Tag: Trump

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Insincerely Simulated Insanity

The Washington Post, war game, election, Trump

“What’s the worst that could happen?” 

That question, splashed across the lead opinion offering in Sunday’s Outlook section of The Washington Post, was answered by the sub-heading: “The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis.”

Happy Labor Day!

Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor and co-founder of the Transition Integrity Project, authored the commentary about a group of political insiders — “some of the most accomplished Republicans, Democrats, civil servants, media experts, pollsters and strategists around” — she assembled for “a series of war games” about “a range of election and transition scenarios.”

The group “explored” four different simulations: “a narrow Biden win; a big Biden win . . .; a Trump win with an electoral college lead but a large popular-vote loss, as in 2016; and finally, a period of extended uncertainty” as the country witnessed following the 2000 election.*

“Over and over, Team Biden urged calm, national unity and a fair vote count,” explained Brooks, “while Team Trump issued barely disguised calls for violence and intimidation against ballot-counting officials and Biden electors.”

Team Biden participants included John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chair; Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential the campaign chair; and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

“Team Biden repeatedly called for peaceful protests, while Team Trump encouraged provocateurs to incite violence,” she added, “then used the resulting chaos to justify sending federalized Guard units or active-duty military personnel into American cities to ‘restore order,’ leading to still more violence.”

“In each scenario, Team Trump — the players assigned to simulate the Trump campaign and its elected and appointed allies — was ruthless and unconstrained right out of the gate,” informed the professor.  

Wait . . . who were these Team Trump “players”? 

Conservative Bill Kristol, a longtime #NeverTrumper and “one of President Trump’s most vocal opponents,” was one. Another was former RNC chairman Michael Steele, who has not only endorsed Biden, but serves as a senior advisor to The Lincoln Project, now spending millions on attack ads against the president.

Shamefully unfair and intellectually dishonest by Professor Brooks — and the ‘dying in partisan darkness’ Washington Post. 

But here’s the rest of the story . . . 

Even with Bidenites played as angels and Trumpians as devils, both Biden victory scenarios nonetheless resulted in peace by Inauguration Day. 

Not so for a Trump win . . . which “the Left” is not projected to peacefully accept.  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Obviously not considered was Trump winning a solid majority of the vote. Not likely according to today’s polls, but if polls had been accurate in 2016, Trump wouldn’t be president.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies

Of Bats and Debates

bat, flag, debate, Trump, Biden, Obama

How batty is 2020’s politics?

Adding one absurdity upon another, a minor party candidate got attention this weekend for something even more bizarre than Biden’s bumbling or Trump’s trolling:

She got bit by a bat and is now undergoing painful treatment for rabies.

Her name is Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian Party presidential candidate. 

So far, reports on this development have focused on her Twitter account, where jokes abound. 

But what dominates her Twitter feed are the usual-for-Libertarians demands that she be included “in the debates.”

What debates?

Is anyone certain that there will be debates at all? Behind in the polls, Donald Trump seems eager to debate, but . . . Joe Biden?

Well, the Biden camp has agreed to three debates and the candidate says he is “so forward looking [sic] to have an opportunity to sit with the president, or stand with the president, in debates.” But Trump wants more.

And some Democrats want none, for in that same interview (which has gone more viral than rabies), as elsewhere, Biden made so many bizarre gaffes that most folks are beginning to assume that, against the Donald, Biden might wilt worse than a vampire in sunlight.

Biden, who will not even attend his own ostensible nominating convention, remains largely sequestered, under cover of panicky pandemic protocols. Unless the Democrats somehow replace him, the odds of there being debates at all seem low. 

And if Trump’s too much for Biden, what is a Libertarian to the two major parties? The Libertarians have been excluded for a reason.* Introduction of substantive, orthogonal-to-the-duopoly ideas into a national debate might show the major parties for what they are: cognitively challenged.

What a year! Bats.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Amusingly, Donald Trump called the exclusion of challenger parties “disgraceful” . . . back when he was in the Reform Party. I doubt he’d be on board the #LetHerSpeak campaign today — unless he was certain there would be no debates.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access insider corruption

Corruption, an Opportunity

Orange Man, Trump,

The president’s July 30 tweet reminded us he can still manipulate the news cycle.

