header 1
header 2
header 3

Message Forum - GENERAL

Welcome to the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

01/17/25 08:38 AM #17891    

 

Jay Shackford

If You Want to Know where the U.S. Economy is Heading, Watch the Bond Markets

 

By Gillian Tett, The Financial Times

 

As Scott Bessent, Trump’s Treasury secretary nominee, endured his first Congressional hearing on Thursday, he was grilled about America’s economic challenges. Even before he started, however, evidence had emerged of these: on Wednesday the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that the 30-year mortgage rate had jumped above 7 per cent, following a 1 percentage point rise in 10-year Treasury yields since last autumn. 

 

This is not particularly punitive by the standards of financial history. Since 1971, the average mortgage rate has been 7.73 per cent — and before 1990, rates generally sat over 10 per cent. But the rub is that US voters have become used to rates of 3 per cent in the past decade. 

 

Indeed the real estate industry has became so addicted to cheap money that insiders tell me that if 10-year yields rise to 5 per cent for any period of time — from the current 4.65 per cent level — they expect strings of defaults. And what is particularly notable — and unwelcome — about this development is that it has occurred even though the Federal Reserve has loosened policy quite markedly since last autumn. 

 

Such divergence is highly unusual — and implies that traders are blowing a big fat raspberry at the Fed. Why? If you are an optimist, you might blame the strong US growth outlook for rising rates. A less upbeat explanation is that investors are braced for price rises. 

 

For while equity markets rallied this week on better than expected inflation data, this could change if president-elect Donald Trump follows through on his threats to introduce trade tariffs and mass deportations. Another possible explanation, suggests the Centre for Economic Policy Research, is that non-US central banks are furtively cutting their Treasury purchases. And one factor that could be pushing long-term yields up is that Bessent has (rightly) criticised Janet Yellen, his predecessor, for expanding short-term debt issuance. This implies he hopes to sell more long-term debt. 

 

However the most contentious — and consequential — issue is the US fiscal outlook. Rightwing pundits have warned for years that this is on an unsustainable track: on current trends, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to move from 100 per cent to 200 per cent in a decade — and the deficit is now running at over 6 per cent of GDP. 

 

That sparked Luke Gromen’s influential “Tree Rings” newsletter to warn that if the 10-year yield rises above the nominal growth rate it is “mathematically certain to quickly trigger a debt death spiral...unless either or both US rates are cut quickly or US nominal growth is accelerated higher”. He believes this may have already occurred. 

 

More notable still, this week Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater hedge fund, published the first part of his analysis of historical debt crises. He said he was “deeply concerned” that America will “go broke” and warns that a multi-decade debt cycle could soon implode. Thankfully, Dalio thinks this ugly scenario could still be avoided if radical reforms make the debt burden more sustainable. 

 

This could include cutting interest rates to 1 per cent, letting inflation rise to 4.5 per cent, increasing tax revenue by 11 per cent, slashing discretionary spending by 47 per cent or some combination. But implementing such a holistic policy mix will be tough, he added. And that has two implications. 

 

In macroeconomic terms, it constrains Bessent’s room for manoeuvre; he admitted on Thursday that the country was now “hard-pressed” for fiscal firepower. And in financial terms, there is a notable — and rising — risk of market turmoil if investors embrace Dalio’s dark predictions. 

 

I am told that some of Trump’s supporters, such as Howard Lutnick, head of Cantor Fitzgerald and the nominee for commerce secretary, insist that such market pressures can be contained. After all, global financial institutions need to buy and own Treasuries — almost irrespective of price — to meet regulatory rules. And foreign investor demand for US debt still seems sky high, particularly in places such as Japan. 

 

But, as I have noted before, a swelling part of this foreign demand is now coming from potentially flighty hedge funds. And during a recent trip to Asia, senior financiers muttered that they are furtively hunting for ways to hedge their vast Treasuries exposures — even as they gobble them up. 

 

The same thing is happening in Europe. Thankfully, Bessent seems to understand these dynamics well. Indeed, he told Congress that the reason he left his “quiet life” as a hedge fund manager to serve in Treasury was because he feels a duty to tackle these fiscal pressures — and thus avoid Dalio’s doom loop. But whether he has the political power — or savvy — to do this is anyone’s guess. He is certainly in a race against time. 

 

So investors had better keep watching those Treasury yields. After all, one thing that Trump does not want on his watch is a full-blown market meltdown, let alone a Maga revolt over surging mortgage rates. If anything is going to impose discipline on his administration, it might just be those bond rates; indeed, it is probably the only factor that will.

 

(Gillian Tett is one of the few financial reporters to understand and anticipate the financial collapse of 2007-08 that was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis.)


01/17/25 10:49 AM #17892    

 

Jay Shackford

Starting Monday: The Trump administration’s days of blunder

Talk of tattoos, Jesus, enemies lists and a war with California mark the week before inauguration.

 

By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post

Jan. 17, 2025

 

At a forum this week hosted by Politico, former top Trump strategist and current MAGA loudmouth Steve Bannon said insiders have a name for the first days of the incoming Trump administration. “We refer to it right now as ‘Days of Thunder,’” he said. “And I think these Days of Thunder starting next week are going to be incredibly, incredibly intense.”

 

Why would President-elect Donald Trump’s advisers compare their return to power with a 35-year-old movie about NASCAR? This can only mean they are expecting a series of car wrecks. And, in fact, the pileups have already begun — a familiar mix of incompetence, defiance of the law, infighting and tilting at windmills. (“Windmills are an economic and environmental disaster. I don’t want even one built during my administration,” Trump announced on Wednesday.)

 

Bannon himself is publicly feuding with billionaire Elon Musk, who has attached himself, barnacle-like, to Trump. Bannon told an Italian newspaper that Musk is “a truly evil person” who has the “maturity of a child” (fact check: mostly true), and that “he should go back to South Africa,” where Musk grew up during apartheid. Musk, in turn, has called his MAGA critics “subtards” and “contemptible fools” (fact check: well, let’s not go there).

 

On the same day Bannon spoke about Days of Thunder, I was in a hearing room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, watching the most extravagantly unqualified nominee I have ever seen. Pete Hegseth makes the closest runner-up, Harriet Miers, George W. Bush’s ill-fated Supreme Court nominee, look like Oliver Wendell Holmes. Hegseth has faced widespread and credible allegations of drunkenness on the job, financial mismanagement at the two small charities he ran, and sexual harassment and assault. (He paid a woman who accused him of assault while denying the accusation.) A weekend host for Fox News, Hegseth never ran a large organization and held a junior rank in the military, and he has said women shouldn’t serve in combat and disparaged the Geneva Conventions, which govern the laws of war. He also appears to have no idea what he’s doing.

 

At Hegseth’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) sprung a pop quiz on him, asking the defense secretary-designate how many nations are in ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. “I couldn’t tell you the exact amount of nations, but I know we have allies in South Korea and Japan and in AUKUS with Australia,” Hegseth ventured.

 

“None of those three countries that you’ve mentioned are in ASEAN,” Duckworth informed him.

