SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 11:55:22 AM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
pocotrader
sylvester80

  Respond to of 1578501
 
Nah, YOU pro-fascists are the fascists.



To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 11:59:59 AM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
pocotrader
rdkflorida2

  Respond to of 1578501
 
The Broken Windows Presidency
Republican acquiescence to Trump’s low-level disorder invited more heinous corruption and lawlessness.

by MONA CHAREN

SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 5:33 AM


(Shutterstock)

President Trump is a broken windows president.

Let me explain. In 1982, the Atlantic published an article that became legendary in conservative circles. Authored by George Kelling and the late James Q. Wilson, “Broken Windows” argued for better community policing, specifically for a return to foot patrols as opposed to police patrolling neighborhoods in their cars. The presence of police walking a beat, they urged, tended to reduce the quality of life crimes that degrade city life—public urination, aggressive panhandling, turnstile jumping. “Disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked,” they wrote. “Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken.”

For the better part of two decades, “broken windows policing” was credited with the sharp drop in crime the nation experienced starting in the 1990s. That may or may not have been justified; the drop in crime has yet to be fully explained. And the term itself has been stretched to cover a multiplicity of law enforcement tactics unapproved by the authors. George Kelling told Frontline in 2016 that when he hears that a particular city or police chief is going to adopt a “broken windows” approach, his first reaction is “Oh s—.”

Whatever the problems of implementation may have been with broken windows policing, the insight on which it was based—that disorder begets more disorder—seemed sound, particularly to conservatives who are temperamentally more sensitive to disruptions of order than liberals. If drug dealers are able to ply their trade unmolested on street corners and drunks are sleeping in vestibules, it’s an invitation to more serious breakdowns of public order.

Oddly, conservatives seem not to have applied this insight to Donald Trump, who from the moment he entered the fray, has been hurling rocks through windows. He smashed the window that required candidates to provide their tax returns. He lobbed a brick through the norm that American public figures do not encourage vigilantism. He demolished the principle that American presidents don’t dangle pardons before former aides caught in criminal activity. Each and every time he has violated a law or a norm and received no pushback from his party, he has made further violations of law and custom more likely.

Though it was hardly the most egregious infraction during his tenure, Trump used the White House as a political platform for the Republican National Convention. This violates the Hatch Act, originally titled “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities,” which forbids most executive branch officials from engaging in political activity during their working hours.While the president and vice president are exempt, other executive branch officials who had to participate in staging the events at the White House were covered. The administration is openly contemptuous of the Hatch Act. When Kellyanne Conway was rebuked by the Office of Special Counsel for numerous violations, her reply was, “Blah, blah, blah. Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”

When the president first floated the idea of holding the convention at the White House, a couple of Republican senators demurred. Senator John Thune, the majority whip, said “I think anything you do on federal property would seem to be problematic.” And Senator John Cornyn used nearly identical language: “I would have to have somebody show me where it says he could do that. I would think on government property would be problematic.”

But then Trump went ahead and did it and they were heard no more. They were probably seated on the White House lawn when Trump delivered his Castro-length acceptance speech. Mark Meadows, the insouciant White House chief of staff, didn’t bother to deny the violation. “Nobody outside the beltway really cares.” Sound familiar? Of course. During the original reporting of Trump’s extortionate demands on Ukraine, Axios asked Senator Lindsay Graham whether he could envision any circumstances under which he would vote to convict Trump. “Sure,” he said, “Show me something that is a crime. If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.” But when the evidence was forthcoming, Graham was not. Like every other Republican except Mitt Romney, he let it go.

And because the Republican party elites have overlooked so many violations of law and custom, the transgressions have become more flagrant. The morning after Robert Mueller testified before Congress and was perceived to be ineffectual, Trump dialed up Volodymyr Zelensky and attempted to extort him. When his pardon of Joe Arpaio received no outcry from Republicans, he upped the ante and pardoned outright war criminals. When his invitation to supporters to rough up protesters went unrebutted by Republicans, he openly cheered vigilantes who strapped on long guns and went looking for violence in Kenosha.

The irony is thick. In 2016, Donald Trump ran against what he called the “corrupt” Republican elites who had failed to stand up for the working man and shipped jobs overseas while inviting in Mexican rapists. In reality, the true dereliction by Republican elites has come after Trump’s triumph, with their cringing accommodation of his escalating offenses. Only Republicans were in a position to affect Trump’s conduct. Any criticism by Democrats would be dismissed as partisan sniping. Only members of his own party could have upheld crucial standards of democratic governance, and they failed.

There have been one or two exceptions to this rule of Republican servility. When Republicans joined Democrats to criticize the president’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, Trump reversed the policy. And when the president floated the idea of postponing the election, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy both jumped to contradict him. McConnell said, “Never in the history of this country, through wars, depressions and the Civil War, have we ever not had a federally scheduled election on time. We will find a way to do that again this November third.” Trump never mentioned it again.

But those examples are not comforting. Quite the opposite. They reveal how sensitive Trump actually was to pressure. They show how very easy it would have been for Republicans to maintain a minimum of civic hygiene. Instead, they ignored the political equivalent of turnstile jumping, public urination, and breaking windows. They permitted an atmosphere of disorder and lawlessness. And now Trump is openly inciting violence on the streets, fomenting distrust of the election results, and welcoming insane conspiracists into honored positions in American public life. When one broken window goes unrepaired, the rest are soon broken as well.

thebulwark.com

This means that Trump supporters share the blame for his transgressions.



To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 12:01:43 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
pocotrader
rdkflorida2

  Respond to of 1578501
 
The GOP Needs to Hit Rock Bottom
Congressional Republicans pretended they were powerless to limit Trump’s excesses. What difference would it make if voters made the make-believe real?

by MONA CHAREN

JULY 29, 2020 5:29 AM

The last thing I want to do is offend my friend David French, who is one of the most admirable voices in America today. Nor, finding myself in the highly unusual position of disagreeing with him, do I want to pile on, since my colleague Charlie Sykes has already penned a response that is characteristically robust. But the question of how conservatives should vote in November—whether to punish the entire Republican party by voting straight-ticket Democrat, or merely vote against Trump—is important and needs further airing.

David argues that conservatives need not vote against Republican Senate candidates in order to send a message:

A rage, fury, and a “burn it all down” mentality is one of the maladies that brought us to the present moment. Repeating that same impulse, but with an entire party in the crosshairs, will only compound our political dysfunction.

This assumes that the reason some plan to evict Republican senators is simply a matter of anger. French uses the word “vengeance.” But voting against a candidate or even a whole party is not nihilism. It’s not “burning it all down.” It’s the legal, constitutional way to express approval or disapproval. The current Republican party has itself chosen to become the arsonist party. It has decided to go along with undermining faith in institutions, shredding norms, elevating conspiracy theories, disregarding laws, and tossing aside truth whenever the leader dictates. The most demoralizing aspect of the past four years has not been that a boob conman was elected president but that one of the two great political parties surrendered to him utterly.

David suggests that voting against Republican senators is “completely devoid of grace. It ignores the monumental pressures that Donald Trump has placed on the entire GOP and the lack of good options that so many GOP officeholders faced.”

It’s certainly true that Republicans perceived their options to be limited. How many times have they confided, behind closed doors, that they deplore Trump’s conduct, but explain that their hands are tied? If they speak up, they say, they will flush their careers down the drain. Look at what happened to Jeff Flake, Mark Sanford, and Bob Corker!

But this overstates things. A number of Republicans have stood up to Trump and maintained their electoral viability—especially when they challenged him on matters that he has shown little interest in, namely public policy. Sen. Pat Toomey for example, voted against the president’s USMCA trade agreement and (gasp) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining his reasoning.

It is the only trade pact ever meant to diminish trade. Since Nafta’s implementation, American exports to Mexico have grown more than fivefold. But imports grew even more, widening the trade deficit. The Trump administration finds this unacceptable, even though the trade deficit is mostly meaningless. Hence USMCA has a myriad of provisions to warm the hearts of protectionists.

When the president abruptly announced, following a phone call with Turkish leader Recep Erdogan, that he was withdrawing American troops forthwith from Syria, a number of Republicans voiced horror. Sen. Ben Sasse said it would lead to a “slaughter.” Sen. Ted Cruz said it would be “DISGRACEFUL if we sat idly by while Turkey slaughters the Kurds, as public reports suggest that Turkish leader Erdogan explicitly told President Trump he intends to do.” Rep. Liz Cheney called it a “catastrophic mistake that puts our gains against ISIS at risk and threatens America’s national security.” Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio, former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, and others weighed in as well.

When the president suggested lifting sanctions on Russia, Sen. Rob Portman said it would be “horrible” for the United States. And after Gen. James Mattis wrote an op-ed saying that Donald Trump was making a “mockery of the U.S. Constitution,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, “I was really thankful. I thought General Mattis’s words were true, and honest and necessary and overdue.”

So, it is possible to speak up about this president and survive. I use that word advisedly, because these Republican office holders often use words like “kill” or “destroy” or “annihilate” when contemplating what Trump would do to them if they raise their heads too far above the parapet. In fact, all that actually threatened them was the possibility of nasty tweets and the chance that they might lose their seats.

David French writes:

If you think it’s obvious what they should have done, how many readers have faced such a choice: take a tough stand and likely lose your life’s work or muddle through and hope to emerge on the other side with your dignity and conscience intact? If you faced such a choice, did you take the stand and bear the cost?