“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

Reactions ranged from dismissal to outrage — and assurances of no schedule change — but the most obvious thing about the tweet was the “made-you-look” aspect. By focusing on the rapid deployment of new-old technology (the mail-in ballots) to handle the public’s panic over the now–waning pandemic, Trump does several things at once: 

  • shows a danger posed by lockdowns and social distancing;
  • calls attention to an under-investigated phenomena, voter fraud and vote-count rigging; and
  • provides an excuse for his possible failure in November.

The Democrats think this latter is the biggest danger. But they’ve a funny way of raising the alarm, considering their recurrent expressions of fear that President Trump “wouldn’t step down” if defeated.*

Apparently, calling into question the election mechanisms of the states is considered ‘going too far’ — not because it isn’t worth being vigilant about, but because questioning election integrity might undermine regime legitimacy.

The bipartisan regime.

The Epoch Times’s article on the president’s tweet concludes this way: “Attorney General William Barr said last week that there is ‘no reason’ to believe any election rigging is afoot.”

Well, Trump himself provided the reason: it is an obvious opportunity. 

An opportunity that some unscrupulous partisans no doubt have little compunction about trying. Making the subject not worth discussing — a ‘third rail’ — actually makes election corruption more likely by removing some of the risk.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Hillary Clinton came out with this again, in July. This sort of thing does not help Democrats much, for it was they who, last time, could not accept defeat: antifa violence at the inauguration, followed by fake scandal-mongering and a failed impeachment made them look worse than their target.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs moral hazard

WHO’s Daddy

WHO, Trump, corona virus, Covid, pandemic,

China and its lapdog, the World Health Organization (WHO), face increasing global anger over having initially hid the person-to-person spread of coronavirus, which has killed a staggering 126,000 people worldwide. So far.

Still unrepentant, Beijing and the WHO have continued to butcher the truth — even in petty ways. 

Late last month, a Hong Kong reporter asked a WHO official to comment on how successfully Taiwan had responded to the pandemic. The official pretended he couldn’t hear the question. Then, when the reporter offered to repeat it, he insisted they move on. 

WHO could provide such a cocktail of cowardice and disingenuousness?

Yes! 

Of course, the last refuge of such scoundrels is to hurl utterly bogus allegations — to play the victim and change the subject. Enter WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who last week made the ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated charge that the Taiwanese government was instigating racist attacks against him on social media. 

Discriminated against by the United Nations and WHO for years, upon China’s insistence, the Taiwanese reacted on social media with their usual grace, sense of humor and a smart promotion of their island’s great food and beautiful scenery, using the hashtag: #ThisAttackComesFromTaiwan. 

As explained yesterday, Taiwan is a friend. China and the WHO? Not on your life.

That’s why Americans of all political persuasions (and so many others across the globe) cheered President Trump’s announcement yesterday that the U.S., the largest donor to the World Health Organization, would suspend its financial support.

“So much death has been caused by their mistakes,” Mr. Trump said.

Sadly, I fear Trump is wrong about one small part: “mistakes” seems far too generous a word for what WHO and its dastardly daddy, China, have done.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Plunger Politics

plunger, flag, regulations, laws, Trump, flush,

President Donald Trump may win re-election because he dares speak the truth about toilets.

A Washington Post tweet presents the president talking about the insanity of American plumbing: “People are flushing toilets ten times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water.”

Jeffrey Tucker, in a terrific piece for the American Institute for Economic Research, focuses on our national disgrace: “I know a man — a proxy for tens of millions — who came from a foreign country, threw down $500 per night at a New York hotel, and was astonished to find himself plunging the toilet within the hour of checking in. 

“Not surprising,” Tucker writes. “Not unusual. American toilets don’t work right. This is why there are plungers next to every toilet.”

And Tucker suggests that Trump may beat whoever ends up as his Democratic challenger for no better reason than because, every now and then, Trump sides with common sense against bureaucrats, regulators, and politicians. And, in this case, seeks to do something about it.

Would any Democrat dare mention that it is Congress that ruined our commodes? 

Of course, Republicans let it happen. 

Our toilets, I have long insisted, provide a perfect object lesson for what is wrong with government today. Early in the history of this Common Sense commentary, I explored the theme: it has been over 20 years ago since I wrote of “A Congressman in Your Bowl”; a few years later, when I started writing columns for Townhall.com, I offered “Flush Congress.”