 

President Joe Biden’s defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, has met annually with his counterparts in ASEAN, as did Trump defense secretaries Jim Mattis and Mark T. Esper before him. This is because ASEAN is crucial to the United States in its geopolitical struggle against China — and Hegseth doesn’t even know what it is.

 

The next day brought the confirmation hearing of Pam Bondi, whose main qualification to be attorney general is that she’s not Matt Gaetz. During her ferociously partisan appearance, she refused to acknowledge that Biden won the 2020 election, left on the table prosecuting Liz Cheney, Jack Smith and Merrick Garland, and delivered frequent taunts about Trump’s “overwhelming” victory in November. (He won by 1.5 percentage points and got less than 50 percent of the vote). “Look at the map of California,” she told California Democrat Adam Schiff. “It’s bright red, the popular vote, for a reason.” Trump lost California by 20 points.

 

The main driver of the car wrecks, of course, is the president-elect himself. Fresh from his news conference announcing that he would consider using military force to seize the Panama Canal and to take Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, he reposted a social media post this week from right-wing activist Charlie Kirk with a poll purporting to show that “Greenland wants independence from Denmark.”

 

Now, he’s getting ready to go to war with California. Trump fabricated a claim that Los Angeles doesn’t have enough water to fight wildfires because Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom (whom the president-elect calls “Gavin Newscum”) diverted water “to protect a tiny little fish,” the delta smelt: “And for the sake of a smelt, they have no water.” In reality, Los Angeles has enough water to fight the fires; hydrants have at times run dry because the city’s water system, like all municipal systems, isn’t equipped to fight forest fires. The state’s water policies have nothing to do with it.

 

Yet Trump keeps posting “RELEASE THE WATER” and, now, congressional Republicans are threatening to withhold disaster relief from California because of the president-elect’s bogus claims. After Trump’s (phony) accusation that the Biden administration had refused disaster assistance to Republican parts of storm-ravaged North Carolina, Republicans are now proposing to do exactly that to blue California unless it abandons its unrelated conservation policies. “We will follow the administration’s lead on this,” House Speaker Mike Johnson declared this week, joining in the false accusation that the fires came with the state’s “complicity” because of “deliberative policy choices.”

 

Trump, never one to stand still, has moved on to blaming the fires on migrants. He posted a claim this week that taxpayer “funds are diverted to illegal immigrants,” and then “an illegal immigrant comes and sets your house on fire and the fire department doesn’t have the resources to put it out.”

 

Trump is also considering, as one of his first acts in office, overturning by fiat a law duly passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress, signed into law by Biden, and on the verge of being upheld by the Supreme Court. The people’s representatives determined that China-owned TikTok poses a threat to national security. Trump’s own choice to be secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), said this week that China is “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” But Trump has a higher priority: himself. He thinks TikTok is good for him politically. So, he’s getting ready to set aside the law — and he’ll be hosting TikTok’s CEO at his inauguration Monday.

 

The incoming administration is also poised to ignore the law and the Supreme Court on government spending. Congress in 1974 passed the Impoundment Control Act — which blocks a president from refusing to spend funds Congress appropriates because he doesn’t like a particular program — after the abuses of Watergate, and the Supreme Court upheld it. But Russell Vought, Trump’s pick to run the Office of Management and Budget, declared at his confirmation hearing this week that “I don’t believe it’s constitutional,” regardless of what the Supreme Court says. “The president ran on that view,” Vought said, and “the incoming administration is going to take the president’s view on this” — the law be damned.

 

Apparently, rules just won’t apply to the incoming administration. Extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which Republicans plan to do, would add $4.6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But Trump and Republicans have promised that, once in power, they would cut the national debt. So, as The Post’s Jacob Bogage reports, they have come up with a novel solution. They will simply decree, magically, that extending the tax cuts won’t increase the debt! Saying so doesn’t make it true, of course — but this is no longer a relevant consideration.

 

These coming car wrecks are in addition to the routine fender benders that Trump tends to produce almost hourly. He announced on social media this week that “I am today announcing that I will create the EXTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect our Tariffs, Duties, and all Revenue that come from Foreign sources.” Evidently, he was unaware that Congress had already taken care of this, in 1789. It’s called “Customs.”

 

After the Justice Department this week released the final report of the special counsel investigating Trump’s antics on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump posted: “To show you how desperate Deranged Jack Smith is, he released his Fake findings at 1 a.m. in the morning.” Well, yes, 1 a.m. is “in the morning.” So is 1:52 a.m., when Trump posted his missive. But the report was clearly dated a week earlier, and Smith had already left the Justice Department. The report was released at that time because a Trump-allied judge had embargoed its release until midnight.

 

Such are the musings of the extremely stable genius. One moment, he was attacking NBC late-night host Seth Meyers. (“I feel an obligation to say how dumb and untalented he is.”) Another moment, he was sharing a picture of himself labeled “God’s gift to America.” And when Israel and Hamas reached their ceasefire deal, he naturally claimed sole credit. “We have achieved so much without even being in the White House,” he boasted.

 

Good point. Israel has reached ceasefires with Hamas and Hezbollah. Inflation has calmed. Violent crime, border crossings and opioid-overdose deaths have all plunged. The economy has added jobs for 48 straight months. Interest rates have fallen. The stock market has hit dozens of record highs. Maybe Trump should simply declare victory — and stay home at Mar-a-Lago.

 

After watching Bondi’s confirmation hearing this week, I must respectfully disagree with The Post’s Editorial Board, which gave her a thumbs-up and pronounced her qualified to be attorney general. She appeared to take pride in how little she knows.

What were her thoughts on Trump calling those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, “hostages” and “patriots”?

 

“I am not familiar with that statement.”

How about the recording of Trump urging Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” him 11,780 votes?

 

“I’ve not heard it.”

 

Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, Kash Patel, saying he would “come after” journalists “who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections”?

 

“I am not familiar with all those comments.”

 

Patel’s threats to prosecute political opponents, including some from the five-dozen-name enemies list published in an appendix to his book that labels them members of a “deep state”?

 

“I don’t believe he has an enemies list. He made a quote on TV, which I have not heard.”

 

Her feigned ignorance did not extend to the supposed “weaponization” of the government by Democrats, of which she was most certain. She and her Republican questioners brought it up two dozen times. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) observed to her that “no president had previously been prosecuted until the Biden-Harris White House came along, and in the last four years we’ve seen Donald Trump indicted and prosecuted not once, not twice, not three times, but four separate times.”

 

“And two assassination attempts,” Bondi added.

Thus did the incoming attorney general implicate the Biden White House in the attempted murder of Trump.

 

But if Bondi was only playing dumb, Hegseth seemed to come by this trait more earnestly. Even his supporters (which, thanks to Trump’s threats, include virtually every Senate Republican) felt a need to acknowledge his lack of credentials.

 

“Admittedly, this nomination is unconventional,” the Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) allowed.

 

“Pete Hegseth is an out-of-the-box nominee,” submitted former senator Norm Coleman, introducing Hegseth.

 

Freshman Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Montana) defended Hegseth’s thin résumé by saying “I don’t think any board in the world would’ve hired Steve Jobs or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg when they founded their companies either.”

