Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse



Just this Friday morning, the world was treated to a Trumpian Twitterstorm about his ill-considered, mismanaged trade war with China that was so profoundly dumb that it would surely have earned anyone who submitted it as a paper an F in an intro-to-economics course.

Once again he bragged about the tariffs he had imposed on China and that he had now increased them from 10 to “25% on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods & products” (the capitalizations are his…a subject for another column, perhaps one by a neuropathologist). Trump then said that the tariffs were “NOW being paid to the United States by China,” so that with the “over 100 Billion Dollars in Tariffs that we take in, we will buy agricultural products from our Great Farmers, in larger amounts than China ever did, and ship it to poor & starving countries in the form of humanitarian assistance.”

He went on to say that Tariffs will bring in FAR MORE wealth to our Country than even a phenomenal deal of the traditional kind. Also, much easier and quicker to do.” He concluded this particular tear through logic, sound economics, arithmetic and syntax with the assertion that “Tariffs will make our country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker. Just sit back and watch.”

As usual, Trump started with a lie. Higher tariffs are not now being paid to the U.S. That won’t happen for a few weeks, until goods shipped after the tariff hike make their way here.

Next, and most important, the tariffs are not being paid to the United States by China. The tariffs are being paid on Chinese goods purchased by American consumers and businesses. In other words, the money does not come from China. It comes from Americans. It is a new tax on Americans from the president who promised to cut taxes but has proven to be really bad at that too. Poorer Americans who often buy lower-priced Chinese manufactured goods such as shoes and clothes will end up being those hurt most, just as they were the ones to benefit least from the Trump-GOP tax cuts.
 


Think of it. The Russia investigation was a legitimate investigation, with a legitimate basis, into how a hostile foreign power tried to interfere with and undermine our democracy. It was in the best interests of the nation—in the interests of all Americans, no matter who ...

... they voted for—that this investigation be allowed to proceed to its rightful conclusion, without improper attempts to obstruct it, if only so that we could all know what really happened and take steps to see that it never happens again. But because ...

... you are a malignant narcissist—a person with both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders—you couldn’t view it that way. Instead of complying with your oath of office, and instead of taking stock of what was in the best interests of ...

... the nation whose Constitution and laws you swore to uphold, you viewed the matter purely in terms of your own ego: You viewed the investigation as casting doubt on what you perceive as your great election victory (in which your opponent garnered ...

... nearly three million more votes than you did), and so you took multiple steps to obstruct, and repeatedly lied about, the investigation from the outset. Even today, despite the well-founded assessments of the intelligence community, and despite the ...

... damning evidence laid out in the Mueller report, you refuse to take what the Russians did seriously. Instead, you continue to lie, calling the investigation a “hoax” and an “attempted coup,” and you didn’t even mention Russia’s ...

... conduct in your recent 90-minute conversation with Putin, the man who seeks to undermine our institutions. Put simply, you put your own perceptions of your self-interest above the national interest, which you seem unable to comprehend or respect. ...

... That is your greatest offense against the country, an offense that incorporates but vastly exceeds the statutory crimes you’ve committed. It is the ultimate high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution, and under the Framers’ wise design, ...

... it is an offense for which you should pay with your office, regardless of whether you are ultimately brought to justice in the courts of law.

Thread by @gtconway3d: "Think of it. The Russia investigation was a legitimate investigation, with a legitimate basis, into how a hostile foreign power tried to int […]"
 


National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying for the administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump’s repeated claim that the Chinese foot the bill.

In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” two days after U.S.-China trade talks https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/10/trump-defiant-trade-penalties-kick-warns-china-there-is-more-come/?utm_term=.735734bcf886 (ended) with no news of a deal, Kudlow was asked by host Chris Wallace about Trump’s claim.

“It’s not China that pays tariffs,” Wallace said. “It’s the American importers, the American companies that pay what, in effect, is a tax increase and oftentimes passes it on to U.S. consumers.”

“Fair enough,” Kudlow replied. “In fact, both sides will pay. Both sides will pay in these things.”

Pressed again by Wallace, Kudlow acknowledged that China does not actually “pay” the tariffs.

“No, but the Chinese will suffer GDP losses and so forth with respect to a diminishing export market,” he said.
 


National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying for the administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump’s repeated claim that the Chinese foot the bill.

In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” two days after U.S.-China trade talks https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/10/trump-defiant-trade-penalties-kick-warns-china-there-is-more-come/?utm_term=.735734bcf886 (ended) with no news of a deal, Kudlow was asked by host Chris Wallace about Trump’s claim.

“It’s not China that pays tariffs,” Wallace said. “It’s the American importers, the American companies that pay what, in effect, is a tax increase and oftentimes passes it on to U.S. consumers.”

“Fair enough,” Kudlow replied. “In fact, both sides will pay. Both sides will pay in these things.”

Pressed again by Wallace, Kudlow acknowledged that China does not actually “pay” the tariffs.

“No, but the Chinese will suffer GDP losses and so forth with respect to a diminishing export market,” he said.


 


This is the danger of ubiquity, it just erodes an ability to be discerning. No matter how much those with regressive, prejudiced or simply dishonest views are challenged, it is pointless if they are constantly provided a venue. It is the platform that legitimises them, not how they perform when they are on that platform.

And so forgive me if I do not join in the celebration of Andrew Neil vanquishing the American conservative personality Ben Shapiroon the BBC’s Politics Live. It was certainly fun to watch Shapiro flounder outside the comfort of the US political interview echo chamber. The video gave us such gems as Shapiro accusing Neil of being a biased left wing journalist, which tickled even Neil who laughed in genuine (and telling) mirth at the allegation. Unable to cope with Neil simply stating his own words back to him, Shapiro riposted: “I’m popular, and no one’s ever heard of you,” before terminating the interview.

His statement might sound childish, but he does have more than 2 million Twitter followers and 600,000 YouTube subscribers, and his videos rack up millions of views. According to the editor of Politics Live, Shapiro – who has said that “Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage”, whose Twitter account was checked by the https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/18/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-scoured-twitter-for-trump-right-wing-figures-before-attack/?utm_term=.dda9be79b62f (Quebec mosque gunman) 93 times in the month preceding the shooting, and who says that the majority of Muslims are radicals – was hosted on the BBC because “he has millions of followers on social media and is hugely influential, particularly among young people worldwide”.

Shapiro’s currency isn’t his ability to debate or his intellectual credentials, it is merely to be around so much that his very ubiquity becomes ersatz success. It is the tactic of others in his tribe, to build such a profile online that mainstream news organisations fall for the optical illusion and eventually give them passage to respectability. Interviews in which they are challenged, successfully or not, are part of their roadshow. They either, according to them, prove the media’s bad faith or bias, or present their exchanges as entertaining sports events after which there are losers and winners and rematches. The content of their message becomes secondary, its seriousness trivialised. ...
 


In early 2003, as a cavalry officer, I stood in front of my scout platoon at dusk after a long day preparing to deploy to Iraq. I spoke with them about the law of war and how they should treat civilians when we got into theater.

It wasn’t a long conversation, but I felt that giving clear guidance about what was acceptable — and not acceptable — was important. They should treat the civilians as they would neighbors, I told them. Soldiers take most seriously the things their leadership makes most serious.

On Monday, President Trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pardons-the-former-soldier-who-was-convicted-of-murdering-an-iraqi-prisoner/2019/05/06/158765f8-705e-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.2bcaffb75161 (pardoned) the convicted war criminal Michael Behenna, who had murdered Ali Mansur, an unarmed, naked Iraqi, by shooting him in the head and chest. Making a specious claim of self-defense, Behenna argued that Mansur threw a piece of concrete at him and “ stood up like he’s coming at me.” And so he neutralized this threat, a naked man, already released by the Army.

Behenna was supposed to be returning Mansur home to his village. A military court convicted Behenna of unpremeditated murder. American soldiers testified against him. The military court of appeals and a review panel upheld that conviction, though he was paroled early, in 2014.

Even before pardoning Behenna, Trump demonstrated a disturbing flippancy toward war crimes. He has repeatedly expressed support for former Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, another alleged war criminal. Gallagher’s own men told investigators that he had, according to the New York Times, “shot a girl in a flower-print hijab who was walking with other girls on the riverbank.” In 2017, Gallagher walked up to a 15-year-old prisoner of war and “stabbed the wounded teenager several times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him.”

He then texted images of his “kill” to friends. Even in the tightknit Special Operations community, fellow SEALs were horrified and repeatedly reported Gallagher’s behavior until charges were brought. He faces court-martial at the end of the month. Trump tweeted that Gallagher would be given better conditions in confinement “in honor of his past service,” an honor many would say he threw away long ago.

Trump has also publicly supported Maj. Matt Golsteyn, who is https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/03/08/hearing-cancelled-for-green-beret-major-facing-murder-charge-is-a-court-martial-next/ (charged with premeditated murder) in the shooting of an unarmed man and the burning of his body in Afghanistan. “I will be reviewing the case of a ‘U.S. Military hero,’ ” the president tweeted.

In at least three instances, then, our commander in chief appears to have preferred to overlook serious war crimes in favor of a warped notion of patriotism and heroism. Trump subscribes to a “bad things happen in war” mentality — odd for a man who actively avoided military service.

This attitude is incredibly dangerous. It doesn’t just undermine the enforcement of military justice; it also sends a message to our armed forces about just what kind of conduct the United States takes seriously.
 
Top