What Trump Said Yesterday

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2024 //
22

On the blog called “Public Notice,” Aaron Rupar and Noah Berlatsky wrote about Trump’s unhinged speech yesterday. He is angry and incoherent every time he speaks, so the media doesn’t find his rants to be newsworthy. As the authors point out, the media would jump all over Biden for the factual errors that Trump commits (yesterday, he confused the dictator of North Korea with the president of Iran); but Trump gets a pass because his errors, lies, and hatred are routine.

Rupar and Berlatsky write:

The vice presidential debate will be a main topic of political conversation today, but far more important (and disturbing) things happened before it took place.

This isn’t to say the debate wasn’t memorable. There were at least a couple exchanges that stood out. One came when JD Vance got upset about a moderator interjecting to fact-check racist lies he used to smear his own constituents….

But these moments pale in comparison to Donald Trump’s most troubling showing yet on the campaign trail. Across two campaign events in Wisconsin on Tuesday, the former and would-be president reiterated a truth that is much more important than who won the debate: namely, that he’s morally and intellectually unfit for office.

Both Trump events were packed with outrageous defamations and lies. His targets included troops wounded abroad while he was president, which would be unthinkable in anything resembling a normal era of politics.

Vicious as Trump’s attacks were, they also managed to be muddled in ways suggesting he isn’t up to the task of being president until he’s 82 years old. Vance’s slick lying and election denialism is even more ominous given the possibility that he may end up as the country’s leader in a second, nightmarish, Trump term.

Trump spews and spews some more

Trump’s public addresses are disjointed and disconnected from reality at the best of times. Yesterday, however, was a particularly wide-ranging journey through conspiracy theories, hatred, and nonsense.

His first speech of the day in the the Madison suburb of Waunakee featured racially coded attacks on Brittney Griner, a Black American basketball player who was held hostage in Russia. Trump also lied about opposing the Iraq War and said all sorts of strange stuff, such as accusing Democrats of supporting “water-free bathrooms.” 

The lowlight, however, came when Trump flat out defamed Kamala Harris for murder, saying of a murder victim, “She murdered him. In my opinion Kamala murdered him. Just like she had a gun in her hand.” (So much for Trump toning down the rhetoric and offering a message of unity — watch the clip below.)

Even lower depths were explored during Trump’s appearance later in the day in Milwaukee. Taking questions from the press, he told a reporter who asked him if he trusts the election process this time around that “I’ll let you know in 33 days” — the implication being that he would accept the results only if he wins. Riffing about immigration, he wandered off into a bizarre, woozy, blatantly racist rant about people in the Congo, a country that he boasted he did not know anything about. (“They come from the Congo in the Africa. Many people from the Congo. I don’t know what that is, but they come out of jails in the Congo.”) 

Then, in a moment that would’ve driven news cycles for days had Biden done it, Trump confused the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, with the president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, and claimed his buddy Kim “is trying to kill me.” (Watch below.)

But all of this was just warning up to a scene during the Milwaukee event that would’ve ended anyone else’s presidential campaign.

🎤 Subscribe to Public Notice 🎤

Trump mocks troops injured in the line of duty

That debacle came when a reporter asked Trump if he should’ve been tougher in retaliation against Iran after they launched a 2020 missile attack on a US base in Iraq, which injured more than 100 US soldiers. The Iranian launch was in retaliation for a US drone strike which killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani. More than 100 US soldiers suffered traumatic brain injuries.

Trump at the time lied about the incident, insisting that no soldiers were harmed and that he’d “heard that they had headaches.” The episode was mostly forgotten over the ensuing four years, but Trump reminded everyone about it during his news conference, peevishly responding to the reporter: “So first of all — injured. What does injured mean? Injured means — you mean because they had a headache? Because the bombs never hit the fort.” 

After Trump finished downplaying serious, life-changing injuries suffered by the troops, he then attacked the reporter for not being “truthful” while mixing up Iraq and Iran. (Watch below.)

Somehow, it got worse. Trump went on to characterize the Iranian attack as “a very nice thing” because Iran didn’t escalate further, which he suggested was the result of his toughness. Again, Trump praised Iran for a “nice” attack which seriously injured more than 100 US soldiers. (Walz highlighted these remarks from Trump during Tuesday’s debate, saying “when Iranian missiles did fall near US troops and they received traumatic brain injuries, Donald Trump wrote it off as headaches.”)

Trump’s self-aggrandizing, confused, pompous, cynical, cruel, insulting lies are not surprising. Again, he has even pushed this particular lie before. He’s also made misleading statements to erase or distract from the fact that soldiers died in Afghanistan during his presidency. He’s called soldiers who die in combat “suckers” and “losers.”

It’s manifestly clear that Trump thinks that soldiers killed or injured on his watch are an inconvenience. He mocks their sacrifice, mocks their injuries, and praises regimes that target them.

This post at Public Notice was followed by this one, written by Stephen Robinson. It sums up a vivid portrait of Trump as an addled old man.


Trump’s ignorance, callousness, and lies are not new. But what is novel is the way they all seem to have been slowed down these days so that he seems ever more adrift in his own fog of hate and ego. He mixes up world leaders, confuses countries, garbles pronouns, loses track of his nonsense talking points.
The remarks Trump gave in Milwaukee before he took questions from reporters were remarkably low energy by his standards. Check out the below clip of Trump praising his catastrophic covid response in a horse rasp, continually looking down to check his notes, repeating the same phrases of self-praise, getting stuck in a loop on pet words or slogans (“Wuhan … Wuhan … ”), telling subdued and meandering lies with no rhythm or applause lines. And indeed, there is no applause; the MAGA faithful are silent, wooed into a tedious fascist stupor.

It would be nice to think that such displays of grotesque ignorance, hatred, authoritarianism, and contempt for the country, for injured service members, and indeed for his own voters, would lead everyone to conclude, en masse, that Trump is disgustingly, massively, inarguably unfit to hold any office of public trust, much less president. But as we know, partisanship, racism, and institutional failures, from the media to the courts to the Justice Department, may allow Trump to win in November.

If he does, he will sit in the Oval Office. But his decrepit campaign performances suggest he will be even less capable of pretending to be anything other than a declining bigot than he was the first time around. And who’s likely to pick up the slack?

Well, as historian Kevin Kruse says, if Trump succumbs to ill health, or just sinks into his natural state of sloth and indifference, the president, de jure or de facto, would be JD Vance, “a deeply unpopular weirdo with virtually no experience, someone who won his first election less than two years ago and even then only because he’s the puppet of an insane billionaire.”

Yesterday was yet another reminder that the Republican ticket is a hideous and embarrassing blight on the American experiment and the American character. Yet, Trump continues to slump towards power, with Vance smirking and smugly lying alongside him. We’ve got about a month before we as a country either rebuke them or follow them into derp, hate, and despair.

Categories Accountability, Elections, Extremism, Harris, Kamala, Lies, Politics, Trump

New Hampshire: The GOP Legislature Refuses to Pay for Adequate Education

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2024 //
3

Garry Rayno is a veteran journalist in New Hampshire who covers the legislature for inDepthNH.org. His education reporting is excellent. In this post, he describes the Republicans’ refusal to fund public schools adequately, although they have launched a voucher program that is sure to drain the state imof hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The latest round for education funding lawsuits enters the judicial ring this week in Rockingham County Superior Court and will be argued over the next two weeks.

The second half of the Rand suit goes before judge David Ruoff and — much like the ConVal suit — hinges on whether the state is providing ample money to provide an adequate education for its students, which is essentially the same question before the courts three decades ago with the Claremont suit.

Indepth Your Inbox

Get unbiased nonprofit watchdog news sent directly to your inbox.

Under the two Claremont rulings, the state is required to provide an adequate education to its students, define what constitutes an adequate education, pay for it with constitutional taxes and ensure school districts are providing  it.

That sounds pretty simple, but you have to dig a little deeper to understand why the issue has not been settled in the intervening 30 years.

As ConVal argued, the state believes currently that $4,100 per student is the cost of an adequate education, and the state largely pays that cost with the Statewide Education Property Tax, portions of existing taxes and Sweepstakes revenues.

According to the latest figures from the Department of Education the statewide average for educating a single student is $20,322, or $24,756 when all expenditures are included such as transportation, capital expenses and interest,  out-of-district tuitions, etc.

In the ConVal ruling, which is on appeal with the other half of the Rand suit to the Supreme Court, Ruoff set the state’s obligation for the cost of an adequate education at $7,356  and said it is probably closer to $9,900 per student.

In any event the lower figure is almost double what the state pays and would cost the state an additional $500 million.

In the Rand case, the plaintiffs also want the court to determine if the additional money school districts receive for higher costs for educating special education students, or from low-income households or do not speak fluent English, for example is enough to cover those costs as well.

In their suit, the plaintiffs claim the state funding is inadequate to cover those “differentiated aid” costs as well.

When the funding formula was originally developed in the late 1990s, many of the lawmakers sitting on the committee were from the state’s largest cities like Manchester, Rochester and Nashua and weighted the formula to help their communities and that has not changed much since as communities like Manchester, Nashua, Rochester and Somersworth receive a greater percentage of state aid than most other communities.

They are larger and have larger populations of children in poverty, with disabilities and children whose native language is not English, but other communities like Claremont, Berlin, Newport, Pittsfield, Franklin and Milan have problems raising money for education as well without the same percentage of state aid.

But that is not the crux of the Rand suit, which is by failing to pay all of its constitutionally obligated cost of an adequate education, city and town taxpayers have to make up the difference with local property taxes.

As most people know by now, there are property wealthy communities like Moultonborough, Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, New Castle, Rye, Portsmouth, Hampton, Sunapee, New London, Newbury, etc. that collect more than they need through the Statewide Education Property Tax to pay for the state’s contribution of $4,100 per student and have money left over.

Ostensively all those communities and all the other communities in New Hampshire pay the same tax rate for the Statewide Education Property Tax.

But when the statewide tax receipts in a community do not cover the $4,100 per student threshold, local property taxes have to make up the difference, and those property tax rates vary from community to community.

If the communities have to pay for an adequate education, then the state is using local property taxes to satisfy its obligation, which would mean they are really state taxes.

And the constitution requires that all state taxes be proportional and reasonable and that is the problem, because widely varying tax rates do not meet the constitutional requirement.

And the other aspect of the lawsuit is that the cost of an adequate education is much higher than $4,100 and if that is true, and Ruoff has ruled once that it is, than the state has an even greater obligation, meaning most every community is using local property taxes to pay the state’s share of an adequate education.

The state aid to education totals $817.84 million for the current school year, while the total spent on public education from kindergarten to 12th grade is estimated to be about $3.8 billion for all education related costs, not just adequate education.

The federal government sends hundreds of millions of dollars to the state but there is no simple total of federal funds going to public education in New Hampshire to be found on the Department of Education’s website.

But if the state paid even half the cost of the total amount spent on public education, its obligation, given federal funds, is considerably more than what it currently pays and may be nearly double that amount.

The stakes are extremely high for the state at a time when state revenues are declining, exacerbated by years of rate cuts and repeals.

The state has steadfastly refused to approve any new money source for education outside the statewide property tax which was moving the same dollar from the local side of the property tax ledger to the state’s side although making it more proportional across the state.

However, that did little to reduce property taxes in property poor communities or increase the educational opportunities for students in the property poor districts.

The state has argued since the two Claremont decisions were written 30 years ago that the definition of an adequate education and how to fund it is up to the legislative and executive branches, which it is, except when fundamental rights are being violated.

Recently, the Attorney General’s Office spent a great deal of time arguing what the plaintiffs seek would violate the constitutional separation of powers provision.

The question is where do you draw the line?
Does the legislature in failing to address the inequities for property taxpayers and students exercising its rights to control the purse and set policies, or is it contempt of court?

Or does the court have the final say when fundamental constitutional rights are violated?

Before pondering those questions there are two weeks of arguments by the plaintiffs and the state. The state told the court last spring the plaintiffs have failed to “meet their heavy burden of demonstrating that the current funding formula is in clear and substantial conflict with the [sic] Part II, Article 83,” in seeking a summary judgement and asked not to go forward with this week’s hearings.

The court rejected that request quickly and there will be two more weeks to parse the fundamental issue of whether the state’s children have a fundamental right to an adequate education and how the state would pay for it to be on center stage in the public arena once again.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

Categories Budget Cuts, Funding, New Hampshire, Republicans, Vouchers

The New Republic: Trump’s Plan for the Economy Would Cause Massive Damage

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2024 //
13

Writing in The New Republic, Paige Oamek warns that Trump’s economic plans would wreak havoc on the economy.

Donald Trump says he has a plan for the economy, but that doesn’t mean it’s any good. 

According to independent nonprofit nonpartisan researchers, Trump’s policies on tariffs, deportations, and the Federal Reserve would, if put in action, seriously hike inflation, wipe out jobs, and slow U.S. production and economic growth. 

In even the most generous modeling, inflation would reach 6 percent by 2026 and consumer prices would balloon 20 percent by 2028. 

According to an analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economicspublished Thursday, the devastating effects on the economy could last through 2040. 

Trump promises to carry out “mass deportations” if elected president. Doing so could “cause a large inflationary impulse and a significant loss of employment (particularly in manufacturing and agriculture) in the US economy,” the researchers found. The deportation plan on its own would provide no economic benefit to Americans. 

Warwick McKibbin, a senior fellow and co-author of the study, told CNN that the institute estimates that deporting undocumented workers would cause a pandemic-like “shock,” especially in the agriculture industry. 

“Can you imagine taking 16 percent out of the labor force in agriculture?” McKibbin said, who noted the ripple effects would include rising cost of food or even permanent loss of supply. 

Trump’s isolationist approach to the economy through deportations and tariffs on U.S. imports would hurt the American people most. “We find that ironically, despite his ‘make the foreigners pay’ rhetoric, this package of policies does more damage to the US economy than to any other in the world,” wrote the authors. 

Of course, the Trump team denied the findings, with Trump campaign senior adviser Brian Hughes telling CNN the exact opposite: “Trump policies will fuel growth, drive down inflation, inspire American manufacturing, all while protecting the working men and women of our nation from lopsided policies tilted in favor of other countries.”

Categories Economy, Elections, Extremism, Trump

Mercedes Schneider: Project 2025: Politicking for Jesus

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2024 //
9

Mercedes Schneider is a high school teacher in Louisiana who holds a doctorate in statistics and research methodology. It’s no secret that she is also a devout Christian who takes her faith seriously, so seriously that she doesn’t try to impose it on anyone else. As a veteran teacher, she writes with authority and keen intellect about education.

The following essay by Schneider was posted by the Network for Public Education. To read the full essay, please open the link.

Teacher and scholar Mercedes Schneider takes a look at Project 2025. Reposted with permission.

Schneider writes:

Project 2025 identifies itself as “The Presidential Transition Project,” further described as “an agenda prepared by and for conservatives who will be ready on Day One of the next Administration to save our country”:

The Heritage Foundation is once again facilitating this work, but as our dozens of partners and hundreds of authors will attest, this book is the work of the entire conservative movement.

The next conservative President will enter office on January 20, 2025, with a simple choice: greatness or failure.  It will be a daunting test, but no more so than every other generation of Americans has faced and passed. The Conservative Promise represents the best effort of the conservative movement in 2023—and the next conservative President’s last opportunity to save our republic.

Though the 900+-page document is clearly meant for “the next conservative President,” former president and 2024 Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has publicly attempted to distance himself from the far-right, Heritage-Foundation-steeped governing plan.

In the opening pages of the document, numerous contributors include in their bio sketches connection to the Trump administration. So there’s that.

But one issue that has my attention is that the July 17, 2024, Intercept reports that “Conservative Groups Are Quietly Scurrying Away from Project 2025”:

THE MORE PEOPLE learn about it, the more unpopular and politically toxic Project 2025 has proven to be. This has led the Trump and Vance campaign to attempt to distance itself from the effort. Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller now says he had “zero involvement with Project 2025,” despite appearing in a promotional video. And just today, The Intercept discovered two more conservative groups that have quietly bowed out from the controversial 900-page manifesto — including a national anti-abortion organization.

Miller’s group, America First Legal Foundation, was one of the first organizations to jump ship from the Project 2025 advisory board. Last week, America First Legal asked to be removed from the Project 2025 advisory board webpage. The organization was part of Project 2025 since at least June 2022, when the Heritage Foundation first announced the advisory board’s formation.

America First Legal staff were deeply involved in writing and editing the Project 2025 playbook. Its vice president and general counsel, Gene Hamilton, drafted an entire chapter about the Justice Department, which proposes launching a “campaign” to criminalize mailing abortion pills. In a footnote, Hamilton thanked “the staff at America First Legal Foundation,” who he wrote deserved “special mention for their assistance while juggling other responsibilities.” …

America First Legal did not respond to questions about why it asked to be removed from the Project 2025 advisory board despite its prior participation.

As of Tuesday afternoon, Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think tank, were among the more than 100 groups listed on the Project 2025 website as part of its advisory board. By Wednesday, Americans United for Life and the Mackinac Center had vanished.

Both organizations were relatively recent additions to the Project 2025 coalition. The Heritage Foundation announced they had joined in February 2024, several months after the massive playbook was released.

Neither organization would elaborate as to why it had joined the Project 2025 board in the first place or why it was exiting it now.

The distancing of conservative groups from a plan that has clearly been brought into the public eye reminds me of the 2011 exposure of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) by the nonprofit watchdog, Common Cause, and subsequent corporate member exodus.

Seems like far-right conservatives have a history of not really wanting the public aware of those conservative plans and schemes.

It should come as no surprise that ALEC is a Project 2025 advisory board member:

Project 2025 is the conservative, American white Evangelical Christian plan for operating government. Below is a “note” from Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 director, Paul Dans:

Let me offer some excerpts. Not many, for it does not take much reading to realize that the Project 2025 overarching goal is to force all of America into a white Evangelical Christian mold.

A smidge from Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts’, foreword:

PROMISE #1: RESTORE THE FAMILY AS THE CENTERPIECE OF AMERICAN LIFE AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. The next conservative President must get to work pursuing the true priority of politics-the well-being of the American family. In many ways, the entire point of centralizing political power is to subvert the family. Its purpose is to replace people’s natural loves and loyalties with unnatu- ral ones. You see this in the popular left-wing aphorism, “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” But in real life, most of the things people “do together” have nothing to do with government. These are
the mediating institutions that serve as the building blocks of any healthy society. Marriage. Family. Work. Church. School. Volunteering. The name real people give to the things we do together is community, not government. Our lives are full of interwoven, overlapping communities, and our individual and collective happiness depends upon them. But the most important community in each of our lives-and
the life of the nation— is the family. Today, the American family is in crisis. Forty percent of all children are born to unmarried mothers, including more than 70 percent of black children. There is no government program that can replace the hole in a child’s soul cut out by the absence of a father. Fatherlessness is one of the principal sources of Ameri- can poverty, crime, mental illness, teen suicide, substance abuse, rejection of the church, and high school dropouts. So many of the problems government programs are designed to solve-but can’t-are ultimately problems created by the crisis of marriage and the family. The world has never seen a thriving, healthy, free, and
prosperous society where most children grow up without their married parents.
If current trends continue, we are heading toward social implosion. Furthermore, the next conservative President must understand that using gov- ernment alone to respond to symptoms of the family crisis is a dead end. Federal power must instead be wielded to reverse the crisis and rescue America’s kids from familial breakdown. The Conservative Promise includes dozens of specific policies
to accomplish this existential task. Some are obvious and long-standing goals like eliminating marriage penalties in federal welfare programs and the tax code and installing work requirements for food stamps. But we must go further. It’s time for policymakers to elevate family authority, formation, and cohesion as their top priority and even use government
power, including through the tax code, to restore the American family. Today the Left is threatening the tax-exempt status of churches and charities that reject woke progressivism. They will soon turn to Christian schools and clubs with the same totalitarian intent. The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi- tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. In our schools, the question of parental authority over their children’s education is a simple one: Schools serve parents, not the other way around. That is, of course, the best argument for universal school choice-a goal all conservatives and con- servative Presidents must pursue. But even before we achieve that long-term goal, parents’ rights as their children’s primary educators should be non-negotiable in American schools. States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, principals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds. The noxious tenets of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country. These theories poison our children, who are being taught on the one hand to affirm that the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status while on the other they are taught to deny the very creatureliness that inheres in being human and consists in accepting the givenness of our nature as men or women.


Schneider continues:

Free the churches, imprison the librarians.

Roberts was in the news for stating that an “ongoing American Revolution” will “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” According to The Hill, that comment caused “blowback” for Roberts and the Heritage Foundation.

None of Jesus’ ministry involved any political agenda, much less the government-driven denigration of “other” or the imposing of His will on any human being.

Yet here we are.

Categories Bigotry, Cruelty, Curriculum, Democracy, Disruption, Education Industry, Elections, Extremism, Inequality, Injustice, Privatization, Propaganda, Religion, Republicans, Trump, U.S. Department of Education, Vouchers

Dana Milbank: “You Weren’t Supposed to Fact-Check Me!”

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2024 //
5

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reacted quickly last night to the Vice-Presidential debate:

Half an hour into Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate, JD Vance lodged a whiny protest.


“Margaret,” he said to moderator Margaret Brennan of CBS News, “the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check!”


It was a lie on top of another lie, supplemented by a pair of other lies, in support of an even bigger lie.


There was no “rule” against fact-checking. And Vance had just told a whopper. He had alleged that, in Springfield, Ohio, “you’ve got schools that are overwhelmed, you’ve got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants.”


There is no “open border,” Kamala Harris isn’t the president, and the thousands of Haitian migrants to which Vance was referring have legal status, which Brennan had accurately pointed out. But Vance claimed that “what’s actually going on” was that the Haitian migrants are there as part of “the facilitation of illegal immigration” — and he kept going until the moderators shut off the candidates’ microphones.

From the sidelines, Donald Trump cheered on his running mate. “Margaret Brennan just lied again about the ILLEGAL MIGRANTS let into our Country by Lyin’ Kamala Harris, and then she cut off JD’s mic to stop him from correcting her!” he posted on Truth Social.

The up-is-down moment was all the worse because it was in response to Vance’s original libels about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield: that they were bringing crime, disease and, yes, eating the cats and dogs of the town’s residents. Vance declined to walk back that calumny during the debate, instead saying: “The people that I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris’s open border.”


It feels entirely appropriate that CBS chose to hold the vice-presidential debate in a studio once home to “Captain Kangaroo.”


For three decades beginning in the mid-1950s, the Captain, along with Mr. Green Jeans, Mr. Bunny Rabbit, Mr. Moose and other friends, regaled children with fantastic stories, a Magic Drawing Board, and cartoons featuring the likes of Tom Terrific, a shape-shifting boy who lived in a tree house and could transform himself into anything he wanted by using the funnel-shaped hat that sat on his head.


But Captain Kangaroo never conjured a figure quite so outlandish as JD Vance.

This shape-shifting boy has gone from being a never-Trump author who in 2016 compared the “reprehensible” Trump to Adolf Hitler, to a venture capitalist who in 2020 said Trump “thoroughly failed to deliver,” to the junior senator from Ohio who, as Trump’s running mate in 2024, worships the ground the former president walks on.


Vance has used his own Magic Drawing Board to create a whimsical portrait of reality in this election season. He has embraced the fiction that Trump won the 2020 election. He has falsely claimed that Democrats were responsible for two assassination attempts against Trump. He has seconded Trump’s routine lies about crime, jobs, tariffs and the border. He has slandered his vice-presidential opponent, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, accusing him of “stolen valor” after Walz’s 24 years of honorable military service. And he has led the vile demonization of the Haitians in Springfield.


“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” he admitted last month on CNN.


And that’s just what he did during the debate. Walz wasn’t a particularly skilled debater; he tripped over words and at one point said, “I’ve become friends with school shooters” when he was referring to the families of school-shooting victims. But even if Walz had been quicker on his feet, there wouldn’t have been a way to keep up with the fictions Vance submitted.

The senator said Harris “became the appointed border czar.” She received no such appointment.
He said “over $100 billion” of Iranian assets were unfrozen “thanks to the Kamala Harris administration.” Not so.


On abortion, he said he “never supported a national ban.” When running for the Senate two years ago, he said he “certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.”


On health care, he served up the howler of the night when he said that Trump “saved” the “collapsing” Affordable Care Act. Instead of destroying Obamacare, Vance said, “Donald Trump worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans have access to affordable care.”
In reality, of course, Trump tried his best to kill Obamacare. (John McCain famously thwarted the effort in the Senate.)


Vance capped the night by saying that Trump “peacefully” surrendered power four years ago. When Walz asked him point-blank whether Trump had lost that election, Vance would not answer.


Throughout the debate, Vance pretended that Harris was the president, referring to “Kamala Harris’s open border” and “Kamala Harris’s atrocious economic record.” He claimed that “Kamala Harris let in fentanyl” and “enabled the Mexican drug cartels to operate freely in this country.”


And on Truth Social, Trump added still zanier claims. “Tim Walz wants to abolish ICE. … I SAVED our Country from the China Virus. … CBS is LYING AGAIN about the 2020 Election.” And best of all: “JD Vance just CRUSHED Tampon Tim with the FACTS.”


Fact check: Half true. JD Vance just crushed the facts.

In addition:

NPR fact-checked the debate in real time.

Categories Elections, Ethics, Lies, Vance, J.D.

The Vice-Presidential Debate: A Wash

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2024 //
56

The great debate between Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz did not change any votes.

JD is a skilled debater, more so than Tim Walz. Both seemed to go out of their way to be civil. Neither of them attacked the other with teeth bared. They occasionally seemed to be searching for common ground.

You would need a fair amount of background knowledge to know how frequently and coolly Vance lied. He said that Trump saved Obamacare. That was a lie. In fact, Trump tried to repeal Obamacare; the party slogan was “repeal and replace.” The GOP never had a plan to put in its place. They still don’t.

Vance denied that he ever supported a national ban on abortion. That was a lie. He is on video saying just that.

Vance said for the umpteenth time that the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were there illegally; a few days ago, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine wrote an opinion article in The New York Times saying that the Haitians in Springfield were legally introduced to this country.

When asked directly about January 6, he dodged the question and said that on January 20, there was a peaceful transfer of power. He didn’t mention Trump’s refusal to concede or to attend Biden’s inauguration.

When asked whether Trump lost the 2020 election, he dodged the question and claimed that Kamala Harris had engaged in censoring people during the height of COVID (I’m not sure but I think he referred to the government’s efforts to combat COVID misinformation.)

CNN released a fact-checker’s report on the debate. According to CNN, Vance was fact-checked 15 times on his claims, while Walz was fact-checked only twice.

NPR had the best of the fact checks of the debate.

Tim Walz was flustered and failed to answer crisply when questioned about claims he made over the years about being in Hong Kong at the time of the Tianamen Square massacre in 1989. He answered awkwardly, then said he “misspoke.”

No one is likely to change their mind after the VP debate.

Categories Elections, Lies, Vance, J.D., Walz, Tim

The Georgia Court Decision Overturning the Abortion Ban

By dianeravitch
October 1, 2024 //
5

This decision by Superior Court Judge Robert C.I. McBurney is well worth reading. It’s a thoughtful analysis of why the state ban on abortion at six weeks of pregnancy in Georgia deprives the pregnant woman of her rights. The decision is 26 pages. Start reading on page 6: The Issue.

One of the best passages appears on pp. 14-15, where the judge writes:

“It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid’s Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could–or should–force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the sake of another.”

Categories Gender, Georgia, Health

Eugene Robinson: Why Is the Presidential Election So Close?

By dianeravitch
October 1, 2024 //
8

Eugene Robinson is a regular columnist for The Washington Post. He is baffled that the election is so close. He finds one demographic where Trump holds a decisive lead. This group is loyal to Trump. They think he cares about them and empathizes with them. He does care about separating them from their hard-earned cash. He does care about getting their votes. He does care about exploiting their grievances, their resentment about being left behind. It’s hard to remember what precisely he did for them during his four year term in office.

Robinson writes:

It is absolutely, completely, totally ridiculous that this election is even close. But here we are.

The choice between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump should not be a tough call. Harris is a former prosecutor; Trump, a felon. Harris gives campaign speeches about her civic values; Trump rants endlessly about his personal grievances, interrupting himself with asides about sharks and Hannibal Lecter. Harris has outlined a detailed set of policy proposals for the economy; Trump nonsensically offers tariffs as a panacea, describing this fantasy in terms that make it clear he doesn’t understand how tariffs work.

Also, Harris never whipped thousands of supporters into a frenzy and sent them off to the Capitol, where they smashed their way into the citadel of our democracy, injuring scores of police officers and threatening to hang the vice president, in an attempt to overturn the result of a free and fair election. Trump did.

Yet polls tell us that either candidate could win. The Post’s polling average has Harris ahead by 2 percentage points nationally. The Post also finds that Harris holds leads in four of the seven crucial swing states — 3 percentage points in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, 2 points in Michigan, less than a point in Nevada — but adds a note of caution: “Every state is within a normal-sized polling error of 3.5 points and could go either way.”

So how is it possible that this is not a done deal? I’m not sure there’s a definitive answer, but I can throw out a few theories.

One obvious potential factor is that Harris would be the first woman to serve as president and commander in chief. It amazes me that the preceding sentence can be written in 2024 — decades after the careers of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and so many other women who have led their nations in peace and war. But, again, here we are.

Harris and her advisers have made the decision not to lean into the history-making aspects of her candidacy, which I think is wise — if only because Trump so desperately wants to have a fight over gender and race. Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio), are trying hard to win the votes of men who equate manhood with cartoonish machismo — men who somehow feel that their status and prospects are threatened because they are men.

An Associated Press poll released on Thursday found that about 4 in 10 Americans believe Harris’s gender “will hurt her chances of getting elected this fall,” which suggests the manly-men act by Trump and Vance might be having some impact. Then again, the issue of reproductive rights, along with gratuitous insults such as Vance’s “childless cat ladies” slur, might be driving enough women into Harris’s corner to offset Trump’s harvest of dudes. I find it hard to conclude that gender alone answers the question of why Harris doesn’t have a bigger lead.

Deep in the numbers, you can find other hypotheses. Trump got 74 million votes in the 2020 election. Joe Biden got 81 million — thankfully — and won the electoral vote 306-232. But Trump’s showing means he started his 2024 campaign with a big base of support, and it has remained loyal.

White voters without a college degree are a key component of Trump’s base, and two recent polls — one by the New York Timesand one by CNN — showed Harris with a huge deficit of roughly 35 points to Trump among this segment. That is worse than Biden did against Trump in 2020, when he lost this big demographic by 32 points, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. Whites without a college degree make up 42 percent of the electorate — meaning that if Harris were matching Biden’s performance with this group, she would add a full point to her overall national lead.

This might suggest that Trump’s red-meat-to-the-base campaign strategy is not as crazy as it looks. His vicious demagoguery on immigration — the lies he keeps telling about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs, for example — invites working-class Whites to see their jobs and communities as under threat. That kind of tribal appeal likely does not win Trump many new voters, but it might keep some of the old ones on his side.

Still, though, how does any of this overcome Trump’s manifest unfitness? How does any of it erase his pathetic performance in the debate? How does it nullify the fact that he awaits sentencing by a New York judge after 34 guilty verdicts in a criminal trial? If the answer is buried somewhere in some poll, I can’t find it.

The truth about the election might be simple: It is what it is. Look at the trend lines in the polling averages. Trump had a narrow but consistent lead over Biden. Soon after Harris became the candidate, the lines crossed, and she took a lead over Trump. Since taking that lead, she has not surrendered it. In fact, she has slowly expanded it.

It is possible that Harris could pull ahead decisively. But it is also quite possible that this race will still be too close to call on Election Day. And at that point, the question we face will not be theoretical, but urgently practical: With Democrats’ huge advantage in money and volunteers, will they be able to turn out their supporters in numbers big enough to overwhelm any hidden population of Republican voters that the pollsters might be missing?

The people, not the pollsters, will give that answer.

Categories Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Harris, Kamala, Hypocrisy, Trump

Umair Haque: Why Is the Presidential Election So Close?

By dianeravitch
October 1, 2024 //
36

Umair Haque is an economist who writes at a blog called The Issue. He recently addressed an issue that has befuddled me and probably you as well. How is it possible that Trump is tied in the polls with Kamala Harris? He is an embittered old man who spews hate and cares only about himself; she is a vibrant and empathetic woman who wants to make life better for everyone. How can they be tied?

Haque has an answer. Democrats keep talking about how good the economy is, but they don’t speak to the vast number of people who are struggling economically.

He writes:

Day after day now, polls say the same thing.

The election’s deadlocked.

Despite all of it. History, immense spending, speeches, rallies, the drama surrounding Biden stepping down, the euphoria around Kamala.

So: what’s going on here?

What Makes Politics Move in a Capitalist Society?

By now, you should know, because precisely what we’ve discussed over the last few months is coming true.

Kamala and Tim aren’t connecting on the economy.

And yet it’s the Number One Issue for voters.

Let’s recap. America’s a hyper capitalist society. In such a society, the economy is always the top issue. It comes before everything else, because in a place like America, economics is existential. There are no real safety nets. And money, having enough of it, is literally everything.

That’s not so much the case elsewhere. To use the example I always do, the Sorbonne in Paris—Europe’s best university—is free. In America, sending a kid to an Ivy League school costs three times the median income, enough to bankrupt most families.

So the economy is always issue number one. Always.

And that’s why the Dems have a long, long history of losing. Because they are frankly pretty poor at crafting economic agendas which convince Americans, since they won’t admit Americans are in dire economic pain to begin with. Americans, meanwhile, have grown up in an environment which has sort of been poisoned, and any social contract or agenda remotely European or Canadian is instantly called “communism” or “socialism.”

Put those two trends together, and you can explain the Democrats’ long losing record—or why, in America, the default is that the GOP tends to win.

How Long Can the Democrats Keep on Ignoring the Economy?

But in times like these, the economy is…even more important. Crucial. It’s always the decisive factor, but this isn’t a normal era by any stretch of imagination.

The economy is a wreck.

It is doing really, really badly. If the question is: how’s capitalism doing, then the answer is, great. Yes, stock prices are roaring, sure, profits are in rude health, and yeah, CEOs are making out like pirate emperor bandits. But none of that’s the economy.

The economy is how average people are doing, and all the indications are they’re doing pretty terribly. Incomes just now crossed 2019 levels, and that means they fell for five straight years.

Meanwhile, prices exploded.

Before that came a long, long run of stagnation: median incomes for men, for example, are lower today than they were in the 1970s.

So people are struggling. The vast majority live paycheck to paycheck, large percentages struggle to pay bills, and of course, generations are in downward mobility, while “unretirement” is becoming a social trend.

The Democrats continue to make the fatal mistake they always make.

Ignoring all this.

People Trust Trump on the Economy More Because the Democrats Don’t Seem to Actually Care About It

Who was it that reached right into the heart of the working class, and empathized with its misfortunes? It wasn’t the Democrats. It was Trump.

Think of how bizarre that is. Trump’s a guy that likes to flaunt being a billionaire. But because the Democrats ignored the biggest socioeconomic issue of the last half century, he was able to walk away with the whole ballgame.

Let me put that even more sharply.

To this day, Democrats won’t dare mention this damning statistic, that median incomes are where they were, or lower, than half a century ago.

Those really are Roman sorts of social indicators, no exaggeration necessary. A half decade of stagnation is OK, maybe. But a half century?

But the Democrats never, ever even look in this direction. They look away awkwardly.

Their silence is deafening.

Why is Trump still so widely supported?

Because more people trust him on the economy. (And on immigration, which is the same thing, because here there’s a naive theory of economics, that immigrants take our jobs and so forth, which can be true, but in America, has more to do with the reverse, offshoring, etcetera.)

Why do people trust Trump more on the economy?

He empathizes with their pain.

The Democrats don’t even attempt to. They deliberately ignore it. But this is, let me say it again, the single biggest socioeconomic issue in modern history.

What happens when socioeconomics stagnate for long periods of time—like half centuries? Democracies die. People give up on their institutions and leaders. They give up on each other. They turn on one another…

And there’s a good reason why.

How Economic Stagnation Leads to Social Collapse

If the pie’s the same size, or shrinking, as it is for many Americans, then the only option is to try and fight tooth and nail to keep your slice. To have a bigger slice, you need to take it from someone else.

That’s how democracies die by way of stagnant or declining economies.

It isn’t a theory, speculation, opinion: there’s a formal mechanism at work, a kind of vicious cycle, an engine of ruin.

A shrinking pie, a stagnant one, necessitates a less democratic society. I have to take from you. To keep my slice the same size, I need to wrest it away from everyone else.

Thus, democratic norms of peace, equality, justice, and truth soon corrode. They’re replaced by authoritarian fascist norms of violence, domination, hierarchy, and blood-and-soil destiny.

This is how democracies die, and while that’s a phrase you’ll see used a lot, it’s not very well understood even by the columnists and pundits who sort of utter it ad infinitum. This isn’t a game. It’s not a set of platitudes.

This is what happened to America.

And still is.

“Hey, At Least They’re Not the Fascists”

The Democrats just refuse to acknowledge any of this. The long run stagnation. The decline. Any real aspect of it how it’s sort of wrecked the Dream, and destroyed generations of Americans’ fortunes and possibilities.

That leaves a gigantic, truly enormous, vacuum. One that’s big enough for Donald Trump’s ego to fill.

It’s a striking, bizarre thing to see the working and lower middle class support a billionaire, who of course, is also a convicted fraudster. Sort of crazy, right? That happens because nobody trusts the Dems on the economy, and nobody trusts the Dems on the economy because they won’t even admit a glimmer of reality when it comes to the economy.

So what truths can they speak back to people, to gain their trust?

Hence, here we are, sort of half-heartedly supporting them, most of us, knowing that they aren’t going to do a whole lot to really fix much, but hey, at least they’re not the fascists.

Not exactly the stuff of an inspiring politics, is it?

Why the Election’s Closer Than it Should Be

The Democrats still have time to fix this problem, and I say that chuckling, because we all know they won’t.

If anything, it’s probably going to get worse.

People are going to be mystified about why the Democrats think things are great, when they struggle to pay the bills.

They’ll look at Trump, who at least empathizes with them, and says things are bad out there, and it’ll strike a chord in them. Trump will continue to be more credible on the economy, the most important issue, even though he’s, wait for it, a convicted fraudster.

And after a time, Kamala’s grin is going to seem a little off kilter to a lot of people. Why does she keep on smiling, when things are pretty bad for me and mine? Is she for real? What’s the deal here?

I’m not trying to be unkind, I’m just pointing out that being joyous, while it’s fine and nice and good, and even touching, for those who are already true believers, also carries a risk in times like these. It can come across as tone-deaf. These are difficult, difficult days for the vast, vast majority of people, and I know that in statistics like “50% of young people feel numb” or “70% of people feel financially traumatized.”

Given those sorts of social currents, it might be tough to grin your way into the Presidency. In fact, it already is. The contest’s deadlocked. Joy is a tough sell, and at some point, it can verge on Let Them Eat Cake.

Again, those are wicked words, and I’m sorry to write them, but it has to be said, if only for the 0.001% chance the Democrats come to their senses, and begin to actually speak sense, truth, reality, on the Number One Issue to most people, the economy.

People don’t trust them on this issue, and there’s a good reason for that. Not what they want to do. But what they won’t say. The attitude they won’t take. The deafening silence everyone can hear when it comes to admitting how troubled and tough things actually are.

If I wanted you to trust me, and there was smoke billowing from the house, but I kept on telling you the curtains were wonderful, and hey, wait until you see the garage, what would you think of me? This is where the Democrats are heading when it comes to the economy, if they aren’t already, with a whole lot of people.

And that’s why the election’s a lot closer than it should be.

Categories Accountability, Democrats, Economy, Harris, Kamala, Republicans, Trump

Georgia: Court Overturns Abortion Ban!

By dianeravitch
September 30, 2024 //
6

At least for now, abortion is legal again in Georgia.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported:

The state can no longer enforce its ban on abortion that took effect in 2022, a Fulton County judge said Monday, allowing the procedure again to be performed in Georgia after a doctor detects fetal cardiac activity.

Fulton County Superior Judge Robert McBurney issued an order Monday that said abortions must be regulated as they were before Georgia’s 2019 law took effect in July 2022 — meaning the procedure is again allowed up until about 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney wrote in his order that “liberty in Georgia includes in its meaning, in its protections, and in its bundle of rights the power of a woman to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and in it, and to reject state interference with her healthcare choices.”

Categories Freedom, Gender, Georgia, Health
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »