Alan: America's "Great Breakdown" is disproportionately attributable to "conservative""Christians" who no longer understand that "faith" is "faith" only when "faith" is "faith" and NOT knowledge.
By the Editors of The New England Journal Of Medicine
The percentage of Americans without health insurance climbed last year, from 7.9% (25.6 million) in 2017 to 8.5% (27.5 million) in 2018, according to new U.S. Census data.
The percentage of children aged 18 and younger without health insurance also increased, from 4.9% to 5.5%.
The New York Times reports that this is, in part, from efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
Get ready for more humanlike bots, better deep-fake videos and wall-to-wall disinformation in 2020 race
If you thought media and politics had hit a new low in the 2016 election with Russians using rubles to buy highly-targeted Facebook ads aimed at sowing racial discord in cities like Baltimore, you are really going to hate what’s in store for American voters in 2020.
That’s the word from two university reports on media, politics, disinformation and the 2020 presidential election that were released this week.
They predict:
More sophisticated deepfake videos like the one in May that purported to show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slurring her words as if drunk or ill
More humanlike bots doing their dirty work in social media as they closely mimic human behavior.
More foreign entities, most likely Iran and China, joining Russia in attempts to undermine our democracy with disinformation and propaganda
And most of all, more domestically generated disinformation fed by President Donald Trump’s re-election team, their allies at right-wing media sites and some strategic communications firms looking to make a buck off our polarized political climate and polluted information ecosystem.
One of the biggest differences between 2016 and 2020 is the fact that Trump is in the White House and now has a huge arsenal of media weapons he didn’t have in 2016 as just a candidate, according to Paul M. Barrett, author of “Disinformation and the 2020 Election: How the Social Media Industry Should Prepare.”
“The fact that the president has become the disinformation-purveyer-in-chief is hugely influential,” said Barrett, deputy director New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “He sets a tone and an example for lots of other people who now think spewing untruths is a routine and acceptable way of carrying on public discourse.”
Then this from WaPo:
This week, for example, a Washington Post report showed how even as Trump stood on the White House lawn promising a package of laws aimed at reducing gun violence, his campaign was placing highly targeted ads on Facebook warning his base that Democrats were trying to take away their Second Amendment rights. He pledged himself to defending those rights.
Better technology used to generate more misinformation is also documented in a study done by researchers at the University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute.
USC computer scientist Emilio Ferrara is lead author on a study published in the “First Monday" peer-reviewed journal that examined bot behavior in the 2016 and 2018 elections. It indicated that “bots or fake accounts enabled by artificial intelligence on Twitter have evolved and are now better able to copy human behaviors in order to avoid detection.”
If nothing else, that means there will be more disinformation, propaganda and lies spread from more fake accounts on Twitter contributing to a more confusing and toxic conversation about the candidates and issues.
USC computer scientist Emilio Ferrara is lead author on a study published in the “First Monday" peer-reviewed journal that examined bot behavior in the 2016 and 2018 elections. It indicated that “bots or fake accounts enabled by artificial intelligence on Twitter have evolved and are now better able to copy human behaviors in order to avoid detection.”
If nothing else, that means there will be more disinformation, propaganda and lies spread from more fake accounts on Twitter contributing to a more confusing and toxic conversation about the candidates and issues.
Aldous Huxley On The Disappearance Of Democracy Behind The Trappings Of Patriotism
Who knew that "from the summer of 2010 through summer of 2011, the usually unflappable Barack Obama spent long hours agonizing over the then-Harvard Law professor—so much that his aides felt it was distracting from more pressing national concerns."
When I was a teenager, my mom showed me a statement that she had received in the mail from the Social Security Administration. It included an annual history of her earnings, which showed a big string of zeros covering the years when she was in her late 20s and early 30s. “That’s you and your sister,” she explained, laughing.
My mom is doing just fine these days, but anyone who spends years as a stay-at-home parent — or an unpaid caregiver of any kind — faces a financial penalty when it comes time to retire. Our Social Security system doesn’t recognize parenting as the socially and economically valuable job that it is.
That’s not the system’s only inequity, either. It also punishes teachers, police officers, firefighters and other government employees. Their Social Security benefits are cut if their pension is large enough, unlike private-sector workers, who can keep their full Social Security benefit regardless of the size of their private pension.
Elizabeth Warren has become famous for her plans, and her latest one, out this morning, is meant to address this unfairness. It would let public-sector workers keep their full Social Security benefits and increase benefits for people who spend at least 80 hours a month as unpaid caregivers for young children, the elderly or the disabled.
The biggest part of the plan, however, is an across-the-board increase in monthly Social Security payments. Every current and future beneficiary will receive at least $200 more per month than under the current plan, and many low-income workers will receive at least $600 more.
“A generation of stagnant wages and rising costs for basics like housing, health care, education, and child care have squeezed family budgets,” Warren writes in a Medium post. “Millions of families have had to sacrifice saving for retirement just to make ends meet. At the same time, fewer people have access to the kind of pensions that used to help fund a comfortable retirement.” Her campaign also released an outside analysis, by Moody’s Analytics, which found that the plan would cut the elderly poverty rate by about two-thirds.
She would pay for the plan by increasing the payroll tax on incomes above $250,000, which are now shielded from it. As income inequality has soared in recent decades, Warren notes, the amount of the country’s total income subject to the payroll tax, which finances Social Security, has declined. She would reverse that decline.
I’ve criticized Warren and other Democrats recently for backing a couple of policies that I think are wrongheaded and unpopular (like forcing everyone to enroll in Medicare). The Social Security plan is different. I’ll want to read what others have to say about it in coming days, especially about the size of the increase, but my initial view is that this proposal is the opposite of mandatory Medicare — substantively smart and politically popular.
True, the economy has been kinder to older Americans than younger Americans in recent years (as Warren is well aware). Over all, I’d like to see federal spending become more focused on children and younger workers. But it’s also true that our high-inequality economy hasn’t been easy on most people over the age of 65. Many deserve help.
And as I’m sure you are aware, people over 65 tend to vote at very high rates.
Related: “Americans are pessimistic about the financial health of older Americans,” Kim Parker, Rich Morin and Juliana Menasce Horowitz of the Pew Research Center recently wrote. “Most say that, 30 years from now, those ages 65 and older will be less prepared for retirement than their counterparts today.”
My colleague Paul Krugman has written over the years about both the long-term finances and the politics of Social Security. “America’s overall retirement system is in big trouble,” Paul wrote in 2013. “There’s just one part of that system that’s working well: Social Security. And this suggests that we should make that program stronger, not weaker.”
If you enjoy this newsletter, forward it to friends!
They can sign up for themselves here — and they don’t need to be a Times subscriber. The newsletter is published every weekday, with help from my colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick.
Nothing new here, but it is a particularly well-stated case for taking Trump's lunacy seriously.
As Trump goes about his daily business of normalizing insanity, it is important that we don’t let ourselves become desensitized to its breadth, depth and danger.
If Thich Nhat Hanh is right, "Christian""conservatives" are sick people crying out for help.
But where do we begin with a person who is absolutely convinced s/he's "saved!" - and equally convinced that "the other guy" will spend eternity in an "Unquenchable Lake Of Fire" because God wants him to endure eternal torment? Indeed, their God designed the Universe so that torment -- without hope of relief (much less remedy) -- was built into the fabric of Creation.
Trump was elected by white, "Christian""conservatives" whose unflinching commitment to authoritarianism and "biblical literalism" predispose them to believe any damn thing - or at least to assume that their interpretation of Scripture coincides perfectly with "the will of God," which, in the end, is much the same thing... a subtle apotheosis in which a true believer's "personal will" always coincides with "God's will" - at least when it comes to views and treatment of "the other,"The Infidel.
In 2015, when Trump launched his campaign on a foundation of "birtherism," then "making up" whatever fictions were politically convenient, "Christian""conservatives" saw in him an authoritarian Strong Man who validated their own fictions, a man who welcomed their bigotry and prejudice, simultaneously encouraging them to fabricate all manner of cruel, uncharitable maliciousness about dark-skinned "sons-of-bitches" and women whom he called "pigs" and "dogs," constantly assuring "good Christians" that these fabrications were not just normal but virtuous: indeed Trump's persistent malice was "God's Truth." "Love one's enemies?" Suddenly, vengeance, retaliation and spite were "The Holy Trinity" of Trump's "New World Order."
What's more, Trump's boot-licking cultists could only qualify as "true believers" by being enraged at dark-skinned evil-doers -- whom stronzo himself identified as terrorists, thieves rapists and vermin -- "bad hombres" who were "ripping them off" and "depriving them of their happiness."
Illegal Immigrants Commit Crime At A Considerably Lower Rate Than Trump's Inner Sanctum
Here we are three years later, with the sickest segment of American society conceiving Trump -- an ostensibly "successful" and demonstrably wealthy man -- as The Champion in whose crazed image "the faithful" saw themselves exalted by a solipsistic con man who "won them over" by re-defining their sickness as normalcy.
filmed in Scotland where Trump presumed he could push around an entire native community whose ancestors lived in that place for hundreds if not thousands of years.
What if "Conservative" Christians' supposed salvation IS damnation?
I define "damnation" as "perdition" which literally means "lostness."
"Conservative""Christians" hide behind ardent proclamations of "Christian Witness" because the feel that their fervor justifies the following: "Surely, anyone as passionate as I am about proclaiming "Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior" is among The Saved."
Don't bet on it pal.
Best Pax Posts About Trump's Cruelty, Mendacity And Seduction Of "Conservative""Christians"
Excerpt:"Even in Texas, long an electoral pipe dream for Democrats that is suddenly being taken more seriously as a possible target for the challengers, a new survey found Trump polling behind not only Joe Biden (who typically fares the best against Trump in hypothetical head-to-heads) but Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris too."
What Trump’s horrific polling actually tells us — and what it doesn’t — about 2020
Trump keeps polling really badly against all the major 2020 Dems.
Democratic voters might rejoice at these signs that Trump will be a one-term president. But they should temper themselves: Hillary Clinton was regularly leading Trump by 10 points or more a year ahead of the 2016 election. Polls taken 14 months before an election are simply not predictive. Too much can happen and sentiments can change when the race becomes one specific Democrat running against one specific Republican.
We also shouldn’t read too much, pollsters and political handicappers say, into the variations in how different Democrats fare against Trump in these polls. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders might enjoy the biggest margins simply because they have the highest name ID among the 2020 Democratic field. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they would wallop Trump whereas Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg would struggle. It might just mean fewer Americans have heard of them.
But we can still learn something from these surveys. Their message is pretty simple: Trump looks weak. The president is lagging in the low 40s in head-to-head polls, consistent with his stubbornly low approval ratings. A lot of Americans seem to be fully committed to or are actively considering voting for somebody else. That’s not where the incumbent, after three years in office, should be if they want a second term.
The latest hypothetical 2020 general election polling you should know about
Even in Texas, long an electoral pipe dream for Democrats that is suddenly being taken more seriously as a possible target for the challengers, a new survey found Trump polling behind not only Joe Biden (who typically fares the best against Trump in hypothetical head-to-heads) but Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris too.
These were the latest numbers in Texas from Latino Decisions, North Star Opinion Research, and the University of Houston:
Joe Biden 47 percent, Donald Trump 43 percent
Bernie Sanders 48 percent, Donald Trump 42 percent
Elizabeth Warren 44 percent, Donald Trump 42 percent
Kamala Harris 45 percent, Donald Trump 44 percent
Cory Booker 43 percent, Donald Trump 41 percent
Julián Castro 44 percent, Donald Trump 41 percent
The real story is in the second half of the column, with Donald Trump stuck between 41 and 44 percent in Texas. Head-to-head polling from the Washington Post and ABC News, fresh off the presses, tells a similar story at the national level among registered voters:
Joe Biden 55 percent, Donald Trump 40 percent
Bernie Sanders 52 percent, Donald Trump 43 percent
Elizabeth Warren 51 percent, Donald Trump 44 percent
Kamala Harris 50 percent, Donald Trump 43 percent
Pete Buttigieg 47 percent, Donald Trump 43 percent
Once again, the president doesn’t breach even 45 percent against any of his potential Democratic opponents.
It would be tempting to look at this poll and try to parse some meaning from the marginal differences between the Democratic candidates. Are Biden and Sanders the most electable or just the best known? Does Harris have the shakiest case for her one-on-one viability against Trump?
What these polls actually tell us: Trump is in a weak position
The Democratic primary has been fixated on the idea of electability, but several different pollsters and handicappers — Democratic and unaffiliated — told me not to over-read the differences between how the various candidates fare against Trump in these polls.
“The results tell us a lot more about Trump’s vulnerability than it shows the strength of the different Democratic candidates relative to each other,” one pollster working with a 2020 campaign said.
Trump has time to turn it around, but he doesn’t appear in nearly as good a position for reelection as the last two presidents who won second terms.
CNN Poll: Six in 10 Americans say Trump doesn't deserve a second term. Fewer said the same of Obama or George W. Bush at the same stage of their presidencies. https://cnn.it/2NVaDEM
There are other warning bells if you look a little deeper than the head-to-head numbers.
“Trump sometimes runs a little bit behind his approval rating in some of these polls, which is an ominous sign for a president who was so reliant on voters who disliked both him and Clinton backing him,” Kyle Kondik, managing editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, told me.
Presidential approval ratings have always been strongly linked to voting behavior. Here is the RealClearPolitics average of the president’s approval rating, from the start of his presidency to now:
Trump has been consistently unpopular throughout his first two years. So far, at his best, he was 7 points more unpopular than popular. A recent uptick has swiftly eroded. And as Vox’s Ezra Klein wrote last summer, this has been in defiance of a relatively solid economy:
“Trump’s poll numbers are probably 20 points below where a president would typically be with consumer sentiment as high as it is now,” says John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University who has done work benchmarking presidential approval to economic indicators.
So here, then, is what we can say: Judged on the economy, which is the traditional driver of presidential approval, Donald Trump’s poll numbers should be much, much higher than they are now. Far from finding a winning strategy, he seems to have found a losing one despite holding a winning hand.
And this is the key for Trump and why his standing with voters seems so perilous. Trump beat Clinton among voters who dislike both candidates by a striking margin: 50 percent of those voters backed Trump versus 39 percent going for Clinton, according to CNN. But he can’t depend on the same luck this time around, when the election is more likely to serve as a referendum on his first term.
If Trump isn’t winning people over then his path to victory becomes incredibly narrow. His low approval rating paired with this poor showing in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups suggest he isn’t.
I swear to God something is wrong with these people.
What if “salvation” as construed by “Christian” “conservatives” is actually a form of damnation? (I use the word “damnation” in the sense of “perdition” whose most accurate translation is “lostess.”
Now you are doing what you accuse me of. Assumptions.
Never blamed Dems for all problems in the government or because of the government. I commonly rail against both parties.
The politician in general is a problem.
But for this specific issue the Dems have a narrative that is being put forth and I feel it's false and mis-leading. Thus the article.
The irony is there are countless videos of both Clinton and Obama saying the exact same thing Trump has said about immigration.
The only difference is in how it's portrayed to the public.
Would I have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraqi after 911? Nope.
The 2008 crash was both Bush and Obama. I think they share equally.
I happen to think Bush 43 was a poor president.
I think he's cost a lot lives for nothing that couldn't have been accomplished a different way.
Your right, Repubs had their chance for the wall and they blew it.
All good examples of a failure of leadership and failure to compromise as an entire entity.
That's how I view the government.
As a singular entity. I already answered the question about what would I do for my family in the situation you mentioned.
You damn right I'd try to go to the US.
Don't blame those folks at all. But it's not the issue.
The issue is what best for this country.
I understand your desire to help every person. But it's not realistically possible.
Just like you don't let 25 homeless drug addicts live in your house.
What about the other 100,000 still on the streets?.
You have a limit of what you can do.
Lastly, please note that I answered each of your points.
Something you rarely do. No answer to "what do you want?" (for immigration)
Open borders or controlled?
Where do you stand?
I can assume based on previous post and statements, but you don't really like my assumptions.
So I put forth my point of and what I think in the hopes that you will do the same.
So what are your solutions to the problems you raise?
I'm curious to hear.
Alan: I would like to see slow, milestone-tested “phase-in” of a hemispheric union modeled — roughly — on the European Union.
Then, in 30 to 50 years, I would like to see “our” hemispheric union federate with the European Union.
By my lights, this combined “presence”/market is the only way the west can maintain anything like "equal footing" with China which, otherwise, will “blow us out of the water.”
American-style, go-it-alone “rugged individualism” is no longer up to the task.
Instead, "rugged individualism" will prove itself to be a recipe for future decrepitude.
Alan: The population of China is more twice the population the United States and the European Union - together!
To Compete With China, The United States Should Promote A "Hemispheric Federation"
Alan: Steve's view in no way constitutes proof, but the many pieces of Kavanaugh's puzzle make quite clear that the man is a self-seeking liar who quite likely was a serial sex offender.
If you were talking directly with God and He said to you: "Do you think all these women are lying?"... what would you answer? Even more pointedly, what would you answer if your "eternal salvation" depended on an honest response?
Alan: Trump apologists argue details (mostly so they can make you lose sight of the forest for the trees).
Jimmy points to bedrock principles.
By these measures, Trump’s arrogance and unrelenting mendacity reveal his essential failure - both as a human being and as a "leader" of the Amercan people.