 

So now, we’re treating the 3-million-person U.S. military like a garage start-up?

 

Hegseth came armed with two strategies. The first was to say that all of the accusations of alcohol abuse and sexual and financial impropriety were fabricated by left-wing partisans. “What became very evident to us from the beginning: There was a coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us,” he spoke, using the royal “we.”

 

The second was to say that he has been “redeemed by my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” for all of the bad things he was falsely accused of doing by this left-wing smear campaign.

 

After the nominee’s third mention of Jesus, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican, informed the committee that “our Lord and Savior forgave me” — too, as did Mrs. Mullin. In fact, “the only reason why I’m here and not in prison is because my wife loved me, too,” he disclosed.

 

Mullin condemned Democrats as hypocrites, accusing his fellow senators of cheating on their wives and showing up drunk for votes. “The man’s made a mistake and you want to sit there and say that he’s not qualified? Give me a joke!” Mullin challenged.

Okay, Senator. A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar …

 

The real joke is going to be on the brave men and women of the military, who will soon be led by a man who has referred to military lawyers as “jagoffs” and who, at the hearing, left open the possibility that he would use the 82nd Airborne to conduct law enforcement in D.C. Hegseth was contemptuous of his questioners; he refused to meet with all but one of the Democrats, and Wicker restricted the questioning time over Democratic objections. Instead, the secretary-designate engaged his bros on the GOP side in high-testosterone talk.

 

“How many push-ups can you do?” Sheehy asked.

 

“I did five sets of 47 this morning,” the nominee replied, in apparent homage to the 47th president.

 

He repeatedly vowed to return the “warrior ethos” and “warrior culture” and to rebuild the military after the “defense cuts under the Biden administration.” Defense spending grew nearly 15 percent under Biden from Trump’s final year in office, and the men and women of the military never stopped being the most powerful warriors on the planet.

 

But you wouldn’t know that from Hegseth and his Republican interlocutors, who spoke endlessly about the supposed “wokeness” in the military.

 

As an example of this wokeness, Hegseth claimed that he was not allowed to offer protection during Biden’s inauguration in 2021 because he has a Christian tattoo. Pointing to his chest, he said “it’s called the Jerusalem Cross,” or Crusader’s Cross. He did not mention that he also has a tattoo proclaiming “Deus Vult” — “God wills it” — which was displayed during the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in 2017 and during the Jan. 6 insurrection.

 

It’s not clear whether the tattoos caused Hegseth to be rejected from security duty. But if they did, that happened before Biden took office, during the woke Trump administration.

 

Days of Thunder? More like days of blunder.

 

 

 


01/17/25 12:42 PM #17893    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Gotta love that owl! What a hoot.

Going back to address the under 50% thing, Jack.  (And, for the record, I do read YOUR posts.) Short of counting ALL the votes, how do you know it is true that Trump fell fractionally under 50%?  How do you know that Harris didn't? Faith in the NYT? 

Agree that Hegseth will most likely be influenced by Trump's opinions, but isn't that SOP? Of course Biden certainly took control of our Afghan exit without taking Lloyd Austin's advice, but do we want a Secretary of Defense deciding the direction of our country? Not sure what you guys want...a cabinet which does not reflect our elected President's positions or is it only Trump's positions? If so, is that the best ya got? Was glad to see that Mr. Hegseth had found the Lord and changed the error of his ways. Good for him. Good for us. 

 

 


01/17/25 03:30 PM #17894    

 

Jack Mallory

Yes, a fair amount of confidence in the NYT. And when I looked for other data on the popular vote results, the NYT's estimate was the highest of the dozen or so that I looked at. 

These are some of the sites I looked at, just the first page of results from a Google search for "2024 popular vote results." 

 

What evidence have you found that would suggest that Trump did win a majority of the popular votes? You have looked for evidence, haven't you? You haven't found ANY?
 


01/17/25 06:57 PM #17895    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5032427-peter-hegseth-dangerous-nomination/

Nori, Pete Hegseth finding the Lord isn't enough to be a good Secretary of Defense. Take a look at this about him and you will see why he is so unfit to serve as the head of the Defense Dept. He didn't do well when he managed a much smaller group of only 50. His character to be the head of Defense is greatly lacking. Even his mother called him out. Believe me he is no Jim Mattis.  Love, Joanie

 

 

 


01/18/25 07:55 AM #17896    

 

Jack Mallory

A wonderful counter to those who have given up on the Enlightenment and use gloom and doom to distract themselves from the data and from working to insure that the arc continues to bend in the best direction. 

 

 

Around the beginning of each year, I customarily write a column about how we’ve just had the “best year ever” in the long history of humanity.

This annual eruption of exuberance outrages some readers who see it as disrespectful of all the tragedies around us. Others welcome it as a reminder that even in our messed-up world, many trends are still going right.

So this year I heard from readers asking: Where’s your “best year ever” column?

To be honest, I didn’t have the heart to write it. I was dispirited by the suffering of children in Gaza, by the atrocities and famine in Sudan, by the wildfires in Los Angeles and what they portend and by a December trip to Madagascar, where I saw toddlers starving because of a drought probably exacerbated by climate change. And then a felon I consider unstable and a threat to democracy is about to move into the White House.

Yet, just as some readers wanted reassurance, so did I. Precisely because I felt blue, I wanted to read a column putting grim news in perspective. It has become apparent that the only way I am going to read such a column is if I write it first — so here goes.

 

For starters, let’s note that the worst thing that can happen is not a Trumpian rant; I’d say it’s to lose a child. And 2024 appears to have been the year in which the smallest percentage of children died since the dawn of humanity. 
 

For most of history, about half of newborns died as children. As recently as 1950, more than one-quarter did. In 2024, the best guess of United Nations statisticians is that an all-time low of 3.6 percent of children died before the age of 5, a bit lower than in 2023 (which set the previous record).

That is still far too many. But the risk of that worst thing happening has dropped by half over the last quarter-century. Just since 2000, more than 80 million children’s lives have been saved.

Likewise, consider extreme poverty, defined as having less than $2.15 per day, adjusted for inflation. Historically, most human beings lived in extreme poverty, but the share has been plummeting — and in 2024 reached a new low of about 8.5 percent of the world’s people. 
 

Another way of looking at it: Every day over the past couple of years, roughly 30,000 people moved out of extreme poverty worldwide. And here’s something to look forward to: This year will probably register even more progress against child deaths and poverty alike.

Education and literacy are the greatest forces empowering human beings, yet when I was a child, a majority of human beings had always been illiterate. Now we’re approaching 90 percent literacy worldwide, and the number of literate people is rising by more than 12 million each year. Every three seconds, another person becomes literate.

You may be thinking (as I am): But what about the wars and other tragedies still unfolding? Fair enough. But don’t lose sight of the cease-fire in Gaza or the toppling of the brutal al-Assad regime in Syria. Three of the world’s worst humanitarian crises of the last decade — Yemen, Ethiopia and Syria — are now in better shape because wars have subsided.

Perhaps the greatest geopolitical nightmare would be a war between the United States and China, breaking out either in the Taiwan Strait or near the Philippines. But Biden administration diplomacy, knitting together Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia in a common front, appears to have increased deterrence and reduced that risk.

 

I’m not smart enough to try to predict whether artificial intelligence will benefit civilization or end it, but one of my concerns in recent years has been that an authoritarian China would master A.I. before the West does. For now, that risk seems to have receded.

Here in America, we often focus on politics, and the risks in that realm are considerable. But not everything is politics.

Scientists have newly developed the first antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia in decades, and a vaccine against a form of breast cancer may enter Phase 2 trials this year. And with semaglutide medications, Americans are now becoming thinner, on average, each year rather than fatter, with far-reaching health consequences.

Climate change is a growing peril, of course, but stunning improvements in solar, wind, nuclear and other technologies, coupled with advances in batteries, offer a credible path toward decarbonizing the world economy — and might even result in energy becoming cheaper than ever before.

 

So after making this upbeat case, how convinced am I by my own argument? How do I feel? Not buoyant, but a little better. The world is a mess, and I promise to barrage you with woe every other day of the year — but it’s also valuable to take a nanosecond break at the beginning of each year to put it all in perspective. Look at the data, and it’s difficult to deny a larger truth: For all the challenges we face, there has been no better time to be alive.

I’m a backpacker, and sometimes, on a steep slog uphill through pelting rain or snow, it’s good to rest against a tree for a moment and try to remember that hiking is fun — to recharge myself for the next push uphill. That’s likewise the usefulness of a periodic reminder that the arc of human progress is still evident in metrics that matter most, such as the risk of a child dying, and that we truly can get over the next damn hill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/opinion/2024-child-mortality-poverty-growth.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

 

 


01/18/25 01:02 PM #17897    

 

Jack Mallory

This wasn't a rhetorical question, Nori. What evidence have you found that would suggest that Trump did win a majority of the popular votes? You have looked for evidence, haven't you? You haven't found ANY?


01/18/25 06:15 PM #17898    

 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

I wonder why Nori is so concerned with a fraction of a point in Trump's win. We all admit he won. Did she admit Biden won last time? I was going to post a final election count but was stumped by what she would believe. She's already rejected the NYT and probably would reject the Washington Post.

How about:

ABC
NBC
CBS
NPR
BBC
WSJ
AP

She may be disappointed that they all say the same thing. Even Fox has the same numbers. Trump almost, but did not quite win the popular vote. But really who cares?

Since we're talking numbers maybe this would be of interest.

Trump’s approval is weak. A new Marist/NPR poll puts it at just 44%; 49% say they disapprove of him. The Economist/YouGov poll gives him a similar 45/51 split, while a USA Today/Suffolk University survey has his favorability/unfavorability at 47% each.

I can't wait to see the assessment of the crowd size at the inauguration! Oh wait, Trump moved indoors so there won't be a crowd. crying


01/18/25 07:44 PM #17899    

 

Jack Mallory

In conjunction with Joan's last:

Poll results showing bipartisan AGREEMENT! About what a mess things are!


https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/us/politics/trump-policies-immigration-tariffs-economy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

*********


 


01/18/25 10:40 PM #17900    

 

Jay Shackford

Gotta love the Commanders. What a season; what a game. 


01/19/25 07:05 AM #17901    

 

Jack Mallory

Nori, it's this kind of lying from our political "leadership," combined with parallel dishonesty and/or gullibility from everyday Americans, that make attention to detailed fact a necessity:

“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail . . ." https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/19/us/politics/trump-team-immigration-deportation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


As Hannah Arendt, one of the preeminent scholars of totalitarianism put it: 

 

"If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer . . . And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please." https://wist.info/arendt-hannah/45162/


Truth--facts, data, reality--matter. Shrugging our shoulders, muttering, "Well, all politicians lie," plays right into the hands of those who don't want us to think and judge. 
 


01/19/25 10:29 AM #17902    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

 

Jack, the original point was that unless there is a total recount of votes, we cannot know what the absolute truth is. With such a fractional difference, there is no knowing. Try as you might, there is NO truth there. There is only doubt. So, why is it important? Perchance to dream? If you just want to believe it, knowing it isn't necessarily true, then so be it. But please don,t pretend it is truth seeking when you know it's a guesstimate at best. 

Joanie, your assessment of Pete Hegseth is subjective & void of any of his achievements. How do you know he is not worthy now, when he may not have been 10 years ago? 
The vetting questions from Dems for the nominees so far have been odd to me. Why not ask "how do you plan to handle yourself as Sec of Def? Sec of tnterior? Attorney General? What changes would you make to better your department?" Instead we get " have you ever asked for sexual favors? Sexually assaulted anyone? Would you step down if you got drunk?"

So odd. 

 

 


 

 

 


01/19/25 11:20 AM #17903    

 

Jack Mallory

I was trained as a scientist, Nori. I worked as a scientist for a couple of decades. I have some familiarity with what you call "truth seeking." Enough to NEVER have claimed to be searching for "absolute truth." If absolute truth is some permanent, never to be challenged knowledge of reality, that's not what science looks for. ALL conclusions are based on best evidence at the time, assumed to be forever subject to challenge, alteration, or refutation. If you want claims of absolute truth, go to a priest, not a scientist. 

That said, best guesses based on clearly stated and documented evidence/facts/data are hugely important. That's why, for example, if you're feeling ill I strongly suggest you see a doctor, trained in modern, scientifically based medicine. He/she may deal in little t truths, not big T absolute truths. But he/she is likely to offer you a more "real" and effective treatment than your local shaman or priest, who may tell you their absolutely positive TRUTH that you've been cursed, or it's God's will.

All of that in support of my belief that striving for the most accurate, reliable understanding of reality is crucial, along with honestly describing the process and evidence that leads us to that conclusion.

Without that the temptation, as Arendt warns, is to shrug our shoulders and conclude that we might just as well believe whatever our favorite bullshit artist--political, religious, whatever--tells us. 


I haven't cited sources for the above. They're based on years as a trained and practicing scientist and I no longer have my old textbooks to cull for references. But it's not too late for anyone to head over to the local JC, pick up a few philosophy of science classes! 
 

More on Arendt shortly.
 


 


01/19/25 11:24 AM #17904    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Perhaps of help to those  (Jaybirds?) who suffer from a profound sense of hopelessness & fixate on the most dreadful results this Inauguration Day, Angela Haupt of Time magazine penned an article citing what to do for better mental health: cry with a friend, smile at other people, dance, do something kind & my personal fave is 'do some forest bathing'.
( And she gets paid for this?)

Ya can't make this stuff up, 

Jack if you find consolation in the "fact" Trump came within a hair of 50%, go for it. 


01/19/25 11:38 AM #17905    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

And finally, YES YES YES to the 'skins amazing season. Still reeling from last night's game, Jay!! Hail to 'skinning those cats'!, (Daniels & Kingsbury are unstoppable! Bring on the birds!


01/19/25 12:15 PM #17906    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

So Nori, are you saying that it doesn't matter that Pete Hegseth has a history of drinking on the job and that the organization he ran folded. Are you saying sexual impropriety isn't worthy of questioning. Character matters and the fact that Hegseth unsuccessfully headed a small organization of 50 people shows that he has NO experience to head a huge organization of the Department of Defence. Are you saying his mother's comments don't matter when she wrote to him about his awful behavior to women at the time he fathered a child while married to someone else.What about the women who said he abused them. Not of any interest to get to the bottom of it? The Committee never asked them to testify. . Love, Joanie

Nori, please check out this link...also it continues when you think its ended so keep scrolling down. Are you saying that the information in this link doesn't affect Pete Hegseth's qualifications to be the head of Defense? To me, these revelations are disqualifiers.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5032427-peter-hegseth-dangerous-nomination/


01/19/25 01:13 PM #17907    

 

Jack Mallory

And Nori, if you choose to believe that Trump got a majority of the popular vote, and are unable/unwilling to provide a scintilla of evidence for that in the face of numerous sources concluding differently, go for it. Perhaps you agree with John that there is no need to support opinions with evidence. Just don't expect many of the rest of us to be impressed by your reasoning process.

You may simply be demonstrating the (small t) truth of Hannah Arendt's ideas about lies, cynicism, and totalitarianism. 
 

 


01/19/25 09:55 PM #17908    

 

Jay Shackford

Trump Brings a Chill to Washington

 

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist, The New York Times, reporting from Washington.

 

For many moons over the Potomac, the protocol for inaugurations has been as immutable and dignified as the words of presidents engraved on their monuments.

Leaders and luminaries would put aside their grudges and come together to celebrate democracy. This day marks the deepest conviction of the American experiment — that power must pass peacefully from one commander in chief to the next.

But what if you are coming to honor a man who tried to overthrow the government and steal an election? A man who riled up his followers to sack the Capitol and then lumbered out of town, a sore loser in a vile humor, skipping the inauguration of his successor?

Does he merit the usual privileges? Should everyone honor him in his moment at the center of the sacred traditions he desecrated?

 

When Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi blow off Donald Trump on his triumphant day, are they being rude and unpatriotic? Or are they justified, given his incendiary words, misogyny and racism, his defilement of this tradition at the heart of America?

The weather will not be the only bitter chill in town. Besides Michelle’s and Nancy’s cold shoulders, Barack Obama and the Clintons are skipping the inaugural lunch.

Trump is returning as a colossus. He has brought Washington — Democrats and Republicans — to heel, teamed up with Elon Musk and slapped a gold “Trump” sign on Silicon Valley. The lords of the cloud helped fund the coronation, and they are making a pilgrimage here to bow to their new overlord. (This includes the C.E.O. of TikTok, who is surely hoping that his company’s sponsoring of an inauguration party and his online flattery about Trump’s 60 billion TikTok views will lead the new president to save the social media platform.)

But not everyone is looking forward to what’s in store.

It will be hard to forget Trump’s day of infamy, Jan. 6, as he gets sworn in at the Capitol, which was smeared with blood and feces by rioters recast by Trump and his acolytes as “hostages,” “patriots,” “tourists” and “grandmothers.”

The wintry cold is ordinarily part of the inaugural tradition. William Henry Harrison got pneumonia and died a month after his 8,445-word speech in March 1841. John F. Kennedy did his speech without an overcoat in a 7-degree wind chill. Ronald Reagan came in from the cold for his second inaugural. Trump posted on Friday that the “Arctic blast” would force the shindig inside, to the Capitol Rotunda. But given Trump’s obsession with crowd size, many wondered if he was just shivering at the thought that the weather would keep spectators away.

 

An X account belonging to a beloved D.C. dive bar, Dan’s Cafe, dryly posted about the shift to the rotunda: “Good thing his supporters already know how to get inside.”

Trump’s last inauguration was marred by his meltdown over crowd size; he called the National Park Service director the next day to press him to produce additional photographs of the crowds on the Mall after the agency shared photographs showing that Obama had a much larger crowd at his inaugural than Trump did. The one-day-old president also sent out his White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, to bluster falsely about how Trump’s crowd was the largest ever to witness an inauguration.

That set the tone for the highchair king’s first term: Reality must take a back seat to ego stroking — or else.

The mood in Washington is very different this time around. Instead of a rowdy resistance and a women’s march that drew nearly 500,000 here and some five million across the globe — an international swath of pink hats — we have Republicans who have gotten even more sheeplike and Democrats who still seem deflated and flummoxed, with no compelling ideas or pols to lead them out of the wilderness.

And this as Trump is surrounded not by advisers, generals and a daughter trying (and failing) to temper him but by fervent loyalists who will help him toss out executive orders the same way he tossed out paper towels in Puerto Rico, with no worries about who might be hit.

 

When she was trying to lure Joe Biden out of the race last summer, Pelosi said he had been such a consequential president, he belonged on Mount Rushmore. And Biden has made several speeches this week trying to buff his accomplishments.

But he will be merely a footnote in the vertiginous saga of how Trump won the White House again, despite a hail of impeachments, lawsuits, insults and lies and an attempted coup that put his vice president, lawmakers and police in danger.

The chip on Biden’s shoulder devoured his judgment about what was good for him, for his party and for the country. His narcissism trumped his patriotism.

A new Times article, “How Biden’s Inner Circle Protected a Faltering President,” reveals that Biden was encased in the same sort of delusional bubble as Trump. Mimicking Trump’s self-serving sycophants, Biden’s staff ginned up positive comments from allies to show the boss and protected him from negative stories.

Many noticed that Biden was in a fog, or “dans les vapes,” as an aide to President Emmanuel Macron of France called it. But challenges to the Panglossian narrative about the president’s stamina and mental fitness were met with hostility. Jill Biden and advisers spun a Trump-like web of deceit around the White House.

 

Even Biden himself now admits that he isn’t certain he could have made it through four more years. “Who knows what I’m going to be when I’m 86 years old?” he recently told USA Today’s Susan Page.

But he persisted with his fiction that he was hale and hearty long enough to ensure that Democrats had no time to choose a ticket with a real shot at stopping Trump.

As Biden, baked in Washington tradition, dutifully follows the script on Monday, he should ponder what his legacy will truly be: resurrecting Trump.


01/19/25 10:35 PM #17909    

 

Jay Shackford

How Biden’s Inner Circle

Protected a Faltering President

 

By Katie Rogers, Adam Entous, Maggie Haberman and Carl Hulse

The New York Times    Jan. 17, 2025

 

The people closest to President Biden were well aware that he had changed. He talked more slowly than he had just a few years before, needed to hoist himself out of his seat in the presidential limousine and walked with a halting gait.

“Your biggest issue is the perception of age,” Mike Donilon, the president’s longtime strategist, told him in mid-2022, according to three close aides who heard it. That bit of feedback, delivered repeatedly by Mr. Donilon, was the sort of blunt talk that did not often make its way to a man who had spent a half-century in politics prizing loyalty and deference.

Mr. Biden acknowledged the concerns, but the warnings only ignited his defiant, competitive streak. In April 2023, without convening his family or having long deliberations with aides, he announced he was running again.

Now, as President-elect Donald J. Trump heads back to the White House, demoralized Democrats debate what might have been had the president bowed out in time to let a younger generation run. Mr. Biden, 82, has at the same time made the extraordinary admission that he might not have made it through a second term. “Who knows what I’m going to be when I’m 86 years old?” he said in an interview with USA Today on Jan. 5.

 

The president’s acknowledgment has put a new spotlight on his family and inner circle, all of whom dismissed concerns from voters and Mr. Biden’s own party that he was too old for the job. And yet they recognized his physical frailty to a greater degree than they have publicly acknowledged. Then they cooperated, according to interviews with more than two dozen aides, allies, lawmakers and donors, to manage his decline.

They rearranged meetings to make sure Mr. Biden was in a better mood — a strategy one person close to him described as how aides should handle any president. At times, they delayed sharing information with him, including negative polling data, as they debated the best way to frame it. They surrounded him with aides when he walked from the White House to the waiting presidential helicopter on the South Lawn so that news cameras could not capture his awkward bearing.

 

They had Mr. Biden use a teleprompter for even small fund-raisers in private homes, alarming donors, who were asked to provide questions beforehand. They came up with replacing the grand steps that presidents use to board Air Force One with a shorter set that led directly into the belly of the plane. They chastised White House correspondents for coverage of the president’s age. They hand-delivered memos to Mr. Biden describing social media posts the campaign staff had persuaded allies to write that pushed back on negative articles and polls.

Mr. Biden’s fumbles continued this week. In announcing a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday he confused the emir of Kuwait with the emir of Qatar and said Hezbollah rather than Hamas was responsible for the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. He also referred to his national security adviser as “Secretary Jake Sullivan” before catching himself.

 

Six key people protected the president.

Jill Biden, the first lady, and Hunter Biden, his surviving son, fervently believed in his ability to win. Mr. Donilon and Steve Ricchetti, the counselor to Mr. Biden, knew when and how to deliver information, along with Annie Tomasini, the deputy chief of staff. She and Anthony Bernal, the first lady’s most senior aide, took tight control over the president’s public schedule.

 

All of them are deeply devoted to Mr. Biden. All are adept at navigating his quick temper. All enjoy proximity to the most powerful office in American politics.

And all were convinced that he was the only one who could beat Mr. Trump.

Then there was Mr. Biden himself, whose pursuit of the White House had been the family’s project for nearly 40 years. Finally elected on his third try, Mr. Biden suggested that he would be a transition president. But his pride, plus a string of legislative accomplishments and a strong showing in the 2022 midterms, drove him to seek re-election and set out on a quixotic mission to prove his vitality.

Mr. Biden told USA Today that he could have defeated Mr. Trump if he had stayed in the race. But when he departs the White House on Monday, history will remember him as the man who beat Mr. Trump, then paved the way for his return.

 

The final campaign begins

Mr. Biden’s announcement in the spring of 2019 that he was running against the incumbent Mr. Trump came after meetings with family members to prepare them for the scrutiny. It was a difficult time. Mr. Biden’s son Beau had died of brain cancer in 2015, and the other, Hunter, had collapsed into addiction and financial ruin. Mr. Biden had to assume a bigger role in financially and emotionally supporting his grandchildren.

There were no such meetings when he considered a final run. His surviving son was sober. His grandchildren were better off. He could do it.

But the concerns over his age were there from the start.

In May 2023, a month after he had announced he was running for re-election, Mr. Biden was in the Fifth Avenue duplex of Hamilton E. James, the billionaire former president of Blackstone, making his case about another term to nervous New York donors.

“It wasn’t an automatic decision about running again,” Mr. Biden, then 81, told the group, adding that he knew the road ahead would be relentless and brutal. “I thought to myself, four more years means six more years. It’s a long time.”

 

His comments, dropped into a 35-minute stump speech that meandered from Ukraine to his childhood, were meant to reassure. But to some donors, the comments had the opposite effect. Several left with the same worries over Mr. Biden’s age that they had when they arrived. They told one another afterward that he hardly sounded like an energized, motivated candidate.

The president made so many rambling remarks at other fund-raisers over the summer that several supporters called his advisers to plead for him to be more focused and on message. Others who saw Mr. Biden thought the wear and tear of the presidency was taking its toll.

“He looked a little tired,” said Mark Gilbert, a longtime Democratic donor and a former ambassador to New Zealand. Mr. Gilbert held a fund-raiser in Park City, Utah, for Mr. Biden in August of that year — in part, he said, for other donors who “wanted to see him in person, because they had read stories about how he’d lost a step.” But Mr. Gilbert said the president had been “terrific” at the event.

Other interactions with donors were less rosy.

At a meeting with potential donors in Boston in the summer of 2022, the first lady heard directly from Joshua Bekenstein, the chairman of Bain Capital. In an episode reported earlier by NBC, Mr. Bekenstein praised Mr. Biden’s leadership, and said he could leave public life proud of a one-term legacy.

What happened next is not widely known. Mr. Bekenstein went on to say that if Mr. Biden was not running again, he should announce it to give other Democrats time to get in the race, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Mr. Bekenstein had been under the impression that Mr. Biden had promised to be a one-term candidate.

 

The first lady listened but did not reply. The meeting ended. Over time, Mr. Bekenstein was told how his comments had shocked administration officials who had been in the room.

Managing for stumbles

 

The first lady listened but did not reply. The meeting ended. Over time, Mr. Bekenstein was told how his comments had shocked administration officials who had been in the room.

As several of Mr. Biden’s current and former advisers tell it, guarding against criticism of his age was the obvious thing to do. So age came up often in political discussions weighing his perceived strengths and weaknesses as a candidate, often held with the president and the first lady in the White House residence. The consensus was that Mr. Biden might look old, but he was not too old for the presidency.

But at times, people familiar with his thinking recalled, Mr. Biden’s pride — along with an old-school view that displaying physical vitality was the antidote to age concerns — could get in the way. Mr. Biden, who exercised on a stationary bike most days, made decisions that he thought would showcase vigor. But, at times, they had the unintended effect of showcasing his advancing years.

After fracturing his foot while playing with one of his German shepherds shortly before his inauguration, Mr. Biden refused to wear an orthopedic boot. He did not want to be seen as weak — a 78-year-old president with his hand on the Bible and a large, telltale contraption on his foot. He wore his leather brogues instead.

 

The end result, his friends and advisers say, was a fracture that did not heal, contributing to a shuffling gait that has continued through his presidency.

Mr. Biden still wanted to prove that he was physically agile. He enjoyed biking at his home near Rehoboth Beach, Del., but during the summer of 2022, when he stopped to talk with a group of onlookers and reporters, his feet got caught in the toe cages on the pedals. The president fell over, still attached to the bike.

Within days, critics turned Mr. Biden’s fall into a political attack on T-shirts: “Running the country is like riding a bike.”

The grueling year of ‘bad days’

 

The worst mishap was in June 2023, when Mr. Biden tripped over a sandbag at the Air Force Academy commencement. It took five seconds for Secret Service agents to help the president to his feet, an eternity when seen on television.

 

The sandbag was clearly in Mr. Biden’s way, and anyone could have tripped over it. But the president’s inner circle was alarmed. Their view was that the political damage could be catastrophic if he had one more fall like that, accident or not.

 

Mr. Biden had pursued a final term in part because he felt his family was in shape to withstand an exhausting campaign. But by the time the race was underway, Hunter Biden’s legal problems were mounting, and federal prosecutors were investigating the president for his handling of classified documents.

Robert K. Hur, the special counsel, ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden, but described him in a devastating report in as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” A transcript of Mr. Biden’s five hours of interviews with investigators released a month later showed that he occasionally fumbled dates and the sequence of events but at most other points appeared clearheaded.

Still, the damage was done. It had not helped that Mr. Biden, furious about Mr. Hur’s report, had stormed to the White House lectern to say he was up for the job — and then confused the presidents of Mexico and Egypt in response to a question about hostages held by Hamas.

 

Mr. Biden was struggling at the same time to manage support for the stalemate in Ukraine and growing furor in his party over his support for Israel as its war in Gaza continued. The demands of foreign policy, several people familiar with his thinking said, consumed his time, attention and energy. Democrats had lost the House in the midterms. Pessimism about the economy was pervasive.

Taken together, those factors influenced how Mr. Biden was scheduled and took a toll on his energy levels as he campaigned, people close to him said. He remained focused and in command in internal meetings, aides said. But, according to some, they also took to telling one another when it was a “bad day” — meaning that Mr. Biden’s mood led to some meetings or calls being reshuffled to a better time. Other officials said it was because Mr. Biden was busy.

“The presidency is a real-time job, and President Biden determines his busy schedule and briefings based on the urgent needs of the country,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said on Friday after this article was published.

Yet Mr. Biden pushed his staff to keep him scheduled and busy. As a result, he would at times seem tired and listless, particularly during or after overseas travel. His shaky condition was evident to foreign dignitaries during a trip to Normandy in June for the commemoration of D-Day.

 

People who were there said he appeared disoriented at events and at times gazed off into the distance. At a state dinner at the Élysée Palace hosted by President Emmanuel Macron of France, a member of the French presidential staff approached an American attendee and asked with concern about Mr. Biden’s health, saying he appeared “dans les vapes” — French slang for “out of it” or “in a fog.” The trip occurred at the same time as Hunter Biden’s trial on a gun charge in Delaware.

Two people involved in planning the president’s schedule believe that in hindsight, he should not have been traveling so much during this period. He was exhausted from not one but two trips to Europe and a fund-raiser in California in the weeks before his debate with Mr. Trump on June 27.

Mr. Biden needed naps during the debate preparations and then turned in a halting, incoherent performance universally described as “disastrous” by panicking Democrats. Even close aides aware of the president’s frailties were stunned by what they saw. It was, as Senator Chuck Schumer of New York recounted in a recent interview, “a big shock.”

Three weeks later Mr. Biden dropped out of the race.

Still defiant, with days left in office

 

A drive to defy the odds is at the center of the Biden family. It was true when Mr. Biden won a long-shot race for a Delaware Senate seat against an older incumbent in 1972. It was true when he was counted out during the 2020 presidential primaries until decisive primary wins in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday changed his fortunes.

 

The key to survival was, and always has been, to buckle down and hang on. To keep the faith, as Mr. Biden would say.

He will never know what shape he would be in as an 86-year-old, two-term president. His advisers say that if anyone had sensed an opportunity to beat Mr. Biden — the only Democrat who has defeated Mr. Trump — they would have mounted a primary threat when there was still time.

The first lady, who married into the family in 1977, believes he would have been fine with a second term.

“I mean, today, I think he has a full schedule,” Dr. Biden said in an interview with The Washington Post that published on Wednesday. “He started early with interviews and briefings, and it just keeps going.”

Mr. Biden’s allies said he remained sharp in private situations.

Roger Harrison, who was Mr. Biden’s deputy chief of staff when he was a senator in the 1970s and has remained a close friend, visited him at the White House in September, shortly after he had dropped out of the race.

 

“I’m sitting at the desk with him,” Mr. Harrison recalled. “His staff brought in a speech on gun violence that he was going to deliver in the East Room that afternoon. So he goes through the speech, and he has a pen, and he goes line by line, page by page, marking it up. We then went to a meeting with his staff, and he told them what changes he wanted to make. It was like I was back in the Senate, when I would hand him a speech. His procedure was no different than what I saw 30 years ago, 40 years ago.”

At the same time, Mr. Harrison said, he noticed “cosmetic changes” in how the president walked and spoke.

“I used to tell him, ‘You know, you have a great voice. It’s smooth. It’s clear. You have a voice like Ronald Reagan. That’s one of your attributes,’” Mr. Harrison said. “Sadly, it’s noticeably less. But you know the old adage: Don’t judge a book by its cover.”

 

 

 

 


01/20/25 07:08 AM #17910    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jay, thanks for the articles. I agree with some things in the first article, but not the comment that Biden was about narcissism, not patriotism. I truly think he thought he was the one that could beat Trump. He was one of the most patriotic public servants ever.

Then in the next article, I know I am in the minority but I think Biden's problem was exhaustion, not incompetence as was implied.. Biden showed he is a heavyweight in foreign affairs. .Also, he has always brilliantly coupled domestic policy with foreign policy as they are interrelated.  We are losing someone, who has a slower gait and age issues, but was doing such good for the American people and the world by organizing NATO against the brutal dictator Putin, by helping combat climate change, by his contributions to health care (insulin cost is low and medicare can compete on the market)..Also, there was his push to lower gun violence with a major bill, and his recently pardoning of 2,500 non violent drug offenders and so much more.. .He has made gaffes all his life so mixing up a name I don't see as a big deal. I'm not saying that he wasn't old or slower in walking but its evident from what he accomplished in just one term that he still was able to do the job for the American people.  I do like the comment at the end of the second article you posted,

Roger Harrison, who was Mr. Biden’s deputy chief of staff when he was a senator in the 1970s and has remained a close friend, visited him at the White House in September, shortly after he had dropped out of the race.

 

“I’m sitting at the desk with him,” Mr. Harrison recalled. “His staff brought in a speech on gun violence that he was going to deliver in the East Room that afternoon. So he goes through the speech, and he has a pen, and he goes line by line, page by page, marking it up. We then went to a meeting with his staff, and he told them what changes he wanted to make. It was like I was back in the Senate, when I would hand him a speech. His procedure was no different than what I saw 30 years ago, 40 years ago.”

Love, Joanie


01/20/25 12:13 PM #17911    

 

Barbara Ann Birren (Rowland)

I haven't posted here for quite a while, but want to thank those of you who prove that not everyone living in the US has abandoned thought in favor of following a demagogue, or parroting paranoid slogans. 

 

Joan, thanks for the posts on the Palisades fire. At the end of my freshman year of college my parents moved to Pacific Palisades, where they lived for 40 years. As far as I can tell the house they bought is only slightly damaged, but the places that I and my children loved visiting have gone. 

 

 

As for those who are pleased by the current president, here are just a few reminders to be careful what you wish for!

 

Stop immigration, deport all illegal immigrants and those who can't prove they are in the country legally. 

Go ahead, and when food rots in the fields because there are not enough agricultural works to harvest don't complain at food shortages.

Remind your grandkids that long waits or closures of fast food outlets due to lack of workers is because so many people voted like you did.

 

Put tariffs on imported goods. Just remember that makes the imported goods more expensive in America, and that other countries can put tariffs on American goods they import.

 

When unqualified people are put in charge of government departments, don't complain at the results. 

Having an anti vaxer in charge of vaccine protocols? Remember who you voted for when your grandchildren or their friends die of measles or meningitis, or are rendered infertile by mumps.

 

If vaccine use by federal departments is banned, soldiers will die of cholera and typhoid and paratyphoid and other diseases they have been vaccinated against for decades.

 

Tough anti-abortion laws? It could be your grandchildren who die in pregnancy because doctors are afraid to save their lives, your grandchildren who grow up motherless as a result. 

 

I won't go on, but invite others to add to the list, privately and therapeutically, or in further posts. I hope this isn't in a tiny font, I have been defeated in trying to format it.

 

 

 


01/20/25 12:24 PM #17912    

 

Jack Mallory

What I dread most about today is not the inauguration per se, but the promised pardons of the January 6th insurrectionists. As I've said, I just finished Capitol Police force Sgt. Aquilino Gonell's memoir, American Shield. The account of his experiences in the attack on our Capitol, his physical injuries, and his reactions are a sincere and eloquent depiction of both PTS and moral injury. 

Congressman Jamie Raskin described them during the Congressional investigation of the riot:

"A violent insurrection to overturn an election is not an abstract thing . . . hundreds of people were bloodied, injured, and wounded in the process, including more than 150 police officers—some of them sitting in this room today.

"I want to give you an update on one officer who was badly wounded in the attack and is well known to members of this Committee because he testified before us last year. 

"Sergeant Aquilino Gonell is an army veteran who spent a year on active combat duty in the Iraq War and then 16 years on the Capitol force. Nothing he ever saw in combat in Iraq . . . prepared him for the insurrection where he was savagely beaten, punched, pushed, kicked, shoved, stomped, and sprayed with chemical irritants, along with other officers, by members of a mob carrying hammers, knives, batons, and police shields taken by force and wielding the American flag against police officers as a dangerous weapon . . .

"Sergeant Gonell’s team of doctors told him that permanent injuries he has suffered on his left shoulder and right foot now make it impossible for him to continue as a police officer. He must leave policing for good and figure out the rest of his life."

On January 6, Sgt. Aquilino began the day personally feeling the divisions in the country as leader of a Civil Disturbance Unit. He had experienced anti-police rhetoric over the previous years:

"Too often lately, I’d felt stung by young progressives who defaced the Peace Monument with red spray paint and shouted, 'Defund the Police,' 'Fuck the Police,' 'Cops are Murderers,' and 'ACAB,” an acronym I looked up that meant “All Cops Are Bastards.'"

But as an immigrant, he felt similarly scorned by Trump himself:

"His racist comments—calling Black nations 'shithole countries' and Mexican immigrants 'criminals, drug dealers, and rapists'—made me feel targeted and vilified . . . 

"The national political divide had infiltrated my workplace. However, I reminded those under my command that we were nonpartisan when it came to protecting everyone equally—even as dissent brewed from the left and right. During the pandemic, Antifa and Black Lives Matter members called us 'scum' and 'bastards.' Conservatives and white supremacists who normally loved cops—giving us thumbs-up signs and yelling 'we support you' as we walked by—now labeled us traitors for not allowing interference in election results.

As the riotous attack on the Capitol buildings escalated, Aquilino says,

". . . only about four hundred members of my CDU-trained force were on site to fight off more than a hundred times the number of rioters on all sides of the Capitol. The federal government could mobilize to aid international hurricanes and tsunamis within hours, but they weren’t protecting their own defense forces sixteen blocks from the White House. Recalling Trump’s incendiary speech earlier, I had the horrifying realization that nobody else would help us today. Trump wasn’t shutting down this dangerous free-for-all because he wanted it. They were doing this on his behalf. His constituents and fans—95 percent white, many armed and dangerous—had heeded his call to come here and fight for him, to keep him in power . . .

"In fact, right-wing politicians had abetted the mob. Those authorizing reinforcements were appointed by Trump and either took his side or didn’t want to upset him. Because of that bootlicking and flagrant dereliction of duty, my troops were exposed, vulnerable, and out in the cold. We were abandoned."

I'll skip his account of the brutal violence he and other police experienced. At the end of the day, at home but with his injuries still untreated, he asks his wife,

“How could this happen in the United States? This shit happens where we come from. And in third world countries. Not here. I almost died waiting for the fucking president to send in the National Guard while he’s watching it all go down on TV at the White House, two miles away . . . 

And he goes on, "over the last twenty-four hours, I’d lost my health, hope, sense of equilibrium, and faith in this country. Everything I’d fought so hard for was disintegrating and I couldn’t stop it." 

Later, while watching Fox News, "where a host claimed that the protests were started by Antifa and that police let the rioters in voluntarily. I wanted to scream. People had died and 140 officers were incapacitated, suffering from brain swelling, cracked ribs, smashed spinal disks, stabbings, head blows that led to concussions, and lungs irritated by bear and pepper spray. I was facing months of rehab, and I couldn’t hug my wife or play ball with my son. Yet Republican leaders were going on TV to spin lies about the invasion."

Nori may complain that we can't know the absolute truth about the events of January 6, so we should ignore Sgt. Aquilino's physical, psychological, and moral injuries. 

I can only hope, though, that we do not ignore the further injuries that the pardoning of those who attacked our Capitol and assaulted its defenders will certainly cause. 
 

I also hope that some of you show Aquilino the respect of reading his memor. 
 


01/20/25 12:56 PM #17913    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Thank you Barbara for your spot on post about the consequences of voting for Trump...Thank you Jack too for your excellent post. I heard Jamie talk about that officer that was brutally beaten trying to defend the Capitol on January 6. . As was said, due to his injuries on Jan. 6, he can't be an officer anymore. Love, Joanie


01/20/25 02:00 PM #17914    

 

Jack Mallory

Apropos of Barbara's request that we add our own details to her citations of lack of expertise:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/17/health/rfk-jr-covid-vaccines.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMQABHTRKoFHDQZlGllJwiQBrMnaf2UI3h6RB2QsidbSIUmbk4sRrr6SmzS_wog_aem_6f3fB9T4HhpVFyFA3stUvg


01/20/25 03:15 PM #17915    

 

Barbara Ann Birren (Rowland)

Thanks, Joanie, and thanks for the citation, Jack. I can rarely get access to articles referenced here, and suspect that references from the UK might not be accessible from the US, though The Guardian and BBC would be the main ones.

 


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

agape