David is right that very few people in any walk of life display courage on anything, though craven Republicans holding House and Senate posts might want to pause from time to time to contemplate the extraordinary valor of protesters in Hong Kong, Iran, and Egypt who continue to put their freedom and sometimes their lives at risk by taking to the streets. And before we extend too much grace to Republican office holders, we need to ask: Should being an elected official really be one’s “life work?” And must one cling to it even when it requires delegitimizing the very ideas that brought you into politics?

As noted above, Republicans have criticized the president on policy matters, sometimes even harshly. Where they have shrunk into their shells was on matters that are even more critical to the health of our republic. They have, by their silence, given assent to his cruelty, his assaults on truth, his dangerous flirtations with political violence, and his consistent demolition of institutions.

Institutions are like scaffolding. When a society’s institutions are weakened, the whole edifice can come crashing down. This often happens to countries as a consequence of war or natural disasters. In our case, it was self-inflicted before the natural disaster (coronavirus) struck, and now, as masonry hits the pavement and floors sag, we are seeing the results.

Donald Trump undermined the institution of the free press, urging his followers to disbelieve everything except what came from the leader. And Republicans were silent. He weakened respect for law enforcement and the courts, suggesting that he was the victim of a “deep state” and that “so-called judges” need not be respected. And Republicans were silent. He enriched himself and his family. And Republicans were silent. He introduced doubt about accepting the results of elections. He scorned allies and toadied to dictators. And Republicans were silent. He ran the executive branch like a gangster, demanding personal loyalty and abusing officials, like the hapless Jeff Sessions, who merely followed ethics rules. He ignored the law to get his way on the border wall. Silence again. He violated the most sacred norms of a multi-ethnic society by encouraging racial hatred. Crickets. He made the United States guilty of separating babies from their mothers. And Republicans were silent. He undercut the credibility and honor of the Republican party by failing to dissociate it from kooks and criminals. And Republicans were silent.

Elected officials, terrified of their own constituents, have cowered and temporized in the face of a truly unprecedented assault on democratic values. They believed that they were powerless and acted accordingly. Since they were powerless when it counted, what difference would it make if voters were to make it official?

Consider something else that Sen. Murkowski said in response to Gen. Mattis. “When I saw General Mattis’ comments yesterday I felt like perhaps we are getting to a point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our own convictions to speak up.”

When one person shows courage, others are emboldened. If more Republicans had shown a willingness to stand for basic political hygiene, for elemental human decency earlier in this awful era, it might have become contagious.

But since that did not happen, the only thing that will send a message to the Republican party commensurate with its moral abdication over the past four years is to lose in a landslide. Not just Trump, but his silent enablers too.

thebulwark.com



To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 12:15:51 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
rdkflorida2

  Respond to of 1578501
 
CDC Deluged With ‘Insane’ Number of Calls About Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory

CRANK CALLERS

Promoted by the Trump campaign and the increasingly unhinged QAnon conspiracy cult, a bogus COVID-19 statistic briefly took root—and tied up CDC officials.

Erin Banco National Security Reporter
Will Sommer

Updated Sep. 02, 2020 7:39AM ET / Published Sep. 02, 2020 4:07AM ET



Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/Getty

Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been deluged with a flood of media requests about a conspiracy theory promulgated by QAnon—an increasingly violent far-right group praised by President Donald Trump that is widely known for spreading disinformation.

As the agency attempted to manage the fallout of a controversial Health and Human Services announcement that it had revised testing guidelines to exclude individuals who do not exhibit symptoms, officials were sidetracked by a barrage of inquiries about whether the CDC had lied about the number of Americans who died as a result of the coronavirus. Over the weekend QAnon, a movement whose believers often push out falsities on a myriad of subjects, promoted a bogus theory that only 6 percent of people listed as having died from the coronavirus had “actually died” from COVID-19.

Officials at the CDC said they spent the last several days fielding questions or requests for comment from dozens of local and national outlets asking to clarify whether the agency had falsified its data. The wave of emails and calls about the conspiracy theory caught officials off-guard.

“The amount of requests we had to deal with on this issue was insane,” one senior official said. “And these were from legitimate outlets. This is all easily debunked by just searching our website for the actual statistics.”

The CDC effort to combat accusations from QAnon, a relatively new, increasingly unhinged movement that’s making inroads into online health communities, shows the power that conspiracy theorists can have during the pandemic—especially when boosted by the president. It also shows just how permeable the barrier between conspiracy cranks and established media outlets can be.

“In all my time working in the government I’ve never had to deal with something this crazy. The level of disinformation spread by this group has grown in recent months and now we’re having to actively debunk it through the press.”

The “six percent” claim was embraced by conservatives, who have been eager for ways to downplay the virus’ American death toll and have claimed for months that the CDC and hospitals were overcounting COVID-19 deaths. To QAnon supporters, the claim purports to show that COVID-19 has killed only 9,000 people, with the vast majority of the roughly 183,000 COVID-19 casualties actually killed by another ailment.

But they were wrong. In one section of an older data set, which relied on information collected from death certificates—one of the two main ways the CDC analyzes mortality in the U.S.—6 percent of people were listed as dying from COVID-19 alone. The death certificate algorithm scans for words such as “COVID-19” and “novel coronavirus” when analyzing mortality. In 94 percent of deaths with COVID-19, other conditions were listed in addition to COVID-19, such as diabetes or hypertension. Those conditions are often listed in the part of the death certificate that includes events that lead to an individual’s death.

Despite the QAnon calculation errors, the claim has been boosted by President Trump and his campaign. Trump himself retweeted a post promoting the false statistic before Twitter deleted it for violating company rules, while Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis posted a link to an article on fringe website The Gateway Pundit trumpeting the 6 percent figure.

The claim has also been promoted by high-profile QAnon conspiracy theorists, who believe that Trump is secretly engaged in a shadowy war against a global cabal of cannibal-pedophiles. The tweet Trump reposted, for example, came from a Twitter user and QAnon believer named “Mel Q,” a reference to QAnon.

This isn’t the first time during the pandemic that QAnon believers have played a key role in promoting coronavirus disinformation. Social media networks of QAnon supporters have become powerful ways to disseminate bogus stories about COVID-19, with QAnon believers promoting the viral disinformation video “Plandemic,” among others.

The debacle over QAnon’s inaccurate read of the mortality statistics is just the latest example of how the CDC has in recent months tried to combat efforts by Trump and his supporters to downplay the death count.

Earlier this summer, Trump and members of his coronavirus task force pushed for the CDC to change the way it counted COVID-19 deaths. As The Daily Beast previously reported, The White House pressed the agency to work with states to change how they count coronavirus deaths and report them back to the federal government. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the task force, urged CDC officials to exclude from coronavirus death-count reporting some of those individuals who either do not have confirmed lab results and are presumed positive or who have the virus and may not have died as a direct result of it.

Officials inside the CDC pushed back, claiming the move would skew mortality statistics. Since then, the team inside the CDC in charge of counting deaths has worked overtime to ensure the data it publishes on the agency’s website is accurate and as up-to-date as possible.

The running narrative within the team is that the U.S. has underestimated, not overcounted, the number of people who have died from the coronavirus. As of Sept. 1, the CDC has reported that 183,050 Americans have died since the start of the pandemic.

thedailybeast.com



To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 12:24:56 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
pocotrader

  Respond to of 1578501
 
Where are the people calling the guy who shot the Trumper in Portland a hero? The shooting victim was aggressively attacking people with pepper spray.

If there were such people, they'd be the moral equivalents of the Scummy Trumpers who are calling Kyle a hero.



To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 12:26:19 PM
From: Brumar894 Recommendations

Recommended By
Heywood40
pocotrader
rdkflorida2
Wharf Rat

  Respond to of 1578501
 
According to an American Enterprise Institute oped, the first guy Rittenhouse killed was anti-BLM and was shouting racial epithets at armed blacks:

Rittenhouse was being chased by JoJo Rosenbaum, an angry protestor who earlier had been taunting other armed men, at one point shouting “shoot me n****r!” repeatedly at an apparently armed black man.

While being chased by Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse apparently heard a gunshot behind him, and turned to the sound of the gunshot, and to face Rosenbaum, who was lunging at him. Then Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum.

At that point, Rittenhouse tried to flee the scene, and he was pursued again. After he tripped and fell, three men — at least one of them armed with a gun — mobbed him, presumably trying to apprehend him for the first shooting.

aei.org



To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 12:30:34 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
pocotrader
rdkflorida2

  Respond to of 1578501
 
The actions of Kyle's mother are, in some ways, worse than his own. SHE should have had the good sense not to encourage her boy on this course.

Now? She'll likely only get to see her son through bulletproof glass. Assuming she is not charged and convicted as an accessory to murder and of gross criminal negligence of a juvenile.

SodaSaint the Sleepy


And its likely the horror of a mother who has gotten Kyle a "free" lawyer who is planning on using him for political purposes, the impact on his future be damned. More on this coming up.



To: longnshort who wrote (1259056)9/2/2020 12:32:49 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations

Recommended By
pocotrader
rdkflorida2

  Respond to of 1578501
 
Yes, Kyle's "lawyer" is all about using his "client" for political purposes. Just like the Trumpers here on SI:


@JoshuaPotash


In case the tweet is deleted: Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer declaring that his client started a second revolutionary war.

[ If they really cared about him, they'd counsel him to testify truthfully and beg for leniency. Given his age, he might hope for that, though he would and should do time. ]