Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[johnu]

As for whether we've progressed, the white supremacists in Charlottesville are not as representative of the general population as they would have been 50 years ago.

 

Back in the heyday of the KKK, most of the Klansmen wore hoods to conceal their identities. Today, white supremacists don't feel the need to conceal their identities with POTUS Dennison recognizing them as "fine people".

 

We haven't regressed 50 years yet, but as a country we are moving backwards at an alarming rate.

[y66]

From the NYT Editorial Board:

 

What if we’ve been electing our politicians the wrong way this whole time?

 

Voters in Maine will tackle that question on Tuesday, when the state holds its primaries using a radical yet sensible electoral reform that could fundamentally change how campaigns are run and who ends up winning. It will be the first time the method — known as ranked-choice, or instant-runoff, voting — is used in a statewide election.

 

The purpose is to ensure that officials are elected with an outright majority when there are three or more candidates, and to elevate those with the widest appeal. It works like this: Rather than checking a box for just one candidate, voters rank all candidates in order of preference. If a candidate earns a majority of the votes, he or she wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and his or her ballots get redistributed to whomever those voters ranked second. If another round is needed, the process continues, eliminating the candidate with the next fewest votes, until one candidate has a majority.

 

It may sound complicated, but it works smoothly in countries from Australia to Ireland to New Zealand. More than a dozen American cities have adopted ranked-choice voting, including San Francisco; Minneapolis; St. Paul; and Santa Fe, N.M. Nearly everywhere it’s in use, voters and candidates say they’re happier with it.

 

This is probably because it encourages candidates to reach out to as many voters as possible, which ranked-choice advocates say generates more moderate politicians and policies that more accurately reflect what most people want. Aiming for broad appeal also results in more positive and substantive campaigns, they say, because candidates don’t want to risk attacking their opponents and turning off voters who might be willing to list them as a second or third choice.

Ranked-choice voting can’t single-handedly fix America’s broken elections, but it’s a worthwhile experiment, and it’s already proved to make for a better process, particularly in candidate-heavy primaries. If it’s combined with other electoral reforms, like multimember districts that can more accurately reflect the political makeup of a region, it could do even more to help voters feel that their voices are being heard, even if they’re in the minority. And that could help drive up turnout, which is notoriously bad in midterm elections.

[Winstonm]

The Dennison/Brexit connection keeps getting curioser and curioser.

 

An email, seen by The Daily Beast, was sent to Banks at 11.57am on Friday by Cadwalladr advising him that The Observer had obtained copies of his emails which laid bare the scale of his interactions with Russia. They appeared to show that he and Leave.EU colleague Andy Wigmore had multiple meetings with high-ranking Russian officials, that Banks visited Moscow in February 2016, and that he had been introduced to a Russian businessman by the Russian ambassador who allegedly offered him a multibillion dollar investment opportunity in Russian goldmines.

[Winstonm]

From the NYT:

 

How Good Is the Trump Economy, Really?

It depends on whether you look at the level, the direction or the rate of change — three concepts that are often conflated.

 

By Neil Irwin

June 9, 2018

 

The Trump administration has become downright boastful about the state of the economy.

 

“In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America,” the president tweeted recently. After I analyzed the May employment data by consulting a thesaurus and writing a cheeky article using a lot of near-synonyms for “good,” the Trump administration blasted it out approvingly to the White House press list and through a presidential tweet.

 

But I also received some blowback from liberals. There were some similarly good months for job growth in the Obama administration, they noted. And my analysis was not nearly so effusive then.

 

So which is it? Is the economy doing exceptionally well, or performing only about as well as it did in the late years of the Obama administration?

 

The answer depends on precisely how you phrase the question, which in turn hinges on a crucial distinction that people often fail to make when talking about the economy. There’s a big difference between the level of economic performance; the direction of change in the economy; and the pace of change.

 

Think of the economy as a bathtub. The level of the water in the tub — how much economic activity there is — is one useful, interesting question. Whether the water level is rising or falling — is this an economic expansion or recession? — is a separate question. And how fast the water level is changing — what is the pace of growth? — is a third question.

 

All might be useful information, but they capture different things. And too much of the debate over how the economy is doing conflates them.

 

So how good is the Trump economy? It depends on which of these approaches you take.

 

The economy looks strongest if you look only at the level of economic activity, not the rate of change. For example, per-person gross domestic product adjusted for inflation is at its highest level on record, as are other similar measures of output.

 

That isn’t very surprising. Over time, workers tend to become more productive thanks to improving technology and the nation’s stock of machinery and other capital increases. So we expect G.D.P. to rise most of the time, and to fall only during the occasional recession. By this measure, 60 percent of the time since modern G.D.P. statistics began in 1947, a president could accurately claim that the economy is the best it has ever been.

 

Other measures of the level of economic performance are also quite good, though not historically so. The 3.8 percent unemployment level is the lowest in 18 years, but it was lower in 1969. The lowest on record was 2.5 percent in 1953.

 

And the very low jobless rate masks some weakness in the labor market. Among adults in their prime working years, 79.2 percent were working in May, which is still below that statistic’s 80.3 percent recent high in early 2007 and its record high of 81.9 percent in 2000.

 

Still, if you look only at the level at which the economy is performing, the Trump administration does have plenty to be excited about.

 

Similarly, the direction of the economy looks to be positive by almost every measure. Employers are adding jobs; output is rising, as are incomes. Another term for a shrinking economy would be an economy in recession, and there is no reason to believe that a recession is currently underway.

 

Then there’s the growth rate. This is the measure by which the Trump economy looks very much like a simple, straightforward continuation of President Obama’s second term.

 

In 2016, for example, Mr. Obama’s last year in office, employers added an average of 195,000 jobs a month. In the first 17 months of the Trump administration, the average has been 190,000.

 

It shows up in G.D.P. numbers, too. What may look like a nice smooth line of steady improvement in per-capita G.D.P. growth in the chart above looks a lot more herky-jerky when you look at the same data in terms of percent change over the previous year.

 

And looking at the growth rate instead of the level shows that the 2.09 percent improvement in the first year of the Trump administration is below a couple of the peaks of the Obama second term, including a 3 percent reading in the year ending in the first quarter of 2015.

 

In talking about the economy, the level, direction and rate of change all matter. They just matter in different ways.

 

The late 1990s, for example, featured both strong levels of economic activity and fast growth. In the aftermath of a steep recession in 1982, there was a different combination: a weak level of economic activity paired with fast growth. The 2010-2011 time frame featured weak economic activity paired with slow growth, a nasty combination.

 

The reason my analysis was more effusive about the recent economic results than it was about similar growth numbers during the Obama administration is that strong growth numbers are more impressive — and unexpected — at a time when the level of economic activity is already high. When the jobless rate was, say, 7 percent, we needed strong job growth just to put the unemployed back to work. To get similar job growth rates with an unemployment rate below 4 percent is reason for a little more giddiness.

 

So what is the most honest way of talking about the Trump economy? It goes like this: The president inherited an economy that had come a long way toward healing. During his administration, the economy has continued growing at about the same rate it did before he took office, pushing incomes, employment and output to yet higher levels.

 

There are plenty of problems that remain in the United States, economic and otherwise, and the degree of credit the president deserves for the state of the economy is an open debate. But this is a bathtub that is already pretty full, and the water’s rising nicely.

[y66]

re: the bathtub analogy: You also have to consider the level, direction and rate of change for all bathers, including future bathers, not just U.S. one percenters in 2018 who will probably do fine when the next downturn comes and when the next weather disaster demolishes their yacht club.

[johnu]

"White House tasks office with taping together papers after Trump rips them up: report"

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-tasks-office-with-taping-together-papers-after-trump-rips-them-up-report/ar-AAytwp3?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Is this a headline from the Onion?

[hrothgar]

Interesting to watch the revelations regarding Russian support for Brexit

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/revealed-brexit-backer-arron-bankss-golden-kremlin-connection-7nbwc7m58

[Winstonm]

Interesting to watch the revelations regarding Russian support for Brexit

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/revealed-brexit-backer-arron-bankss-golden-kremlin-connection-7nbwc7m58

 

From NYMag:

 

The emails show show that Banks had previously undisclosed meetings with Russia’s U.K. ambassador (which were set up by an alleged Russian spy), and had made a previously undisclosed visit to Moscow at the peak of the Brexit campaign. Banks and Wigmore were also offered, at one point, a business deal involving several Russian goldmines that could have been worth a fortune for the men, according to the documents. There is a Trump connection, as the Sunday Times reports that Banks admitted that, months after the Brexit referendum, “he handed over phone numbers for members of Trump’s transition team to Russian officials” — though it’s not yet clear whose info he handed over, or what became of it.

[Winstonm]

Putin's Little Helper

 

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump fired off a volley of tweets on Monday venting anger on NATO allies, the European Union and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the wake of a divisive G7 meeting over the weekend.

 

Oligarch wanna-be, Dotard Dennison, continues to do his hero's work by trying to unravel the Western Alliance. Hopefully, the world will understand that Dennison did not win the popular vote and does not act on the will of the American people.

[hrothgar]

Looks like the NRA angle is coming to the forefront

 

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article212756749.html

[FelicityR]

Looks like the NRA angle is coming to the forefront

 

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article212756749.html

 

That's the problem with all politicians and people associated within the political spectrum: money talks.

 

Here's a press article from the one of the UK's own most democratic and trusted UK newspapers

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/oct/27/peter-mandelson-oleg-deripaska

 

The Wikipedia entry makes interesting reading too.

 

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

 

If I had a pound (dollar) for every honest politician the world over I'll still be poor :(

[Cyberyeti]

 

If I had a pound (dollar) for every honest politician the world over I'll still be poor :(

 

There are plenty of honest politicians, they just don't get elected because they don't tell people what they want to hear

[barmar]

There are plenty of honest politicians, they just don't get elected because they don't tell people what they want to hear

Yep, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "The West Wing" are fantasies. There might have been a time when they were only 50% divorced from reality, but these days it's more like 90% away.

[Winstonm]

This week's episode of Vandertrump Rules saw Dennison offering a flower to Bachelorette Rocketta Mann.

[Winstonm]

Dennison got what he wanted from the summit - 15 more minutes of fame.

 

Or maybe it was this. ;)

[PassedOut]

Dennison got what he wanted from the summit - 15 more minutes of fame.

 

Or maybe it was this. ;)

A highlight: Reporters thought this video was North Korea propaganda. It came from the White House.

 

Trump admitted that some of the imagery he pitched may have been a little far-fetched, as North Korea is mired in poverty, internationally isolated, and has been mismanaged for decades by a family of dictators — Kim, his father and grandfather.

 

“That was done at the highest level of future development,” Trump said of his pitch video. “I told him, you may not want this. You may want to do a much smaller version. ... You may not want that — with the trains and everything.”

 

He waved his hands. “You know, with super everything, to the top. It's going to be up to them,” he said.

 

And then, in his usual style, Trump was thinking out loud about the “great condos” that might one day be built on the “great beaches” of North Korea.

 

“I explained it,” he said. “You could have the best hotels in the world. Think of it from the real estate perspective.”

 

As the screens above Trump emphasized, he certainly had.

The Kim-Trump brand is launched..

[MrAce]

I ♥ Robert De Niro!

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Oh, look, another Dennison accomplishment:

 

.

Wisconsin Democrats scored a major upset victory Tuesday night, winning a state Senate seat in a district that went for Donald Trump by double digits in 2016.

[hrothgar]

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-cooperate-attorneys-leave-case/story?id=55861988&cid=social_twitter_abcn

[kenberg]

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming

 

https://abcnews.go.c...al_twitter_abcn

 

I can't say that I think very highly of the ABC report.

 

For example:"Jones reported last week that of the first 300,000 items reviewed, she had determined that just 162 of them were covered by attorney-client privilege."Ok, but sometimes the rejection of 1 important item because of attorney-client privilege is a big deal. Surely the percentage of items that were rejected is of no importance at all.

 

Also, my understanding is that lawyers cannot simply walk away from a client, there has to be either a very strong reason, perhaps it requires approval by the court, or it has to be by mutual agreement. Did they ask the source why/how this all came about? If the source either didn't know or reused to say, that could have been mentioned.

 

Never mind pro or anti Trump, this just strikes me as lazy reporting.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

I can't say that I think very highly of the ABC report.

 

For example:"Jones reported last week that of the first 300,000 items reviewed, she had determined that just 162 of them were covered by attorney-client privilege."Ok, but sometimes the rejection of 1 important item because of attorney-client privilege is a big deal. Surely the percentage of items that were rejected is of no importance at all.

 

Also, my understanding is that lawyers cannot simply walk away from a client, there has to be either a very strong reason, perhaps it requires approval by the court, or it has to be by mutual agreement. Did they ask the source why/how this all came about? If the source either didn't know or reused to say, that could have been mentioned.

 

Never mind pro or anti Trump, this just strikes me as lazy reporting.

 

Ken,

 

This is more likely the result of the competitive news markets than lazy reporting. With cable news and instant internet news and social media news, no one can afford to stop and smell the roses on the way to airtime. They report what they have. My guess is that they probably tried to get more information but were stymied due to the sensitive nature of that information - so they reported what they had.

 

Here's the other side of your dissatisfaction: 299,838 documents that Dennison/Cohen wanted to be kept secret will see the light of day. Untangling oneself from attorneys would normally signal either a change in strategies or a decision to not fight any charges.

 

It may not be all the news, or satisfying news, but it definitely is newsworthy news.

 

Here is an update from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/nyregion/michael-cohen-investigation-lawyers-trump.html

 

Mr. Cohen’s current legal team is expected to stay with him for the rest of the week as they struggle to complete a laborious review of a trove of documents and data files seized from him by the authorities two months ago. But after that review is finished, he will seek new legal counsel, the people familiar with his case said. The issue is primarily over payment of the legal bills of one of his lawyers, Stephen Ryan, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

 

And a Daily Beast update:

The Wall Street Journal reported that Cohen is seeking new representation and hasn’t made up his mind as to whether he will cooperate with prosecutors.

[kenberg]

Ken,

 

This is more likely the result of the competitive news markets than lazy reporting. With cable news and instant internet news and social media news, television cannot afford to stop and smell the roses on the way to airtime. They report what they have. My guess is that they probably tried to get more information but were stymied due to the sensitive nature of that information - so they reported what they had.

 

Here's the other side of your dissatisfaction: 299,838 documents that Dennison/Cohen wanted to be kept secret will see the light of day. Untangling oneself from attorneys would normally signal either a change in strategies or a decision to not fight any charges.

 

It may not be all the news, or satisfying news, but it definitely is newsworthy news.

 

 

Well, probably of the 300,000 (so far) there are maybe 250,00 that he doesn't give a damn about what happens to them. And the article says there are at least 2.7 million altogether. That's a pretty astounding number. His team has gone through 300,000? Some with more care than others, I imagine. And there are a couple of million more? By Friday?

I agree that the result of wanting to be the first to get the news out. I think that has become a real problem. Again it's not a matter of pro or anti this or that, it's rather that news comes spinning out, everyone starts tweeting, and then it's on to the next. I don't like this approach. But yes, I understand how it happens.

 

I keep seeing that I am getting old. Monday evening we went to a graduating event for 8th grade! A big auditorium and it went on forever. In 1952 they had all of us in 8th grade out in front of the building and took a group photo. I still have a copy. That was it. Much much better..I have to live in the new world, but I don't have to praise it.

Anyway, yep, I agree that is pretty much the explanation..

 

[Winstonm]

Well, probably of the 300,000 (so far) there are maybe 250,00 that he doesn't give a damn about what happens to them. And the article says there are at least 2.7 million altogether. That's a pretty astounding number. His team has gone through 300,000? Some with more care than others, I imagine. And there are a couple of million more? By Friday?

I agree that the result of wanting to be the first to get the news out. I think that has become a real problem. Again it's not a matter of pro or anti this or that, it's rather that news comes spinning out, everyone starts tweeting, and then it's on to the next. I don't like this approach. But yes, I understand how it happens.

 

I keep seeing that I am getting old. Monday evening we went to a graduating event for 8th grade! A big auditorium and it went on forever. In 1952 they had all of us in 8th grade out in front of the building and took a group photo. I still have a copy. That was it. Much much better..I have to live in the new world, but I don't have to praise it.

Anyway, yep, I agree that is pretty much the explanation..

 

Although I, too, am unhappy with the direction being taken by news organizations, I am much more troubled by the results of last night's Republican primaries and Senator Corker's comments that the party is turning into a cult of personality.

 

Why this is so dangerous is that a branch of government that is supposed to be equal to the president, in fact a deterrent to presidential overreach, is now so cowed by his popularity within his own party that the president/Congressonal relationship is more like Putin's relationship to the Duma and Federation Council than anything resembling a normal equality of branches.

 

When personal loyalty to the president is the defining test for voters, we are in quite significant and dangerous times.

[johnu]

I can't say that I think very highly of the ABC report.

 

For example:"Jones reported last week that of the first 300,000 items reviewed, she had determined that just 162 of them were covered by attorney-client privilege."Ok, but sometimes the rejection of 1 important item because of attorney-client privilege is a big deal. Surely the percentage of items that were rejected is of no importance at all.

 

Also, my understanding is that lawyers cannot simply walk away from a client, there has to be either a very strong reason, perhaps it requires approval by the court, or it has to be by mutual agreement. Did they ask the source why/how this all came about? If the source either didn't know or reused to say, that could have been mentioned.

 

Never mind pro or anti Trump, this just strikes me as lazy reporting.

 

If you look at the byline, the author of the article was George Stephanopoulos who is known more as a talk show personality than an investigative reporter. I'm not making excuses, just stating the obvious. Certainly this was a summary of more detailed reporting by other ("real") reporters.

 

The 162 documents has been widely reported by other news agencies and reporters. Nothing new and just a rehash of old news. Would it make a difference if 299,999 items were covered by attorney-client privilege? What if the 1 document not covered was the SMOKING GUN? The public doesn't know what's in those documents one way or another, so the best you can do is report the numbers of accepted and rejected documents. Or do you want the reporting to say something like:

 

"Jones reviewed 300,00 documents. Some were rejected, some were accepted"?

 

As for why the attorneys were leaving, the article gave no reason. It's a 100% fact that the reporters would have reported a reason if they knew (unless that part of the conversation was off the record) since the reason for leaving is probably more important than the leak of the actual leaving. I have no problem with no explanation.

 

 

Addendum - NY Times reports that lawyer split due to unpaid bills

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/nyregion/michael-cohen-investigation-lawyers-trump.html

[johnu]

Could Dennison have misstated facts about North Korea summit?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/ap-fact-check-trump-falsely-declares-post-summit-victory/ar-AAyzodr?li=BBnbcA1

 

In defense of Comrade Dennison, for every fact, there are a million alternative facts, so it's at least a million to 1 against getting the correct fact. It's actually incredible that he gets things right as often as he does with those kind of odds. Well done Comrade Dennsion.