I don’t know precisely what Trump can do regarding either the plumbing issue or the clogged-up Congress issue, but I — plunger in hand — salute him for trying to do something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

plunger, flag, regulations, laws, Trump, flush,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies

The Biggest Turkey of All

turkey, thanksgiving, Trump, pardon,

Though President Donald Trump has one of the best stand-up acts in America, his bit, on Tuesday, about the ‘traditional’ pardoning of turkeys, was not his best. But it was mildly amusing, and what the occasion required.

Now, I’ve written about this goofy tradition before: “For a photo-op,” I explained seven years ago, the president “saves the gift bird’s life, only to have another unpublicized turkey killed and then devoured behind closed doors.” 

Gruesome? Bizarre? Or all-too-symbolic?

I suggested the latter, arguing that “the fake pardon symbolizes more than Washington insiders can comprehend. 

In our nation’s capital, politicians

    • argue for fiscal responsibility one minute and then plunge us further into debt the next,
    • demand sacrifices from the people while living high on the hog, and
    • decry the influence of special interests at press conferences and then deposit their checks at the bank.

One famous turkey lives, thanks to the powerful public kindness of our potentate; another, unknown (no doubt “middle-class”) bird dies for the benefit of that same boss.

With Trump rather than Obama in office, that quip about class warfare falls a bit flat.

But our Stand-up-in-Chief was more topical:

The two turkeys, which he told us were named Bread and Butter, were raised “to remain calm under any condition,” he riffed, “which will be very important because they have already received subpoenas to appear in Adam Schiff’s basement.”

Not bad; worth a chuckle.

“It’s not the first time Trump has used the traditional turkey pardoning to make jokes about his political opponents,” USA Today informs us. But unfortunately the paper misquoted one of the president’s lesser quips. 

“It seems the Democrats are accusing me of being too soft on turkeys,” USA Today tells us. But what Trump clearly says is “Turkey.” Yeah, just a pun.

Does that ‘land’?

Seems like a laid egg.

But on Thanksgiving we can pardon the president.

And even USA Today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

turkey, thanksgiving, Trump, pardon,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies

Are You a Conspiracy Theorist?

Representative Rashida Tlaib, screams, Trump, rally

Politicians are all over the vaping issue, like packrats on pet food.

The House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, C-SPAN explains, held a hearing on the relationship between e-cigarettes and an outbreak in lung disease. Government experts spoke. There was only one empaneled pro-vaping witness, Vicki Porter, who said that vaping was “a health miracle to me,” since it got her off of smoking tobacco.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (D–Fla.) insisted that the record show that she was not to be trusted, since she merely expressed her own opinion as to the superiority of vaping over smoking, noting that Ms. Porter “is not a public health expert.”

But it was Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D–Mich.) who really came out swinging for the interventionist government. Her main concern, writes Robby Soave at Reason, appeared to be Porter’s direct challenging of “the tortured logic of the Oversight and Reform Subcommittee hearing.”

Rep. Tlaib said she “wanted to know more about you,” to Ms. Porter. “You call yourself a ‘converted conservative,’” Tlaib stuttered, “and a reformed Marxist.

“Are you a conspiracy theorist?”

Wh-what?

Ms. Porter answered reasonably. Then Tlaib questioned her regarding why she had winked at one of her colleagues. Porter said they knew each other.

In the 1960s, the CIA pushed the phrase “conspiracy theorist” as a way to publicly marginalize anyone who questioned official pronouncements on the JFK assassinations and even trickier subjects, like UFOs. Rep. Tlaib is either one of those who bought into the CIA line, or is part of some less-than-transparent agenda.

So, are you a conspiracy theorist?

My answer might have been, not until right about now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Representative Rashida Tlaib, screams, Trump, rally

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

Buying Ice

Greenland, Trump, land, territory, purchase, ice,

The president wants to buy more land.

On our dime.

“The idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland has captured the former real-estate developer’s imagination,” began a Wall Street Journal report last week. Donald Trump has asked about it anyway, “with varying degrees of seriousness.”

