Compilation Of Trump Self-contradictions

Democrats' Advantage In The Electoral College

The electoral college consists of 538 members, called electors. Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its congressional representatives plus two for its senators. (D.C. is given a number equal to the least populous state -- currently three.) Seven states, along with D.C., have three electors; California is the largest, with 55. Texas has 38; Florida and New York have 29 each; Illinois and Pennsylvania have 20 each. 270 votes are required to win the presidency.

Respected nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales has recently rated the states as solidly Republican or Democrat, leaning R or D, and tossups. He believes there are 217 safe votes for Democrats, with 32 leaning D, for a total of 249, only 21 short of the magic number of 270. Republicans, though, have only 191 safe votes, and according to Gonzales, none of the states lean R; they are 79 votes short. 88 votes are rated as a tossup.

Belmont and Fishtown

Social scientist Charles Murray writes here in the Wall Street Journal of two imaginary composite communities, a well-off, educated Belmont and a working-class Fishtown:

To illustrate just how wide the gap has grown between the new upper class and the new lower class, let me start with the broader upper-middle and working classes from which they are drawn, using two fictional neighborhoods that I hereby label Belmont (after an archetypal upper-middle-class suburb near Boston) and Fishtown (after a neighborhood in Philadelphia that has been home to the white working class since the Revolution).

To be assigned to Belmont, the people in the statistical nationwide databases on which I am drawing must have at least a bachelor's degree and work as a manager, physician, attorney, engineer, architect, scientist, college professor or content producer in the media. To be assigned to Fishtown, they must have no academic degree higher than a high-school diploma. If they work, it must be in a blue-collar job, a low-skill service job such as cashier, or a low-skill white-collar job such as mail clerk or receptionist.

People who qualify for my Belmont constitute about 20% of the white population of the U.S., ages 30 to 49. People who qualify for my Fishtown constitute about 30% of the white population of the U.S., ages 30 to 49.

I specify white, meaning non-Latino white, as a way of clarifying how broad and deep the cultural divisions in the U.S. have become. Cultural inequality is not grounded in race or ethnicity. I specify ages 30 to 49—what I call prime-age adults—to make it clear that these trends are not explained by changes in the ages of marriage or retirement.

He goes on to illustrate changes that have occurred in Belmont and Fishtown since 1960, using the categories of marriage, single parenthood, industriousness (unemployment), crime, and religiosity.

He comments on the enormous cultural differences between the two communities that have grown since 1960, when society was much more egalitarian, and on the growth of the "power elite":

It gets worse. A subset of Belmont consists of those who have risen to the top of American society. They run the country, meaning that they are responsible for the films and television shows you watch, the news you see and read, the fortunes of the nation's corporations and financial institutions, and the jurisprudence, legislation and regulations produced by government. They are the new upper class, even more detached from the lives of the great majority of Americans than the people of Belmont—not just socially but spatially as well. The members of this elite have increasingly sorted themselves into hyper-wealthy and hyper-elite ZIP Codes that I call the SuperZIPs.

... the nation's power elite does in fact live in a world that is far more culturally rarefied and isolated than the world of the power elite in 1960.

And the isolation is only going to get worse. Increasingly, the people who run the country were born into that world. Unlike the typical member of the elite in 1960, they have never known anything but the new upper-class culture. We are now seeing more and more third-generation members of the elite. Not even their grandparents have been able to give them a window into life in the rest of America.

It's a problem. What can be done about it?

... the most successful Americans will continue to trend toward consolidation and isolation as a class. Changes in marginal tax rates on the wealthy won't make a difference. Increasing scholarships for working-class children won't make a difference.

The only thing that can make a difference is the recognition among Americans of all classes that a problem of cultural inequality exists and that something has to be done about it. That "something" has nothing to do with new government programs or regulations. Public policy has certainly affected the culture, unfortunately, but unintended consequences have been as grimly inevitable for conservative social engineering as for liberal social engineering.

The "something" that I have in mind has to be defined in terms of individual American families acting in their own interests and the interests of their children.

Murray is a right-wing guy with the American Enterprise Institute, but this article is worth reading.

The Republican Dilemma, 2016

“Do we run the risk of depressing our base by repudiating the guy, or do we run the risk of being tarred and feathered by independents for not repudiating him?” asked Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster working on many of this year’s races. “We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.”

VPNs (Virtual Private Networks)

Click here for an article at How-to Geek entitled "How to Choose the Best VPN Service for Your Needs." It gives a fairly thorough explanation of VPNs, and gives three recommendations -- StrongVPN, SurfEasy, and Tunnel Bear.

Ezra Klein On Trump

Click here for an article by Ezra Klein at Vox entitled "Donald Trump’s nomination is the first time American politics has left me truly afraid." This is the best, most comprehensive takedown of Trump I've read recently (no doubt there'll be lots more as the election approaches).

Longtime Republican Activist Quits The Party

I've cut-and-pasted this directly from a Digby article at Hullabaloo. She links an article she's written for Salon entitled "The beginning of the end: Trump's nomination signals the collapse of an ideological movement and a political party": click here. (The subheading of the article: "Trump's disturbing speech showed exactly why American conservatism is in its death knell.")

Yesterday I resigned my position in the York Township Republican Committeemen’s Organization. Below is the letter I sent to the chairman explaining my decision.

***********

Chairman Cuzzone:

We come together in political parties to magnify our influence. An organized representative institution can give weight to our will in ways we could not accomplish on our own. Working with others gives us power, but at the cost of constant, calculated compromise. No two people will agree on everything. There is no moral purity in politics.

If compromise is the key to healthy politics, how does one respond when compromise descends into complicity? To preserve a sense of our personal moral accountability we must each define boundaries. For those boundaries to have meaning we must have the courage to protect them, even when the cost is high.

Almost thirty years ago as a teenager in Texas, I attended my first county Republican convention. As a college student I met a young Rick Perry, fresh from his conversion to the GOP, as he was launching his first campaign for statewide office. Through Associated Republicans of Texas I contributed and volunteered for business-friendly Republican state and local candidates.

Here in DuPage County I’ve been a precinct committeeman since 2006. Door to door I’ve canvased my precinct in support of our candidates. Trudging through snow, using a drill to break the frozen ground, I posted signs for candidates on whom I pinned my hopes for better government. Among Illinois Republicans I found an organization that seemed to embody my hopes for the party nationally. Pragmatic, sensible, and focused on solid government, it seemed like a GOP Jurassic Park, where the sensible, reliable Republicans of old still roamed the landscape.

At the national level, the delusions necessary to sustain our Cold War coalition were becoming dangerous long before Donald Trump arrived. From tax policy to climate change, we have found ourselves less at odds with philosophical rivals than with the fundamentals of math, science and objective reality.

The Iraq War, the financial meltdown, the utter failure of supply-side theory, climate denial, and our strange pursuit of theocratic legislation have all been troubling. Yet it seemed that America’s party of commerce, trade, and pragmatism might still have time to sober up. Remaining engaged in the party implied a contribution to that renaissance, an investment in hope. Donald Trump has put an end to that hope.

From his fairy-tale wall to his schoolyard bullying and his flirtation with violent racists, Donald Trump offers America a singular narrative – a tale of cowards. Fearful people, convinced of our inadequacy, trembling before a world alight with imaginary threats, crave a demagogue. Neither party has ever elevated to this level a more toxic figure, one that calls forth the darkest elements of our national character.

With three decades invested in the Republican Party, there is a powerful temptation to shrug and soldier on. Despite the bold rhetoric, we all know Trump will lose. Why throw away a great personal investment over one bad nominee? Trump is not merely a poor candidate, but an indictment of our character. Preserving a party is not a morally defensible goal if that party has lost its legitimacy.

Watching Ronald Reagan as a boy, I recall how bold it was for him to declare ‘morning again’ in America. In a country menaced by Communism and burdened by a struggling economy, the audacity of Reagan’s optimism inspired a generation.

Fast-forward to our present leadership and the nature of our dilemma is clear. I watched Paul Ryan speak at Donald Trump’s convention the way a young child watches his father march off to prison. Thousands of Republican figures that loathe Donald Trump, understand the danger he represents, and privately hope he loses, are publicly declaring their support for him. In Illinois our local and state GOP organizations, faced with a choice, have decided on complicity.

Our leaders’ compromise preserves their personal capital at our collective cost. Their refusal to dissent robs all Republicans of moral cover. Evasion and cowardice has prevailed over conscience. We are now, and shall indefinitely remain, the Party of Donald Trump.

I will not contribute my name, my work, or my character to an utterly indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints. A party willing to lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the “good Nazis.”

I hereby resign my position as a York Township Republican committeeman. My thirty-year tenure as a Republican is over.

Sincerely,

Chris Ladd

Gary Kasparov On Trump's Convention Speech

Gary Kasparov, who has been a prominent Russian dissident for many years, now self-exiled because he fears if he returned to Russia he would never be allowed to leave, tweeted the following:

I’ve heard this sort of speech a lot in the last 15 years and trust me, it doesn’t sound any better in Russian.

Bill Clinton Feels Your Pain

Watch this clip of the Big Dog making an effective emotional connection with a questioner at one of the Bush/Clinton debates in 1992.

Fareed Zakaria At CNN Rebuts Trump's Convention Tirade

This video clip is 4.5 minutes long.
  Ann Coulter (racist? Heaven forfend!) tweeted in response:

I like hearing CNN's Fareed Zakaria ask in a thick Indian accent, "What kind of America do we want to return to?"

Zakaria is a native of India. He became a naturalized American citizen in 2001. He has a bachelor's degree from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.

Coulter later followed up with this gem:

Now, Australian Danielle Pletka says Trump sounds like a national leader "OF RUSSIA." Pro Tip: Try to get Americans tell us what's American.

Pletka too is a naturalized American citizen (since 1992).

Jon Stewart On Colbert, Post Republican Convention

this is a 13.5-minute clip of Jon Stewart on Colbert's show just after Trump's windup of the Republican convention. On his radio show, Sean Hannity (or Lumpy, as Stewart calls him) retorted with what Eric Sullivan at Crooks & Liars called "potty mouth":

He first said, grossly, that "that idiot Jon Stewart" had his "head so far up Obama's ass" and now has his head up Clinton's too. He continued:

"I know you're a rich liberal. Are you donating money to those families, the 46 million American families on food stamps, Jon? Hey, Jon, are you helping out the 50 million Americans in poverty? Hey, Jon, are you going to help use your wealth from all your comedy writers that lay out the material for you, are you going to help pay down the debt that Obama's accumulated?"

Sullivan adds:

Mind you, this is a show Hannity generally tapes from the confines of his mansion in Centre Island, one of the most exclusive and expensive towns in New York. And who knows, maybe he spends moments off-air helping those on food stamps, tackling the issue of poverty in a solutions-focused way, and assisting with national-debt reduction. But the mountains of misinformation he's spread throughout his career has done far more damage than he'd ever be able to make up for.

Thirst For Blood At The Republican Convention

A video clip of Trump supporters who believe Hillary Clinton should be executed for treason.

A video clip of Trump voters who believe Hillary Clinton should be executed for treason.

Chris Christie's Lies Attacking Clinton

Click here for an article in Slate by Fred Kaplan entitled "Let's Count the Lies in Christie's Attack on Clinton." You'll have to scroll down; I couldn't isolate that particular article.

The Chilcot Inquiry And Tony Blair

Click here for an article entitled "The war in Iraq was not a blunder or a mistake. It was a crime." by Owen Jones in The Guardian.

Who's The World-Class Liar, Donald?

Click here for a short video from PoltiFact entitled "Fact-checking Donald Trump's speech calling Hillary Clinton 'a world-class liar.'" In his speech, Trump said:

1. "I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war (in Iraq), even before the war ever started." Rating: "FALSE. There is no record to support this claim."

2. "For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America." Rating: "PANTS ON FIRE. Trump's numbers are off by a huge margin. It would cost much more to rebuild inner cities than admit refugees."

3. "... or her phony landing in Bosnia, where she said she was under attack, and the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers." Rating: "TRUE. Trump is correct. Hillary Clinton was welcomed without incident and has since retracted her statement."

4. "(Ambassador Chris Stevens) was left helpless to die as Hillary slept soundly in her bed." Rating: "FALSE. Clinton was not asleep when the attacks unfolded. [It was 3 p.m. Washington time.] Email records show she worked until 11 p.m."

So the Donald accused Hillary of four lies; only one of them could be even remotely considered to be a "lie," or she could have been misremembering the event, or confusing it with another.

If you continue to watch the clip, it starts a new video from PolitiFact entitled "The top 10 biggest falsehoods from the year of Trump (in no particular order)." These are:

1. The Mexican government forces many bad people into our country. (PANTS ON FIRE) 2. The number of immigrants in the United States is 30 million, or maybe 34 million. (PANTS ON FIRE) 3. Mexico can afford to build a wall because of their billion-dollar trade deficit with the U.S. (FALSE) 4. Ted Cruz's father was with Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination of JFK. (PANTS ON FIRE) 5. Crime is rising. (PANTS ON FIRE) 6. We're the highest taxed nation in the world. (FALSE) 7. Thousands of people in New Jersey cheered as the twin towers fell. (PANTS ON FIRE) 8. He was totally against the war in Iraq for many years. (FALSE) 9. There is no system to vet refugees from the Middle East. (FALSE) 10. The unemployment rate is actually 42 percent. (PANTS ON FIRE)

And Hillary Clinton is a "world-class liar"?

This Is Racism, Folks. Plain And Simple.

This is quoted from an open thread by Frances Langum on Crooks & Liars:

When a faithfully married black president who's the son of a single mother, the first black editor of Harvard Law Review and a professor of constitutional law is considered unintelligent, immoral, and anti-American by the Right while a xenophobic, misogynistic, serially philandering trust fund kid who quotes from the National Enquirer, peddles conspiracy theories, routinely calls women ugly and fat, calls John McCain a loser for having been a prisoner of war, and who has advocated torture and the bombing of women and children has captured the hearts of a majority of Republicans, this is racism, folks. Plain and simple.

Comprehensive Takedown Of Trump

Click here for an article at Daily Kos by Jon Perr entitled "Donald Trump and the 53-inch penis." The article name is a bit nonsensical, but the article itself is long -- and devastating. It's the best takedown of Trump I've read yet.

Charlie Pierce Responds to a Trump Speech (Sad.)

Click here for Charlie's response to an extended Trump attack on Hillary Clinton.

The article is titled "Let's Parse All the Bullsh*t in Trump's Speech About Hillary," with the subheading "Anyone in the mood for some barefaced non-facts?​"

Some takeaways:

There were some lines of attack that, were they not being delivered by a self-evident public charlatan, might have proven effective. Like most politicians of the past 30 years, and like most people operating within the current financial elite, HRC really has been cozy with some unsavory people and regimes around the world. In fact, one of them was Donald Trump.

HRC did not "singlehandedly destabilize the entire Middle East." She had a lot of help in the years between 2001 and 2009, when somebody nobody mentions anymore was running things.

He concludes, concerning Trump's statement that "Americans are the people that tamed the West, that dug out the Panama Canal, that sent satellites across the solar system, that built the great dams, and so much more. Then we started thinking small. We stopped believing in what America could do, and became reliant on other countries, other people, and other institutions. We lost our sense of purpose and daring":

How did we abandon our dreams of greatness that we demanded of our self-governing Republic? We didn't dig the Panama Canal; our government did, after it stole the land from Colombia. We, as individuals, didn't tame the West; our government did, with railroads and homesteading and the U.S. Cavalry. We didn't ourselves build the Hoover Dam; our government did. We didn't create our own private space exploration; our government did.

How could the country have come to such a sorry pass? Perhaps a clue can be found in a speech given from the U.S. Capitol by a newly elected president on a cold, clear January morning in 1981.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Sad.

Indeed.

Filmmaker Ken Burns' Commencement Address at Stanford

Click here for a transcript of the speech. Burns speaks in the usual generalities for a while, but then he drops the hammer:

"For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified. That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified."

Speaking of that (unnamed) candidate, he warns about

"... the dictatorial tendencies of the candidate with zero experience in the much maligned but subtle art of governance; who is against lots of things, but doesn’t seem to be for anything, offering only bombastic and contradictory promises, and terrifying Orwellian statements; a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn’t seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans, threatens a free press, mocks the handicapped, denigrates women, immigrants and all Muslims; a man who took more than a day to remember to disavow a supporter who advocates white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan; an infantile, bullying man who, depending on his mood, is willing to discard old and established alliances, treaties and long-standing relationships."

He further warns: "We see nurtured in his campaign an incipient proto-fascism, a nativist anti-immigrant Know Nothing-ism, a disrespect for the judiciary, the prospect of women losing authority over their own bodies, African Americans again asked to go to the back of the line, voter suppression gleefully promoted, jingoistic saber rattling, a total lack of historical awareness, a political paranoia that, predictably, points fingers, always making the other wrong. These are all virulent strains that have at times infected us in the past. But they now loom in front of us again – all happening at once."

I think he may not be a Trump supporter.