US election 2020: The race to take on Trump enters crucial phase

Election season is getting under way and the race to become the Democratic challenger to Donald Trump is hotting up.

Last summer, there were nearly 30 serious candidates vying for the attention of the party's supporters, but fewer than a dozen are still standing.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are the relatively well-known frontrunners, but some of the chasing pack were mostly unknown outside the Washington DC bubble before running.

The group features the usual mix of seasoned politicians, but it also includes a couple of billionaires, two military veterans and a tech entrepreneur.

Here's our rundown of the candidates left in the race, with a take from the BBC's Anthony Zurcher on each.

Who are they? What are their key issues? What's their secret weapon against President Trump? We've got it all covered.

Who will take on Trump in 2020?

For further analysis and a breakdown of the candidates:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47309795

Capitalism Gone Awry??

My short, albeit “biased” question:

What kind of greedy bastard (or bitch… I’m an Equal Opportunity Employer ;) has a problem with Elizabeth Warren’s “wealth tax” of 2-cents on the dollar for earnings starting over the $50,000,000 mark, per year? (That’s millions, in case you got lost in the zeros.)

Seriously, explain that kind of greed to my curious mind. Thank you.

Trump's Revenge

As noted here a couple of days ago, now that the impeachment is over, the president can turn to important matters such as extracting revenge against people who testified in the House impeachment proceedings and slandering and attacking political opposition and the press. The tyrant kleptocrat wannabe, corrupt-liar Trump, is now free to flex his muscle and wreak his vengeance. In this, he will be aided and abetted by the silence and complicity of the corrupt, spineless GOP in congress.

Major reliable news outlets are reporting that the president has removed two people in revenge for their testimony in the House. An AP article, Payback: Trump ousts officials who testified on impeachment, reports:

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Exacting swift punishment against those who crossed him, an emboldened President Donald Trump ousted two government officials who had delivered damaging testimony against him during his impeachment hearings. The president took retribution just two days after his acquittal by the Senate.

First came news Friday that Trump had ousted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the decorated soldier and national security aide who played a central role in the Democrats’ impeachment case. Vindman’s lawyer said his client was escorted out of the White House complex Friday, told to leave in retaliation for ‘telling the truth.’ ‘The truth has cost Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy,’ attorney David Pressman said in a statement. Vindman’s twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, also was asked to leave his job as a White House lawyer on Friday, the Army said in a statement. Both men were reassigned to the Army.

Next came word that Gordon Sondland, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, also was out. ‘I was advised today that the President intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,’ Sondland said in a statement. The White House had not been coy about whether Trump would retaliate against those he viewed as foes in the impeachment drama. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Thursday that Trump was glad it was over and ‘maybe people should pay for that.’

Alexander Vindman’s lawyer issued a one-page statement that accused Trump of taking revenge on his client. ‘He did what any member of our military is charged with doing every day: he followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country, even when doing so was fraught with danger and personal peril,’ Pressman said. ‘And for that, the most powerful man in the world — buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit — has decided to exact revenge.’

News that both Vindman twins had been ousted led Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., to tweet, ‘The White House is running a two for one special today on deep state leakers.’”

Honesty and truth are under open, direct attack 

The obvious here bears saying it clearly: The president will fire or get rid of you if you work for him but are honest and tell truths he does not want told. That means that the president wants his people to lie for him when he sees it in his personal interest. This is more evidence of the president’s hostility toward inconvenient or embarrassing facts, truths and logic. This deeply immoral aspect of our president cannot be much clearer.

And it is true that he and his hate and rage filled mind has been buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit, including immoral people like Paul Gosar.

Constitutional Rot vs. Constitutional Crisis

Uncle Fester: Dementia, what a beautiful name. 
Dementia: It means “insanity.” 
Uncle Fester: My name is Fester. It means “to rot.”


Constitutional scholar Jack Balkin (Professor, Yale Law School) wrote a short chapter for the 2018 book Constitutional Democracy in Crisis?, edited by Mark A, Graber et al. Balkin’s chapter 2, Constitutional Crisis and Constitutional Rot, explains the difference between the two concepts. The topic is timely because many people are concerned that the US is in or near a constitutional crisis in view of President Trump’s institutionally corrosive and socially divisive rhetoric and actions. Constitutional rot is a concept that most people are not aware of, while constitutional crisis is mostly misunderstood. Knowing the difference helps put America’s political situation in much better context.

Constitutional crisis defined: Balkin and another scholar Sanford Levinson, have described what a constitutional crisis (CC) is and is not in a constitutional democracy. That is summarized in Balkin’s chapter 2. There are three different kinds of CC. The Type One CC occurs when politicians and/or military officials announce they will not obey the constitution any more. That can happen when politicians and/or military officials refuse to obey a court order. Once refusal to adhere to constitutional rules has occurred, the constitution has failed.

The Type Two CC occurs when the constitution prevents political actors from trying to prevent an impending disaster. This is rare because the courts tend to find ways to allow political actors to avoid disasters. The Type Three CC occurs when many people refuse to obey the constitution. In these scenarios, there can be street riots, or, states or regions try to secede from the nation. This involves "situations where publicly articulated disagreements about the constitution lead political actors to engage in extraordinary forms of protest beyond mere legal disagreements and political protests: people take to the streets, armies mobilize, and brute force is used or threatened in order to prevail."

Balkin goes on to argue that most time when the term CC is used, it is hyperbole. Constitutions rarely break down.

Constitutional rot (CR): By contrast with a CC, CR arises when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball and fair political competition comes under attack. We are seeing this now. For example, it was constitutional hardball by Mitch McConnell to ignore President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. In CR, politicians favor short-term political gains over long-term damage to the constitutional system. As CR progresses, the political system becomes less democratic. State power becomes less accountable and less responsive to the public, while politicians become more beholden to backers who keep them in power. In essence, the country drifts into oligarchy.

While that is happening, the public loses trust in government and the political system because they have been abandoned: “When constitutional rot becomes advanced, and the public’s trust in government is thoroughly undermined, people turn to demagogues who flatter the public and who stoke division, anger and resentment. Demagogues promise they will restore lost glories and make everything right again. They divert the public’s attention to enemies and scapegoats within and without the republic. They divide the public in order to conquer it. They play on people’s fears of loss of status. They use divisive rhetoric to distract attention, maintain a loyal set of followers, and keep themselves in power. There are always potential demagogues in a republic, but healthy republics restrain their emergence and ascension. When demagogues manage to take power and lead the nation, however, CR has become serious indeed.”

Does any of that sound familiar?

The four horsemen of CR: Balkin describes the four horsemen of CR as (1) loss of trust in government and fellow citizens, (2) polarization that leads to people seeing fellow citizens as enemies of the state[1], (3) increasing economic inequality which foments anger, resentment and a search for scapegoats, and (4) policy disasters such as the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, which undermine public trust in political leadership and constitutional governance. He argues that each one of these tends to feed into the one or more of the other factors. For example, polarization deflects public attention to symbolic and zero-sum conflicts, which allows wealthy interests to entrench their power and foster oligarchy. In turn, that tends to undermine public faith in a government that is drifting away from them and their interests. Rot begets more rot.

Balkin sees hardball politics and attendant destruction of norms of fair politics as leading to “a gradual descent into authoritarian or autocratic politics.”

Regarding our current situation, Balkin sees it like this: “The United States is not currently in a period of constitutional crisis. But for some time--at least since the 1990s--it has been in a period of increasing constitutional rot. The election of a demagogue such as Trump is further evidence that our institutions have decayed, and judging by his presidential campaign and his first year in office, Trump promises to accelerate the corruption.”

It sounds like we are in for more CR and maybe even a deep descent into corrupt, anti-democratic authoritarian politics ad full-blown CC. How gradual the process may be and how far it might go are matters open for debate. It appears to me that the process is moving rather crisply toward a nasty CC, but that is just one person’s opinion.


Footnote:
1. As discussed here before, a January 2018 survey of experts ranked the president as least great of all US presidents, but more importantly for this discussion, they ranked him as the most polarizing.

B&B orig: 5/24/19; DP orig 6/3/19

Getting rid of online comments doesn’t mean the end of dialogue.

 But it does mean the start of civility.

Capital-Star Opinion contributor Lloyd E. Sheaffer, a retired English and Humanities teacher:

https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/getting-rid-of-online-comments-doesnt-mean-the-end-of-dialogue-but-it-does-mean-the-start-of-civility-lloyd-e-sheaffer/

“This behavior is a common precursor to socialism/communism.” (AmericanOne)  “Without the comments, how are we ever going to learn the truth?” (Clinocchio)   “Silencing the masses and censoring the intelligent. I’m shocked.”  (Swampman32) 

These are just three of the nearly 900 comments to the announcement that the local news site pennlive.com is discontinuing comments on its website.

“One of the biggest flashpoints for controversy in PennLive’s 20-plus-year history hasn’t been the news. It’s been the comments. Despite the invested time, money and effort, it’s also failed to dampen a pervasive tone of incivility and mean-spiritedness,” Cate Barron, the vice president of content at PA Media Group, PennLive’s parent company explained.

I know what she means.

Prior to being invited to share my musings for the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, my opinion pieces were posted monthly on Pennlive.com and published in The Patriot-News for over six years.

The Capital-Star’s Editor, John L. Micek, then PennLive’s opinion editor, asked me to submit a monthly column, one that reflected my views on matters of social importance.

He sought a community voice to spur conversation and thought. During those years I wrote about, among other matters, school and other academic topics; I expressed myself on the terrific care I received in local hospital after emergency surgery; I spoke against charter and home schooling; I called for citizens to elect servant leaders rather than career politicians and demagogues. Never were my perspectives malicious or designed to engender controversy.

But then came the comments. For instance, I was labeled a Communist (of course) more than a few times. I was accused of never having had a real job because I was a public school teacher. Contrarily, one commenter claimed I knew nothing about public schools and should keep my opinions to myself; in that instance I did break my rule about not replying to anonymous comments and responded that, per my printed bio, I had taught for 33 years in a public high school.

So much for Micek’s hope for thoughtful conversation. Incivility and mean-spiritedness became de rigueur for those posting under daft noms de guerre instead of their real names.

The comments became more vitriolic when my columns took on a more political tone as I wrote about the current narcissistic, fact-challenged president and his policies that grated against my personal values. His minions responded with predictable acrimony. Boorishness reigned from the right, reactionary remarks that academic studies had already predicted would occur.

A study about incivility in online discussions notes, “Our findings also show that these effects [what social scientists have labeled “nasty effects”] are strongest for those who hold strong conservative ideological viewpoints. Thus, our study points to the increased polarization that can occur along existing divisions in society when incivility is present in online comments.”

The effects of online incivility spread beyond the world of digital trolls and flamers.

From a New York Times article on the decreased civility in our nation come these findings: “Unfortunately, we’ve seen a decline in civility and an uptick in incivility,” said Christine Porath, a Georgetown University professor and author of “Mastering Civility,” a book on behavior in the workplace.

“It seems like people are not only reciprocating, but we tend to stoop lower rather than higher. It’s really putting us in an unfortunate place,” Porath said the current harsh climate was affecting people beyond politics, injecting itself into everyday life at home and work. ‘We know that incivility is contagious,” she said. ‘It’s like a bug or virus. It’s not only when people experience incivility, it’s when they see or read about it.”

It seems, then, that the decision to end online comments being made by news sites across the nation might add to the greater health and well-being of their communities and beyond.

Another article about social media and incivility reports, “Civil discourse is a key to a healthy democracy,” said Pam Jenkins, president of Weber Shandwick Global Public Affairs. “The public has identified our civility problem, and it is now up to all of us to encourage the solutions that will make our government and society work better.” The authors offer some suggestions how to encourage more civility in these uncivil times:

• Parents teaching civility to their children
• Making an effort to be civil when treated uncivilly
• Encouraging family, friends and coworkers to be civil
• Voting for political leaders who behave in a civil way
• Committing to one act of civility – say or do something nice – regularly
• Speaking up against, or doing something about, incivility

One point I want to emphasize about this entire issue is that in no case is anyone discouraging genuine, productive discussion or sincere discourse among those with opposing views.

In fact, news sites such as pennlive.com continue to offer numerous ways to for readers to comment on articles and op-eds.

For instance, Barron writes in her article, “Despite this major change, we want to emphasize that we remain eager for your feedback — now more than ever. Readers will still be able to comment on the many stories we post daily on Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms. As always, you can click the byline on any story to email that reporter.”

Micek shares a similar position.

“The Pennsylvania Capital-Star is always open to hearing from its readers. They can reach out to us on our Twitter and Facebook pages, as well as through email,” he told me. “Our parent organization, The States Newsroom Project, made the decision late last year to shutdown online commenting on our articles and commentary pieces. The commenting environment had not only become excessively vitriolic, it was also prone to chronic spam. And because our newsrooms are so small, it was not a productive use of time our effort to moderate offensive posts and to clean out the junk comments. In our year of existence, we’ve loved interacting with readers and supporters across Pennsylvania, and our door is always open to them.”

In my classroom years I always encouraged my students to share diverse ideas, to challenge each others’ views, to consider objectively the value of opposing perceptions. They grew intellectually, and sometimes emotionally or socially, through these respectful exchanges. I am sad that so many of our children and youth are being exposed to rancor and animosity instead of courtesy and graciousness.

Let us all work to exchange ideas and debate important issues with comity rather than hostility.

We can — and must — do better.

Facts About Trump and His Presidency

Now that the impeachment is over, the president can get to the important stuff, like firing the people who testified in the House hearings or said dumb things like, yeah there was a quid pro quo you fool, get over it. One can also expect the stream of lies, unwarranted emotional manipulation and incoherence to continue with vigor and enthusiasm. In other words, fake reality is going to get even faker. It's time for some epistemology about reality and important related whatnot. Let’s start with deeply confused concepts like facts, truths and logic as opposed to lies, deceit, BS, untruths and motivated reasoning, a/k/a/, flawed logic. Pictures are always popular, so here’s one:

An epistemological definition of knowledge

We can reasonably expect the rhetoric that will flow from the president, his charming minions and many or most of his rank and file supporters will be some combination of lies of commission and/or omission, BS, false beliefs and emotional manipulation. Most of that, say about 95%, will not be in the scope of the truth or knowledge circles.

In a recent exchange with a Trump supporter, I pointed out some of what I saw as some of the  negative aspects of the president or what he has done so far. I mentioned things like lots of added federal Trump debt, a society torn apart and full of unfounded hate, rage and bigotry, a stock market reflects the irrational exuberance that the trickle up of wealth to the top has fomented, an economy based on wanton pollution, deep corruption and/or disregard for the massive damage to democracy and the rule of law, the rise of some sort of kleptocratic tyranny, and disregard for America's fading infrastructure.

In response the Trump supporter responded with things that all fell outside truth and knowledge circles. For example, supporter asserted the falsehoods that (i) America today is just as torn apart as it was under Obama, and (ii) race relations have improved dramatically under Trump. Other whoppers raised in defense of Trump were false assertions that (i) income gains under Trump have favored the poor twice as much as they have favored the rich, (ii) EPA rules under Trump are the same under Obama, (iii) the corruption comes from the Dems in the bogus impeachment and the Deep State in trying to oust Trump, (iv) Mueller exonerated Trump, and (v) the only kleptocracy is from Obama and the Bidens, i.e., “the entire family.” Also a whopper, was the assertion that Obama was responsible for America’s bad infrastructure. All of those fake reality assertions can be shown to be false and/or logical fallacies.

I was flabbergasted and discombobulated at the sheer incorrectness of the false assertions and the incoherence of whatever logic was rummaging around in that poor person's confused mind. Nonetheless, this is what passes for facts, truths and logic in Trumplandia. I just didn't want to spend the time looking all the sources up to show that confused mind all the fact, truth and logic errors its beliefs were based on. That takes a lot of time. It also unfairly shifts the burden of proof to minds better grounded in facts, truths and logic.

THE EPIPHANY!!

Then, out of nowhere, both of Germaine’s neurons fired at the same time and an idea was hatched. My thinking was something like this: “Self, this is nuts. I can't keep just keep going out to look for the evidence that shows Trumplandia is a construct built on fake facts, alt-reality and deranged logic. I will put all the evidence together in one happy post so that when some Trumplandia pops up, I can just provide the link to this OP with links to real facts, reality and logic.”

And that, gentle reader, is what this OP starts to do. I'll add to this OP over time to have a fact, truth and logic basis for responding to at least the fairly common Trumplandia blither, numb nuttery and Tomfoolery that is raised in defense of the president.

Request for help: If anyone has a link to reliable info that would help provide a basis to respond to build a fact, truth and logic compendium for the whole world to refer to, feel free to put it in a comment. Also, if I get something wrong, let me know and I'll fix it. If you have a topic that should be included, let me know. At least for now, this is organized by source of Trumplandia nuttery, e.g., deceit and lies or social division and discord. Over time this could get to be pretty long, but whatever. As the philosopher Popeye says, I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.

THE TRUMPLANDIA ANTIDOTE COMPENDIUM

Deceit and lying to the public

Facts: As of Dec. 10, his 1,055th day in office, Trump had made 15,413 false or misleading claims, according to the Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement he has uttered. That’s an average of more than 32 claims a day since our last update 62 days ago. 12/16/19

The Fact Checker has evaluated false statements President Trump has made repeatedly and analyzed how often he reiterates them. The claims included here – which we're calling "Bottomless Pinocchios" – are limited to ones that he has repeated 20 times and were rated as Three or Four Pinocchios by the Fact Checker. 1/19/20

President Trump’s State of the Union speech once again was chock-full of stretched facts and dubious figures. Many of these claims have been fact-checked repeatedly, yet the president persists in using them. Here, in the order in which he made them, are 31 statements by the president. 2/4/20

WASHINGTON (AP) — Exacting swift punishment against those who crossed him, an emboldened President Donald Trump ousted two government officials who had delivered damaging testimony against him during his impeachment hearings. The president took retribution just two days after his acquittal by the Senate. First came news Friday that Trump had ousted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the decorated soldier and national security aide who played a central role in the Democrats’ impeachment case. Vindman’s lawyer said his client was escorted out of the White House complex Friday, told to leave in retaliation for ‘telling the truth.’ ‘The truth has cost Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman his job, his career, and his privacy,’ attorney David Pressman said in a statement. Vindman’s twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, also was asked to leave his job as a White House lawyer on Friday, the Army said in a statement. Both men were reassigned to the Army. 2/6/20

Trump's affinity for lies was known before the 

November 2016 election

Logic, truths & opinions-beliefs: Not only does the president make thousands of false or misleading statements, he refuses to correct his statements when the facts and logic are pointed out. From that, one can logically conclude that the president is a chronic liar. He cannot logically be given the benefit of any doubt that his statements are just mistakes in view of the sheer number of them, and his refusal to correct any of them. There is nothing mistaken in refusal to correct mistakes. Because he fires people around him who tell truths he does not want told, logic also supports a belief that the president has no concern over inconvenient facts, truths and logic. He simply ignores, denies or distorts whatever he wants that he judges to be inconvenient for himself. In view of the facts, one can reasonably conclude that there is no objective basis to believe anything the president says about himself, his private business dealings or his actions or rhetoric while in office. His determined efforts to hide truths, e.g., his tax returns, add to the evidence that the president is hostile to inconvenient facts, truths and logic, most likely because he has a lot to hide.

Trumplandia defenses: Common defenses (i) simply deny that the president lies, (ii) claim he doesn’t lie more than other politicians (as if that justifies any elected politician’s lies), (iii) claim the fact checkers are liars, socialists and/or democrats out to smear the president, or (iv) claim that his false statements are just exaggerations, not lies. The facts contradict all of those assertions. There is no significant evidence that undermines all of the objective evidence of the president's false and misleading statements. Exaggerations, often a mix of fact and lies or untruths, are intended to deceive or mislead, and can thus logically be considered as lies.

“” ‘’

Social division and discord

Facts: Social relations: The 2018 Presidential Greatness Survey by people who are expert in presidents and presidential politics ranked President Trump (1) last in terms of greatness, and (2) highest in terms of being polarizing and divisive. Jan. 2018

Three years ago, Pew Research Center found that the 2016 presidential campaign was “unfolding against a backdrop of intense partisan division and animosity.” Today, the level of division and animosity – including negative sentiments among partisans toward the members of the opposing party – has only deepened. 10/10/19

Race relations: An overwhelming majority of black voters — 85 percent — said in a new Hill-HarrisX poll that they would choose any Democratic presidential candidate over President Trump. The survey, which was released on Monday, found this sentiment to be particularly true among black voters along partisan lines. 10/7/19

Even before President Donald Trump’s racist tweets toward four Democratic congresswomen of color, Americans considered race relations in the United States to be generally bad — and said that Trump has been making them worse. .... And Americans think Trump is contributing to the problem. A Pew Research Center poll earlier this year showed 56% of Americans saying Trump has made race relations worse. 7/16/19

Logic, truths & opinions: The fact evidence supports a logical conclusion that


Trumplandia defenses: The president’s supporters claim that social and race relations have improved under Trump, reversing an alleged trend set by the divisive racist Barack Obama. Poll data does show that social and racial divisions increased under both Bush and Obama, with the trend continuing under the polarizing Trump.

’

Health care malarkey

Facts:


Logic, truths & opinions:


Trumplandia defenses: 

Attacks on science

Facts: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/climate/trump-alabama-sharpie-hurricane.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/climate/rod-schoonover-testimony.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/climate/epa-scientists.html


Logic, truths & opinions:


Trumplandia defenses: 

Wealth trickle up

Facts: 



Logic, truths & opinions:


Trumplandia defenses: 

Booming economy

Facts: 



Logic, truths & opinions:


Trumplandia defenses: 

Pollution & environment

Facts: A New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources, counts more than 90 environmental rules and regulations rolled back under Mr. Trump. Our list represents two types of policy changes: rules that were officially reversed and rollbacks still in progress. .... In some cases, the administration has failed to provide a strong legal argument in favor of proposed changes and agencies have skipped key steps in the rulemaking process, like notifying the public and asking for comment. In several cases, courts have ordered agencies to enforce their own rules. updated 12/21/19

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations, overriding protests from scientists and physicians who say the new rule would undermine the scientific underpinnings of government policymaking. .... “This means the E.P.A. can justify rolling back rules or failing to update rules based on the best information to protect public health and the environment, which means more dirty air and more premature deaths,” said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association. .... When gathering data for their research, known as the Six Cities study, scientists signed confidentiality agreements to track the private medical and occupational histories of more than 22,000 people in six cities. They combined that personal data with home air-quality data to study the link between chronic exposure to air pollution and mortality. .... But the fossil fuel industry and some Republican lawmakers have long criticized the analysis and a similar study by the American Cancer Society, saying the underlying data sets of both were never made public, preventing independent analysis of the conclusions. 11/11/19


Logic, truths & opinions:


Trumplandia defenses: 

The Mueller Report - Obstruction of Justice

Facts: The key question is how Robert Mueller and his team assessed the three elements “common to most of the relevant statutes” relating to obstruction of justice: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. As Mueller describes, the special counsel’s office “gathered evidence … relevant to the elements of those crimes and analyzed them within an elements framework—while refraining from reaching ultimate conclusions about whether crimes were committed,” because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)’s guidelines against the indictment of a sitting president. 4/21/19

Logic, truths & opinions:



Trumplandia defenses: 

Federal debt

Facts: x




Logic, truths & opinions:



Trumplandia defenses: 

“” ‘’