- Via CNN: At least 30 election deniers and 2020 fake electors serving as Trump electors this year.
- Via CNN: Fact check: Trump makes at least 19 false claims in one-hour Fox town hall with women.
- Via CNN: Fox News did not disclose its all-women town hall with Trump was packed with his supporters.
- Via the Election Law Blog: Elon Musk’s Latest Offer of Free Admission to Hear His Speech in Exchange for Having Voted in Pennsylvania Likely Violates Federal Prohibition on Vote Buying.
- Via NPR: Elon Musk has given $75 million, so far, to put Donald Trump back in the White House.
- Via WaPo: Man arrested for threatening FEMA workers speaks out.
- Via TNR: JD Vance Awfully Quiet After Report on How His Mom Got Health Care.
- Via the NYT: Under Trump, U.S. Prisons Offered Gender-Affirming Care. This is, to me, less a “gotcha” and more a great illustration of how these simplistic claims are silly. The idea that all federal policy in a given four-year period is self-contained is ridiculous. However, it clearly shows that Trump doesn’t really care about any of this and is just looking for an issue to exploit.
- Via CNN: New Georgia election rules passed by Trump-backed board are unconstitutional, judge rules.
Thursday Tabs
21
Comments
Categories
Tags
21 responses to “Thursday Tabs”
-
@Kathy:
A lot of Republicans don’t want prisoners to get insulin or chemotherapy or statins either though…
-
Question for the Trump tariffs were terrible crowd.
So repeal all tariffs like the sugar and steel tariffs?
Wouldn’t the additional tax revenues from the Trump tariffs be better for US just like the wealth and unrealized capital gains taxes?
Progressives (Paul Krugman and his chief acolyte Brad Delong) say the the government spends money more efficiently with better outcomes. -
@Slugger:
If even one federal worker is issuing threats against federal workers, and you get your wish, then your threat of sending them to Gitmo gets you sent to Gitmo too.Nice.
-
@Kathy: To be clear: I agree.
-
@Jen: At the risk of being accused of being a socialist, it seems to me that people being able to accumulate so much wealth that they can just burn it as he has is a problem. I have no coherent and clear answer to the problem, but still think it is a problem.
-
At the link on Xlon’s perfidity, there’s this line. “This is likely illegal, because in a federal election one cannot give anything of value in exchange for someone agreeing to turn out to vote.”
Last June when we had the general election, there were tons of freebies all over the country offered to people who had voted*. Things like free parking at some shopping malls, or discounts at restaurants. I recall mention in the papers that some young people had gone to vote to take advantage of such offers.
So, this would be illegal in America?
*In Mexico it’s easy to tell who voted. When you get your ballot, your thumb gets an ink stain so you can’t try to vote again later. Also your name’s checked off the list, and a notch is placed on your voter registration card.
Ballots are secret, so you can’t prove whom you voted for.
-
@Jen:
The price of emotional insecurity. He’s so desperate to be cool, and of course doesn’t realize you can’t buy cool. Cary Grant, James Dean, Joan Jett, Harrison Ford, Maggie Smith, Michele Obama, Mick Jagger, Charlize Theron, George Clooney. . . Cool can make you rich, but all the money in the world cannot make you cool. -
Musk setting fire to money is nothing new. Remember when he launched a Tesla into the sun, just because he could?
But taxing the rich is class warfare, don’t you know (the rich–as a class, not all individuals–have been waging class warfare in this country for decades, and have kicked everyone else’s ass).
-
Not into the Sun, around it. I think its orbit straddles Earth’s and Mars’, or gets close to Mars’ orbit.
Commonly in tests of new rockets, the payload is ballast. You need the weight there to gauge performance, but don’t want to risk a multi million satellite or probe on it. Launching a car into space is harmless whimsy, not hubris.
-
@Paul L.: Once upon a time, (as recently as 2012, actually) Republicans were the free traders, and despised “protectionist” measures such as tarriffs. So it’s a breathtaking turnaround.
And then, there’s the general principle that fewer imports means bigger GDP, in direct terms. This is simiply a misunderstanding of the math by which GDP is calculated.
Rather, tarriffs, like all taxes, tend to slow down the economy, by making things more expensive. And tarriffs on washing machines, for instance, will make washing machines more expensive. Maybe, at some point, they might encourage someone to build a washing-machine-making plant in the US, but that’s a very long-term project, and unstable given the political climate, where the tarriff could get repealed and blow up the profitability of that plant.
Meanwhile, the employment participation rate is at the highest it has been at since at least 2000. Everybody who wants a job has one. So it’s kind of solving a non-problem.
But this is hardly my least favorite of Trump’s proposals. Like I say, I’m not dogmatic on tarriffs, I don’t know the details of the steel tarriff, for instance, but my guess it that it probably doesn’t do much of value. Has the steel industry in the US made a big comeback? I don’t see that, but I don’t really know.
-
@Paul L.:
Question for the Trump tariffs were terrible crowd.
So repeal all tariffs like the sugar and steel tariffs?First, as always Paul L., you resort to a “black/white” form of argument. In the real world, there are always more than two options. The issue with this rhetorical style is that it makes discussion impossible, and any position can be shown to be hypocritical.
It’s absolutely not productive.
Ok, to your question, generally speaking a lot of our existing tariffs that are focused on economic issues (versus other policy issues) should be repealed. And while there are always contrarians, that’s the position of most economists and a large amount of foreign policy analysts.
Yes, that includes the Trump tariffs that Biden kept. That also includes tariffs set by Democrats for economic purposes. And I have been very consistent on that position for quite a while.
There are certain cases where tariffs can be useful–especially where there are domestic industries producing the same products. Those should be taken case by case.
The issue with Trump’s approach to tariffs is that he treats them as the answer to every question, claims they are not a regressive consumption tax on his own constituents, and places them on imports where there is no equivalent domestic product.
I started a post on J. D. Vance’s talk about the need for tarriff’s to protect American made toaster ovens. There are ZERO American made consumer level toaster ovens. None. In fact, in doing research I discovered there are blogs dedicated to trying to find American made consumer toaster ovens.
So all the tariff is doing is charging people like you and I (unless you are the type to buy a $150 US made commercial toaster) more for the toaster we buy at Target/Walmart/Etc without achieving any positive trade results.
-
@Paul L.: So, I take it that you don’t really understand how tariffs work and why they are used? Got it.
(And yes, it’s possible that tariffs on both steel and sugar are ill advised; those arguments have a long history.)ETA: And a big thanks to the earlier replies that took the time to explain the arguments I couldn’t be bothered with making. Well done you!
-
@Paul L.:
Question for the Trump tariffs were terrible crowd.
So repeal all tariffs like the sugar and steel tariffs?Strawman arguments are fun. But if a recipe calls for a teaspoon of salt, and you a cup of salt, and I tell you your salty food is garbage between chokes, I’m obviously not saying salt is terrible and get rid of all salt. I’m saying you are a terrible cook.
Conservatives, Republicans, liberals, and Democrats all oppose Trump’s stupid and suicidal proposal of 10-20% tarriffs on most imports, 60% on Chinese importants, and 200% on Mexican auto importants. They are not saying tarrifs are terrible. They are saying Trump is psychotic.
Of course, you already know this. You’re just doing what Donald and his fanboys always do: deceive and dissemble.
-
@Kathy:
So, this would be illegal in America?
Depends on whether recipients of said incentives and gifts are Republican or Democrat. If the former, legal, if the latter, illegal. Supreme Court rules.
-
@Jay L Gischer:
Republicans were the free traders, and despised “protectionist” measures such as tariffs. So it’s a breathtaking turnaround.
But not the US Sugar Tariff. As for breathtaking turnarounds, I was more pro-police before I read the stories of Carlos Miller (PINAC) and Radley Prescott Balko.
@Matt Bernius:
I suspect if the Trump tariffs become unpopular or controversial, he will cave like he did with covid policy. -
@Paul L.:
I suspect if the Trump tariffs become unpopular or controversial, he will cave like he did with covid policy.
This is a great example of why the Black/White framing is so unproductive.
You have chosen one example where Trump supposedly “caved.” However, there are countless examples from the first administration where his policies and positions were unpopular or controversial and he didn’t cave. A perfect example is his initial tariffs. Another one, of course, would be his decision to lie about the results of the 2020 election. In fact he stuck with that so strongly he has essentially rewritten history (to the degree that the Vice Presidential Candidate refuses to answer that question).
Even with his COVID response, by the summer, it was clear that after perhaps initially caving, he quickly began to uncave–to the degree that by late summer, his own Whitehouse stopped following any protocols and he was pushing to reopen the US.
I don’t think my finding counter examples necessarily disproves your point. I also think that looking at the totality of his Presidency, and in particular his past record on tariffs and how tied they are to his political identity, I don’t see this as an issue he would cave on.
I was more pro-police before I read the stories of Carlos Miller (PINAC) and Radley Prescott Balko.
Cool to hear that Balko’s writings had that impact on you. Learning that you came to that transformation through the story of PINAC actually makes a lot of sense to me and helps me understand where you are coming from better.