Grønland — “Kalaallit Nunaat” — is Danish territory now. But the United States does run the Thule Air Base on the glacier-dominated island already. So it might seem . . . natural.

The last major American purchase of territory from another sovereign power was, actually, from the Kingdom of Denmark back in 1917, when the United States obtained the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The notion of buying Greenland was floated back during the Truman administration, too. So there is ample precedent. Which gives Trump a plausible context to advance a destabilizing meme for his upcoming visit to Denmark, where he will no doubt be doing some “negotiating” . . . about more important matters.

And what might those be? Well, matters like the country’s contributions to its own defense. Denmark is low on the list of contributing NATO participants, devoting only 1.7 percent of GDP to defense, not the treaty level of 2 percent.

It’s mainly just amusing, of course — probably even to Trump himself. “It’s just something we’ve talked about,” he’s explained. “We’re very good allies with Denmark. We’ve protected Denmark like we protect large portions of the world, so the concept came up.”

Of course, the U.S. doesn’t need Greenland. And it certainly doesn’t need to spend money it doesn’t have to do so.

Still, there have been and will be more idiotic proposal floated this election season. Plenty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Greenland, Trump, land, territory, purchase, ice,

Photo from pixabay

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Make Deficits Great Again?

money, case, window, floating, deficit, spending,

Is Donald Trump really “draining the swamp”? 

It’s overflowing.

Stan Collender, writing last year in Forbes, noted just what a big spender the president really is. Now, an update: fiscal year 2019 sports a deficit of $1.09 trillion, up considerably from the $897 billion projected earlier this year; the next year is expected to nudge the deficit even higher, to $1.1 trillion.

The whys aren’t a mystery: it is politically difficult to cut an expected benefit to any constituency. It looks stingy — though it is the very opposite. Spending other people’s money — including taxpayers’ — is not generosity. For a politician, it is naked self-interest. Buying votes.

Worse than merely corrupt, it’s corrupting — since the People are increasingly tempted to look to government to supply special voting bloc advantages rather than the mutual, universal advantage of liberty and justice for all.

Collender speculated that a $2 trillion deficit is “definitely within view” because “Trump is demanding that federal spending and the government’s red ink be increased even further.”

Judd Gregg, writing yesterday for The Hill, summarizes current GOP fiscal policy as “now the most profligate and debt-driving party in the nation’s history.” 

He’s not wrong, but I question his next line: “Fiscal restraint is no longer part of the cloth the Republican Party wears.”

Careful wording. 

Republicans sometimes talk a good game, but are known to be big spenders when not opposing a Democratic president. The Class of 94 was effective against Bill Clinton. Under unified government in the aughts, though, under George W. Bush, they went on a spree.

Maybe Republicans just need a good enemy.

Bernie Sanders for President? 

Perhaps any socialist Democrat will do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

money, case, window, floating, deficit, spending,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
government transparency

Transparent on Twitter?

AOC, Trump, twitter, block, blocking, free speech,

I find Twitter distasteful, annoying, even stupid. I sometimes wonder why I should care about that particular “micro-blogging” platform.

But since it is a big deal to others, I struggle to understand.*

Joining me in the struggle are our two most famous political Twitterers, President Donald Trump and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

The president lost in court the other day, with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals telling him he must no longer block users on the social media platform.

Now AOC finds herself in a similar pickle. On Tuesday, a former Democratic New York Assemblyman filed a lawsuit in federal court against the popular freshman U.S. Representative for doing the same thing Trump had been doing: blocking users on Twitter based on their personal viewpoints.

The litigant surmises that AOC had blocked him “apparently because my critique of her tweets and policies have been too stinging.”

Ouch?

“Twitter is a public space,” insists this Democrat, Dov Hikind, “and all should have access to the government officials on it.”

This puts me in a pickle, too. I am all for government transparency — and I do think officials and representatives should not be completely insulated from the citizens they serve. But we don’t have a right to follow them into their bedrooms or bathrooms.

So, high-profile federal employees who in any way discuss public matters on social media should not be allowed to block Americans from seeing their posts. But take pity on the poor pols: they should be able to mute users, that is, keep others from cluttering up their social media experience.

Oddly, the lawsuit does not address this muting option.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* I even use it, occasionally.

PDF for printing

AOC, Trump, twitter, block, blocking, free speech,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts