Deltec Bank, Bahamas – Quantum Computing Will have Positive Impacts on Portfolio Optimization, Risk Analysis, Asset Pricing, and Trading Strategies -…

Posted on by

Quantum computing is expected to be the new technology, fully integrated with the financial sector within five to ten years. This form of computer, also known as supercomputers, are capable of highly advanced processing power that takes in massive amounts of data to solve a problem in a fraction of the time it would for the best traditional computer on the market to resolve.

Traditional Computer vs. Quantum Computing

A typical computer today stores information in the form of bits. These are represented in the binary language (0s and 1s). In quantum computing, the bits are known as Qubits and will take on the processing of similar input but rather than break it down to 0s and 1s will break the data down significantly greater where the possibilities of computational speed can be almost immeasurable.

Quantum Computing in Banking

Let's examine personal encryption in banking for example. Using a security format called RSA-2048, traditional computers would be able to decrypt the security algorithm in about 1,034 steps. With our best computers on the market, even with a processor capable of performing a trillion calculations per second, these steps translate to 317 billion years to break the secure code. While it is possible, it is not practical for a cyber-criminal to make it worthwhile.

A quantum computer, on the other hand, would be able to resolve this problem in about 107 steps. With a basic quantum computer running at one million calculations per second, this translates to ten seconds to resolve the problem.

While this example centered on breaking complex security, many other use cases can emerge from the use of quantum computing.

Trade Transaction Settlements

Barclays bank researchers have been working on a proof of concept regarding the transaction settlement process. As settlements can only be worked on a transaction-by-transaction basis, they can easily queue up only to be released in batches. When a processing window opens, as many trades as possible are settled.

Complex by their very nature, Traders can end up tapping into funds prior to the transaction being cleared. They will only be settled if the funds are available or if a collateral credit facility was arranged.

As you could probably handle a small number of trades in your head, you would need to rely on a computer after about 10-20 transactions. The same can be described for our current computational power in that it is now nearing the point where it will need more and more time to resolve hundreds of trades at a time.

With quantum computing using a seven-qubit system, it would be able to run a greater amount of complex trades in the same time it would for a traditional system to complete the trades. It would take the equivalent of about two hundred traditional computers to match the speed.

Simulating a Future Product Valuation

Researchers at JP Morgan were working on a concept that simulates the future value of a financial product. The team is testing quantum computers to perform complex intensive pricing calculations that normally take traditional computer hours to complete. This is a problem as each year greater complexity is added via newer algorithms, getting to the point where it is nearing an impossibility to calculate in a practical sense.

The research team has discovered that using quantum computing resulted in finding a resolution to the problem in mere seconds.

Final Thoughts

Banks are working on successful tests today with quantum computing to resolve extreme resource-intensive calculations for financial problem scenarios. Everything from trading, fraud, AML, etc. this is a technology not to be overlooked.

According to Deltec Bank, Bahamas - "Quantum Computing will have positive impacts on portfolio optimization, risk analysis, asset pricing, and trading strategies is just the tip of the iceberg of what this technology could provide."

Disclaimer: The author of this text, Robin Trehan, has an Undergraduate degree in economics, Masters in international business and finance and MBA in electronic business. Trehan is Senior VP at Deltec International http://www.deltecbank.com. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this text are solely the views of the author, and not necessarily reflecting the views of Deltec International Group, its subsidiaries and/or employees.

About Deltec Bank

Headquartered in The Bahamas, Deltec is an independent financial services group that delivers bespoke solutions to meet clients' unique needs. The Deltec group of companies includes Deltec Bank & Trust Limited, Deltec Fund Services Limited, and Deltec Investment Advisers Limited, Deltec Securities Ltd. and Long Cay Captive Management.

Media Contact

Company Name: Deltec International Group

Contact Person: Media Manager

Email: rtrehan@deltecial.com

Phone: 242 302 4100

Country: Bahamas

Website: https://www.deltecbank.com/

Source: http://www.abnewswire.com

.

More here:

Deltec Bank, Bahamas - Quantum Computing Will have Positive Impacts on Portfolio Optimization, Risk Analysis, Asset Pricing, and Trading Strategies -...

NIST Works on the Industries of the Future in Buildings from the Past – Nextgov

Posted on by

The presidents budget request for fiscal 2021 proposed $738 million to fund the National Institutes of Science and Technology, a dramatic reduction from the more than $1 billion in enacted funds allocated for the agency this fiscal year.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committees Research and Technology Subcommittee on Wednesday held a hearing to hone in on NISTs reauthorizationbut instead of focusing on relevant budget considerations, lawmakers had other plans.

We're disappointed by the president's destructive budget request, which proposes over a 30% cut to NIST programs, Subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., said at the top of the hearing. But today, I don't want to dwell on a proposal that we know Congress is going to reject ... today I would like this committee to focus on improving NIST and getting the agency the tools it needs to do better, to do its job.

Per Stevens suggestion, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director Walter Copan reflected on some of the agencys dire needs and offered updates and his view on a range of its ongoing programs and efforts.

NISTs Facilities Are in Bad Shape

President Trumps budget proposal for fiscal 2021 requests only $60 million in funds for facility construction, which is down from the $118 million enacted for fiscal 2020 and comes at a time when the agencys workspaces need upgrades.

Indeed the condition of NIST facilities are challenging, Copan explained. Over 55% of NIST's facilities are considered in poor to critical condition per [Commerce Department] standards, and so it does provide some significant challenges for us.

Some of the agencys decades-old facilities and infrastructures are deteriorating and Copan added that hed recently heard NISTs deferred maintenance backlog has hit more than $775 million. If the lawmakers or public venture out to visit some of the agencys facilities, you'll see the good, the bad, and the embarrassingly bad, he said. Those conditions are a testament to the resilience and the commitment of NISTs people, that they can work in sometimes challenging, outdated environments, Copan said.

The director noted that there have already been some creative solutions proposed to address the issue, including the development of a federal capital revolving fund. The agency is also looking creatively at the combination of maintenance with lease options for some of its facilities, in hopes that it can then move more rapidly by having its officials cycle out of laboratories to launch rebuilding and renovation processes.

It's one of my top priorities as the NIST director to have our NIST people work in 21st-century facilities that we can be proud of and that enable the important work of NIST for the nation, Copan said.

Advancing Efforts in Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computing

The presidents budget request placed a sharp focus on industries of the future, which will be powered by many emerging technologies, and particularly quantum computing and AI.

During the hearing and in his written testimony, Copan highlighted some of NISTs work in both areas. The agency has helped shape an entire generation of quantum science, over the last century, and a significant portion of quantum scientists from around the globe have trained at the agencys facilities. Some of NISTs more recent quantum achievements include supporting the development of a quantum logic clock and helping steer advancements in quantum simulation. Following a recent mandate from the Trump administration, the agency is also in the midst of instituting the Quantum Economic Development Consortium, or QEDC, which aims to advance industry collaboration to expand the nations leadership in quantum research and development.

Looking forward, over the coming years NIST will focus a portion of its quantum research portfolio on the grand challenge of quantum networking, Copans written testimony said. Serving as the basis for secure and highly efficient quantum information transmission that links together multiple quantum devices and sensors, quantum networks will be a key element in the long-term evolution of quantum technologies.

Though there were cuts across many areas, the presidents budget request also proposed a doubling of NISTs funding in artificial intelligence and Copan said the technology is already broadly applied across all of the agencys laboratories to help improve productivity.

Going forward and with increased funding, he laid out some of the agencys top priorities, noting that there's much work to be done in developing tools to provide insights into artificial intelligence programs, and there is also important work to be done in standardization, so that the United States can lead the world in the application of [AI] in a trustworthy and ethical manner.

Standardization to Help the U.S. Lead in 5G

Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., asked Copan to weigh in on the moves China is making across the fifth-generation wireless technology landscape, and the moves the U.S. needs to make to leadnot just competein that specific area.

We have entered in the United States, as we know, a hyper-competitive environment with China as a lead in activities related to standardization, Copan responded.

The director said that officials see, in some ways, that the standardization process has been weaponized, where the free market economy that is represented by the United States, now needs to lead in more effective coordination internally and incentivize industry to participate in the standards process. Though U.S. officials have already seen those rules of fair play bent or indeed broken by other players, NIST and others need to help improve information sharing across American standards-focused stakeholders, which could, in turn, accelerate adoption around the emerging technology.

We want the best technologies in the world to win and we want the United States to continue to be the leader in not only delivering those technologies, but securing the intellectual properties behind them and translating those into market value, he said.

Continue reading here:

NIST Works on the Industries of the Future in Buildings from the Past - Nextgov

Archer Materials" patent application received by World Intellectual Property Organisation – Proactive Investors Australia

Posted on by

The company is developing materials in quantum computing, biotechnology, and lithium-ion batteries.

() has confirmed thatthe patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) to protect and commercialise its graphene biosensor technology intellectual property has been received by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

Acknowledgement of receipt by WIPO concludes the PCT application lodgement process and confirms the International Patent Application is formally compliant with the PCT prosecution procedure and has met the deadline to avoid abandonment of the application.

The company has continued to progressthe development of its 12CQ technology and ison-track performing quantum measurements required to build an operational room-temperature qubit processor (chip) prototype.

As part of this work, the company has joined the Sydney Knowledge Hub,a co-working space for research-based organisations that collaborate with the University of Sydney,to strategically engage with researchers in the Australian quantum computing economy.

A collaboration agreement with the University of NSW Sydney also now includes access to world-class infrastructure for quantum materials characterisation.

View post:

Archer Materials" patent application received by World Intellectual Property Organisation - Proactive Investors Australia

Donald Trump and the White House have too much power. That’s ruining democracy. – NBC News

Posted on by

The president has always been the central actor in American politics. But over the last several decades, the spotlight on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has shined ever brighter. And for good reason. For decades, the presidency has become ever more powerful as an overwhelmed and gridlocked Congress has left more and more to the executive branch. Some of Congress' self-imposed decline has come through specific delegations of authority, some by rolling over and letting the president dictate the legislative agenda, and some through sheer inaction and neglect.

Taken together, the decadeslong metastasizing of presidential power has corresponded to two other major, detrimental trends in American politics: partisan polarization and nationalized politics. Essentially, President Donald Trump and those who preceded him have too much power, and that's ruining our electoral process which is the heart of democracy.

Our current setup means that no matter what happens in November, too many people will feel like they are completely left out.

The core problem with the central focus in the presidency is that it has consumed our ability to evaluate individual candidates for Congress and state and local office independent of the presidency. Every choice, from bottom to top of the November ballot, is a referendum on the presidency.

This phenomenon discourages individual representatives and state and local officials from carving out an independent record. And it collapses our two parties into two highly disciplined, hyperpartisan teams, competing for a narrow and elusive majority control. This makes for a fully binary partisan alignment fundamentally at odds with our constitutional structure of separated powers, which themselves demand broad compromise-oriented policymaking.

As the two parties have separated into discrete non-overlapping coalitions, the zero-sum emotional stakes of every election continue to escalate so that each one is the most important in a lifetime. Local issues and personal characteristics matter less than which party controls the White House and the Congress.

Get the think newsletter.

And if individual representatives' fortunes depend on the president's popularity, all energy naturally flows to boosting or disqualifying the current White House resident (depending on their party). Consider the recent impeachment proceedings as Exhibit A.

Consider, too, how much frustration and hand-wringing the Democratic primary has generated. The overwhelming centrality of the presidency is to blame: If everything in politics and political power revolves around winning the presidency, of course we'll obsess over the endless nomination process.

The problems are many. The process seems arbitrary, and unfair to some constituencies and states, but too solicitous of others. It relies too much on voters' whims and last-minute choices, or perhaps it doesn't trust voters enough. The debates are a mess. And, there are too many candidates; with all that media spotlight, why not run for president? Even if you lose, more people will know your name.

But while a run might help a politician individually, collectively it's a disaster. A crowded field is a divided field. And so now comes the challenge for Joe Biden, at this point essentially the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: somehow unify the fractured field.

The obvious way to unify a party is to unify around the common enemy. In 2016, Republicans voted to defeat Hillary Clinton, and Democrats voted to defeat Donald Trump. The 2020 campaign will almost certainly be even more negative, if that's possible.

In the end, skeptical Democrats will mostly vote for their nominee because the threat of four more years of Trump is terrifying. And wavering Republicans will likely grin and bear Trump because of ... Hunter Biden? The Supreme Court? Whatever the rationales given, by November, both sides will fear and hate each other just a little more. And somehow, the winner will still have to be the president of all the people. At least in theory.

And yet, for all the expanded powers of the presidency, that power is still limited. Almost all of the major proposals Democrats have been arguing over "Medicare for All," free college, major gun control legislation are unlikely to survive the legislative gauntlet in a starkly divided Congress.

These limits haven't stopped potential presidents from over-promising what they can accomplish. After all, bold promises are exciting and attention-grabbing. But since sky-high expectations are bound to disappoint, it's no wonder so many feel frustrated by the process.

Ironically, this frustration boosts support for outsider candidates, who can make even bigger, bolder promises of more aggressive executive action that can't be fulfilled. And as resentment turns to anger, all that anger has to go somewhere. Partisan leaders have a strong incentive to channel it against the other party.

The obvious alternative to our endlessly disappointing president-as-messiah ordeal is a stronger Congress. The national legislature is the only institution capable of reflecting and negotiating the diverse pluralism of a large country such as ours and hashing out broad compromises. But Congress hasn't lived up to that mission. Instead, it has become a hyperpartisan, money-driven, top-down institution.

Reversing 40 years of institutional decline is no easy task. But it at least starts with Congress investing much more in its own capacity to make policy, and taking its cues more from bipartisan committee work than from the executive branch.

The obvious alternative to our endlessly disappointing president-as-messiah ordeal is a stronger Congress.

All of which is difficult to imagine happening without major structural change, such as fundamental electoral reform that scrambles the two-party system. Change is unlikely because we're stuck in a feedback loop. A weaker, more polarized Congress leads to a stronger, more partisan presidency which leads to a weaker, more polarized Congress which ... Breaking that doom loop is a book-length topic.

But our current setup means that no matter what happens in November, too many people will feel like they are completely left out. So we need to find a way to elevate Congress the only institution capable of representing the different constituencies of the country and working out compromises among them. Instead of searching for a single savior, we need to understand that no person alone can represent a country as big and diverse as America.

Go here to read the rest:

Donald Trump and the White House have too much power. That's ruining democracy. - NBC News

What Trumps Twitter Feed Tells Him About the Coronavirus – POLITICO

Posted on by

President @realDonaldTrump acted early and decisively... His every move has been aimed at keeping Americans safe, while Joe Biden has sought to capitalize politically and stoke citizens fears, tweeted Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump campaigns national press secretary, quoting the campaign's communications director.

When @JoeBiden was faced with a public health crisis on H1N1, he pushed the panic button and the White House had to cover it, read a message retweeted by Donald Jr.

Other tweets in the presidents news feed framed recent comments from Biden opposing xenophobia as opposition to Trumps temporary ban on travel from China.

If Biden had been in charge, more Americans would have contracted the virus faster, a Trump campaign account tweeted.

And in response to a Biden speech in which the former vice president criticized the president for labeling COVID-19 a foreign virus, Laura Ingraham tweeted: Yeah, Joe! Lets throw open our borders, our airports, our ports to anyone and everyonethat will really stem the infection rate!

Critique of Trumps handling of the coronavirus crisis is largely absent from his Twitter feed. Instead, his allies have heaped praise on the administrations response.

Deeply impressive extraordinary partnership of Americas best and brightest business & government gathered at White House under leadership of @realDonaldTrump & @VP, tweeted Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera after Fridays national emergency declaration. They and we are going to kick #Coronas ass.

This is a very good call, conservative political commentator Eric Bolling tweeted on Friday in response to reports that Trump was planning to declare a national emergency.

This is the leadership @realDonaldTrump was elected to provide, tweeted Trumps campaign manager, Brad Parscale, after the presidents Oval Office address on Wednesday night. Acting early & decisively he put the U.S. on much better footing than other nations in handling the coronavirus.

President Trump is exactly right: smart action today will prevent the spread of the virus tomorrow, tweeted Congressman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican close to the White House. The Presidents actions are proactive and decisive. This is exactly what we need to keep Americans safe and healthy.

And a tweet from Eric Trump shared simply the headline of an adulatory New York Post column: Trump passes coronavirus test with flying colors.

The presidents eldest son, Donald Jr., has led the Trump Twitterverses charge against the mainstream presss coverage of the coronavirus pandemic. In his posts and retweets, hes accused news outlets of stoking panic and helping China spread propaganda.

That the US media is trying to run with the Chinese propaganda that China bought us time is a new low even for them, Donald Jr. tweeted in response to a New York Times op-ed. F-you!

The media has thrown everything at [Trump] and none of it has stuck, said YouTube personality Dave Rubin in a tweet shared by Donald Jr. So now they have a vested interest in spreading panic, rejoicing over market drops and sewing general chaos.

This Chinese propaganda about the origin of the coronavirus is being directly amplified and aided by the U.S. media, which is censoring anyone who notes the Wuhan origin of the coronavirus, said Mike Cernovich, a right-wing activist and conspiracy theorist, in a post retweeted by Donald Jr.

CNN is literally taking its talking points from the Chinese government, read another Cernovich tweet shared by the presidents son.

Other accounts followed by the president sounded a similar tone.

Erring on the side of maximum transparency is a good thing for the White House given the mass hysteria being stoked by the partisans in media and politics with [the] goal of affecting the election, tweeted Laura Ingraham.

I just want to stress to politicians and the media to stop using [coronavirus] as a tool to politicize things and to scare people, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a tweet shared by McDaniel. It's not responsible. This is not the time for this.

During a March 4 phone call with Sean Hannity, Trump falsely implied the coronavirus outbreak was not as bad as the seasonal fluan idea he may have picked up from his Twitter followers, who have downplayed the virus threat.

They say the mortality rate for Coronavirus is higher than the flu, tweeted Fox News host Jeanine Pirro. Consider though that we have a flu vaccine and yet in 2019, 16,000 Americans died from the flu. Imagine if we did not have that vaccine. The flu would be a pandemic.

The word pandemic is scary, but as @drsanjaygupta points out, it doesnt speak to mortality rates, only to global scope of infection, Ingraham tweeted in late February. As @CDCgov notes, actual mortality rates or coronavirus is very low.

On Friday morning, Ingraham tweeted a link to an article headlined: Coronavirus: Facts vs. Panic, which stated most people who get coronavirus have mild or no symptoms and most around the world diagnosed from January-March 1 have already recovered.

Great time to fly if not in at-risk population! Ingraham wrote Friday from the aisle seat of a Chicago-bound United flight.

See the original post here:

What Trumps Twitter Feed Tells Him About the Coronavirus - POLITICO

The Worst Outcome – The Atlantic

Posted on by

Layoffs are coming, probably on a very large scale, as travel collapses and people hunker down at home. Any word for those about to lose their jobs? Only the vaguest indication that something might be announced sometime soon.

Its good to hear that there will be no co-pays on the tests nobody seems able to get. What about other health-care coverage? Any word on that? Nothing.

The financial markets have plunged into a 2008-style crash, auguring a recession, perhaps a severe one. The Trump administration has had almost two months to think about this crisis. It has trial-ballooned some ideas. But, of course, fiscal policy would require assent from the House of Representatives. Trump is still pouting at Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Soaside from some preposterously unconvincing happy talk about the economyagain: nothing.

Conor Friedersdorf: You will adjust to the new normal

There was one something in the speech: a ban on travel from Europe, but not the United Kingdom. Its a classic Trump formulation. It seeks to protect America by erecting a wall against the world, without thinking very hard how or whether the wall can work. The disease is already here. The numbers only look low because of our prior failure to provide adequate testing. They will not look low even four days from now. And those infected with the virus can travel from other countries and on other routes. Trump himself has already met some.

The travel ban is an act of panic. Financial futures began crashing even as Trump was talking, perhaps shocked by his lack of an economic plan, perhaps aghast at his latest attack on world trade. (The speech seemed to suggest an embargo on European-sourced cargo as well, but that looks more like a mental lapse of Trumps than a real policy announcement. The ban on cargo was retracted by a post-speech tweet, although the ban remains in the posted transcript of the speech.) Among other things, the ban represents one more refutation by Trump of any idea of collective security against collective threats. While China offers medical assistance to Italy, he wants to sever ties to former friendsisolating America and abandoning the world.

This crisis is not of Trumps making. What he is responsible for is his failure to respond promptly, and then his perverse and counterproductive choice of how to respond when action could be avoided no longer. Trump, in his speech, pleaded for an end to finger-pointing. Its a strange thing for this president of all presidents to say. No American president, and precious few American politicians, have ever pointed so many fingers or hurled so much abuse as Donald Trump. What he means, of course, is: Dont hold me to account for the things I did.

But he did do them, and he owns responsibility for those things. He cannot escape it, and he will not escape it.

Here is the original post:

The Worst Outcome - The Atlantic

Fact check: Donald Trump made 115 false claims in the last two weeks of February – CNN

Posted on by

Trump made 67 false claims from February 17 through February 23; that was the 11th-highest total of the 34 weeks we've fact checked at CNN. He added 48 false claims from February 24 through March 1; that week ranked 25th out of 34. As usual, many of the false claims were ones he has uttered before.

Trump made 55 of the 115 total false claims at the four rallies: 19 in Las Vegas, 17 in Phoenix, 10 in Colorado Springs and nine in North Charleston, South Carolina. He added 13 false claims in his speech to CPAC, nine in his press conference in New Delhi and six apiece at three events -- one of which was a press conference on the coronavirus.

As concerns about the possible economic impact of the virus mounted, Trump made 27 false claims about the economy. He made 16 about health care, 15 about trade, 14 about China.

Trump is now up to 1,990 false claims since July 8, when we started our counting at CNN. He is averaging about 59 false claims per week.

The most egregious false claim: "Russia, if you're listening"

Trump was at a press conference at his Doral resort in Florida in 2016 when he made his "Russia, if you're listening" request for help obtaining Hillary Clinton emails. The journalists in the room were silent as he spoke.

The most revealing false claim: The flu mortality rate

It is not. Trump, though, has preferred during the coronavirus crisis to own the spotlight himself, while frequently providing inaccurate or incomplete information, rather than cede airtime to experts who could convey accurate information.

The most absurd false claim: Ronald Reagan's crowds

Here is the full list of 115 false claims, starting with the ones we haven't included in one of these roundups before:

Viruses

Awareness of Ebola in 2014

Ebola mortality

On two occasions, Trump contrasted the fatality rate for the coronavirus with the fatality rate for the Ebola outbreak of 2014 to 2016, saying "in the other case (Ebola), it was a virtual hundred percent" and that "with Ebola -- we were talking about it before -- you disintegrated. If you got Ebola, that was it."

"It was never 100%. That is just patently untrue," Fischer said.

The flu death rate

Gupta, CNN chief medical correspondent, told Trump at a press conference, "Mr. President, you talked about the flu and then in comparison to the coronavirus. The flu has a fatality ratio of about 0.1%." Trump said, "Correct." But Trump later disputed the figure, saying, "And the flu is higher than that. The flu is much higher than that." -- February 26 coronavirus press conference

Apple and China

"When you look at the parts that are done in China, we have reopened factories, so the factories were able to work through the conditions to reopen. They're reopening. They're also in ramp, and so I think of this as sort of the third phase of getting back to normal. And we're in phase three of the ramp mode," Cook said.

Immigration

Who is paying for the border wall

Bernie Sanders and deportations

Facts First: Sanders has not said he will "never do a deportation." He is calling for a temporary deportation freeze, not a permanent ban. While he is also proposing a permanent end to deportations of undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for five or more years, this is just one portion of the undocumented population.

Crowds and rallies

The time of Trump's Las Vegas rally

Trump's 2015 rally in Phoenix

President Ronald Reagan's crowds in Las Vegas

"There's never been this. You know, Ronald Reagan was great. I thought he was a great guy, great president, didn't like his policy on trade, that's OK ... but if he came to Las Vegas, you know, they'd have a ballroom. They'd have 500, maybe a thousand people." -- February 21 campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada

Russia, the Russia investigation and criminal justice

"Russia, if you're listening" and the media

"Remember this thing, 'Russia, if you're listening'? Remember, it was a big thing -- in front of 25,000 people. 'Russia if you're ...' It was all said in a joke. They cut it off right at the end so that you don't then see the laughter, the joke. And they said, 'He asked. He asked for help.' Right? 'Russia, if you're listening ...' A very famous -- they cut that thing so quick at the end because they didn't want to hear the laughter in the place and me laughing. It was just 'boom.'" -- February 29 speech at Conservative Political Action Conference

Facts First: Trump's story was comprehensively inaccurate. Trump did not make his famous 2016 "Russia, if you're listening" request -- for help obtaining deleted Hillary Clinton emails -- at an event with "25,000 people," nor did he laugh after he said it; he made the comment at a July 2016 news conference, with a straight face, and there was no audible laughter in the room. News outlets did not deceptively edit the footage.

Roger Stone and the Trump campaign

The jury foreperson in the Roger Stone trial

Trump accused the foreperson of the jury in Roger Stone's trial of bias. He added, "And you know how they caught her? When he was convicted and then a statement was made, she started jumping up and down screaming, 'Yes, yes.'" -- February 21 campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada

Navy sailor Kristian Saucier

The FBI and "go get him"

Democrats

Bloomberg's endorsers and campaign finance law

"And there are a lot of campaign finance violations there. There's no way you can do what he's doing. You know, you go into a town, you give somebody a contribution, two days later the guy comes, 'I'd like to support Mini Mike Bloomberg.' There's something strange with that whole deal." -- February 29 speech at Conservative Political Action Conference

"So long as we are talking about campaign contributions within statutory limits made without an explicit promise to do or not do something, there is nothing illegal going on," said Richard Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine and an expert on elections law.

Chuck Schumer and Trump's deal with China

Trump claimed on three occasions that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had falsely claimed Trump's "phase one" trade deal with China involved Trump taking off tariffs.

After Trump made a previous version of this accusation on January 15, Schumer responded the same day: "I know what's in the deal. I'm not sure the president does. If he knows what's in the deal -- he should throw it away and take China back to the negotiating table. I will cheer him on if he does."

Biden's debate claim about guns

Hunter Biden

Trump claimed Hunter Biden, the son of Biden, "didn't have a job until his father became vice president." -- February 21 campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada

At the time Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings in 2014, he was a lawyer at the firm Boies Schiller Flexner, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's foreign service program, chairman of the board of World Food Program USA, and chief executive officer and chairman of Rosemont Seneca Advisors, an investment advisory firm. He also served on other boards.

Tom Steyer's performance in New Hampshire

Mark Kelly

Trump said of Mark Kelly, a Democratic Senate candidate in Arizona: "He wants to raise your taxes, open your borders, give away free health care to illegal immigrants, and he wants to obliterate your Second Amendment." -- February 19 campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona

Facts First: Trump was misrepresenting Kelly's immigration positions.

Media coverage of Trump donating his salary

California water rules

When Qasem Soleimani was killed

"So we took out Al-Baghdadi, and then, we just took out two weeks ago, the world's top terrorist Qasem Soleimani of Iran and his evil reign of terror forever." -- February 21 campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada

A labor dispute in 2016

"Last time I had a strike in my building during the election. The only reason -- we would've won this state. Like brilliantly -- to save three cents. I could have settled the strike before the election. I wanted to save two dollars. Total. That was a brilliant move ... But we almost won the state despite I had a big strike." -- February 21 campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada

Facts First: There was a dispute between Trump and labor unions in Las Vegas during the 2016 election, and workers did picket his hotel, but there was not a strike; workers did not walk off the job, and Trump's company had not recognized the union in the first place.

Waivers for military athletes

The Muslim population of India

Trump's 200 million figure for the present Muslim population is about right.

The ratings of 'The Apprentice'

Trump claimed that "The Apprentice," his reality television show, steadily climbed in ratings all the way to the very top: "And then the show goes -- started at 10, went to eight, went to seven, went to five, went to four, went to two, it went to one. I had the number one show in all of television. Number one." -- February 21 campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada

There are various ways to slice and dice television ratings, so Trump might be able to point to some specific night, time slot, show category or viewer group in which "The Apprentice" was number one. But it certainly wasn't the top-rated show in all of TV, as he has long suggested.

Repeats

Here are the repeat false claims we have previously included in one of these roundups:

Economy

The estate tax

Trump claimed four times that he had eliminated the estate tax.

Apple and factories

The steel industry

Energy production

Wage growth

Median usual weekly warnings went from $330 per week in the second quarter of 2014 to $349 per week in the fourth quarter of 2016.

The Dow's starting point under Trump

Facts First: The Dow didn't start the Trump era at 16,000 points -- whether you're looking at its level on Trump's first day in office or whether you go back to the day after his election, as he sometimes argues we should. The Dow opened and closed above 19,700 points on Trump's inauguration day in January 2017; the Dow opened above 18,300 the day after Trump's election in November 2016.

Women's unemployment

Trump claimed three times that the women's unemployment rate is the lowest in "71 years."

The unemployment rate

Trump claimed three times that the unemployment rate is at its lowest level in "over 51 years."

Ivanka Trump and jobs

Trump claimed twice that Ivanka Trump is responsible for "15 million jobs" or more through the Pledge to America's Workers initiative.

The Waters of the United States and puddles

Venezuela's wealth

Facts First: Venezuela was not the wealthiest country in Latin America or South America either 15 or 20 years ago.

"Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the world 60 years ago. The richest in Latin America 40 years ago. But not 20 years ago," Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister and central bank board member, said in response to a previous version of this Trump claim. Hausmann, now a Harvard University professor, was chief economist of the Inter-American Development Bank from 1994 to 2000.

Venezuela's per capita gross domestic product in 2005 ($5,420) was lower than that of Mexico ($8,189) and Chile ($7,600), according to International Monetary Fund figures from 2019. Venezuela's per capita gross domestic product in 2000 ($4,824) was lower than that of Argentina ($8,387), Mexico ($7,016), Uruguay ($6,817) and Chile ($5,072).

Trade and China

Who is paying for Trump's tariffs on China

Trump claimed three times that the revenue from his tariffs on Chinese imports "came from China."

The trade deficit with China

On two separate occasions, Trump claimed that the US used to have a trade deficit with China of $500 billion or "more than $500 billion."

Facts First: The US has never had a $500 billion trade deficit with China.

China's peak agricultural spending

Trump said three times that China had never spent more than $16 billion on US agricultural products in a year.

Facts First: China spent $25.9 billion in 2012, according to figures from the Department of Agriculture.

The size of Trump's trade agreement with China

Trump claimed that his trade agreement with China was the "biggest trade deal ever made."

The US record at the World Trade Organization

Go here to see the original:

Fact check: Donald Trump made 115 false claims in the last two weeks of February - CNN

Mike Pence and the Farce of Trusting Donald Trump on the Coronavirus – The New Yorker

Posted on by

The weakness of Donald Trumps response to the COVID-19 crisisthe weakness of Trumps characterwas captured in a response that Vice-President Mike Pence gave, on Thursday, to CNNs Alisyn Camerota. She noted that, within hours of Trumps address to the nation the previous night, the Administration had to issue clarifications: that the travel ban he had announced, which he said would apply to Europe except for the United Kingdom, cover a tremendous amount of trade and cargo, and have exemptions only for Americans who had undergone screening, would, in fact, not apply to cargo, cover only countries in the Schengen zone (a subset of European countries with limited border checks between them), and would also have exemptions for permanent residents and citizens immediate family members. Those are big clarifications. It was bad enough that Trumps actions were entirely inadequatehe didnt address problems with testing, for example. But it was stunning that he seemingly could not accurately explain his bad ideas. International financial markets began dropping as he spoke, and the inadequacy of his words and his Presidency became manifest. And so, Camerota asked Pence, Why the confusion?

I dont think there was confusion, Pence replied, blankly, loyally, absurdly. The President took another historic step, just like he did in January with China, to suspend all travel from Europe, Alisyn, for the next thirty days. Instead of explaining the Presidents confused remarks, Pence echoed them, adding to the muddle. Pence, it should be remembered, is not only the Vice-President but the nations dedicated coronavirus point manhis function is to cordinate and clarify and at least give the illusion of leadership. And yet it took another few sentences before he mentioned that there would be Americans coming homeso not a suspension of all travelafter being screened, followed by a reference to every returning American and legal resident, with a note that they would be asked to self-quarantine for fourteen days. But, a couple of minutes later, Pence again referred to suspending all travel for thirty days from Europe. Who coming from where is allowed or required to do what? The main thing to remember is that the President did something historic.

The incompetence and the sycophancy are connected. Pence delivers what Trump demands, even when Trump demands the pretense that COVID-19 will simply go away if people stop worrying about it. It wont. It is not just that Trump doesnt always have the very best people around him; he has too many people who seem to care only whether he is happy. Even people with great expertise spend too much time, at almost every public briefing, ritually noting his leadership. Such words are not confidence-inspiring. There have been reports that Pence at various points suggested that Trump take some practical actionsfor example, in managing the plight of a cruise shipand that Trump said no. Other officials have reportedly had similar experiences. But, as long as they do not publicly confront their boss or pressure him to take real action on a growing crisis, that only means so much. And Pence, for one, is not doing so; instead, he kept telling Camerota that what looked like haphazard moves were all part of the Presidents strategy, extolling him as a leader who took action. But someone very prominent in the Administration or the Republican leadership has to get angry, in a way that is demonstrative, dramatic, and even, for whoever it is, out of character.

Instead, Pence is not alone. He is behaving in a way that Republicans have come to regard as normal. They must engage in the increasingly farcical exercise of praise for Trump. Sometimes, as when they join him onstage at a rally, the main immediate damage may be to their self-respect. At others, as in the impeachment hearings, when Republican after Republican claimed that the President was an innocent victim of the deep state, the damage was to their duty to the Constitution. During a pandemic, the harm is not only to public health but to the countrys structure, as fissures in the health and social-welfare systems widen, exposing just how vulnerable many Americans arethe hundred thousand homeless children in New York Citys public schools, for exampleand a larger order breaks apart. (The damage may even be to their own health: Senators Lindsey Graham and Rick Scott are under self-quarantine, after mingling at a Mar-a-Lago event that included a Brazilian official who has now been confirmed as having COVID-19; Trump was also present but has so far neither been tested nor quarantined himself.) On Thursday, Senator Mitch McConnell, who has praised what he decided to call Trumps early, bold action on COVID-19, reportedly had to be pressured to delay a Senate recess until a COVID-19 relief bill was passed. And among Fox News commentators, as Dylan Byers notes, there is still outrage that some virus has the nerve to undermine Trump. Pence, speaking to Camerota, tried to pin the blame on Europe, which he said was the site of most new cases. What will he say when America wins that title?

One of the most mangled sections of Pences interview had to do with testing. He suggested that anyone who needed a test could get one just by going to a doctor, who would arrange oneor maybe that would happen soon, if not yet. When Camerota showed him figures suggesting that the number of tests completed was still just in the thousands, he said he thought that the information was wrong. But he refused to even estimate the right number. The mismanagement of testing, particularly as coronavirus was just reaching the United States, appears to have triggered a disaster. It remains shockingly hard for people to get testedtest kits and the chemical reagents needed for them are a scarce resourceeven when they have symptoms and known contact with COVID-19 patients. According to the COVID Tracking Project, in which The Atlantic is a partner, the tally of tests completed was nearing sixteen thousand five hundred on Friday; South Korea has conducted more than ten times as many. It is a failing. Lets admit it, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, of the U.S.s testing system, at a hearing of the House Oversight Committee. Trump will never admit it.

The testing situation is such a shambles that even some Republicans have begun to acknowledge it. Senator Lamar Alexander called it a serious deficiency, according to Politico, and Senator James Lankford said that the idea that people could simply go and get testedwhich Trump has pushedwas just wrong. Senator Mitt Romney (who might actually be good at managing this sort of thing) said that the situation is frustrating. The question is whether that consciousness of failure will lead to a breaking point in the Republicans system of obedience to Trump. This is not a matter of using the coronavirus crisis to bring him down; its a question of the Presidents party really pushing him to do what he can to stop the virus from bringing the country down. And if he wont, they can start voting with Democrats in Congress, and give support to governors and other local officialsand, most fundamentally, they can be honest with the public. Perhaps Republicans could even nominate someone else at the convention this August (if, given the fears of COVID-19, its still held). That seems far-fetched, but so, a month ago, did trading being halted on the New York Stock Exchange, campuses closing, Broadway shutting down, major-league seasons getting suspended, and parts of the city of New Rochelle being cordoned off. Unimaginable scenes at overwhelmed hospitals may be ahead.

Read the original post:

Mike Pence and the Farce of Trusting Donald Trump on the Coronavirus - The New Yorker

Donald Trump is the very worst person to handle the coronavirus crisis – The Guardian

Posted on by

Coronavirus is the first major crisis Donald Trump has faced that is not of his own making. People who know what it is like to be in charge when disaster strikes have warned us this moment would come eventually and we can now see why they were so terrified.

Trump in a time of coronavirus is a lethal combination. Everything about the president his reliance on his gut instincts in place of expertise, his overwhelming selfishness, and his unfailing tendency to lash out at others when things go wrong make him the worst person imaginable to hold the worlds most powerful job in the face of pandemic.

Confronting the threat requires global cooperation, perhaps more than at any time since the second world war. But Trump and his junior imitators around the world have taken a sledgehammer to the very notion of international solidarity.

Americas closest allies were given no notice of his decision on Wednesday night to suspend flights from Europe. The EU mission in Washington only found out about it when journalists started calling.

The president has dealt with coronavirus the same way he approached every other challenge in his administration, first trying denial and when that failed, blaming outsiders. The disease has slid from a Democratic hoax to the foreign virus. It came as little surprise that his speech had been written by Stephen Miller, the author of the administrations cruellest anti-immigration policies.

The declaration of a European travel ban was only the second time Trump has addressed the nation from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. The first time was to announce the building of a wall on the Mexican border. The administration has made xenophobia its defining ethos.

It can stir up passions and corral votes, but railing against foreigners is useless against a virus that is indifferent to ethnicity and nationality.

Slamming the gates shut is also pointless in the face of a disease that already has taken hold within. Its incidence appears lower in the US than in much of Europe so far but almost certainly because US has barely started testing.

And the US is only shutting some of its gates. The exclusion of the UK and non-Schengen countries like Ireland from the ban makes no sense if stopping the spread of disease is really the aim. Contrary to Trumps claim, the UK is not doing a great job in containing coronavirus compared with most of its European neighbours.

It may or may not be a coincidence that Trump has golf resorts in the UK and Ireland. Given Trumps preoccupation with his investments throughout his time in office, it is as plausible an explanation as any for an otherwise pointless decision.

On the one strategy known to be effective in curbing the pandemic screening for the virus and organised social distancing the US is far behind most of the countries it has now cut off.

The production and distribution of diagnostic tests has been a fiasco. The initial test distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was flawed and had to be recalled. Production of new tests has been held back by a global shortage of a key component, reagents used to extract RNA from samples. Largely because of complacency at the top, the US was last in line putting its order in.

The same complacency has allowed the institutions that the US now most needs to wither and die. Trumps third national security adviser, John Bolton, axed the office in the national security council to coordinate a US response to pandemics, which was established after the Ebola outbreak.

Bolton, like Trump, did not see it as a real national security issue, like China or Iran.

Who would have thought we would even be having the subject? Trump wondered aloud, in explanation of why the administration had been taken by surprise.

With an eye fixed on the money markets, the president has sought to cover up the real lack of resilience in the system, insisting: Were testing everybody that we need to test.

But the truth has quickly become felt around the country, as people with symptoms and risk factors have been denied testing.

The CDC director, Robert Redfield, an evangelical conservative with no previous experience in managing a large state agency, revealed how out of touch the administration was with the reality on the ground on Wednesday.

When asked by the House oversight committee why the US was not providing drive-through tests, as have been introduced elsewhere he replied: Were trying to maintain the relationship between individuals and their healthcare providers.

Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat pointed out to him that most Americans do not have a regular doctor, and certainly do not see a physician often enough to have a relationship. When they get seriously ill, most head for the emergency room of the countrys overstrained hospitals.

The lack of tests means that the country is stumbling blindfolded into the worst health crisis in decades. Despite warnings from his own experts, the president reportedly clings to the relatively low number of confirmed cases as a sign that the US might be spared the worst.

When the country is struck by the inevitable wave of sickness and deaths, sweeping aside Trumps reassurances, it is hard to predict how he will react.

We do know he will see it through the prism of his prospects for re-election, and we can be fairly certain he will look for someone to blame along with a distraction, most likely some form of conflict at home or abroad.

The scale of the debacle will require a major distraction. Awful as the coronavirus pandemic looks now, Trumps backlash could be even worse.

Here is the original post:

Donald Trump is the very worst person to handle the coronavirus crisis - The Guardian

Donald Trump’s Latest Reality Show: The 2020 Election – The Nation

Posted on by

President Donald Trump at a press conference in September 2018. (Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock.com)

EDITORS NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.

Donald Trump filed his paperwork to run for reelection only hours after his inauguration in January 2017, setting a presidential record, the first of his many dubious achievements. For a man who relished the adulation and bombast of campaigning, it should have surprised no one that he charged out of the starting gate so quickly for 2020 as well. After all, hed already spent much of the December before his inauguration on a thank you tour of the swing states that had unexpectedly supported him on Election DayOhio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsinand visited Florida for a rally only a couple of weeks after he took the oath of office. In much the same way that Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky once embraced permanent revolution, Donald Trump embarked on a permanent campaign.1

But The Donald was fixated on 2020 even before he pulled off the upset of the century on November 8, 2016. After all, no one seems to have been more surprised by his victory that day than Trump himself.2

According to Michael Wolffs Fire and Fury and his personal attorney Michael Cohen, even on election night 2016, the billionaire tycoon didnt think hed win his first presidential bid. His wife, Melania, assured by her husband that hed lose, reportedly wept as the news came in that she would indeed be heading for the White House. Before his surprise victory, Trump described the election many times as rigged and seemed poised to declare the vote illegitimate as soon as the final returns rolled in. The attacks hed launched on Hillary Clinton during the campaignon her health, her integrity, her email accountwere not only designed to savage an opponent but also to undermine in advance the person that everyone expected to be the next president.3

In other words, Trump was already gearing up to go after her in 2020. And this wasnt even a commitment to run again for president. Although he reveled in all the media attention during the 2016 campaign, he was far more focused on the economic benefits to his cohort, his businesses, his family, and above all himself. He understood that attacking Clinton had real potential to become a post-election profession.4

Before Election Day, for instance, Trump was already exploring the possibility of establishing his own TV network to cater to the anti-Clinton base hed mobilized. The relentless stigmatizing of the Democratic standard bearerthe threats of legal action, the lock her up chants, the hints at dark conspiraciescould easily have morphed into a new birther movement led by Trump himself. With Clinton in the White House, he could have continued in quasi-campaign mode as a kind of shadow president, without all the onerous tasks of an actual commander-in-chief.5

Thanks to 77,744 voters in three key states on November 8, 2016, the Electoral College not only catapulted a bemused Trump into the White House but eliminated his chief electoral rival. Hillary Clintons political career was effectively over and Donald Trump suddenly found himself alone in the boxing ring, his very identity as a boxer at risk.6

As president, however, he soon discovered that a ruthless and amoral executive could wield almost unlimited power in the Oval Office. Ever since, hes used that power to harvest a bumper crop of carrots: windfall profits at his hotels, international contracts for his son-in-law Jared Kushners family business, not to speak of fat consulting gigs and other goodies for his cronies. Trump is a carrot-lover from way back. But ever vengeful, he loves sticks even more. Hes used those sticks to punish his enemies, real or imagined, in the media, in business, and most saliently in politics. His tenuous sense of self requires such enemies.7

Even as president, Trump thrives as an underdog, beset on all sides. Over the last three years, he turned the world of politics into a target-rich environment. Hes attacked one international leader after anotherthough not the autocratsfor failing to show sufficient fealty. At home, hes blasted the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives with a special focus on Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Hes lashed out against deep state opponents within the government, particularly those with the temerity to speak honestly during the impeachment hearings. He typically took time at a rally in Mississippi to besmirch the reputation of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court aspirant Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Hes even regularly gone after members of his inner circle, from former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former attorney general Jeff Sessions to former Pentagon chief Jim Mattis, blaming them for his own policy failures.8

Those relentless attacks constitute the ambient noise of the Trump era. But a clear signal has emerged from this background chatter. Since committing to run for a second term, hes mounted one campaign of political assassination after another against any would-be successor to Hillary Clinton. Just as he ran a unique campaign in 2016 and has governed in an unprecedented manner, Donald Trump is launching what will be a one-of-a-kind reelection effort. This is no normal primary season to be followed by run-of-the-mill party conventions and a general election like every other.9

Trump isnt just determined to destroy politics as usual with his incendiary rhetoric, his Twitter end runs around the media, or his authoritarian governing style. He wants to destroy politics itself, full stop.10

Over the course of 40 seasons, the American reality show Survivor has been filmed at many different locations and in a variety of formats. Still, the basic rules have remained the same. Contestants are divided into different tribes that must survive in adverse conditions and face extraordinary challenges. A series of votes in Tribal Councils then determine who can stay on the island. Sometimes, tribes or individuals win temporary immunity from expulsion. As the numbers dwindle, the tribes merge and individuals begin to compete more directly against one another. A Final Tribal Council determines the winner among the two or three remaining contestants.11

What makes Survivor different from typical game showsand arguably explains its enduring successis that contestants dont win simply by besting their adversaries in head-to-head battles as in Jeopardy or American Idol. Instead, they have to avoid getting voted off the island by fellow contestants. You win, in other words, through persuasion, negotiation, and manipulation.12

The first seasons victor, Richard Hatch, was not the most physically able of the contestants, psychologist Vivian Zayas once explained. In fact, out of the twelve individual Challenges, he only won one. Richard was also not the most liked. He was perceived as arrogant and overly confident, and even picked by some to be one of the first to get voted off the island. Ultimately, what made Hatch successful was his ability to form alliances.13

To put it in Trumpian terms, you win Survivor by being best at the art of the deal. At times, this requires ruthlessness, wheedling, and outright lies. It makes perfect sense that Trump would revive his stagnant career by translating Survivor into the business world in his show, The Apprentice. Less predictable perhaps was his application of this strategy to electoral politics.14

The 2020 election resembles nothing less than a political version of the Survivor franchise. Donald Trump fully intends to be the last man standing. To do so, however, he must contrive to get everyone else voted off the island. The first to go was the tribe of Republican rivals he defeated in the 2016 primary and who no longer pose a political threat. Next to exit, in the general election, was the leader of the rival tribe of Democrats, Hillary Clinton.15

In 2020, having won the equivalent of Survivors immunity prize, Trump has earned a pass to the final round in November. He faces no significant challenge within the Republican Party. In fact, nine statesAlaska, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina and Wisconsinhave scrapped their primaries altogether and pledged their delegates to him. In the remaining primaries, hes racking up the kinds of results that only totalitarian leaders typically enjoy like the 97 percent of caucus delegates he captured in Iowa, the 97 percent of primary voters in Arkansas, and his 86 percent margin of victory in New Hampshire.16

As befits a political survivor, Trump has excelled at forging alliances. An irreligious and profane man, he still managed to win over the evangelical community. Despite his previously liberal record on social issues, he successfully courted the anti-abortion vote. A draft dodger, hes effectively pandered to veterans and active-duty soldiers. And though hes a billionaire given to grossly conspicuous consumption, he even managed to woo the disenfranchised in the Rust Belt and elsewhere. After capturing the Republican Party in this way, he then purged it of just about anyone without the requisite level of sycophancy to the commander-in-chief. In 2016, he also fashioned informal alliances with disgruntled Democrats and independent voters. Since then, hes tried to make further inroads in the Democratic Party by persuading a few politicians like New Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew to switch parties. His pardon of corrupt Democratic pol Rod Blagojevich might even win him some additional crossover votes in Illinois.17

Trump hopes, of course, that the 2016 alliances he forged among Democratic and independent voters in key swing states will produce the same results in 2020. Indeed, those voters may well pull the lever for him again, even if they supported Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections. Its not just his politically incorrect personality that has won them over. During his presidency, hes used the power of the state to direct significant resources toward such constituencies.18

To compensate, for instance, for losses incurred in his trade war with China, hes provided $28 billion in farm subsidies over the last two years. Even with the first part of a Sino-American trade deal in place, the president has promised critical rural voters yet more handouts in this election year. Although his tax cuts have certainly put plenty of extra money in the pockets of his wealthy supporters and affluent suburbanites, theres evidence that those cuts have also advantaged red states over blue ones, just as job growth has favored such states, in part because of the help his administration has given to specific economic sectors like the oil, coal, and chemical industries.19

All of this, however, could mean little if Donald Trump faces a popular Democrat in November. So the president has gone into overdrive to ensure that those he considers his strongest potential rivals are voted off the island before the ultimate contest begins.20

Joe Biden formally threw his hat into the presidential ring on April 25, 2019. But Donald Trumps anxiety about running against him had begun much earlier. In July 2018, according to campaign advisers, the president was already fretting Biden might win back some white, working-class voters in swing states like Pennsylvania. However, the president promptly began to insist that Biden would be a dream candidate, resorting to his common and often effective strategy of saying the opposite of what he really thought.21

That summer, Trump was well aware that, in election 2020 polls, he was seven points behind his possible future Democratic opponent. So he began to go after sleepy Joe (as he nicknamed him) on Twitter. He insulted Bidens age, intelligence, and political record, but a true hatchet job required a sharper hatchet.22

Trump had long sought a lawyer who could do some of his hatchet work for him, a figure akin to Roy Cohn, the anti-Communist huckster who assisted Senator Joe McCarthy and later served as The Donalds mentor. Several people aspired to play that very role, including Michael Cohen, who became the presidents personal lawyer. But like Jeff Sessions, in the end, he proved insufficiently loyal in the presidents eyes.23

Rudy Giuliani has emerged as the latest in this line of fixers. He endorsed Trump in 2016 and then entered his administration as an adviser on cybersecurity. In April 2018, after the FBI raided Michael Cohens office, Giuliani joined Trumps legal team. He immediately went to work exploiting his past connections in Ukraine as part of an effort to shift blame to that country for Russias interference in the US elections. At some point in the fall of 2018, hooking up with two shady operators, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, he began to investigate Biden, his son Hunter, and the latters links to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. When Volodymyr Zelensky became that countrys president in April 2019, Trump felt emboldened, thanks to Giuliani, to press the new leader to relaunch an investigation into the Biden family even though the previous effort had produced nothing.24

It was an extraordinarily risky move, coming just after Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his long-awaited report, had described Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump administrations attempts to cover up its Kremlin connections. But thats how much Trump worried about the man he then expected to be his foremost political rival in 2020. For reelection, Giuliani and Trump knew that nothing illicit actually had to be nailed down when it came to Hunter Bidens Ukrainian activities. They simply had to damage his fathers reputation through insinuation.25

Trump was furious at the impeachment inquiry that followed his perfect phone call with Zelensky on July 25, 2019. In the end, however, even though the House investigation exonerated Biden and implicated Trump, it was the Democrats reputation that suffered the greater hit.26

As Peter Beinart wrote in The Atlantic:27

By keeping Hunter Bidens business dealings in Ukraine in the news, they have turned them into a rough analogue to Hillary Clintons missing emails in 2016a pseudo-scandal that undermines a leading Democratic candidates reputation for honesty. The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee last fall launched a $10 million advertising blitz aimed at convincing Americans that Joe Bidens behavior toward Ukraine was corrupt.28

Bidens national poll numbers didnt actually suffer much during the impeachment investigation, but his leads in the early state primaries did. Beginning with an ad campaign in Iowa, the president seemed determined to kneecap Biden in those very primaries. True, the Democratic candidate did himself no favors with lackluster debate performances and his usual verbal gaffes. Trumps strategy, however, helped ensure that the residents of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada nearly voted the competing tribes leading candidate off the island before the big Tribal Council on Super Tuesday. Only a resounding victory in South Carolina kept Biden in the race, propelling him to a surprising comeback on Super Tuesday.29

Trump deployed his traditional strategy of attack to minimize the other Democratic candidates for 2020 as well. He ridiculed Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas, made fun of Mike Bloombergs height, and intentionally garbled Pete Buttigiegs last name. But the candidate Trump seemed most worried about replacing Biden as the partys nominee was Bernie Sanders.30

After all, Sanders has some of the very strengths that made Trump such an attractive candidate in 2016. The Vermont independent is a political outsider who can credibly distance himself from the failings of both major parties. He has an authentically populist agenda that targets the very corporate fat cats who are Trumps closest friends, allies, and supporters. He can potentially appeal to voters who didnt go to the polls in 2016, those who voted for Trump but havent been able to stomach his performance in the White House, and young people who otherwise might not bother to turn out at all.31

This profile has, for instance, attracted the endorsement of popular libertarian podcaster Joe Rogan. Former Republican representative Joe Walsh, who voted for Trump in 2016 before challenging the president for the partys nomination this year, has already pledged to vote for Sanders if he becomes the nominee. Even far-right pundit Ann Coulter, once an ardent Trump supporter, declared last year that shed consider voting for Sanders if he took a harder stance on immigration. I dont care about the rest of the socialist stuff, she told PBS. Just: can we do something for ordinary Americans?32

Trump himself has expressed concerns about taking on Sanders. Frankly, I would rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders, Trump told reporters last month. Because Sanders has real followers, whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them or notI happen to think its terrible what he saysbut he has followers.33

A significant number of those followers in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania switched parties to vote for Trump in 2016. If they were to go back to Sanders in 2020and if the Democrats who voted for Clinton generally maintained their party loyaltythe Vermont independent could win those three states and probably the election in November.34

Of course, in his worrying about Sanders, Trump could well be using his simplistic version of reverse psychology. The president could be pretending to be scared of Sanders when he really wants to run against a self-proclaimed democratic socialist next fall. Citing Republican Party sources, for instance, The New York Times concluded in January that President Trumps advisers see Senator Bernie Sanders as their ideal Democratic opponent in November and have been doing what they can to elevate his profile and bolster his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses. These advisers are well aware that, according to a November poll by NPR/PBS and an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last March, only 2025 percent of Americans are enthusiastic about a socialist candidate. For these reasons, Trump urged South Carolina Republicans to cross the aisle to back Sanders in the Democratic primary in order to shut down Biden once and for all.35

To play it safe, however, the president has also begun to focus a portion of his considerable ire on Sanders. Hes already mounted vigorous attacks on his approach to health care reform, his opposition to the assassination of the head of Irans Revolutionary Guards, his supposed hypocrisy as a wealthy, fossil fuel-guzzling millionaire, and above all that socialism of his. Its just a taste of whats to come. According to someone who saw the opposition research the Republicans compiled on Sanders in 2016, it was so massive it had to be transported on a cart.36

And thats before Trump blows all this material out of proportion through outright lies and misrepresentation.37

At the end of August, Donald Trump heads into the Republican Partys nominating convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, with some advantages he didnt have four years ago.38

In 2016, Hillary Clinton had raised nearly twice as much money as he did. This time, the president has already collected more than $100 million. (Barack Obama had $82 million at this point in 2012.) A war chest like that supports a large ground operation eager to flip some blue states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada, and even New Mexico. Trump has the authority of incumbency, plus a reputation for invincibility thats been enhanced by his surviving both the Mueller investigation and impeachment by the House. As long as a coronavirus pandemic doesnt truly shut down the global economy, he will continue to claim, misleadingly, that low unemployment figures and modest growth are his personal achievements.39

In a normal political contest, Trump would have to deal with a raft of negatives, including his relative unpopularity, his many policy failures, his embarrassments on the global stage, and of course, the cuts his administration has made in funds to prepare for a possible pandemic. Election 2020, however, is anything but a normal political contest. Trump has been busy gaming the system, focusing virtually all his efforts on Electoral College swing states, while Republicans do their damnedest to purge voter rolls, suppress turnout, and ignore warnings from the US intelligence community of coming Russian election interference.40

Donald Trump has also been hard at work stripping politics of its content, a longer-term trend for which hes anything but the sole culprit. Still, more than any other candidate in memory, hes boiled elections down to pissing contests and personality clashes. In addition, his nonstop barrage of lies has thoroughly confused voters about what his administration has and hasnt done. In the process, hes delegitimized the mainstream media, placed himself above the law, and reduced American politics to a litmus test of loyalty.41

Its not yet possible to predict the winner of the 2020 election, but the loser is already clear: the American public. Trump has sabotaged in a significant way the normal give-and-take, compromise, and negotiation once at the heart of everyday politics. He believes only in power, the more naked the better. He long ago gave up on elite opinion. Now, he doesnt want to take any chances on the vagaries of popular choice either.42

Trump believes that he already owns the island, that hes now the survivor in chief. To maintain that illusion, hell do anything in his power to ensure that hes never voted off the island, certainly not by something beyond his control like actual democracy.43

See the original post here:

Donald Trump's Latest Reality Show: The 2020 Election - The Nation

Coronavirus: The delayed reaction by Donald Trump and Tom Cotton’s change of tone – Arkansas Times

Posted on by

The past is past, but with Donald Trump tweeting this morning on good practices to hold down the spread of coronavirus, its important to remember how dismissive he was of the crisis for weeks, time when the government could have been acting. An excellent rundown by the New York Times David Leonhardt.

And get a load of Sen. Tom Cotton, worrying more about working folks than monetary policy.

Some of his devoted admirers are continuing Trumps early messaging that virus alarm was a hoax generated by Democrats and media to harm Trump politically. The facts never supported that view and Trumps actions in the intervening weeks placed his political wellbeing over public health. (A problem with U.S. policy in general.)

As Leonhardt recounts, Jan. 22 Trump said everything was under control.

In the weeks that followed, Trump faced a series of choices. He could have taken aggressive measures to slow the spread of the virus. He could have insisted that the United States ramp up efforts to produce test kits. He could have emphasized the risks that the virus presented and urged Americans to take precautions if they had reason to believe they were sick. He could have used the powers of the presidency to reduce the number of people who would ultimately get sick.

He did none of those things.

Ive reviewed all of his public statements and actions on coronavirus over the last two months, and they show a president who put almost no priority on public health. Trumps priorities were different: Making the virus sound like a minor nuisance. Exaggerating his administrations response. Blaming foreigners and, anachronistically, the Obama administration. Claiming incorrectly that the situation was improving. Trying to cheer up stock market investors. (It was fitting that his first public comments were from Davos and on CNBC.)

Now that the severity of the virus is undeniable, Trump is already trying to present an alternate history of the last two months.

Never forget.

Speaking of tune changes, check Sen. Tom Cottons Twitter feed. Yes, he continues his not-so-subtle practice of injecting race into the issue by repeatedly defining the global epidemic as Chinese. But I credit him for common sense rather than his normal hysterical fear-mongering. For example:

Hes even said this morning that the House aid bill crafted by Democrats doesnt go far enough. And he also tweeted:

OK then. Empathy from Tom Cotton. And he even acknowledged a Federal Reserve interest rate cut isnt much of a virus fighter or even an economic boon in such times.

Read more here:

Coronavirus: The delayed reaction by Donald Trump and Tom Cotton's change of tone - Arkansas Times

Trump asks Walmart, Target and other retail giants to help tackle the coronavirus crisis – CNBC

Posted on by

Two days after the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a global pandemic, President Donald Trump brought in leaders of some of the country's biggest companies to showcase a plan to tackle the outbreak.

Trump spoke Friday flanked by the CEOs of Target, Walmart, Walgreens and others as he updated the country on the government's response to the virus. As he handed the mike and podium over to them the message was clear: we're in good hands.

The market reacted well to the message, with theDow Jones Industrial Averageclosing1,985 points higherFriday.

Trump lauded the CEOs as "celebrities in their own right" and praised their companies as the greatest in the world. The executives, like Walmart chief Doug McMillon, said they will help America ramp up its testing by offering space in their parking lots.

The administration's ability to quickly roll out tests has been marred by missteps and an underfunded system. In recent days, though, it has approved new tests, such as one fromSwiss diagnostics-maker Roche, giving the government the capacity to make more.

"Today I trust that people in America are looking on at this extraordinary public and private partnership to address the issue of testing with particular inspiration," said White House Vice President Mike Pence.

"After you tapped me to lead the White House coronavirus task force, Mr. President, you said, 'this is all hands on deck'. You directed us to immediately reach out to the American business sector ... to meet what we knew then would be the need [for] testing across the spectrum."

"And today with this historic private-public partnership we have laid the foundation to meet that need."

The Friday press conference topped two weeks of meetings with business leaders in banking, technology, pharmaceutical and other industries.

Some have been described as "brainstorming sessions," as was Trump's meeting with technology leaders earlier this week. Others offered words of reassurance. Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat said during the banks' meeting with the White House "this is not a financial crisis."

Announcements have followed suit. Trump also announced Friday that Google will launch a website to help people out to determine whether they should get a test for coronavirus.

Still, many of the details around these private-public partnerships remain scarce, including those announced Friday.

Google's communications team said the tool Trump referred to, which is being developed by Verily, the life sciences sister company to Google, remains in its early stages.Both Google and Verily areAlphabetcompanies.

"We are developing a tool to help triage individuals for Covid-19 testing," it said in a statement. "Verily is in the early stages of development, and planning to roll testing out in the Bay Area, with the hope of expanding more broadly over time," the statement said.

The retailers, meantime, had limited details to share around which locations will be rolling out tests, and how many of them they will have.

For the retailers, the move is a natural expansion of efforts to utilize their vast footprint to provide medical care. CVS Health bought insurer Aetna for roughly $69 billion two years ago, and has since expanded health-care services in its stores.

Walmart has long been a pioneer in health care, including with its own employees.Ninety percent of the U.S. population lives within 10 miles of a Walmart, giving it unique reach to Americans, particularly those in rural areas. The retailer has explored other partnerships with the government, like an experiment in telehealth with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

The retailer has also taken an increasing interest in dipping its toe into public policy. The retailer's decision to dramatically step back from ammunition sales after "horrific" shootings let other major retailers to follow suit.

CEO Doug McMillon leads the Business Roundtable, a group representing the CEOs of nearly 200 companies. The Business Roundtable last year made a splash as it embraced stakeholder capitalismas its new purpose. With that statement, the companies said their focus is on serving not only its shareholders but all stakeholders, including customers and communities.

None of the companies disclosed what financial impact, if any, the moves would have on their financials.

"These are extraordinary times that call for extraordinary measures," saidRichard Ashworth, Walgreens president.

"Collaboration with health officials, the government, and across our industry and other sectors is critical at this time. Walgreens has a long history of being there when our customers and communities needs us most."

CNBC's Melissa Repko contributed to this story.

See the article here:

Trump asks Walmart, Target and other retail giants to help tackle the coronavirus crisis - CNBC

Trump Is Dooming His Presidency and Other Weekend Reads – Foreign Policy

Posted on by

U.S. President Donald Trumps inability to effectively combat the coronavirus could ultimately doom his bid for reelection.

Meanwhile, a new round of constitutional changes implemented in Russia could see President Vladimir Putin remain at the helm for almost two more decades.

And Japan and South Korea are reeling due to the effects of the coronavirus, but they still find time to point fingers at each other.

Here are Foreign Policys top weekend reads.

As the coronavirus takes hold in the United States and the economy faces recession, Trumps credibility is further eroded, Foreign Policys Michael Hirsh writes.

As the coronavirus spreads, a dangerous trend has followed: Government leaders and other officials are intentionally obfuscating data, suppressing information, and misinforming citizens about the outbreak, Suzanne Nossel writes.

Russias political future became a little bit clearer when a series of choreographed moves in the countrys parliament set the stage for Putin to stay in his role for another 16 years, Foreign Policys Reid Standish writes.

Japan and South Korea have both been hit hard by the coronavirus, but they have shown that when times get tough, they will still prioritize the most important thing: blaming each other, William Sposato writes.

The ideas and practices that guided Christians through countless plagues across millennia still have relevance today, Lyman Stone writes.

See original here:

Trump Is Dooming His Presidency and Other Weekend Reads - Foreign Policy

Obama-Appointed Judge Blocks Donald Trump’s Plan to Kick Nearly One Million Americans Off of Food Stamps – The Root

Posted on by

President Donald Trump eating with members of the military in a dining facility during a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit, Thursday, Nov. 28, 2019, at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan.Photo: Alex Brandon (Associated Press)

The Meglomaniac-In-Chief s continuous war on the poor has hit a snag.

In his quest to Make American Hate Again, President Donald Trump and his administration were planning to make life even worse for food-insecure families when the sought to proceed with measures to remove nearly three-quarters of a million people from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits program.

But a judge appointed by Forever President Barack Hussein Obama pumped the brakes.

One of the good things to come out of the Coronavirus pandemic was Chief U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruling that the planned strict work requirements were unlawful and blocked the administration from proceeding with them.

Especially now, as a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that government officials at both the federal and state levels have flexibility to address the nutritional needs of residents and ensure their well-being through programs like SNAP, is essential, Howell wrote in her 84-page ruling.

The decision resulted from a lawsuit brought by 19 states, including Washington D.C. and The Big Apple on Friday, NPR reported.

In December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it was adopting the rule change requiring able-bodied adults without children to work at least 20 hours a week in order to qualify for SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps, past three months.

To go one step further with their skullduggery, it wouldve also limited individual states usual ability to waive those requirements depending on economic conditions.

Her honors preliminary injunction will preserve that flexibility.

Howell is the top judge on the Washington, D.C. federal district court and she seems not to mind setting the record straight.

Just last month, the 63-year-old Fort Benning, Georgia native said that the courts sentencing of Trump consigliere Roger Stone would not be swayed by public criticism or pressure.

On Feb. 20, the GOP operative was sentenced to more than three years in prison after a jury found guilty on seven felony counts including lying to authorities, obstructing a congressional investigation and witness intimidation, Politico reported.

Trump has called Stones treatment a miscarriage of justice, raising questions about whether he will grant clemency to his longtime political confidant.

Read more:

Obama-Appointed Judge Blocks Donald Trump's Plan to Kick Nearly One Million Americans Off of Food Stamps - The Root

Sunaks Budget: good but short-term measures must be temporary – MoneyWeek

Posted on by

If you were a UK small business owner worried last Tuesday about how you might survive the year, you would have been a slightly less worried one after the Budget.

Some people might have found the news that coronavirus could well put some 20% of the UKs workforce out of action all at once made them feel a little tense. Others may have found the extraordinary scale of Rishi Sunaks spending promises did the same. He clearly expects things to get very bad indeed over the next few months.

Become a smarter, better informed investor with MoneyWeek.

However, no small or medium-sized business owner could possibly fail to be impressed by the measures the UK is taking to support them.

Statutory sick pay is to be available for all those told to self-isolate from day one rather than the usual day four even if they have no symptoms. That would be a tough unexpected expense for many firms except that the state intends to pick up the bill for up to 14 days per employee, for all businesses with fewer than 250 employees.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Further relief comes in the form of the abolition of business rates for one year for the retail, leisure and hospitality industry. That means around half of all UK businesses wont be taxed on their premises. Retailers, who have been clamouring for years for something like this because of online competition, should be particularly pleased.

And if that doesnt do it, small and medium-sized businesses can apply to the new coronavirus disruption loan scheme for government-backed loans of up to 1.2m or, if they are very small, for a one-off 3,000 cash grant. About 700,000 firms will be eligible for this.

All this does two very good things. First and foremost, the measures make it clear that this government really is on the side of small businesses. That is a good thing too, as 60% of private sector workers work for firms with fewer than 250 employees. And, second, the programmes might actually work.

Business survival is all about cash flow. They can keep going as long as they can pay their bills. In times like this, policies that might increase sales are hard to dream up. So it makes real sense to focus on policies that cancel debts, extend the payment time on bills including beefed up arrangements for businesses and the self-employed to defer tax payments and lend firms low-cost money to pay bills.

Sunaks choices look like well thought-out support policies: neat bits of good news in a sea of bad.

However, there will be some whining over one small company-related policy: the cut to entrepreneurs relief. The government has previously allowed entrepreneurs to pay capital gains tax on the sale of their businesses at a rate of 10% rather than the usual 20%, up to a lifetime allowance of 10m. That allowance will be cut to 1m.

Advertisement - Article continues below

But this change has been a long time coming. There is little evidence that the relief actually encourages new entrepreneurs to start up. There is also some evidence that it encourages them to hold large amounts of cash inside a company structure. Doing this allows owners to give themselves retirement funds on the sale of their businesses, effectively converting what would be income into capital for tax purposes. This is not a productive government policy.

In better economic times, it might have made sense to scrap the relief all together, as the government floated earlier this year. In these uncertain times, it makes sense to limit the benefit.

Doing so backs up the signal sent by the rest of Sunaks measures: the UK is keen to support and reward anyone prepared to risk their own capital to create a business.

However, my approval of Sunaks support measures for small and medium-sized businesses comes with one clear caveat: the UK has a history of over-subsidising some businesses.

I would argue, for example, that the tax credit system has long kept too many companies hooked on cheap labour because the low wages they pay are topped up by government benefits. That has turned these businesses into something closer to government make-work schemes than the kind of dynamic productive organisations that capitalism is supposed to produce.

With that pitfall in mind, I believe it is worth reminding the chancellor that policies introduced in times of crisis can be hard to back out of, even if you insist when you introduce them that they are time-limited. Sunak should also remember that in normal times most businesses are supposed to fail. Only 42.4% of businesses started in 2013 were still trading in 2018, official figures show.

Advertisement - Article continues below

The UK must work hard to avoid standing in the way of that kind of creative destruction. The chancellor must take care to ensure his new schemes are short-term schemes to keep people in work, not long-term ones that simply make work for them.

This article was first published in the Financial Times

See the original post:

Sunaks Budget: good but short-term measures must be temporary - MoneyWeek

Closing polling places is the 21st century’s version of a poll tax – Thehour.com

Posted on by

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Joshua F.J. Inwood, Pennsylvania State University and Derek H. Alderman, University of Tennessee

(THE CONVERSATION) Delays and long lines at polling places during recent presidential primary elections such as voters in Texas experienced represent the latest version of decades-long policies that have sought to reduce the political power of African Americans in the U.S.

Following the Civil War and the extension of the vote to African Americans, state governments worked to block black people, as well as poor whites, from voting. One way they tried to accomplish this goal was through poll taxes an amount of money each voter had to pay before being allowed to vote.

This practice was abolished by the passage of the 24th Amendment in 1964. Further protections for nonwhite voters came with the Voting Rights Act, which closely followed the Selma to Montgomery civil rights protest marches 55 years ago, in March 1965.

But in recent years, new barriers have gone up that, we believe, constitute a new type of poll tax on working people and minority voters. Weare scholars of the American civil rights movement, including the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committees voting rights efforts.

Unlike past poll taxes, the modern poll tax isnt paid in money, but in time how long it takes a person to get to a polling place, and, once there, how long it takes for them to actually cast their ballot.

Securing the right to vote

Almost immediately after the 15th Amendment gave African Americans the right to vote in 1870, state governments in the South passed a series of laws seeking to limit freed blacks voting power.

In addition, white supremacist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan used violence to intimidate African Americans from casting ballots.

This situation remained largely unchallenged for almost a century, until the 1960s, when the years of protest by the civil rights movement bore fruit in the abolition of poll taxes and federal protection of citizens voting rights.

Creating a new poll tax

Since the 1960s, there have been efforts by state and local officials to limit these hard-won victories.

The most recent chapter in this battle is the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which lifted restrictions on states that have historically blocked African Americans from voting, so state governments no longer need to seek federal approval before taking actions that might disproportionately harm black citizens right to vote.

Since the Shelby County decision, local election boards and state governments have closed over 1,600 polling places. That is approximately 8% of total voting locations within jurisdictions affected by the Shelby decision.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan independent study group started in 1957, found that states claimed polling-place closures were intended to save money, centralize voting operations, and complying with Americans with Disabilities Act but really the goal was reducing voter turnout, particularly among minority voters who were historically disenfranchised. Using publicly available data, federal lawsuits brought against states and counties the report documents clear patterns of discrimination.

These closures, often done with little notice or public accountability, have occurred across communities of varying racial and demographic characteristics. What unites these places are the costs they impose on voting from longer wait times to transportation obstacles experienced disproportionately by voters of color, older voters, rural voters, voters with disabilities and poor working people in general.

In the 2016 election, for instance, scholars at UCLA found that voters in black neighborhoods waited, on average, 29% longer to vote than voters in predominantly white communities. The study found, Even within the same county, voters in a hypothetical all-black precinct would wait 15 percent longer than voters in an all-white precinct.

The study found voters in majority black precincts were far more likely to wait longer than half an hour to cast a ballot than voters in majority white precincts. A study of the 2012 election found that the voters who waited in long lines paid, collectively, over half a billion dollars in lost wages.

Considering time

We believe that polling place closures represent a modern-day version of the poll tax.

In our view, access to polling places is a key element of citizens right to vote. People need fair and equitable access to places to vote and determining what that means should include time and travel costs imposed on voters. This would expand traditional understandings of access to polling places beyond narrow legal opinions and take into account the full range of racial and class barriers to being able to participate in U.S. democracy.

Everybodys time is valuable. But wait times have different effects depending upon a persons socioeconomic status.

Working people calculate daily how much time, if any, they can afford to be away from their hourly wage job. Interminable waits at polling places may not fit in the schedule with a second or third job. Work supervisors may not excuse a late arrival or an absence. A working person may feel pressure to leave a polling place before casting a ballot, just to get to work on time and keep the money coming in.

Importantly, the Supreme Courts Shelby County ruling did not invalidate all of the Voting Rights Act. Rather, it threw out the method by which the federal government could determine which areas of the country had policies that resulted in widespread voter disenfranchisement.

Congress could enact new legislation detailing a new method of making that determination, which would then restore federal oversight to states that create barriers to voting.

However because of our federal system where states have direct oversight of elections many of these decisions ultimately take place at the local and state level. As a result, election officials need to work in transparent ways with diverse communities to ensure that changes to voting locations do not disproportionately limit minority access. In addition, states could also ensure equal access to voting by creating, or expanding, early voting periods, and making it possible to vote by mail.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/closing-polling-places-is-the-21st-centurys-version-of-a-poll-tax-133301.

Follow this link:

Closing polling places is the 21st century's version of a poll tax - Thehour.com

Coronavirus: How Saturday Night Takeaway, pubs, and cinemas are keeping audiences safe – Sky News

Posted on by

The government is expected to table legislation in the Commons next week which would ban gatherings of more than 500 people.

While some of the largest sports leagues and entertainers have already taken action, smaller venues and cinemas say a shutdown could do serious harm to their businesses.

Sky News has spoken to pubs, cinemas and live TV broadcasters to see what they're doing to keep customers and audiences safe.

Pubs and clubs

For independent bars and clubs, the prospect of a lack of revenue is daunting.

The Royal Vauxhall Tavern (RVT) is one of London's most famous LGBT+ pubs, frequently selling out cabaret and club nights like Duckie and Push The Button.

The chancellor Rishi Sunak, in his recent budget, announced the abolition of business rates for certain companies to help them during the COVID-19 pandemic. But this hasn't alleviated the RVT's chief executive James Lindsay's concerns.

"The government took a step in the week to give businesses a rate-free period, but it's not helping us in any way," he told Sky News.

"It's really concerning. Because of the nature of the virus, we're not covered by our insurance. It is uncomfortable thinking at the moment."

Mr Lindsay added that the impact of the outbreak could affect the wider nightlife industry.

Kate Nicholls, chief executive of trade body UK Hospitality, said: "This is a question of survival for hospitality businesses. In two months they will run out of cash, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk."

Wetherspoons, one of the most popular pub chains in the UK, has yet to say whether they will be closing pubs.

In a statement on their website, however, the chain said it would be "educating employees on prevention" and "cleaning and sanitising contact points more frequently".

Cinemas

Film production and promotion schedules have been affected by the outbreak, with Disney pushing back the release of its remake of Mulan and the soft reboot of the X-Men franchise, The New Mutants.

The UK Cinema Association, which represents the interests of UK cinema operators, has said COVID-19 should not mean the public cannot visit the cinema.

But the organisation warned: "The decision by a number of US studios to delay the release of several of their upcoming major films presents an unprecedented challenge to many UK cinemas, and is something which may genuinely call into question the survival of a number of sites."

One UK chain, Showcase Cinemas, has taken measures into their own hands, ahead of government and public health advice.

In an email to customers, Showcase said it would be reducing audience capacity by 50% in auditoriums in order to allow for space between seats.

"If staff or a guest at the cinema is showing symptoms such as a fever, cough or shortness of breath, they will be respectfully asked to leave," the company said in the email.

Live Television

ITV, whose entertainment programmes like Dancing On Ice and The Voice UK rely heavily on live audiences, has told Sky News that it would prefer shows to be made without an audience.

In a message of guidance to production teams, the company said the measure is "precautionary" and that "all productions" are being assessed.

But Ant And Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway, one of the UK's most popular Saturday night programmes, will continue to go ahead "business as usual" according to one of its presenters Declan Donnelly.

ITV also said that fewer than 500 people are in the studio for Saturday Night Takeaway, adding it would comply with advice given by Public Health England and the World Health Organisation.

The channel went on to say: "All of our audience handling agencies are sharing the updated advice from the NHS site with audiences prior to attending our shows and we continue to work with them to update advice as and when it changes."

Channel 5 is taking further steps. The channel said in a statement: "As a precautionary measure we have taken the decision not to have a live studio audience for The Jeremy Vine Show for the time being.

"We will continue to monitor and review official guidelines and advice."

The BBC and Channel 4 will continue to air shows in front of live audiences - for now.

As well as well as creating television programmes, the BBC also records and airs radio programmes like The News Quiz and The Now Show, which often require a live audience.

The corporation said: "We're keeping the situation with our audience-based programmes under review.

"While the current government advice doesn't necessarily prevent such programmes taking place, this is a rapidly evolving situation and we take seriously our duty of care to audiences, panellists and our staff."

Channel 4, whose programmes Countdown and The Last Leg use live audiences, also said it would be looking at advice given by Public Health England.

"We and our production partners across all of our shows are continuing to monitor the situation very closely."

See the rest here:

Coronavirus: How Saturday Night Takeaway, pubs, and cinemas are keeping audiences safe - Sky News

Homeland. Passion and democracy of national symbols in Cuba – OnCubaNews

Posted on by

In 2016 the magazine Revolucin y Cultura (RyC) then directed by Luisa Campuzano and by an Advisory Council composed of Graziella Pogolotti, Ambrosio Fornet and Antn Arrufat dedicated a dossier to the 130th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in Cuba. [1]

Historieta de un esclavo en Cuba, by Israel Castellanos Len, appeared among its pages. It is a montage of plastic works, accompanied by texts dedicated to slavery and its resistance. There you can see La sangre negra de la historia (2014, mixed media, 150 x 60 cm), by Luis Manuel Otero Alcntara (LMOA). Manuel Mendive, Alberto Lescay and douard Laplante are other artists participating in the material.

That LMOA work is a Cuban flag. In its triangle, with a white background, names such as Jos Antonio Aponte, Quintn Banderas, Gustavo Urrutia, Mariana Grajales, Blas Roca, Carlota, Antonio Maceo and a long list of black and mestizo heroes of different ideological affiliations are written in red ink. The background of the work is a humble wall, typical of a common Cuban home, from which the flag hangs. The accompanying text belongs to Biography of a Runaway Slave, by Miguel Barnet.

Only five years after the RyC dossier was published, voices from official institutions in the country the same as that magazine belongs to have taken away from LMOA any status as an artist.

The artivist has been prosecuted with a request for sentences of between two and five years on charges of violating the National Symbols Law and damaging state property under the Penal Code. A few days ago, for the moment, the trial has been suspended.

The first of these accusations has more public information than the second. The outrage that his performances represent for the flag that use it in daily and intimate situations, such as covering oneself with it to go to the bathroom or lying on it on the sand at a beach, has been cited. Certainly, they are unorthodox uses of the symbol.

The national flag: resistance and heterodoxy

Ironically, the national flag also has its own history of heterodoxy.

First raised in New York, it was conceived by Venezuelan general and freemason Narciso Lpez. In 1848 Lpez had hired mercenaries among veterans of the Mexican war for a project to rid Cuba of Spanish colonial rule. He offered them, according to Lisandro Prez, the regular pay of the U.S. Army, in addition to promising them future ownership of land in Cuba.

In 1850 an expedition under his command would land through Crdenas, this time already in the midst of conflicts with the Cuban annexationists in New York. On that occasion for which Lpez sought support from southern slaveowners in the United States the flag arrived in Cuba. The Constitution that Lpez brought with him also affirmed that Cuba should be a Republic, but was silent about slavery.

The Venezuelan died executed by the colonial power in search of what Emeterio Santovenia called the international sovereignty of Cuba. Jorge Quintana defended that he was not a filibuster, but a patriot. Herminio Portell Vil dedicated three volumes to demonstrate that he was not an annexationist. However, the label of annexationist still haunts Lpez to this day, although recognized patriots were in his circle.

Cirilo Villaverde, author of Cecilia Valds, explained the original content of that flag: the three blue stripes represented the regions of Cuba, and the two white ones are the symbol of the purity of the intentions of independent republicans.

Emilia Casanova received virulent condemnations for her heterodox political life: she founded the first Cuban Womens League and is the pioneer of Cuban diplomacy, in addition to having sewn countless flags with her hands. Those who condemned her preferred the destruction of Cuba to a Cuba with Emilia Casanova. Ana Cairo Ballester saw in her the dignity of Cuban women as well as a challenging paradigm of republicanism.

Domingo Goicura shared the works of Narciso Lpez. He was persecuted and imprisoned. He came ready for the war of 1868. In prison, he did not seek worthy among the worthy defense when judged by a verbal council of war. The oral memory would tell that, on the way to the gallows, he assured that the statue of Carlos III would be replaced by that of Cspedes. Before dying, he would have said: A man dies, but a people is born!

He was right: everything that can be called the Cuban people the class, racial, cultural, regional exchanges that it implies, as well as its political constitution as a subject was not born in beautiful colonial houses or in humble huts. It was born in what that people called the redeeming scrubland, the Cuban political city of the 19th century, which developed democratic citizenship as an egalitarian.

The flag of the annexationist became a sign of nationalism. It represented the greatest conceivable heterodoxy at the time: the libertarian, anti-colonial and anti-slavery Republic. The newspaper La Revolucin, from New York, would add content to the meaning of its triangle (1870): One of its sides is Liberty, another is Equality, and the third is Fraternity. The base of the Cuban triangle is the Republic; the vertex the abolition of slavery. The same flag that came from Crdenas later covered Francisco Vicente Aguileras coffin, which Mart called the Father of the Republic.

The democratic meanings of the war egalitarian character, defense of social rights, anti-racism, appreciation of the Law and order marked the democratic uses of the flag that became the flag of all Cubans.

The testimonies of devotion to her are as infinite as fair.

That flag vindicated the heterodoxies of the right of resistance and the inclusion of everyone embodied in the nation and represented personal, national and social freedom. Thats why it is a national flag, not a party flag. Without the continued exercise of those values, it is just a piece of cloth. Homeland is a very demanding political passion. It is a democratic passion when defending those values.

The democratic meaning of patriotism

From another side of patriotism, Gonzalo Castan the alleged desecration of his grave triggered the execution of the medical students (1871) could say that Spanish soldiers, and especially volunteers, die for the [Spanish] homeland and that their memory will never be erased from our hearts.

Verses of colonialist soldiers shared this sense: In the Plaza de Matanzas/ I met a black man, he told me; Long live Cuba/and I shot him.//Because of the little confidence we have in that people,/ we Spaniards do/as blacks do to us. The book that collects them is titled Amor por la patria.

It is also a concept of homeland. It is the ethnic, racialized homeland, focused on biology, language, inheritance. The conservative homeland. The excluding homeland of improper emotion, of reason without dialogue. That of freedom as a privilege of sect.

It was the homeland committed to colonialism and then to Francoism: the peoples of America, Franco would say in 1939, are born of our same lineage, formed in the same faith, educated in our same language and therefore participants of the same culture.

It was the German homeland of Hitler and Goebbels: We are going to fight for the preservation of the existence and development of our race and our people, the food of their children and the maintenance of pure blood, freedom and the independence of the homeland.

It was the homeland of Stalinist Russification, another form of official patriotism. It is the xenophobic homeland of Trump, who shouts go back to your country to a Latina born in the Bronx.

Those homelands are daughters of despotism. Democratic patriotism does the opposite. Find the homeland where you are free.

It is patriotism that Jos Mart expressly defended: They say that the separation from Cuba would be the division of the homeland. It would be so if the homeland were that sordid and selfish idea of domination and greed. It was also that of Heredia: From my homeland/under the cloudless sky/I could not resolve to be a slave/nor consent that everything in nature/was noble and happy except man. It was also that of Villaverde, for whom the patriotism of his character Leonardo Gamboa was only platonic, since it was not based, as it should be, on the feeling of duty or on the knowledge of rights as a citizen and as a free man. It was, in the same vein, that of Calixto Garca: When you are going to be a citizen of a free people, it is necessary to respect the laws and exercise the virtues from the battlefields.

That is, patriotism is democratic when it is a political passion for freedom.

It was those cosmopolitan universal, therefore democratic ideas about the country. Such was the homeland of the Jacobins: The war we are waging is not a war between king and king or between nation and nation; it is a war of freedom against despotism. There is no doubt that we will be victorious. A just and free nation is invincible. It was Marxs idea of the workers have no homeland, of Kants cosmopolitanism, or that of Marts homeland is humanity. It was this meaning that Roberto Salas defended when he placed the flag of the July 26 Revolutionary Movement on the crown of the Statue of Liberty in New York (1957), which became a symbol of the Cuban underground revolutionary struggle.

The homeland, a common good

LMOAs recent performances with the flag are consistent with that piece of his in RyC. At that time no one questioned his status as an artist. Both are statements about the flag as a common good, about the homeland that belongs to everyone, with diverse political marks, but without ideological, class, or racial monopolies.

In any case, they should be judged as art bad art, if it were but it is a mistake to draw punitive consequences based on their perceived literal meanings. Art critics, such as David Mateo, or artists, such as Cirenaica Moreira, have brought order to the branches of that forest. More than error, it is a horror to turn art critics into criminal law judges.

There are doors that cannot be opened.

Being against LMOAs incarceration is not the same as sharing his political agenda. His work can be very interesting, or not; in bad taste or with civic substance; but thats not whats important here.

What should interest us are central questions that his case brings to the fore: how pluralism and difference are processed in Cuba, how resistance is exercised against what is experienced as unfair, what is the legitimate space to dissent, what right we have to participate in the public space, what should be the width the virtue of the patriotism that we want to defend in the homeland that we want to live.

We should also be interested in the right to dissent from the LMOA political agenda without being slandered for it. Opposition to an injustice does not justify the anything goes advocated by currents of opinion contrary to the Cuban government, and which operate with the same with me or against me that they claim to contest. We should be interested in the country being an altar stone, not a tribe.

The right to freedom of expression follows from the idea of homeland as a heroism of freedom. That right is of interest, but other rights should also be of interest to us. The preference for ownership exercised in common over private property also follows from this idea of homeland. Love for the municipality as an essential form of political life. The passion for Law, for its democratic elaboration and for its universal compliance, without selectiveness. The devotion to civil and political equality. The demand for freedom of the other as a condition of possibility of freedom itself. Fidelity and loyalty to the norms and institutions that make us free. The appreciation of pluralism. The cult of the full dignity of man. The homeland with all and for the good of all.

Note:

[1] Revolucin y Cultura, No. 2, April-June, 2016.

Originally posted here:

Homeland. Passion and democracy of national symbols in Cuba - OnCubaNews

Why we haven’t had enough of experts – The Wokingham Paper

Posted on by

I caught part of a documentary about the abolition of Capital Punishment during the week.

There were some extraordinary insights into its history, but one of the commentators on the programme raised the point that when it was abolished during the 1960s this was not due to public opinion, which was in favour of maintaining it, but rather it was down to a group of determined MPs, at a time when the public was willing to accept that the politicians knew best.

As he then went on to say, it would be very difficult to imagine this happening today.

At a time when faith in our leaders is so diminished, it is sometimes refreshing to be reminded of the calibre of people working in the background doing the real work.

On many occasions over the past few days, I have been hearing how reassured people have been by the presence of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Officer.

Maybe its the partly the grey hair, but listening to sensible, experienced and measured people, explaining their view on what is happening, giving clear advice and guidance, while openly saying that they cannot say with certainty how the coronavirus crisis will unfold, has been a source of great comfort over the past week or so.

The cynic in me does wonder whether the Prime Minister is so keen to be flanked by his two eminent Civil Servants, as even he appreciates that people need to be convinced that what he is saying is actually true and is supported by genuine experts

It does beg the question though why, up to now, our Government is so disdainful of experts, and why the Governments chief advisor has made such an objective to fill the CivilService with weirdoes and misfits.

How reassured would we be as a nation, during a time of an evolving, complicated and very real problem, if we were depending on one of these afore-mentioned weirdoes?

There are times when experience and gravitas are required, and that time seems to be now.

Similarly, in a period where questionable news sources are so prevalent, and fake news is so widespread, surely the value of BBC news be it on the television, online, or particularly, on the radio is clear for all to see, and attempting to defang or weaken the BBC seems to be yet another strategy that has not been thought through, or at the very least the opaque potential benefits may be outweighed by the unintended consequences.

Maybe the current problems will highlight how fortunate we are to enjoy the benefits brought by our long-standing institutions, such as the Civil Service and the BBC, and we may even start appreciating what we have got.

We cannot know how long this crisis will last and what the long-term implications will be, but hopefully, we shall all be doing our bit to prevent the possible spread of the coronavirus.

I was surprised to witness an exchange last week when somebody started sneezing into his hand, and when it was suggested that it may be a good idea to use a tissue and wash his hands, point blank refused to do so, and said he really didnt care if anyone else picked up something from him.

In fairness, there was a half-hearted apology a few minutes later, but it does not augur well for what may very well be a very challenging few weeks for the nation.

Excerpt from:

Why we haven't had enough of experts - The Wokingham Paper

Think tank: Next Mayor of London should focus on supply and affordability – Property Wire

Posted on by

A think tank has called on the next Mayor of London to launch a programme of affordable house building, review the green belt and develop a fair and transparent approach to setting rents.

Centre for London said housing supply is failing to keep pace with the citys growth, while housing is increasingly unaffordable to Londoners on low and modest incomes.

Policies suggested include the launching of a programme of building affordable housing using government funding or a London Housing Bond supported by housing benefit payments, which could be used to build 25,000 affordable homes a year.

Richard Brown, deputy director at Centre for London, said: Housing is Londons fundamental challenge.

High housing costs push working Londoners into poverty, makes entry-level jobs inaccessible for young people from out of town, and makes people in the rest of the UK feel alienated from their capital.

Housing is a risk for Londons status as a centre for global headquarters too, by acting as a deterrent for internationally mobile professionals.

Londons housing problem is complex and long-established. Tackling it will not involve a single solution, but a concerted campaign of action.

The next Mayor of London must work with boroughs, housing association and developers with the backing of the government to address supply, affordability, security and quality.

The other policies suggested are as follows:

Undertaking a long-term review of Londons green belt, with the aims of managing release of land to build well-connected new places, preserving Londons urban character, and enabling access to open space for Londoners. The government should permit and support such a review.

Piloting zoning-based planning for major sites, to broaden the market of developers enable wider public engagement in planning, using existing tools such as permission in principle, and lobby the government for a more comprehensive review of planning processes.

Incentivising denser development in station intensification areas and use call-in and development corporation powers to ensure that these are delivered.

Supporting Londons boroughs to build more housing, enabling inter-borough collaboration, and supporting modern construction methods like modular homes through joint buying initiatives.

The next Mayor of London should also promote affordable renting and enable home ownership, by:

Promoting longer-term tenancies with index-linked rents, and support abolition of Section 21 evictions so that rents can be challenged in tribunals. While the Mayor would depend on government support for rent controls, landlords should be encouraged to give tenants longer-term tenancies that index rent rises to inflation rates for three to five years.

Exploring personalised rents for build-to-rent and other new development. Personalised rents base rents on a proportion of household incomefollowing deductions for essential costs. This approach allows for rents to rise and fall as tenants earn more or their personal circumstances change.

Lobbying government to help private renters to buy from their landlords.

The Mayoral election will take place on 7 May 2020, with current Mayor Sadiq Khan of the Labour Party being the favourite to win a second term.

Read the rest here:

Think tank: Next Mayor of London should focus on supply and affordability - Property Wire