to those messages, carry significant weight. Neither the United States nor any other country gets to have two foreign policies with China. There only is one. Beijing’s antennae are tuned to the signals that other leaders send. To be clear, the Chinese leadership owns full responsibility for its recklessly nationalistic actions along its periphery and its brutal suppression at home. Beijing’s decisions to move in its current direction were made simpler, though, by its confidence in Trump’s tight focus on trade and his interest in not allowing other issues to obstruct completion of a deal or derail the deal’s implementation. Even in the weeks following the signing of the phase one trade deal, President Trump remained focused on reassuring Xi of his support. For weeks, Trump repeatedly praised Xi’s response to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in China. Trump’s tone would not change until the virus took its toll on the United States.

Was the trade war worth it?

The two sides declared a truce in the trade war at an ornate signing ceremony at the White House involving President Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liú Hè 刘鹤, the 11th ranked member in the Chinese leadership. Although the full text of the agreement has not been made public, reports say the agreement commits China to purchasing an extra $200 billion in American products over two years above 2017 levels. The text of the agreement that has been made public shows China committing to protect American intellectual property, halt coercive technology transfers, and refrain from using currency devaluation as a trade weapon. It also included an enforcement mechanism that would allow for the imposition of import tariffs if disputes are not resolved. In the six months since the deal was signed, the prospects of China meeting its purchasing targets have dimmed considerably. According to Bloomberg calculations based on Chinese Customs Administration data, China in the first half of 2020 had purchased only 23% of the total purchase target for the year. While part of this is attributable to trade flow disruptions caused by COVID-19, much of the gap owes to the impracticality of the agreement from the start. In the phase one deal, as described by Brad W. Setser and Dylan Yalbir at the Council on Foreign Relations, China committed to purchasing roughly $60 billion more in U.S. goods than it had in 2017 — roughly $180 billion in U.S. goods this year. Yet U.S. goods exports to China currently are significantly below what they were in 2017. In other words, Beijing essentially paid for the deal with a promise of a windfall in purchases of American goods. It appears that President Trump accepted an IOU as a declaration of victory. Time will tell if the innovations in the agreement on enforcement will succeed where others have failed, and much will depend on China’s willingness to translate agreements into law and, crucially, enforce them. Yet the key question for the United States — especially today, as the U.S. economy is in its worst state since the Great Depression as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic — is if the economic costs it paid for those enforcement agreements were worth the billions of dollars lost in value, the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, the stagnation of U.S. manufacturing, and the devastating effects of the trade war on American farmers. Ultimately, the phase one agreement disappointed because it, along with the trade war, severely damaged the U.S. economy while failing to make significant progress in fundamentally resolving the structural imbalances of the U.S.-China trade relationship.

[newscitygroup]

Can Trump Win Governor of Louisiana?

“By and large, I think Edwards’ record is an enormous help, and I think it’s why he’s doing as well as he is for a Democratic governor in a deep red state,” said Pearson Cross, associate professor of political science at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. “His record with regard to getting Louisiana out of endless budget crises, his record in terms of criminal justice reform, giving teachers their first pay raise in years, increasing funding for early childhood education—he can point to these wins and say, ‘Look, I’m making life better for people on the ground here, I have a record.’”

Trump has tried to seize that record, specifically on the economy, for himself, but Edwards is not letting go that easily.

Earlier this month, the White House tweeted: “‘The Pelican State’ is booming—boasting its lowest unemployment rate since 2008, bringing back 5,000+ manufacturing jobs, and becoming one of our Nation’s leading states in natural gas exports!”

Edwards tweeted in reply, with only trace levels of sarcasm: “Thank you, I agree. It’s taken a lot of hard work, but we’re much better off than we were four years ago when I took office. And when I’m re-elected, we’ll keep moving our state in the right direction.”

In some respects, Edwards is the only figure in this race who seems determined to frame the race on statewide terms rather than national ones. On top of Trump’s visits (Vice President Pence came before the primary in October), the Republican National Committee this week pumped an extra million dollars into the race. The Louisiana Democratic Party is happy to do what Edwards won’t, running ads on Facebook warning voters: “If Rispone wins, Trump wins.”

***

Edwards’ strategy throughout the race has been to rebut Trump’s acid attacks with heaping spoonfuls of Southern graciousness, at least where the president is concerned. When he was asked at a recent event what he thought of Trump’s regular forays to the state, he maintained his policy of nonaggression.

“This is the political season, and he is coming here because his party expects him to, he’s doing what’s expected of him, and its a very political trip into Louisiana,” Edwards said. “Obviously, he’s the president, he’s welcome here any time.”

And then just to remind voters how close the working relationship is with the administration, Edwards talked about the nine times he was invited to the White House to meet with Trump on issues like transportation infrastructure, the opioid epidemic and criminal justice reform.

“Edwards has been an elusive target in terms of being someone President Trump can attack,” said John Couvillon, who worked on Republican Rep. Ralph Abraham’s congressional campaigns as a pollster in 2014 and 2016. “He has totally shied away from any kind of mention about President Trump and impeachment, and he has avoided picking any overt fights with the White House.”

That goodwill is quite a bit less evident when Edwards talks about his challenger.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, talks with reporters during a campaign stop in Shreveport, La., on Nov. 14. | AP

On Wednesday, Edwards met with voters and artists at Studio BE, in a warehouse in New Orleans’ Bywater neighborhood. He touted his local successes: Medicaid expansion, funding for education, low unemployment. He made a point of reminding his audience about Rispone’s previous criticism of New Orleans, an anti-urban talking point that Trump has made a staple of his attacks on Democratic leaders.

“[Eddie Rispone] asked me at our one and only debate in the runoff, ‘Why do you support New Orleans which is a sanctuary city?’ And my response was, ‘that’s a stupid question,’” Edwards said. “You support New Orleans because it’s a city in Louisiana that’s incredibly important to our state.”

Orleans Parish, which went 80 percent for Clinton in 2016, is one of the four parishes where early turnout has hit record levels for a nonpresidential year. Perhaps it is a chance to exact some political retribution against Trump that has motivated those voters. Edwards, though, has stuck with a critique of Rispone that hearkens back to recent Louisiana history, not national history.

“[Eddie Rispone] is trying to nationalize this race because that’s the only shot he has,” Edwards said. “He cannot win this race based on Louisiana issues because he hasn’t demonstrated any knowledge about how state government works, he doesn’t have any vision for the state of Louisiana, and to the extent that he has spoken in any specificity about his policy proposals they sound an awful lot like warmed-over failed policies of [former Governor] Bobby Jindal that ran our state so deep into the ditch.”

That ditch included a $2 billion dollar budget deficit and cuts to higher education funding—both of which Edwards reversed in his first term. Louisiana now has a budget surplus, and education funding has been restored.

Perhaps the most significant item on Edwards’ score sheet is expanding Medicaid. After Edwards’ predecessor, Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, refused to accept the Medicaid expansion offered by the Affordable Care Act beginning in 2014, it was one of the first things Edwards did when he was sworn in to office in 2017.

“And, bang, around 480,000 people who didn’t have health insurance got it. That’s unbelievably huge, that’s over 10 percent of the state population,” said Pearson Cross. “Not to mention roughly $12 billion in federal money coming to Louisiana as a result of Medicaid expansion. It was a no-brainer. You look at, well, we had a Republican governor who didn’t do that—Bobby Jindal—you want to go back there?”

Rispone has said, if elected, he would “freeze” Medicaid enrollment—potentially affecting the coverage of seasonal or shift workers, and effectively killing the program. In Kentucky, outgoing Governor Matt Bevin also threatened to cut Medicaid expansion in the state—which would have likely cost 400,000 people access to health insurance. Democratic Governor-elect Andy Beshear has promised to protect Medicaid in Kentucky (and, like Edwards, has promised a pay raise for teachers).

The scarlet letter on Edwards’ résumé is that he’s a Democrat in the deep red South. Successful record or not, he belongs to the wrong party—something Rispone and Trump hope to capitalize on. Rispone “says he wants to do what Donald Trump has done for the nation here in Louisiana,“ Cross said, “and that’s a message that resonates.”

Rispone—like Trump—is a businessman. His engineering and construction firm has made him one of Louisiana’s wealthiest citizens. He takes every opportunity—at debates, in commercials and at campaign appearances—to remind voters that he is not a career politician.

“Rispone doesn’t have a public profile, and he’s never held public office before, so when he announced [his candidacy] and released his first set of commercials, he made it clear that he was an ardent supporter of President Trump,” said Dr. Silas Lee, professor of public policy at Xavier University of Louisiana. “And considering this is a very red state that is very conservative on many issues, that made sense.”

“To the extent that Rispone has been successful at claiming the Trump mantle,” Cross adds, “I think he will be successful with many Republican voters in Louisiana, and conservative voters and people who like Trump.”

***

In the end, the race will likely be decided by supporters of Republican Rep. Ralph Abraham, the man who finished third in the October primary.

The final results of the October 12 primary had Edwards at 46.6 percent. Rispone, at 27.4 percent, edged out Abraham at 23.6 percent, to qualify for the runoff. Cross says those results indicate that Edwards is exceeding expectations for a Democrat in Louisiana.

Source link

The post Can Trump Win Governor of Louisiana? appeared first on News City Group.

from News City Group https://newscitygroup.com/can-trump-win-governor-of-louisiana/9811056/

[go-redgirl]

Fact Check: 19 False Claims in Barack Obama’s Speech for Joe Biden in Florida

President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Florida on behalf of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign on Saturday, in the course of which he stated at least nineteen false claims about President Donald Trump and his record.

From the transcript:

1. “He doesn’t have a plan” for coronavirus. Obama cited the presidential debate on Thursday. However, the president did, in fact, specifically mention Operation Warp Speed, his plan to develop and distribute a coronavirus vaccine quickly.

2. Trump couldn’t answer Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes when she asked, “What’s your priority in your second term?” In fact, Trump answered her: “The priority now is to get back to normal, get back to where we were, to have the economy rage and be great with jobs and everybody be happy. And that’s where we’re going and that’s where we’re heading.”

3. “He doesn’t even acknowledge that there’s a problem” (i.e. coronavirus).  This is obviously not true, and provably so. Trump even talked about coronavirus in his State of the Union address, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ripped in two.

4. Trump said “if you put some bleach in you, that might clean things up.” Trump never said that. He mentioned new, experimental technologies in UV light, and also specifically said he was not talking about putting bleach inside anyone.

5. “America created 1.5 million more jobs in the last year of the Obama-Biden administration than in the first three years of the Trump-Pence administration.” Obama seems to be saying that more jobs were created in 2016 than in 2017, 2018, and 2019 combined, which is demonstrably untrue. New revisions earlier this year indicated that slightly more jobs were created in 2016 than in any particular subsequent year. However, seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that more people were employed in each of the first three years of Trump’s presidency than in Obama’s last. In addition, Trump faced a different task. It is arguably easier to add jobs in the early stages of a recovery than it is to add jobs during a recovery already eight years old. The Obama-Biden recovery was the slowest since the Second World War.

6. Black unemployment went down, but “not because Donald Trump did anything.” It is possible to credit several Trump policies with lowering black unemployment, especially immigration enforcement. A 2007 paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research noted: “immigration has more far-reaching consequences than merely depressing wages and lowering employment rates of low-skilled African-American males: its effects also appear to push some would-be workers into crime and, later, into prison.” Trump’s focus on domestic manufacturing capacity also arguably played a role.

7. “The only people truly better off than they were four years ago are the billionaires who got Trump tax cuts.” A Gallup poll recently found that 56% of registered voters said they were better off than they were four years ago, which is a record high. (That’s a lot of billionaires.) In fact, a majority of Americans received a tax cut from Trump’s 2017 tax law.

8. “He barely pays income taxes.” In fact, Trump pays tens of millions of dollars in taxes, despite losses in some years.

9. Trump has “secret Chinese bank accounts.” The Trump hotel chain used a legal bank account to pay taxes in China when it made licensing deals. It is not a personal account and the account has reportedly been inactive for five years.

10. “His first year in the White House he only paid $750 in federal income tax.” Trump paid over seven million dollars in taxes in 2017, but used a tax credit from an earlier year to pay it. Also, he donated his entire salary to the government.

11. Trump has no plan “when it comes to preexisting conditions.” The president has constantly promised to provide health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions; he issued an executive order laying out his plan in September.

12. Trump “drove up costs” under Obamacare. Actually, Obamacare premiums have been falling under Trump.

13. Trump said: “We hope the Supreme Court takes your health insurance away.” Trump never said that. He said he hoped the Supreme Court would end Obamacare (“I hope that they end it”), noting his desire to replace it with a better plan.

14. Trump is “MIA” when “Russia puts bounties on the heads of our brave soldiers in Afghanistan.” The Pentagon said that there was never “corroborating evidence” of a supposed Russian program to pay bounties for killing U.S. soldiers.

15. “Joe Biden would never call the men and women of our military suckers and losers.” Neither would Trump, because it never happened. Biden did call U.S. troops “stupid bastards,” however. (He claimed that he had been joking.)

16. Trump asked if we could “nuke hurricanes.” Even Snopes.com regards this claim as “unproven.” Obama also claimed that Trump had suggested selling Puerto Rico, which even the source for that claim says was never seriously considered.

17. Trump “cannot call out or even criticize white supremacists.” This divisive, false claim is also easily disproven.

18. Trump “threatens people with jail for just criticizing him.” This does not appear to have ever happened. Trump did threaten a reporter with prison time — after he defied instructions not to photograph a classified letter from Jim Kong-un. It was the Obama administration, that tried to prosecute journalist James Risen of the New York Times, and which jailed an obscure filmmaker after it blamed an obscure anti-Islamic YouTube video for the Benghazi terror attack in September 2012.

19. The EPA is “giving polluters free reign to dump unlimited poison into our air and water.” Demonstrably untrue. Obama delivered several other attacks on members of Trump’s Cabinet in the same vein (“declared war on workers” etc.).

-----------------------------------------------

OPINION:  Well, what do expect from a former Democrat President, everything that they say or do are just lies.  

These types of people only enrich themselves off the backs of the un-informed and less educated citizens in this country and as the former ‘Slave Owners’  (i.e., Democrats) in this country, its amazing that the former Bi-racial President Obama only was voted for by Black Americans  because they wanted to see a Black President in the White House, and guess what, the so-called  Bi-racial Black President wasn’t the first one we’ve had as President in this country.

If you are smart enough just go back in time and check the history of Presidents that had ‘black blood’ in their roots.

You know, history is a wonderful thing if you only studied American History or even pick up a book that will enlighten your knowledge of all the Presidents that have served our country.

All Americans schools in our country should be required to teach American history good or bad, because if you don’t know what took place in the past you’ll in up repeating the bad as well as the good at some future time in this country.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing when you know the history of your own country.

When people/children in American Schools  are not taught facts  about the history of the United States the not so good  part of our history will truly  repeat its self, just in a different guise. 

IT WOULD BE OUTSTANDING TO REQUIRE THAT USA HISTORY IS MANDATORILY TAUGHT IN ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN OUR COUNTRY.

THINK ABOUT IT!

[worldfoxnewstoday]

How Democrats Are, and Aren’t, Challenging the Trump Economic Record

Ask Democratic candidates for president how they would challenge President Trump’s boasts about the economy, and the initial response tends to be less an attack than a concession.

“The overall numbers about G.D.P. or the stock market are great,” said Elizabeth Warren after a town hall here last week, before discussing long-term wage stagnation and health care costs.

“Yes, we are at a moment of stability, and we’re at this moment of expansion,” said Amy Klobuchar at an economy-themed talk at Dartmouth, before saying that made it a good time to address inequality and climate change.

“So Donald Trump is elected in the last two years — and I will confess, even he couldn’t screw up the momentum,” said Michael Bennet on “Meet the Press,” before mentioning housing, health care and higher education costs.

This speaks to the fundamental challenge that the eventual Democratic nominee is likely to face next year: an economy that is easily the strongest in two decades, with an unemployment rate at 50-year lows. How does a Democrat answer Mr. Trump’s inevitable claims that he has done more for the economy than any president ever?

Economists have some perfectly good rejoinders, which Democratic candidates for the presidency and many of their supporters are happy to articulate when asked.

In particular, since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the United States has experienced more a steady continuation of an expansion underway for the last seven years of the Obama administration than a meaningful acceleration of growth.

Tax cuts and spending increases have fueled the recent good times, raising the budget deficit and implying a slowdown could occur as those effects wear off. And while wages have started to grow a bit faster — 3.2 percent over the last year, versus 2.6 percent at the time of the 2016 election — they are not rising nearly as fast as they did during other prosperous periods in recent decades.

But these kinds of nuanced arguments are usually not the stuff of campaign rallies. And if the overall economic numbers remain strong, the Democratic nominee will be looking for a pathway to defeat Mr. Trump that is distinctly different from those taken the last two times an incumbent president lost. Historically, when a president seeks re-election, it amounts to a referendum on the state of the economy.

The last two one-term presidents were undone by economic slowdowns; they battled jobless rates of 7.4 percent (George H.W. Bush) and 7.5 percent (Jimmy Carter) on Election Day. The unemployment rate currently stands at 3.6 percent.

Read more : GOP lawmaker’s delay of $19 billion disaster bill demonstrates the power of one

Moreover, voters appear to be more positive about the economy than they have been in many years. In polling by Gallup this spring, the share of Americans who described the economy as “excellent” hovered near its highest levels since 2000, and only 13 percent of Americans mentioned economic issues as the nation’s most important problem.

That helps explain why the candidates are avoiding frontal assaults on the economy. Most prefer to change the subject to longer-term problems than to get wrapped up in debates over the Obama economic record or budget deficits.

“The challenge that Trump could run into in 2020 is that people don’t measure the quality of their economic life in the jobs numbers they see,” said Jacob Leibenluft, who worked in the Obama White House and was a senior policy adviser on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “If you look at what Trump has done from a policy perspective, there’s very little to suggest that he’s addressed the acute problems that people feel in their economic lives.”

Indeed, Democratic base voters — like those who showed up at campaign events recently in New Hampshire — tend to latch onto problems deeper than what macroeconomists normally talk about when evaluating the economy.

“Unemployment isn’t much of a problem, but I know many people here in Nashua who are extremely poor,” said Robyn Robison, 58, at a campaign event for Senator Warren. “They’re working for 50 hours a week to make the rent payment and basic utilities and don’t have anything left over to save for the future. Meanwhile, the tax cuts went to Fortune 500 companies and the wealthiest people.”

That view aligns with how Ms. Warren and other candidates have cast their economic arguments — not so much litigating the state of the near-term economic cycle as making the case that something deeper has gone wrong in recent decades that Mr. Trump has done little to fix.

Speaking with reporters, after acknowledging the overall numbers are “great,” she said: “But they don’t reflect the experience of most Americans. Go around a room like this and for most people wages haven’t gone up in a generation. And yet the cost of housing, the cost of health care, the cost of child care, the cost of sending kids to college has all gone through the roof.”Perhaps unsurprisingly, Joe Biden has chosen a strategy of attributing much of the economy’s strength to the Obama administration in which he served as vice president.

“I know President Trump likes to take credit for the economy and the economic growth and the low unemployment numbers,” Mr. Biden said at a rally in Philadelphia. “President Trump inherited an economy from the Obama/Biden administration that was given to him, just like he inherited everything else in his life.”

That matches the views of many Democratic voters.

“Trump inherited a good economy,” said Walter Hoerman, a pediatrician who lives in Portsmouth N.H. “He never talks about a particular policy he’s done that has helped because he hasn’t really done anything but this tariff stuff.”

“The stock market is fine, but that’s about it,” said Dr. Hoerman, who was attending the Rockingham County Democrats Clambake last weekend where Senator Warren spoke.

Sabina Chen of Pelham, N.H., is a small businesswoman, the owner of a microelectronics manufacturing company that employs 14 people. “It’s been a good couple of years for us — I was able to give my folks bonuses this year,” she said at a gathering for Senator Klobuchar in Salem.

But she then began listing ways that the Trump administration has either made things worse or failed to make them better. “Our health care costs are high, and our health insurance program is not great,” she said. Tariffs resulting from the administration’s trade wars are on track to increase costs of many of her raw materials in the months ahead, she said, which could prove a strain on business.

Moreover, “I’d like to see more investment in education so that my work force is prepared to come in and work at a skilled level,” Ms. Chen said. “As a small-business owner, we can see things that are good for us now, but what are the things we need to continue?”

Democrats are already making more direct criticisms of Mr. Trump’s failure to deliver on some of the economic promises of his 2016 campaign: He has not produced a much better, cheaper health care system, nor made huge investment in infrastructure.

If the economy wobbles between now and Election Day 2020 — something the escalation of the trade war with China could make more possible — expect more of those head-on attacks, and less willingness to concede that the overall economy is doing pretty well.

..READ FULL NEWS : https://worldfoxnews.com/2019/05/26/democrats-arent-challenging-trump-economic-record/

 READ MORE :

INTERNATIONAL NEWS

[humorepoch9-blog]

Arne Duncan: It's Not in 'Trump's Best Interest to Have a Well-Educated Citizenry'

Washington

President Donald Trump and his administration get a political boost when Americans aren't taught to think critically or to have a deep understanding of civics, former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told a crowd at the National Press Club here.

"We have a president who says 'don't watch, don't listen, don't pay attention to what you see out there. Listen to me, I'm your source of truth.' That's a very, very, very scary thing," Duncan said Thursday. "It's one thing to disagree and disagree vehemently on policy. It's a different thing to say the press are the enemy of the people. And the only way an authoritarian leader keeps his power is to have people who start to believe that, who are beholden to that idea. People who can think independently, people who are going to think critically are not going to embrace anybody, president or anybody, saying 'I'm the source of truth.' "

Duncan, who was President Barack Obama's longest-serving education secretary, argued that unlike his former boss, Trump hasn't set any long-term goals for the country's educational achievement, like leading the world in college graduation rates or pre-kindergarten enrollment.

"I would almost argue it's intentional. It's by design. They're not committed to having the best educated citizenry in the world. And that's a scary thing," Duncan said. "We need to have a civically engaged democracy. And the only way I know how to do that is to have well-educated citizens. And I don't think it's in president Trump's best interest to have a well-educated citizenry."

On the 2016 campaign trail, Trump said he "love[s] the poorly educated." And there was a big gap in results between college-educated and non-college educated voters in the 2016. College graduates backed Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic opponent, by a 9-point margin (52 percent to 43 percent), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52 percent to 44 percent, according to the Pew Research Center.

Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos have called for giving citizens more opportunities for on-the-job training, even though they haven't put federal financial resources behind those efforts. And earlier this week, DeVos decried a lack of focus on civics education in schools. The Trump administration hasn't funneled additional federal resources towards history or government classes.

Duncan was at the press club to showcase his new book, "How Schools Work: An Inside Account of Success and Failure From One of the Nation's Longest-Serving Education Secretaries." (We wrote about the book here.)

During his talk, he hit on some of the biggest themes in the book, including:

• The need to restrict firearms: "We value our guns more than we value our children," Duncan said. "People just don't die from gun violence in other nations," he added, ticking off Australia, Canada, and Japan.

And he doesn't think that beefing up school safety by making schools tougher targets is the way to solve the school shooting problem. "This quote unquote 'hardening schools,' that's a cute soundbite," Duncan said. But he doesn't see any substance there. "This was manufactured by the NRA," he said, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Hardening schools" won't work on field trips, at recess, on buses, and more, Duncan said.

• Going beyond high school: Duncan said the country needs to move, at minimum, to a pre-K-14 system, instead of the kindergarten through senior year of high school model in most communities. "A high school diploma is necessary, it is critical, but it is insufficient," he said. Students need some college credit or an industry certification, he said.

• School desegregation: Duncan said he sees this as an important issue, but he acknowledges he didn't do enough on it as secretary. He gave props to his successor John B. King Jr. for making it a priority.

"That's one [area] I would give myself relatively low marks for," Duncan said of integrating schools. "We got less done than I would have liked. Schools are a reflection of their neighborhood, of their community. That's the first huge hurdle that we are trying to work around. Americans choose to self-segregate. That's a conscious choice that we make. ... Too many Americans aren't comfortable living with people who don't look like us."

He suggested that district leaders place excellent schools in high-minority communities, because white families will follow. That's something he tried to do in Chicago, he said.

Duncan, who is currently a managing partner at the Emerson Collective, which works on education, immigration, and other issues, was asked if he'd be interested in running for mayor of Chicago.

His answer? A hard no. "I love what I'm doing. I want to keep working in the community," said Duncan, whose focus has been on curbing gun violence in his hometown. "There are like, 20 people who want to be mayor. No one's jumping to do what I'm doing."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan speaking at the White House in Washington in 2014.

--Jacquelyn Martin/AP-File

Don't miss another Politics K-12 post. Sign up here to get news alerts in your email inbox.

Follow us on Twitter at @PoliticsK12.

Source: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/09/arne-duncan-trump-gun-violence-democracy-civics-educated.html

[orbemnews]

From building the wall to bringing back coal: Some of Trump's more notable broken promises To be sure, Trump delivered on a number of initial campaign promises. He cut regulations, lowered taxes, withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership, pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement and appointed hundreds of conservative justices. But in many cases, the reality behind the talking points and slogans fell short of what was actually promised. Here’s a look back at how some of the most notable promises Trump made during his campaigns and throughout his time in office stack up against reality. Throughout his presidency, Trump acted as if this was one accomplishment he had successfully crossed off the list, continuing to tout the hundreds of miles of wall his administration had built. But the figures he threw out, as recently as in his recorded farewell video, were misleading and didn’t live up to what he initially promised. As of January 8, 2021, 453 miles of border barriers were built under the Trump administration, just 47 of which were erected where no barriers had existed before. Of the other 406 miles: 22 miles replaced previously existing dilapidated or outdated secondary barriers, 33 miles were new secondary barriers where there had previously been only primary barriers and 351 miles replaced previously existing primary barriers that the government considered dilapidated or outdated. While these replacement barriers are not insignificant, it’s worth noting that Trump did not build a new wall. Furthermore, during the campaign, Trump insisted that Americans would not pay for the wall or any new barriers his administration constructed. According to Trump, Mexico would pay for the wall, but both the former and current Mexican president have refused to do so (the former President was more explicit while the current President, who has been less critical of Trump and has just avoided the topic). In the end, the US government spent billions in federal funds on the wall. Since January 2017, approximately $15 billion has been allocated to construct both new and replacement structures for the border wall through a combination of Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense funding combined with the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, according to a January 2021 report from Customs and Border Protection. Vaccines As the coronavirus pandemic dominated the final year of Trump’s presidency, he made a series of promises regarding a vaccine. Trump repeatedly stated the US would have a vaccine by the end of 2020. While experts were skeptical, the Trump administration’s accelerated vaccine development initiative, Operation Warp Speed, did result in a vaccine approved for distribution before the end of the year. The Food and Drug Administration gave emergency use authorization to Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine in mid-December and to Moderna’s vaccine about a week later. But while Trump exceeded expectations in terms of the vaccine production timeline, his administration struggled to fulfill his promises regarding vaccine distribution. In October, Trump promised 100 million doses of the vaccine delivered before the end of the year. Though Trump administration officials later reduced the goal to 20 million Americans vaccinated against coronavirus by the end of December 2020, neither promise was ultimately fulfilled. Several states have blamed the federal government for the failure to meet the vaccination goals, complaining that the Trump administration initially provided fewer doses than previously promised. And with no federal mandate for how to administer the vaccines, eligibility for receiving the vaccine varied from state to state, likely causing an uneven distribution. As of December 31, 2020, fewer than 13 million vaccines had been distributed. Pre-existing conditions In countless rallies and other speeches, Trump claimed he and his administration would always protect people with pre-existing conditions. This is one promise CNN was able to fact check even before the end of Trump’s presidency, as the Trump administration and Republicans repeatedly put forward bills and filed lawsuits that would weaken Obamacare’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Trump also never issued a plan to protect those with pre-existing conditions, despite repeatedly promising to do so. Obamacare During his first campaign, Trump promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, a health care law often referred to as Obamacare. After the passage of the 2017 Republican tax bill which addressed a provision of the law, Trump began to claim victory. But despite his insistence to the contrary, Obamacare did not end under Trump’s administration, essentially or otherwise. In the 2017 tax bill, Republicans effectively eliminated the individual mandate, a key part of Obamacare, by reducing the penalty for not having insurance to $0. But other provisions of the law remained. The bill did not eliminate Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid insurance program for low-income people, the federal and state marketplaces that allow people to shop for coverage, or the consumer subsidies that help many of them make the purchases. While Trump continued to take other steps to weaken Obamacare, much of it still exists. Debt Trump initially pledged to eliminate the US debt in eight years. He later scaled down the promise to just reducing a portion of the then-$19 trillion dollar debt. Though he didn’t specify the extent of the new goal, under Trump the debt and deficit only got worse. According to the latest report from the Government Accountability Office, the federal debt was at $26.9 trillion as of September 30, 2020. The GAO attributed the increase between 2019 and 2020 to the federal government’s Covid-19 pandemic response, but the national debt was rising even before the pandemic. By the end of 2019, the federal debt was at $22.7 trillion, more than three trillion more than right before Trump took office. Manufacturing One of Trump’s flagship campaign promises was to revive US manufacturing and in his final State of the Union address, he claimed to have succeeded in “restoring our Nation’s manufacturing.” Manufacturing employment did increase during the first three years of Trump’s presidency, but ultimately, any gains were gone by the end of his presidency, leaving the status of US manufacturing no better than when he took office. Between January 2017 and the end of 2020, there was a net decrease in manufacturing employment. While some of the decrease could likely be attributed to the pandemic, America’s manufacturing sector was in a downturn even before that, as CNN reported in August 2019 that the sector shrunk for the first time since September 2009. 4% GDP growth During his first presidential campaign, Trump set a goal of “4% economic growth” nationally, despite skepticism from economists. While Trump heavily leaned on his economic accomplishments throughout his time in office, annual GDP growth since 2017 never reached 4%, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The quarterly GDP growth rate did hit 4% once, in the 4th quarter of 2020, though economists say that wasn’t enough to make up for the year’s historically awful second quarter. 2020 also marked the first year US GDP declined since 2009. Average GDP growth did increase slightly under Trump, to 2.5% during his first three years. That’s well below the 4% Trump had promised but a bit better than the 2.4% average growth rate during the last three years of Obama’s time in office. But as of the 3rd quarter of his fourth year in office, the GDP growth under Trump was less than under the last five presidents before him at the same time in their presidencies, due in large part to the Covid-19 pandemic. Trade deficits As a candidate, Trump pledged to narrow America’s trade deficit, especially with China. Although progress was made, Trump wasn’t entirely successful. In 2019, the goods trade deficit with China fell to its lowest level since 2014. The overall US trade deficit also shrank in 2019, but it remained higher than when Trump took office. The gap was further exacerbated by the pandemic, with the trade deficit increasing nearly every month between April and August 2020. In November 2020, the trade deficit reached its highest level since 2006. Coal At different times throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump said he was going to “bring back” coal and “put the miners back to work.” In 2016, the US produced more than 728 million tons of coal, according to the annual report from the Energy Information Administration. While the Trump administration made some policy moves to try to help the coal industry, production levels have not increased under the Trump administration. The most recent available report indicates the US produced 706 million tons of coal in 2019, its lowest level since 1978, when there was a major strike. According to a 2019 report from the International Energy Agency, the decrease in US coal production is in part the result of a shift toward cleaner renewables and cheaper natural gas. “Cheap and abundant natural gas combined with the climate policies of many states will continue to squeeze coal out of the electricity market,” the report claims. A November 2020 report from S&P Global Market Intelligence also shows a decrease in coal jobs since the start of the Trump administration. Furthermore, the 3rd quarter of 2020 marked a new low in average coal mine employment according to the S&P analysis. Guns At a 2016 campaign rally, Trump said, “My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones.” He later doubled-down on the promise, telling the media he was going to do something to end gun free zones. Not only did he not sign any legislation banning gun-free zones on his first day in office, but this was never accomplished. Though House Republicans proposed bills to repeal the Crime Control Act of 1990 which made it a crime to possess a gun within school grounds, these efforts were unsuccessful. Lobbying In 2016, Trump called for enacting a five-year ban “on all executive branch officials lobbying the government for five years after they leave government service.” Within his first week, Trump signed the “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees” executive order. While on the surface that may have seemed like a promise kept, the order contained a loophole. The order only required appointees to pledge that they will not “engage in lobbying activities with respect” to the executive agency they were appointed to serve, language which could theoretically have permitted officials to lobby on other issues not directly related to their role less than five years after they stopped working for the federal government. Additionally, days before his presidency came to an end, Trump revoked the rule, ostensibly allowing his former administration officials to begin lobbying when they left government if they so choose. Leaving the White House In 2015, shortly after announcing his run for President, Trump said if elected he would “rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done.” He also criticized Obama for “all of the time [he] spent on the golf course, often flying to Hawaii in a big, fully loaded 747, to play.” And yet, Trump left the White House repeatedly while he was president, often to spend time at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida or at his golf courses across the nation. In 2019 alone he spent 1 in 5 days at a golf club, per CNN’s count. CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story oversimplified what Republicans did to the individual mandate in 2017. They effectively eliminated it by reducing the penalty for not having insurance to zero. Source link Orbem News #Bringing #broken #Building #coal #Frombuildingthewalltobringingbackcoal:SomeofTrump'smorenotablebrokenpromises-CNNPolitics #notable #Politics #Promises #Trumps #Wall

[news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog]

How legal weed plans to get along with a hostile Trump administration

Trump’s new administration has made it pretty clear that it’s not cool with legal weed.

In the three months since Donald Trump took office, multiple members of his administration have spoken in veiled terms about some future possible action, hinting that the growing medical and recreational marijuana industry might suffer some federal restrictions, if not a fatal crackdown. 

So, how does the young marijuana industry, which a large majority of Americans support, hope to stand its ground as Trump and his band of merry anti-marijuana men sharpen their knives to potentially gut it? 

Interestingly, people in the industry don't seem extremely concerned so far.

"[I]n the long run, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to halt the progress of cannabis," said Max Simon, founder and CEO of Green Flower, an educational platform to spread awareness of marijuana and its benefits. "It's become too popular, too supported, and in many cases, too effective to keep the lid on for too long. So even if it gets uncomfortable in the short term, legal cannabis is here to stay."

But that hasn't stopped the new administration from shooting the opening volleys in what may prove to be a dynamic shift in this young economic force.

Pot shots fired

The candidates did not speak a great deal on marijuana during the 2016 campaign, despite the fact that four states legalized recreational marijuana and four legalized medical on election night. However, as Trump began to fill his administration in those bleary days after his electoral victory, it became clear that legal pot might not face the greatest of welcome from the new federal authorities.

In particular, new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was an ardent and early supporter of Trump's bid for the White House, is well known to get his dander up when it comes to the dankness. As a prosecutor in the 1980s Sessions, who is named after a Confederate general, once said that he thought the KKK was, "OK until I found out they smoked pot."

He vocally opposed the blossoming of the marijuana industry and regularly criticized Obama's attorney generals for not enforcing the fact that the drug remains a Schedule I Controlled Substance by the federal government — on par with heroin.

And now he's exactly in the right position to make things very difficult for the marijuana industry, with the weight of federal, and ultimately state law enforcement behind him.

It didn't take long for Trump's administration to get comfortable in their Cabinet before cracks began to show in the new president's patience for pot. Though it has only been mentioned a few times, each reference to the marijuana industry has suggested the government's interest in tightening restrictions on it.

At the end of February, Press Secretary Sean Spicer spoke out against recreational marijuana, saying that there would be "greater enforcement of it."

This sentiment has intensified over the past few weeks as Sessions set up a special task force on April 5 aimed at reducing violent crime. The memo that announced the task force explicitly states that it would make sure states' marijuana policies aligned with the federal's own aims of tackling violent crime. All this disregards the fact that no credible studies have shown a link between marijuana and violent crime. 

Then, just over the weekend, Department of Homeland Security head John Kelly said at a speech in George Washington University that the feds wouldn't mess around when it came to weed, saying: "Its use and possession is against federal law and until the law is changed by the U.S. Congress we in DHS are sworn to uphold all the laws on the books."

With so much seeming to threaten the very future of the marijuana industry, you'd think people working in it and around it would be walking on eggshells, but most of the people we spoke to seemed downright optimistic.

The industrial resolution

Currently, 28 states allow medical marijuana usage and eight have legalized recreational use. The recent embrace of legal pot jumpstarted a multi-billion dollar industry that has injected states with millions in tax revenue. The marijuana industry is also expected to create more jobs in the next few years than the manufacturing industry, according to a study by New Frontier Data.

It's a new and growing economic behemoth that's just getting started — if Trump and his administration allow it to go forward, that is. For all the talk along the campaign trail about states' rights, Trump and Congress still have the power of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives them the power to tell states what they can and can't legalize.

The federal chatter would seem enough to harshen even the deepest of mellows. Yet those working in the industry aren't worried. Insiders like Simon believe that the people who voted for legalization and enjoy it will not be happy with any federal crackdown.

"If the government plans to start restricting people's access to cannabis because of out-date information, I can promise you that our audience will fight back with the knowledge they have gained through us," Simon said. "We feel like we represent the positive aspects of cannabis here at Green Flower, and I'm certain our tribe would lend their time and energy to make their voices heard should the government start to go against state wishes."

Many, like cannabis media consultant Jim Walsh, think the government's energies would be better spent elsewhere.

He, like many others, believe that decades of negative information spread about marijuana has led to the continued antagonism between legalization efforts and the government.

"People like Jeff Sessions, they've had propaganda delivered to them for years. It's become part of their reality," Walsh said. For the Attorney General's part, Sessions even said recently how surprised he was that Americans didn't agree with his opinions on legal weed. 

Simon agreed that educating people is one of the best avenues towards securing a stable future for the industry. 

"Most people have been told for decades that this plant is evil, so it makes sense that our current administration believes they need to 'protect us' from it," he said. "So while it can be very frustrating and even scary to hear how the current administration plans to roll back adult-use legislation, we need to be patient with them and continue to take every opportunity to educate them about the truth."

On the policy side, Mason Tvert, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, agreed having discussions with lawmakers remains the most important thing the industry can do.

"Organizations and businesses are reaching out to lawmakers and we're encouraging them to meet with the administration," he said, saying they will continue their mission to, "... lobby in congress for federal change to build support in congress that would support legislation that would protect legal marijuana."

But in regards to the administration's talk, Tvert said that their work has remained relatively unaffected.

"Not much as changed yet for the Marijuana Policy Project," Tvert said. "We're answering questions more about this than we were before."

Investors are still willing to invest

You'd think that investors in weed businesses would take the federal government's threats to heart and not take a chance on putting money in an entire industry at risk. But the investors we talked to seem only a tad more concerned than the industry folks. They're basically nonplussed.

"We're cautiously optimistic." Alicia Syrett, founder & CEO at Pantegrion Capital LLC and an investor in a few satellite cannabis businesses, said about the investment community. "There's a huge number of factors pushing for the growth of the cannabis industry."

She mentioned the global push for legalization in Canada and Europe, the speed of the industry's growth, the "very strong" consumer demand, and the medical benefits that can be derived from it.

Although the government is talking tough on it, Syrett said that a future with marijuana is basically unavoidable. 

"What people are feeling right now is a lot of anxiety, but the cat's out of the bag," she said. "Moving this back is going to hurt a lot of people."

Syrett said that the administration's language certainly gives those interested in backing marijuana businesses pause, but it doesn't change the resonate momentum that has been building over the past decade.

"Of course, these circumstances will make investors more cautious, but it's still a massive, multi-billion dollar industry and consumers want it," she said. "I feel like this is a hard battle to pick."

As for what the marijuana industry could do to improve its position in the administration's eyes, Syrett said that some pointed information should be spread on how it is helping the American economy.

"There are cannabis funds to advocate for job growth from the industry," she said. "I'd probably highlight the job growth aspects." 

Jeanne M. Sullivan, a New York City-based investor and advisor in the cannabis industry, had basically the same insights.

"My view in a nutshell: the voices of the 28 states that have voted for medical marijuana are so loud now," she said. "And what about the thousands of new jobs that are being created, revenue, and tax revenue​ in the eight Adult Use states​? The current White House team cannot overlook that."

So, where's this Trump train actually headed?

As with many things, it's difficult to tell where exactly Trump stands on this, particularly since the buck stops with him.

One of Trump's few mentions of marijuana came during a February 2016 interview with ousted no-spin-zoner Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. 

There, he said this decisive sentence: "I think it's good and, in other ways, it's bad."

Previously, he had said at a rally in late 2015 that states should have the right to legalize marijuana if the voters approve it. 

But really, with his cabinet appointments and his continued silence on the matter, it appears as if the issue of marijuana legalization isn't a high priority for the president.

Additionally, Trump continues to receive financial backing from those staunchly against any sort of legal pot.

It came out this week that very rich Nevadan Sheldon Adelson donated $5 million to Trump's inauguration. This same savvy dude also donated millions to anti-marijuana campaigns in Massachusetts, Florida, and his home state last year. He almost single handedly funded the Nevada anti-pot campaign. And his views on marijuana probably haven't changed just because a majority of Nevadans disagreed with him.

On the other hand, Roger Stone, a longtime ally and self-described "advisor" to Trump has been pleading with the administration to leave legal weed alone.

In February, he tweeted his resistance to Spicer's "greater enforcement" comments. 

A crackdown on legal marijuana in the states will cost thousands of jobs & bankrupt local govt- huge mistake #StatesRights @realDonaldTrump

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) February 24, 2017

He wrote a blog post on March 31 about how legalizing marijuana is a state's right. And then today, possibly in celebration of 420, he tweeted again at the president that the "people have spoken."

The people have spoken @realDonaldTrump. Don't let Jeff Sessions' draconian views on 420 run roughshod over states. https://t.co/pDPzvQ8XmS

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) April 20, 2017

In responding to our request for comment, the Justice Department offered remarks that Sessions had made previously on his department's efforts to reduce violent crime.

"It’s not recreational. It can be destructive, and it consistently is destructive," he said about marijuana. "Lives are at stake, and we’re not going to worry about being fashionable, in my view at this point in time. We’re going to see, and we’re already seeing the death and destruction that results from the prevalence of drugs in America... So we’re going to have to stand out and confront that... Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs is bad – it will destroy your life."

Whichever way the winds blow Trump's ultimate decision, people within the industry hold tight to spreading education, eliminating misinformation, and trumpeting the will of the people. 

"Cannabis isn't killing people out there," Walsh said. "Alcohol is killing people. Cannabis isn't killing people."

If the administration does clamp down on the new economic juggernaut, it's fair to say that it will have to contend with many, many upset voters. 

"Most people, including the government, have a very out-dated picture about who uses cannabis. It's the stereotypical stoner," Simon said. But the truth is that cannabis users are everyone. It's grandma and grandpa, it's your nurse, it's your teacher, it's your favorite athletes, and everyone in between."

WATCH: Relax with a Weed Facial

[michaelwalshblog-blog]

Green groups denounce Trump’s ‘all-out assault’ on climate regulations

President Donald Trump listens during a meeting with the Fraternal Order of Police in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, March 28, 2017, in Washington. (Photo: Evan Vucci/AP)

President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday afternoon following through on his campaign promise to roll back Obama-era environmental protections intended to combat climate change.

The Trump administration’s “Energy Independence” order essentially begins the process of dismantling the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which limits greenhouse gas emissions from coal-burning power plants. It was former President Barack Obama’s signature legislation for restricting the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.

In courting miners on the campaign trail, Trump condemned his predecessor’s environmental policies as an assault on American workers in the coal industry. His rhetoric made no allowances for jobs that might be created in renewable energy. In 2015, Fortune Magazine calculated there were twice as many Americans working in the solar-power industry as coal miners.

While introducing Trump at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters, Vice President Mike Pence said, “The war on coal is over. Everyone here knows the truth that affordable, abundant and reliable energy powers the American economy.”

Trump celebrated the signing of the executive order as the start of “a new era” in U.S. energy production and job creation.

“The action I’m taking today will eliminate federal overreach, restore economic freedom and allow our companies and our workers to thrive, compete and succeed on a level-playing field for the first time in a long time, fellas. It’s been a long time. I’m not just talking about eight years. I’m talking about a lot longer than eight years,” Trump said.

Earlier Tuesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the executive order directs all agencies to review all regulations, rules, policies and guidance documents that hinder domestic energy production and identify those that are not mandated by law or contributing the public welfare.

“For too long the federal government has acted as barrier to energy independence and innovation. By reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles, we’ll free up American energy companies to responsibly use our vast energy resources,” Spicer said.

In anticipation of the executive order, Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said Tuesday morning that she will not surrender “our children’s future” to profits for the coal and natural gas industry without a fight.

“This is an all-out assault on the protections we need to avert climate catastrophe. It’s a senseless betrayal of our national interests. And it’s a short-sighted attempt to undermine American clean energy leadership,” Suh said in a statement.

Graphiq

“Trump is sacrificing our future for fossil fuel profits – and leaving our kids to pay the price. This would do lasting damage to our environment and public lands, threaten our homes and health, hurt our pocketbooks and slow the clean energy progress that has already generated millions of good-paying jobs.”

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) president Gene Karpinski also weighed in:

“Rolling back these public health protections shows Trump cares more about big polluters than the well-being of our communities. There is no excuse for unsafe drinking water, dirty air, more asthma attacks in kids, and increased extreme weather events that destroy homes and livelihoods,” Karpinski said. “Donald Trump may care more about corporate interests, but the people of this country care about a safe, clean and healthy environment and they will not let him get away with destroying it.”

The CPP is the centerpiece of Obama’s efforts to fight climate change. It’s also the key to U.S. compliance with the landmark Paris Agreement, in which 194 countries pledged to reduce carbon emissions to limit the increase in average global temperature to below 2°C. That dismantling the CPP disrupts the Paris Agreement likely wouldn’t bother Trump much — since he’s vowed to pull the U.S. from the accord anyway.

A senior administration official told reporters Tuesday, “The previous administration devalued workers by the policies. We’re saying we can do both. We can protect the environment and provide people with work and keep the economy growing. And that’s the policy agenda we’re going to try to focus on.”

But scientists say that climate change will have serious economic consequences in the form of rising sea levels and more disastrous hurricanes. The White House official could not respond when asked what the administration makes of those economic arguments.

“Again, you’ll have to talk to those scientists. Maybe I can talk to you afterward. I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about,” the official said.

Trump once characterized himself as being an environmentalist “to a large extent” but his actions and rhetoric paint a drastically different picture. In fact, that same day he signed executive orders advancing the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.

In December, more than 2,300 scientists, including 22 Nobel Prize winners, signed an open letter beseeching Trump to respect scientific research and rely upon it when shaping policy.

The former real estate magnate went on to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has close ties to the fossil fuel industry and sued the EPA more than a dozen times, to lead that very agency. Pruitt recently said he does not think carbon dioxide is the primary driver of climate change. Trump’s secretary of state is former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, whose company has been accused of leading a campaign to deny climate change as far back as the 1970s — although ironically its public stance now (acknowledging that “the risk of climate change is real and the risk warrants action”) would seem to put it to the left of the administration on this issue.

Graphiq

Trump has variously called climate change a hoax perpetrated by China to make the U.S. uncompetitive in manufacturing and claimed “nobody really knows” if it’s real. Neither is accurate. The overwhelming majority of scientific organizations say the scientific evidence of the climate system’s warming is incontrovertible.

For instance, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.K. Royal Society, the Science Council of Japan and other international science organizations signed a joint statement affirming the reality of climate change back in 2005.

“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring,” the statement reads. “The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.”

Independent analyses from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that the Earth’s average surface temperatures in 2016 were the warmest since record keeping began in 1880. It was the third consecutive year that the global temperatures set a new record for warmth.

Amid such dire data, 21 young Americans, who range in age from 9 to 20, have taken it upon themselves to force the federal government to protect the environment. The group filed a lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. They argue that the U.S. government’s actions contributing to climate change violate the younger generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property and amount to a failure to protect public trust resources. The case is expected to go to trial sometime this year.

Joanne Spalding, the chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, said the lawsuit is especially important given the Trump administration’s apparent denial of climate science.

“The Juliana case essentially says no matter what the statutes require of the EPA or other agencies, there is this fundamental right to a life-sustaining climate and that the federal government has a duty to protect that,” Spalding told Yahoo News. “It’s really groundbreaking.”

Read more from Yahoo News:

Democrat Adam Schiff, probing Trump ties, has gone up against Russia (and Stephen Colbert) before

Justice Department warns of a crackdown on ‘sanctuary’ policies

Russia probe in turmoil as top Dems call for Nunes’ recusal

On NYC killing, White House condemns hate crimes — and a ‘rush to judgment’ by the left

Photos: On the brink of famine: Worst humanitarian crisis hits as Trump slashes foreign aid