TRUMP plays trump card... AMERICAN ECONOMIC SUPREMe ONLY, WHITE (sexist) EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT n MARGINALISED ...
GAGASAN POLITIS Donald Trump BERDAMPAK pada EKONOMI GLOBAL, kayaknya
TIME.COM: Preet Bharara, the high-profile Manhattan federal prosecutor, said he was fired from his role as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York on Saturday.
The move comes, Bharara said via a tweet on Saturday, after he refused to submit a letter of resignation following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' order to all 46 U.S. Attorney holdovers from Barack Obama's administration to step down.
"I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life," Bharara tweeted.
n November, Bharara met with President Donald Trump following his election. Trump, who was then President-elect, asked Bharara to remain in his role as U.S. Attorney, Bharara told reporters at the time.“The President-elect asked, presumably because he's a New Yorker and is aware of the great work that our office has done over the past seven years ... whether or not I'd be prepared to stay on” and “I agreed,” Bharara said in November, according to the New York Daily News.
👃
NY POST: The Trump administration dropped a political bombshell late Friday as all 46 holdover United States attorneys were ordered to immediately resign — including New York’s political-corruption-busting crusader, Preet Bharara.
Big mistake.
The resignation order itself isn’t unusual: US attorneys serve at the president’s pleasure and most previous presidents have done the same upon taking office.
What’s stunning is that Bharara was included in the order. After all, both then-President-elect Trump and Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions last November specifically asked him to stay on the job, and he agreed.
Yet Friday, when asked if there were any exceptions to the order, a Justice Department spokesman said: “Everyone gone.”
Trump and Sessions were right the first time, and they need to rescind the order for Bharara, the most successful prosecutor yet when it comes to undoing New York’s culture of political corruption.
Indeed, this comes as he’s still investigating the de Blasio administration and other key figures in New York for possible corruption. It’s absolutely the wrong time for him to leave.
👺
the nation: On a frigid evening in February, Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani, two software engineers originally from India, were having a drink at a bar in Olathe, Kansas, when Adam Purinton, a desktop-support specialist, reportedly shouted racial slurs and demanded to know whether they were here legally. Management asked him to leave. Moments later, Purinton came back with a gun, allegedly shouted, “Get out of my country!” and opened fire. Kuchibhotla was killed; Madasani and Ian Grillot, a bar regular who tried to intervene, were injured. Purinton fled the scene, crossing state lines into Missouri, where hours later he stopped by an Applebee’s and told an employee that he needed to hide because he had just shot “two Middle Eastern men.”
That bar is America. On an ordinary night, it might host anyone who wants to buy a drink and catch the Kansas-TCU basketball game. But on another, it might turn into a crime scene because one man thinks he has the right to decide who belongs here and who doesn’t. Where did Adam Purinton get the idea that this was his country alone? And what gave him the right to tell people to get out? The answers to these questions have their roots in white supremacy.
Worried that they might be swept up in a raid, immigrants have begun to avoid soccer games and church services.
Donald Trump spent the last two years telling voters—particularly white voters—that they were losing their jobs and their culture. He cautioned that “bad hombres” were crossing the border, “rapists” and “drug dealers.” He pledged to stop immigration from Muslim countries “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
These promises are now being fulfilled. In January, Trump signed an executive order that banned immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days. The ban was rejected by the courts, but the White House plans to bring it back in modified form soon. And in February, Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security to speed up deportations, loosen the definition of the term “criminal” as it applies to immigrants, publish a list of crimes committed by undocumented people, strip them of their privacy protections, and build more prisons.
Unsurprisingly, the White House and its allies have insisted that this has nothing to do with race or religion, and everything to do with protecting Americans. When asked about the immigration ban, House Speaker Paul Ryan responded that “we need to make sure that the vetting standards are up to snuff, so we can guarantee the safety and security of our country.” As for the deportations, the president explained, in his idiosyncratic style, “We’re getting really bad dudes out of this country. And at a rate that nobody’s ever seen before. And they’re the bad ones. And it’s a military operation.”
Sara Beltrán Hernández, an asylum-seeker from El Salvador, was arrested at her hospital while seeking treatment for a brain tumor.
In fact, the deportations have not been restricted to “bad dudes.” Consider what happened to Sara Beltrán Hernández, an asylum-seeker from El Salvador. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested her at a hospital in Texas where she was seeking treatment for a brain tumor. She is now being held at a privately run prison 40 miles from Dallas. Or take the case of Guadalupe García de Rayos, who came to the United States when she was 14 and has lived here for 21 years. She was caught using a fake Social Security number and ordered to check in with ICE annually in Phoenix. At her most recent meeting, she was arrested and deported to Mexico. (Pause for a minute to consider the crime for which she was separated from her husband and two children: By using a fake Social Security number, she contributed to the retirement benefits of others, while not being able to receive them herself.)
ICE maintains that it is only deporting immigrants who have committed crimes, but its agents have also seized people without criminal records. That’s what happened to Manuel Mosqueda Lopez, a house painter from Los Angeles. In mid-February, agents came to his home looking for someone else, but in the process checked his papers, found he was undocumented, and put him on a bus to Mexico—until lawyers filed an appeal.
No one is being made safe by these arrests. The only thing they accomplish is to deprive families of a mother or a wife, a husband or a father. They disrupt the lives of children and create generational trauma.
The reaction to these deportations among Democrats has been relatively subdued. One reason is that these policies were first tested under Barack Obama, who deported more than 2.5 million people—more than all of the presidents in the 20th century combined. A significant percentage of those deported under Obama had committed only minor offenses, such as traffic violations or drug possession. Only after a huge outcry by immigration advocates did the administration change course and begin restricting its deportation orders to serious criminal offenders.
THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.
Enter Email
SIGN UP!
During his presidential campaign, Trump promised to turn this well-oiled deportation machine on all 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country. Now that he’s in office, ICE agents have conducted raids in at least 12 states, sparking widespread fear in immigrant communities. People have begun to avoid soccer games and church services, worried that they might be swept up in a raid. The Los Angeles Times reported that, after a raid on Asian restaurants in Mississippi, some undocumented immigrants stopped going to work and are pulling their children from school. Trump’s policies, and the hateful rhetoric that accompanies them, have an undeniably racist element. The president has never proposed building a wall along the Canadian border. ICE is not raiding white neighborhoods in Boston looking for undocumented Irish immigrants. This is simply an assault on those immigrants who are steering America away from a white majority.
Which brings me back to that bar in Kansas. “Get out of my country” may as well be the slogan of the Trump administration, directed at anyone who is not white or Christian or straight. But this country doesn’t belong to Trump; it belongs to all of us. We must stop it from being turned into a crime scene.
👀
time.com: The Founding Fathers designed the constitution to prevent some Americans from exercising tyranny. Alert to the classical examples they knew, the decline of ancient Greece and Rome into oligarchy and empire, they established the rule of law, checks and balances, and regular elections as the means of preserving the new republic. Thus far, it has worked. But it need not work forever.
We might imagine that the American system must somehow always sustain itself. But a broader look at the history of democratic republics established since our own revolution reveals that most of them have failed. Politicians who emerge from democratic practices can then work to undo democratic institutions. This was true in the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as during the spread of communism in the 1940s, and indeed in the new wave of authoritarian regime changes of the 21st century. Indeed, absent a truly decisive revolution, which is a rare event, a regime change depends upon such people — regime changers — emerging in one system and transforming it into another.
Heralding a "new chapter of American greatness," President Donald Trump stood before Congress for the first time Tuesday night and issued a broad call for overhauling the nation's health care system, significantly boosting military spending and plung
RELATED
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gives field guidance to the Sinchon Museum
NORTH KOREA
New Kim on the Block: The Rise of Kim Jong Un's Little Sister
It is in this light that we should consider President Donald Trump and his closest advisors and spokespeople. Although they occupy the positions they do thanks to an election, there is little reason to believe that they support the American constitutional system as it stands, and much to remind us of authoritarian regimes changes of the recent past. A basic weapon of regime changers, as fascists realized nearly a century ago, is to destroy the concept of truth. Democracy requires the rule of law, the rule of law depends upon trust, and trust depends upon citizens' acceptance of factuality. The president and his aides actively seek to destroy Americans' sense of reality. Not only does the White House spread "alternative facts," but Kellyanne Conway openly proclaims this as right and good. Post-factuality is pre-fascism.
The function of the press, as the Founding Fathers understood, was to generate the common knowledge on which citizens could understand and debate policy, and to prevent rulers from behaving tyrannically. Whether from the far right or the far left, the regime changers of the twentieth century understood that the media had to be bullied and deprived of importance. When Steve Bannon refers to the press as the "opposition," or Mr. Trump calls journalists "enemies," they are expressing their support for the demolition of the historical, ethical, and intellectual bases of the political life we take for granted. Indeed, when Mr. Trump calls journalists "enemies of the people," he is quoting Joseph Stalin.
Since the end of the cold war, the new authoritarian regimes that have emerged in eastern Europe have taken the form of authoritarian kleptocracies: Russia is the most enduring example of this model; a revolution halted the development of a similar regime in Ukraine in 2014. The Founders, opponents of a British monarchy, were alert to the danger that government might serve to enrich a single family. The emoluments clause of the constitution confirms our common sense: no one can be trusted to defend the interests of citizens if his policy choices can make him richer. This president has not revealed the basic financial information about himself, but we know that he has business interests at home and abroad. Russians and Ukrainians have been quick to notice a familiar pattern.
If there is a common thread that links American political rhetoric from the 18th century to today, through the confrontations with fascist and communist rivals and into the 21st century it is the word "democracy." Our practice has been imperfect, but the endorsement of the idea of rule by the people has been consistent, until now. This president has defied that norm. He has said almost nothing in favor of democracy or, for that matter, civil and human rights. He admires authoritarians. His one major comment on democracy was that he would contest the outcome of elections if they were not in his favor. That is opposition to democracy. Indeed, not recognizing election results and moving to take power anyway is what authoritarians do.
In recent authoritarian regime changes, in Poland and Hungary as well as Russia, the executive power has been able to sideline the judiciary and then humble the legislature. The idea of checks and balances is enshrined in our constitution, but of course also in theirs, is that none of the three branches of government can dominate the others. In denigrating judges, Mr. Trump attacks the geometry of the system. Once the courts are tamed, the legislature cannot defend itself, and we have authoritarianism. If legislators do not support the judiciary, then their turn for humiliation will come, and the laws they pass will be unenforceable. This has been the pattern in recent authoritarian regime changes around the world.
Right-wing authoritarians today use the threat or the reality of terrorism to seek and hold power. The one consistent policy of the Trump administration thus far has been to encourage a Muslim terrorist attack within or upon the United States. Everywhere the first executive order on refugees and immigrants was understood as directed against Muslims. The major consequence, most likely the intended one, is the alienation of Muslims at home and abroad. The proposal to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem is similar: it will never take place, so serves only to alienate and enrage Muslims. Michael Flynn is in the same category: though he was only national security advisor for three weeks, few Muslims will forget that he referred to their religion as a "cancer." Modern authoritarianism is terror management, and so modern authoritarians need terror attacks: real, simulated, or both. As James Madison noticed long ago, tyranny arises "on some favorable emergency."
The experience of the 21st century, as well as the experience of the 1930s, teaches that it takes about a year to engineer a regime change. To what, exactly? We cannot deduce, from the Trump administration's destructive chaos and ideological incoherence, what the post-democratic American regime would be. We can be sure, however, that we would miss being free. The prospect of children and grandchildren growing up under tyranny is terrifyingly real. History can remind us of the fragile fundaments of our own democracy. But what follows now is up to us.
Timothy Snyder is a professor of history at Yale University and the author, most recently, of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.
👮
cbs: A majority of people in the United States say they think the press has been too critical of President Trump since he won the election last November, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.
The poll found 51 percent said the media has been too critical while 41 percent said the press has been mostly fair and objective. Six percent said the media hasn’t been critical enough.
Over half, 53 percent, also said they think that the “news media and other elites” are exaggerating problems by the Trump administration because they feel uncomfortable and threatened by the changes Mr. Trump represents. By contrast, 45 percent said they disagreed with that assessment.
Thirty percent said they get most of their information about politics and currents events from broadcast news networks like CBS, ABC and NBC. Twenty-seven percent said they get their news from Fox News and 23 percent said they get it from CNN. Sixteen percent said they primarily get their news from social media like Twitter and Facebook and 14 percent said they get it from national newspapers like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly slammed the media, calling it the “dishonest press,” and on Friday, the White House barred a slew of journalists from top news organizations from attending an off-camera briefing with press secretary Sean Spicer.
The poll surveyed 1,000 adults between Feb. 18 and 22 with a 3 percentage point margin of error.
👹
Washington DC detik- Presiden Amerika Serikat (AS) Donald Trump menuai kemarahan politikus Partai Republik dan Partai Demokrat karena menyatakan tetap menghormati Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin, terlepas dari berbagai pembunuhan bermotif politik dan invasi ke Ukraina yang dilakukannya.
Dua minggu menjabat Presiden AS, Trump tetap tidak mematuhi seruan Partai Republik yang menaunginya untuk menjauhkan diri dari rezim Putin. Trump justru terjun semakin dalam ke pertikaian politik AS.
"Saya menghormatinya (Putin-red). Iya, saya menghormati banyak orang, tapi itu bukan berarti saya akan akrab dengan mereka," tutur Trump dalam wawancara dengan acara televisi Fox News 'Bill O'Reilly' yang disiarkan Minggu (5/2) dan dilansir AFP, Senin (6/2/2017).
Ketika dimintai komentar soal keterkaitan Putin dengan berbagai pembunuhan jurnalis dan pengkritiknya, Trump menjawab: "Kita memiliki banyak pembunuh. Anda pikir negara ini begitu tak berdosa?"
"Mari kita lihat hal-hal yang telah kita perbuat. Kita melakukan banyak kesalahan," imbuh Trump.
Sejumlah politikus Republikan termasuk pemimpin Senat AS Mitch McConnell langsung melontarkan kritikan pada Trump atas komentar itu. "Saya pikir tidak ada yang bisa disamakan antara cara Rusia berperilaku dengan cara Amerika Serikat berperilaku. Dia (Putin-red) adalah mantan agen KGB, preman, tidak terpilih dengan cara yang sebagian orang sebut sebagai pemilu yang kredibel," sebut McConnell.
Kritikan juga dilontarkan mantan Duta Besar AS untuk Rusia serta penasihat mantan Presiden Barack Obama, Michael McFaul, yang menyebut komentar Trump itu 'menjijikkan'.
"Penyamaan moral yang terus dilakukan Trump antara AS dengan Rusia adalah menjijikkan dan tidak akurat," sebutnya via Twitter.
Kebanyakan politikus Republikan berulang kali menyerukan Trump untuk menjaga jarak dengan Putin. Namun sepanjang kampanye pilpres, Trump menolak mengkritik Putin dan menyebut hubungan yang lebih baik dengan Rusia akan menjadi kepentingan nasional AS.
Presiden AS yang baru ini mengungkapkan niatnya untuk bekerja sama dengan Rusia dalam memerangi kelompok radikal Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) di Suriah. "Jika Rusia membantu kita dalam pertempuran melawan ISIS, yang merupakan peperangan besar, dan terorisme Islam di seluruh dunia, juga peperangan besar. Maka itu hal yang baik," tutur Trump kepada Fox News.
(nvc/ita)
The move comes, Bharara said via a tweet on Saturday, after he refused to submit a letter of resignation following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' order to all 46 U.S. Attorney holdovers from Barack Obama's administration to step down.
"I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life," Bharara tweeted.
n November, Bharara met with President Donald Trump following his election. Trump, who was then President-elect, asked Bharara to remain in his role as U.S. Attorney, Bharara told reporters at the time.“The President-elect asked, presumably because he's a New Yorker and is aware of the great work that our office has done over the past seven years ... whether or not I'd be prepared to stay on” and “I agreed,” Bharara said in November, according to the New York Daily News.
👃
NY POST: The Trump administration dropped a political bombshell late Friday as all 46 holdover United States attorneys were ordered to immediately resign — including New York’s political-corruption-busting crusader, Preet Bharara.
Big mistake.
The resignation order itself isn’t unusual: US attorneys serve at the president’s pleasure and most previous presidents have done the same upon taking office.
What’s stunning is that Bharara was included in the order. After all, both then-President-elect Trump and Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions last November specifically asked him to stay on the job, and he agreed.
Yet Friday, when asked if there were any exceptions to the order, a Justice Department spokesman said: “Everyone gone.”
Trump and Sessions were right the first time, and they need to rescind the order for Bharara, the most successful prosecutor yet when it comes to undoing New York’s culture of political corruption.
Indeed, this comes as he’s still investigating the de Blasio administration and other key figures in New York for possible corruption. It’s absolutely the wrong time for him to leave.
👺
the nation: On a frigid evening in February, Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani, two software engineers originally from India, were having a drink at a bar in Olathe, Kansas, when Adam Purinton, a desktop-support specialist, reportedly shouted racial slurs and demanded to know whether they were here legally. Management asked him to leave. Moments later, Purinton came back with a gun, allegedly shouted, “Get out of my country!” and opened fire. Kuchibhotla was killed; Madasani and Ian Grillot, a bar regular who tried to intervene, were injured. Purinton fled the scene, crossing state lines into Missouri, where hours later he stopped by an Applebee’s and told an employee that he needed to hide because he had just shot “two Middle Eastern men.”That bar is America. On an ordinary night, it might host anyone who wants to buy a drink and catch the Kansas-TCU basketball game. But on another, it might turn into a crime scene because one man thinks he has the right to decide who belongs here and who doesn’t. Where did Adam Purinton get the idea that this was his country alone? And what gave him the right to tell people to get out? The answers to these questions have their roots in white supremacy.
Worried that they might be swept up in a raid, immigrants have begun to avoid soccer games and church services.
Donald Trump spent the last two years telling voters—particularly white voters—that they were losing their jobs and their culture. He cautioned that “bad hombres” were crossing the border, “rapists” and “drug dealers.” He pledged to stop immigration from Muslim countries “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
These promises are now being fulfilled. In January, Trump signed an executive order that banned immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days. The ban was rejected by the courts, but the White House plans to bring it back in modified form soon. And in February, Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security to speed up deportations, loosen the definition of the term “criminal” as it applies to immigrants, publish a list of crimes committed by undocumented people, strip them of their privacy protections, and build more prisons.
Unsurprisingly, the White House and its allies have insisted that this has nothing to do with race or religion, and everything to do with protecting Americans. When asked about the immigration ban, House Speaker Paul Ryan responded that “we need to make sure that the vetting standards are up to snuff, so we can guarantee the safety and security of our country.” As for the deportations, the president explained, in his idiosyncratic style, “We’re getting really bad dudes out of this country. And at a rate that nobody’s ever seen before. And they’re the bad ones. And it’s a military operation.”
Sara Beltrán Hernández, an asylum-seeker from El Salvador, was arrested at her hospital while seeking treatment for a brain tumor.
In fact, the deportations have not been restricted to “bad dudes.” Consider what happened to Sara Beltrán Hernández, an asylum-seeker from El Salvador. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested her at a hospital in Texas where she was seeking treatment for a brain tumor. She is now being held at a privately run prison 40 miles from Dallas. Or take the case of Guadalupe García de Rayos, who came to the United States when she was 14 and has lived here for 21 years. She was caught using a fake Social Security number and ordered to check in with ICE annually in Phoenix. At her most recent meeting, she was arrested and deported to Mexico. (Pause for a minute to consider the crime for which she was separated from her husband and two children: By using a fake Social Security number, she contributed to the retirement benefits of others, while not being able to receive them herself.)
ICE maintains that it is only deporting immigrants who have committed crimes, but its agents have also seized people without criminal records. That’s what happened to Manuel Mosqueda Lopez, a house painter from Los Angeles. In mid-February, agents came to his home looking for someone else, but in the process checked his papers, found he was undocumented, and put him on a bus to Mexico—until lawyers filed an appeal.
No one is being made safe by these arrests. The only thing they accomplish is to deprive families of a mother or a wife, a husband or a father. They disrupt the lives of children and create generational trauma.
The reaction to these deportations among Democrats has been relatively subdued. One reason is that these policies were first tested under Barack Obama, who deported more than 2.5 million people—more than all of the presidents in the 20th century combined. A significant percentage of those deported under Obama had committed only minor offenses, such as traffic violations or drug possession. Only after a huge outcry by immigration advocates did the administration change course and begin restricting its deportation orders to serious criminal offenders.
THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.
Enter Email
SIGN UP!
During his presidential campaign, Trump promised to turn this well-oiled deportation machine on all 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country. Now that he’s in office, ICE agents have conducted raids in at least 12 states, sparking widespread fear in immigrant communities. People have begun to avoid soccer games and church services, worried that they might be swept up in a raid. The Los Angeles Times reported that, after a raid on Asian restaurants in Mississippi, some undocumented immigrants stopped going to work and are pulling their children from school. Trump’s policies, and the hateful rhetoric that accompanies them, have an undeniably racist element. The president has never proposed building a wall along the Canadian border. ICE is not raiding white neighborhoods in Boston looking for undocumented Irish immigrants. This is simply an assault on those immigrants who are steering America away from a white majority.
Which brings me back to that bar in Kansas. “Get out of my country” may as well be the slogan of the Trump administration, directed at anyone who is not white or Christian or straight. But this country doesn’t belong to Trump; it belongs to all of us. We must stop it from being turned into a crime scene.
👀
time.com: The Founding Fathers designed the constitution to prevent some Americans from exercising tyranny. Alert to the classical examples they knew, the decline of ancient Greece and Rome into oligarchy and empire, they established the rule of law, checks and balances, and regular elections as the means of preserving the new republic. Thus far, it has worked. But it need not work forever.We might imagine that the American system must somehow always sustain itself. But a broader look at the history of democratic republics established since our own revolution reveals that most of them have failed. Politicians who emerge from democratic practices can then work to undo democratic institutions. This was true in the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as during the spread of communism in the 1940s, and indeed in the new wave of authoritarian regime changes of the 21st century. Indeed, absent a truly decisive revolution, which is a rare event, a regime change depends upon such people — regime changers — emerging in one system and transforming it into another.
Heralding a "new chapter of American greatness," President Donald Trump stood before Congress for the first time Tuesday night and issued a broad call for overhauling the nation's health care system, significantly boosting military spending and plung
RELATED
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gives field guidance to the Sinchon Museum
NORTH KOREA
New Kim on the Block: The Rise of Kim Jong Un's Little Sister
It is in this light that we should consider President Donald Trump and his closest advisors and spokespeople. Although they occupy the positions they do thanks to an election, there is little reason to believe that they support the American constitutional system as it stands, and much to remind us of authoritarian regimes changes of the recent past. A basic weapon of regime changers, as fascists realized nearly a century ago, is to destroy the concept of truth. Democracy requires the rule of law, the rule of law depends upon trust, and trust depends upon citizens' acceptance of factuality. The president and his aides actively seek to destroy Americans' sense of reality. Not only does the White House spread "alternative facts," but Kellyanne Conway openly proclaims this as right and good. Post-factuality is pre-fascism.
The function of the press, as the Founding Fathers understood, was to generate the common knowledge on which citizens could understand and debate policy, and to prevent rulers from behaving tyrannically. Whether from the far right or the far left, the regime changers of the twentieth century understood that the media had to be bullied and deprived of importance. When Steve Bannon refers to the press as the "opposition," or Mr. Trump calls journalists "enemies," they are expressing their support for the demolition of the historical, ethical, and intellectual bases of the political life we take for granted. Indeed, when Mr. Trump calls journalists "enemies of the people," he is quoting Joseph Stalin.
Since the end of the cold war, the new authoritarian regimes that have emerged in eastern Europe have taken the form of authoritarian kleptocracies: Russia is the most enduring example of this model; a revolution halted the development of a similar regime in Ukraine in 2014. The Founders, opponents of a British monarchy, were alert to the danger that government might serve to enrich a single family. The emoluments clause of the constitution confirms our common sense: no one can be trusted to defend the interests of citizens if his policy choices can make him richer. This president has not revealed the basic financial information about himself, but we know that he has business interests at home and abroad. Russians and Ukrainians have been quick to notice a familiar pattern.
If there is a common thread that links American political rhetoric from the 18th century to today, through the confrontations with fascist and communist rivals and into the 21st century it is the word "democracy." Our practice has been imperfect, but the endorsement of the idea of rule by the people has been consistent, until now. This president has defied that norm. He has said almost nothing in favor of democracy or, for that matter, civil and human rights. He admires authoritarians. His one major comment on democracy was that he would contest the outcome of elections if they were not in his favor. That is opposition to democracy. Indeed, not recognizing election results and moving to take power anyway is what authoritarians do.
In recent authoritarian regime changes, in Poland and Hungary as well as Russia, the executive power has been able to sideline the judiciary and then humble the legislature. The idea of checks and balances is enshrined in our constitution, but of course also in theirs, is that none of the three branches of government can dominate the others. In denigrating judges, Mr. Trump attacks the geometry of the system. Once the courts are tamed, the legislature cannot defend itself, and we have authoritarianism. If legislators do not support the judiciary, then their turn for humiliation will come, and the laws they pass will be unenforceable. This has been the pattern in recent authoritarian regime changes around the world.
Right-wing authoritarians today use the threat or the reality of terrorism to seek and hold power. The one consistent policy of the Trump administration thus far has been to encourage a Muslim terrorist attack within or upon the United States. Everywhere the first executive order on refugees and immigrants was understood as directed against Muslims. The major consequence, most likely the intended one, is the alienation of Muslims at home and abroad. The proposal to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem is similar: it will never take place, so serves only to alienate and enrage Muslims. Michael Flynn is in the same category: though he was only national security advisor for three weeks, few Muslims will forget that he referred to their religion as a "cancer." Modern authoritarianism is terror management, and so modern authoritarians need terror attacks: real, simulated, or both. As James Madison noticed long ago, tyranny arises "on some favorable emergency."
The experience of the 21st century, as well as the experience of the 1930s, teaches that it takes about a year to engineer a regime change. To what, exactly? We cannot deduce, from the Trump administration's destructive chaos and ideological incoherence, what the post-democratic American regime would be. We can be sure, however, that we would miss being free. The prospect of children and grandchildren growing up under tyranny is terrifyingly real. History can remind us of the fragile fundaments of our own democracy. But what follows now is up to us.
Timothy Snyder is a professor of history at Yale University and the author, most recently, of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.
👮
cbs: A majority of people in the United States say they think the press has been too critical of President Trump since he won the election last November, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.
The poll found 51 percent said the media has been too critical while 41 percent said the press has been mostly fair and objective. Six percent said the media hasn’t been critical enough.
Over half, 53 percent, also said they think that the “news media and other elites” are exaggerating problems by the Trump administration because they feel uncomfortable and threatened by the changes Mr. Trump represents. By contrast, 45 percent said they disagreed with that assessment.
Thirty percent said they get most of their information about politics and currents events from broadcast news networks like CBS, ABC and NBC. Twenty-seven percent said they get their news from Fox News and 23 percent said they get it from CNN. Sixteen percent said they primarily get their news from social media like Twitter and Facebook and 14 percent said they get it from national newspapers like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly slammed the media, calling it the “dishonest press,” and on Friday, the White House barred a slew of journalists from top news organizations from attending an off-camera briefing with press secretary Sean Spicer.
The poll surveyed 1,000 adults between Feb. 18 and 22 with a 3 percentage point margin of error.
👹
Washington DC detik- Presiden Amerika Serikat (AS) Donald Trump menuai kemarahan politikus Partai Republik dan Partai Demokrat karena menyatakan tetap menghormati Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin, terlepas dari berbagai pembunuhan bermotif politik dan invasi ke Ukraina yang dilakukannya.
Dua minggu menjabat Presiden AS, Trump tetap tidak mematuhi seruan Partai Republik yang menaunginya untuk menjauhkan diri dari rezim Putin. Trump justru terjun semakin dalam ke pertikaian politik AS.
"Saya menghormatinya (Putin-red). Iya, saya menghormati banyak orang, tapi itu bukan berarti saya akan akrab dengan mereka," tutur Trump dalam wawancara dengan acara televisi Fox News 'Bill O'Reilly' yang disiarkan Minggu (5/2) dan dilansir AFP, Senin (6/2/2017).
Ketika dimintai komentar soal keterkaitan Putin dengan berbagai pembunuhan jurnalis dan pengkritiknya, Trump menjawab: "Kita memiliki banyak pembunuh. Anda pikir negara ini begitu tak berdosa?"
"Mari kita lihat hal-hal yang telah kita perbuat. Kita melakukan banyak kesalahan," imbuh Trump.
Sejumlah politikus Republikan termasuk pemimpin Senat AS Mitch McConnell langsung melontarkan kritikan pada Trump atas komentar itu. "Saya pikir tidak ada yang bisa disamakan antara cara Rusia berperilaku dengan cara Amerika Serikat berperilaku. Dia (Putin-red) adalah mantan agen KGB, preman, tidak terpilih dengan cara yang sebagian orang sebut sebagai pemilu yang kredibel," sebut McConnell.
Kritikan juga dilontarkan mantan Duta Besar AS untuk Rusia serta penasihat mantan Presiden Barack Obama, Michael McFaul, yang menyebut komentar Trump itu 'menjijikkan'.
"Penyamaan moral yang terus dilakukan Trump antara AS dengan Rusia adalah menjijikkan dan tidak akurat," sebutnya via Twitter.
Kebanyakan politikus Republikan berulang kali menyerukan Trump untuk menjaga jarak dengan Putin. Namun sepanjang kampanye pilpres, Trump menolak mengkritik Putin dan menyebut hubungan yang lebih baik dengan Rusia akan menjadi kepentingan nasional AS.
Presiden AS yang baru ini mengungkapkan niatnya untuk bekerja sama dengan Rusia dalam memerangi kelompok radikal Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) di Suriah. "Jika Rusia membantu kita dalam pertempuran melawan ISIS, yang merupakan peperangan besar, dan terorisme Islam di seluruh dunia, juga peperangan besar. Maka itu hal yang baik," tutur Trump kepada Fox News.
(nvc/ita)
PERMANENT LINK | OCTOBER 8, 2012National Egoism and Vronsky Syndrome
Bryan Caplan
I was just at a conference where several eminent economists embraced the following principle:
It was frustrating to listen. On the one hand, any philosophy professor could instantly produce devastating counter-examples to this principle of national egoism. For starters:
1. If conquering and enslaving Canada would increase American per-capita GDP, should we therefore conquer and enslave Canada?
2. If we could forever end world poverty by reducing American per-capita GDP by a penny, should we refuse to end world poverty?
3. If we could costlessly exterminate all Americans who produce a below-average quantity of GDP, should we exterminate them?
At the same time, though, I was virtually certain that if I raised these counter-examples, the promoters of the principle would accuse me of attacking an absurd straw man. "Of course we don't favor enslaving Canada, maintaining world poverty, or mass murdering Americans of below-average productivity." How could I be so dense as to criticize what they actually said instead of what they vaguely meant?
After the conference, I spent a lot of time reflecting on the mentality of the avowed national egoists I'd encountered. Before long I remembered one of my favorite passages in Anna Karenina:
The lesson: National egoists are hardly alone. They're just one prominent example of what could be called Vronsky Syndrome. The general pattern: They swallow conventional morality whole. They don't search for inconsistencies. Indeed, if you point out their inconsistencies, they act like you're the clueless one. As a result, they rarely wonder if they're in the wrong - and habitually embrace popular evils, guilt-free.
The United States should adopt whatever policies maximize the per-capita GDP of the existing population of the United States, and their descendents.
Vronsky's life was particularly happy in that he had a code of principles, which defined with unfailing certitude what he ought and what he ought not to do. This code of principles covered only a very small circle of contingencies, but then the principles were never doubtful, and Vronsky, as he never went outside that circle, had never had a moment's hesitation about doing what he ought to do. These principles laid down as invariable rules: that one must pay a cardsharper, but need not pay a tailor; that one must never tell a lie to a man, but one may to a woman; that one must never cheat any one, but one may a husband; that one must never pardon an insult, but one may give one and so on. These principles were possibly not reasonable and not good, but they were of unfailing certainty, and so long as he adhered to them, Vronsky felt that his heart was at peace and he could hold his head up.
👐
Merdeka.com - Tim ahli hukum dan etik kemarin mengajukan tuntutan terhadap Presiden Donald Trump ke pengadilan federal karena menilai bisnis Trump di luar negeri sudah melanggar Konstitusi. Aturan konstitusi AS menyatakan presiden dilarang meraup keuntungan bisnis dari pemerintah luar negeri.
Tim ahli itu mengajukan permohonan agar pengadilan menghentikan Presiden Trump dari melanggar Konstitusi karena menerima keuntungan bisnis dari pemerintah luar negeri.
"Ketika dia menjadi presiden dan melakukan perjanjian perdagangan dengan negara lain, maka rakyat Amerika tidak bakal tahu apakah dia juga berpikir untuk meraih keuntungan buat bisnisnya," kata tim tersebut dalam tuntutannya, seperti dilansir situs NPR.org, Senin (23/1).
Di antara salah satu anggota tim ahli itu adalah mantan penasihat etik Gedung Putih pada masa Presiden George W. Bush, Richard Painter.
"Hanya beberapa blok saja dari Gedung Putih, ada Trump Hotel. Selama ini ada kontroversi yang menyebut hotel itu menekan pemerintah untuk meninggalkan hotel lain di Washington supaya datang ke hotel Trump. Meski tuduhan itu belum terbukti, Trump Hotel di D.C tentu mencari keuntungan bisnis dari pemerintah luar negeri. Saat Trump menjadi presiden dan sudah diambil sumpahnya maka itu menjadi pelanggaran terhadap Konstitusi," kata mantan penasihat etik Presiden Barack Obama, Norman Eisen.
[pan]
❤
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Menteri Keuangan (Menkeu) Sri Mulyani masih mencermati dinamika ekonomi Amerika Serikat (AS) di bawah kepemimpinan baru Presiden Donald Trump. Terlebih, diperkirakan AS akan membuat berbagai kebijakan yang proteksionis.
"Kami akan lihat antisipasinya. Kalau pertumbuhannya positif tapi dari kebijakan moneter dan dari sisi kebijakan perdagangannya negatif, maka nett effect-nya ke dunia juga akan kami lihat," ujar Menkeu di Jakarta, Jumat (13/1/2017).
Menurut mantan Direktur Pelaksana Bank Dunia itu, ekspansi perekonomian dan pertumbuhan ekonomi AS yang positif tidak selalu membawa dampak positif kepada dunia bila dikombinasikan dengan berbagai kebijakan yang proteksionis.
Dari awal kampanyenya, sejumlah rencana proteksi ekonomi sudah ia sampaikan. Misalnya dia ingin melakukan renegosiasi NAFTA yang selama ini menjadi pengikat kerjasama perdagangan antara Kanada, AS dan Meksiko.
Selain itu, untuk mengurangi masuknya barang dari Meksiko, Trump berencana membangun pagar di bagian selatan negara itu yang berbatasan dengan Meksiko.
Dengan China, Trump ingin menaikkan tarif hingga 45 persen agar barang-barang dari negara itu bisa dihambat masuk. Berbagai kebijakan itu tinggi berpotensi menghambat perekonomian negara-negara berkembang, termasuk Indonesia.
Ekonomi Indonesia juga tergantung pada China. Ketika ekonomi negaru Tirai Bambu itu melambat, ekspor komoditas asal Indonesia ke negara itu juga bakal terdampak.
"Oleh karena itu kita bisa mengantisispasi kebijakan moneternya mencoba menetralisir," kata perempuan kelahiran Lampung 54 tahun silam itu.
👍
The theory of the two extremes in Greek politicsSeptember 29, 2013
The governing party of New Democracy -one of the two parties of the coalition government in Greece along with PASOK- has meticulously developed a communication strategy since mid-summer that was aiming to equalize the dangers of the extreme right party Golden Dawn with the front opposition leftist party SYRIZA in the quest of maximizing its direct electorate profits through the polarization of the political system and, mainly, of the Greek society. Is this policy going to be profitable for New Democracy and increase its polling stats or it is going to be a backfire for social stability in the country?It goes without saying that austerity politics and social unrest are a fatal mixture in Greece since 2010 and the tremendous downturn of the economy. The first political strike against the decision of the government of PASOK in 2009 to seek for foreign aid through bailout plans in order to save the country from bankruptcy and the Memoranda of Agreement with troika since 2010, that have led to massive layoffs from the private and public sector, the incessant rise of unemployment and poverty rates, the continuous increase of taxation and the spending cuts in salaries and pensions, came through the double elections of May and June 2012 that ended up with a complete polarization of the political scene and the entrance of extreme right in the Greek Parliament. The party of Golden Dawn has achieved to enter the mainstream political scene with a percentage of almost 7% that is considered to be a unprecedented breakthrough for extreme right in Greek political history. Since then, official polls are showing a stable increase of the party’s percentage which in mid-summer reached something around 11%.
In response to the continuous rise of Golden Dawn and in quest of minimizing the effect and appeal of front opposition SYRIZA in the Greek society, the communication team of PM Mr. Samaras launched the theory of the two extremes by equalizing the dangers for political destabilization from both Golden Dawn and SYRIZA. In order to analyze the mindset of this theory, it is important to split it into two parts and focus on both the political / strategic approach and the ethical approach.
From a political / strategic approach, the decision to initiate the theory of the two extremes can be characterized as politically permissible or tolerable per se,as the major scope is to maximize the electorate profits for the party. In a strongly polarized Greek society, this strategy could bring some efficient results that, aligned with a certain propaganda from the press team and the proxy medias of the government, could give a significant breath in the hard semester that follows. Such strategies and propagandas are familiar in modern political history, especially in pre-election campaigns, with the parties that decide to act relevantly to finally strengthen and coil up electorate leakage absorbed by other political parties.
From an ethical perspective, we need to point out that such a theory might strongly entail significant perils when it comes to count for social stability. In a society which is deeply affected by austerity politics and recession, the equalization of the major oppositional parties of Golden Dawn and SYRIZA as “extremities” and dangerous for the democracy and social stability is considered as scarcely justified. In the eyes of the public such an equation can be misleading and destructive, let alone the fact that it weakens the legitimate political debate and the real drawbacks of a certain governmental policy. And here is when democracy and absolutism are starting to get blurred and barely discernible.
Furthermore, we need to stress out that this theory can be equally englobed in a wider circle of acts of distraction that the government is initiating in order to save political time and smooth social unrest stirred by the introduction of additional measures that the Greek government might be possibly obliged to take following the conclusion of negotiations with troika regarding the performance of the Greek economy. In this respect, it goes without saying that as long as the Greek economic policy and performance show no signs of improvement, we might see the same play again and again.
TEMPO.CO, Washington - Baru sehari dilantik menjadi Presiden Amerika Serikat, Donald Trump sudah membuat kehebohan. Pidato inaugurasi Donald Trump di Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Amerika Serikat, Jumat, 20 Januari 2017, disebut netizen mirip dengan dialog film Batman.
Ada sepenggal bagian pidato Donald Trump yang mengingatkan netizen pada salah satu penjahat film Batman. Penjahat tersebut adalah Bane (Tom Hardy) yang muncul dalam film The Dark Knight Rises pada 2012.
"Kami mengembalikan itu kembali kepada kalian...masyarakat," ujar Donald Trump dalam pidatonya. Penggalan pernyataan Donald Trump ini terasa mirip dengan pidato Bane saat mengambil alih Kota Gotham. Intonasi dan gaya bicara Donald Trump bahkan menyerupai penjahat tersebut. Kemiripan pidato Donald Trump dan dialog film Batman ini tentu menjadi pembicaraan heboh netizen.
“Saya berharap Trump menggunakan lebih banyak pernyataan Bane dalam pidatonya. Setidaknya itu akan menghibur," kata seorang netizen. "Momen paling canggung adalah ketika presiden baru Amerika Serikat plagiat Bane," timpal netizen lain. "Tom Hardy seharusnya mengisi suara untuk pidato Trump tadi," komentar seorang netizen.
TABLOID BINTANG.COM
👻
PFI: Speaking at a conference in Frankfurt yesterday, Vítor Constâncio cautioned about “drawing hasty, positive conclusions” from the seemingly promising signs from the market in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Constâncio noted the “beginning of a shift from bonds to equities” in the markets last week in anticipation of a Trump spending spree that will raise growth and the chances of an interest rate rise from the US Federal Reserve – a positive development for financial institution profitability, although not for governments looking to borrow.
But he argued that any boost to US growth will come in the context “of an ‘America first’ policy” and that the real negative effects of heightened uncertainty could come later.
“The possibility of rising protectionism – hard or soft – can substantially reduce the effect of higher growth into US imports,” he told delegates. “World trade, already quite weak, may continue to collapse, hurting all open economies dependent on exports.”
He also highlighted the negative effects already witnessed in emerging markets, where investors have flocked from assets and currencies in anticipation of a closed-off America.
Protectionist measures directed particularly against large emerging markets – China or Mexico, say – could prompt a further slowdown in global growth and instability in foreign exchange markets, he continued.
Constâncio’s outlook for the eurozone was also bleak. He described the bloc’s current growth as “far from impressive” and noted that unemployment, while falling, remains stubbornly high at more than 10%. Inflation is also “not recovering” and wage growth needs to be much higher, he added.
He did however deliver praise the ECB’s monetary stimulus package, the most controversial aspect of which is its quantitative easing programme. This will see the bank buy €80bn worth of bonds per month.
The programme was extended and increased in March 2016, and ever since, the ECB has been under pressure to disclose whether it will extend it beyond its scheduled end date of March 2017.
Constâncio’s comments yesterday indicate this is likely, since risks to the eurozone’s health, from Trump’s policies, the Brexit vote and internal strife within the European Union threaten already weak growth.
Constâncio called for deeper unity and integration to repair increasing divisions between the EU’s 28 members in the past few years. Also, he said the bloc would need to rely more on its domestic market to underpin growth, if the union was to face increased global uncertainty.
The euro area will also need to develop a joint strategy to face challenges with bank profitability, he added.
“In this, as in other domains, Europe must endeavour to work together to face a more challenging world that threatens European values of open and tolerant societies,” he concluded.
kontan: Trump tampil mengecewakan, Wall Street berakhir merah
NEW YORK. Penampilan Presiden AS terpilih Donald Trump pada konferensi pers pertamanya mengecewakan investor. Kondisi ini yang kemudian tampak pada pergerakan pasar saham AS yang kompak memerah malam tadi (12/1).
Mengutip data CNBC, pada pukul 16.00 waktu New York, indeks Dow Jones Industrial Average turun 0,32% menjadi 19.891. Saham Walt Disney menjadi saham dengan penurunan terdalam. Sementara, saham McDonald's menjadi saham dengan kenaikan tertinggi.
Adapun indeks S&P 500 turun 0,21% menjadi 2.270,44. Sektor finansial menjadi sektor dengan kenaikan terbesar di antara tujuh sektor lainnya. Sedangkan sektor dengan performa terbaik adalah sektor telekomunikasi.
Di sisi lain, indeks Nasdaq juga tertekan 0,29% menjadi 5.547,49.
Dalam setiap sembilan saham yang turun, terdapat lima saham yang mendaki di New York Stock Exchange. Volume transaksi perdagangan tadi malam melibatkan 787,27 juta saham dengan volume transaksi gabungan mencapai 3,414 miliar saham saat penutupan.
"Saya rasa pelaku pasar mulai mengambil langkah moderat dari langkah yang diambil beberapa pekan sebelumnya, dan itu sah-sah saja. Market sebelumnya terdorong oleh banyak sekali kabar baik. Dan saat ini, market membutuhkan penjelasan detil mengenai kebijakan," papar Art Hogan, chief market strategist Wunderlich Securities.
Sementara itu, Craig Erlam, senior market analyst Oanda menilai, konferensi pers pertama Trump pada Rabu lalu bukanlah sesuatu yang ingin didengar investor. "Apalagi dengan adanya pembicaraan mengenai proteksionisme dan lebih banyak menyerang perusahaan, Trump sangat tidak market friendly," papar Erlam.
Trump menyerang industri farmasi, yang pada akhirnya membuat saham-saham kesehatan dan bioteknologi terguncang. Dia juga dinilai gagal dalam memberikan penjelasan detil atas tiga kunci kebijakan politiknya, yakni: reformasi pajak, deregulasi atas sektor tertentu, dan stimulus fiskal.
💣
Donald Trump clinched the presidency Monday as members of the electoral college cast ballots declaring him the victor, a perfunctory conclusion to the most stunning presidential contest in modern history.
Trump became the winner Monday afternoon after electors from Texas cast ballots and put him over the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Results will be officially announced Jan. 6 in a special joint session of Congress.
While Democrat Hillary Clinton amassed a nearly 3 million-vote lead in the popular vote, Trump won the state-by-state electoral map, making him president-elect. That political dichotomy sparked special scrutiny and intense lobbying of electors by Trump’s opponents in recent weeks, including mass protests. It also drew outsize attention to the usually overlooked, constitutionally obligated gatherings of 538 electors in 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The mostly symbolic calls for an electoral college rejection of Trump grew after revelations of a CIA assessment that Russian hacking could have boosted his campaign, which in the view of many Trump critics raised doubts about his legitimacy.
TEMPO.CO, Washington - Baru sehari dilantik menjadi Presiden Amerika Serikat, Donald Trump sudah membuat kehebohan. Pidato inaugurasi Donald Trump di Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Amerika Serikat, Jumat, 20 Januari 2017, disebut netizen mirip dengan dialog film Batman.
Ada sepenggal bagian pidato Donald Trump yang mengingatkan netizen pada salah satu penjahat film Batman. Penjahat tersebut adalah Bane (Tom Hardy) yang muncul dalam film The Dark Knight Rises pada 2012.
"Kami mengembalikan itu kembali kepada kalian...masyarakat," ujar Donald Trump dalam pidatonya. Penggalan pernyataan Donald Trump ini terasa mirip dengan pidato Bane saat mengambil alih Kota Gotham. Intonasi dan gaya bicara Donald Trump bahkan menyerupai penjahat tersebut. Kemiripan pidato Donald Trump dan dialog film Batman ini tentu menjadi pembicaraan heboh netizen.
“Saya berharap Trump menggunakan lebih banyak pernyataan Bane dalam pidatonya. Setidaknya itu akan menghibur," kata seorang netizen. "Momen paling canggung adalah ketika presiden baru Amerika Serikat plagiat Bane," timpal netizen lain. "Tom Hardy seharusnya mengisi suara untuk pidato Trump tadi," komentar seorang netizen.
TABLOID BINTANG.COM
PFI: Speaking at a conference in Frankfurt yesterday, Vítor Constâncio cautioned about “drawing hasty, positive conclusions” from the seemingly promising signs from the market in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Ada sepenggal bagian pidato Donald Trump yang mengingatkan netizen pada salah satu penjahat film Batman. Penjahat tersebut adalah Bane (Tom Hardy) yang muncul dalam film The Dark Knight Rises pada 2012.
"Kami mengembalikan itu kembali kepada kalian...masyarakat," ujar Donald Trump dalam pidatonya. Penggalan pernyataan Donald Trump ini terasa mirip dengan pidato Bane saat mengambil alih Kota Gotham. Intonasi dan gaya bicara Donald Trump bahkan menyerupai penjahat tersebut. Kemiripan pidato Donald Trump dan dialog film Batman ini tentu menjadi pembicaraan heboh netizen.
“Saya berharap Trump menggunakan lebih banyak pernyataan Bane dalam pidatonya. Setidaknya itu akan menghibur," kata seorang netizen. "Momen paling canggung adalah ketika presiden baru Amerika Serikat plagiat Bane," timpal netizen lain. "Tom Hardy seharusnya mengisi suara untuk pidato Trump tadi," komentar seorang netizen.
TABLOID BINTANG.COM
👻
PFI: Speaking at a conference in Frankfurt yesterday, Vítor Constâncio cautioned about “drawing hasty, positive conclusions” from the seemingly promising signs from the market in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Constâncio noted the “beginning of a shift from bonds to equities” in the markets last week in anticipation of a Trump spending spree that will raise growth and the chances of an interest rate rise from the US Federal Reserve – a positive development for financial institution profitability, although not for governments looking to borrow.
But he argued that any boost to US growth will come in the context “of an ‘America first’ policy” and that the real negative effects of heightened uncertainty could come later.
“The possibility of rising protectionism – hard or soft – can substantially reduce the effect of higher growth into US imports,” he told delegates. “World trade, already quite weak, may continue to collapse, hurting all open economies dependent on exports.”
He also highlighted the negative effects already witnessed in emerging markets, where investors have flocked from assets and currencies in anticipation of a closed-off America.
Protectionist measures directed particularly against large emerging markets – China or Mexico, say – could prompt a further slowdown in global growth and instability in foreign exchange markets, he continued.
Constâncio’s outlook for the eurozone was also bleak. He described the bloc’s current growth as “far from impressive” and noted that unemployment, while falling, remains stubbornly high at more than 10%. Inflation is also “not recovering” and wage growth needs to be much higher, he added.
He did however deliver praise the ECB’s monetary stimulus package, the most controversial aspect of which is its quantitative easing programme. This will see the bank buy €80bn worth of bonds per month.
The programme was extended and increased in March 2016, and ever since, the ECB has been under pressure to disclose whether it will extend it beyond its scheduled end date of March 2017.
Constâncio’s comments yesterday indicate this is likely, since risks to the eurozone’s health, from Trump’s policies, the Brexit vote and internal strife within the European Union threaten already weak growth.
Constâncio called for deeper unity and integration to repair increasing divisions between the EU’s 28 members in the past few years. Also, he said the bloc would need to rely more on its domestic market to underpin growth, if the union was to face increased global uncertainty.
The euro area will also need to develop a joint strategy to face challenges with bank profitability, he added.
“In this, as in other domains, Europe must endeavour to work together to face a more challenging world that threatens European values of open and tolerant societies,” he concluded.
kontan: Trump tampil mengecewakan, Wall Street berakhir merah
NEW YORK. Penampilan Presiden AS terpilih Donald Trump pada konferensi pers pertamanya mengecewakan investor. Kondisi ini yang kemudian tampak pada pergerakan pasar saham AS yang kompak memerah malam tadi (12/1).
Mengutip data CNBC, pada pukul 16.00 waktu New York, indeks Dow Jones Industrial Average turun 0,32% menjadi 19.891. Saham Walt Disney menjadi saham dengan penurunan terdalam. Sementara, saham McDonald's menjadi saham dengan kenaikan tertinggi.
Adapun indeks S&P 500 turun 0,21% menjadi 2.270,44. Sektor finansial menjadi sektor dengan kenaikan terbesar di antara tujuh sektor lainnya. Sedangkan sektor dengan performa terbaik adalah sektor telekomunikasi.
Di sisi lain, indeks Nasdaq juga tertekan 0,29% menjadi 5.547,49.
Dalam setiap sembilan saham yang turun, terdapat lima saham yang mendaki di New York Stock Exchange. Volume transaksi perdagangan tadi malam melibatkan 787,27 juta saham dengan volume transaksi gabungan mencapai 3,414 miliar saham saat penutupan.
"Saya rasa pelaku pasar mulai mengambil langkah moderat dari langkah yang diambil beberapa pekan sebelumnya, dan itu sah-sah saja. Market sebelumnya terdorong oleh banyak sekali kabar baik. Dan saat ini, market membutuhkan penjelasan detil mengenai kebijakan," papar Art Hogan, chief market strategist Wunderlich Securities.
Sementara itu, Craig Erlam, senior market analyst Oanda menilai, konferensi pers pertama Trump pada Rabu lalu bukanlah sesuatu yang ingin didengar investor. "Apalagi dengan adanya pembicaraan mengenai proteksionisme dan lebih banyak menyerang perusahaan, Trump sangat tidak market friendly," papar Erlam.
Trump menyerang industri farmasi, yang pada akhirnya membuat saham-saham kesehatan dan bioteknologi terguncang. Dia juga dinilai gagal dalam memberikan penjelasan detil atas tiga kunci kebijakan politiknya, yakni: reformasi pajak, deregulasi atas sektor tertentu, dan stimulus fiskal.
💣
Donald Trump clinched the presidency Monday as members of the electoral college cast ballots declaring him the victor, a perfunctory conclusion to the most stunning presidential contest in modern history.
Trump became the winner Monday afternoon after electors from Texas cast ballots and put him over the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Results will be officially announced Jan. 6 in a special joint session of Congress.
While Democrat Hillary Clinton amassed a nearly 3 million-vote lead in the popular vote, Trump won the state-by-state electoral map, making him president-elect. That political dichotomy sparked special scrutiny and intense lobbying of electors by Trump’s opponents in recent weeks, including mass protests. It also drew outsize attention to the usually overlooked, constitutionally obligated gatherings of 538 electors in 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The mostly symbolic calls for an electoral college rejection of Trump grew after revelations of a CIA assessment that Russian hacking could have boosted his campaign, which in the view of many Trump critics raised doubts about his legitimacy.
THE TRUMP TRANSITION
LIMA – Presiden Amerika Serikat (AS) yang sebentar lagi mengakhiri masa jabatannya, Barack Obama mengingatkan semua negara agar tidak terlalu resah terhadap kampanye Presiden Terpilih Donald Trump yang dinilai bakal menerapkan kebijakan proteksionis.
Obama mengatakan hal itu ketika ditanya Wakil Presiden RI Jusuf Kalla tentang masa depan AS di sela-sela Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Kerja Sama Ekonomi Asia-Pasifik (APEC) di Lima, Peru.
"Saya tadi bicara dengan Obama. Pertanyaan saya tentang kampanye Trump (Donald Trump, Presiden terpilih AS)," katanya seusai penutupan KTT APEC di Ibu Kota Peru itu, Minggu sore (Senin WIB), seperti dilansir Antara.
Menurut Kalla, Obama mengingatkan semua negara agar tidak terlalu resah terhadap kampanye Trump yang dinilai bakal menerapkan kebijakan proteksionis.
"Saya tanya, apakah Trump merealisasikan 50% (program) kampanyenya ataukah di bawahnya? Obama jawab, di bawah 50%. Jadi, saya yang buat angka (persentase) agar dia (mudah) jawab," ujar Kalla.
Menurut Kalla, topik pembicaraan KTT APEC di Lima itu lebih banyak pada kebijakan AS di bawah pemerintahan Trump pada tahun depan.
"Semua negara memang sudah mengantisipasinya agar tidak terjadi perang dagang, tapi memang AS itu konsumen terbesar," kata Wapres.
Selain dengan Obama, Kalla juga sempat berbicara dengan Perdana Menteri Jepang Shinzo Abe.
"Jepang tanya kepada kita, mana lagi yang perlu dibantu. Dia sangat terbuka untuk bantu kita. Tapi kitanya yang memperlambat," ujarnya seraya menyebutkan beberapa proyek di Indonesia yang dibiayai Jepang.
Kalla menjelaskan bahwa KTT APEC telah menghasilkan komunike sebanyak 350 baris yang memuat banyak hal, termasuk komitmen bersama untuk mewujudkan perdagangan bebas tanpa diskriminasi sebagaimana yang dicita-citakan para deklarator APEC di Bogor (Bogor Goals) pada 1994.
"Indonesia selalu jadi bagian pokok APEC karena tujuan APEC itu mengacu ke Bogor. Maka dari itu, Indonesia selalu....seperti keterbukaan perdgangan dan industri mengacu ’Bogor Goals’ dalam setiap KTT APEC," katanya.
KTT APEC Peru dihadiri 21 pemimpin ekonomi yang digelar pada 14-20 November 2016.
Penutupan KTT APEC tersebut ditandai dengan penyerahan keketuaan APEC dari Presiden Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski kepada Presiden Republik Sosialis Vietnam Tran Dai Quang. (gor)
🙏
NEW YORK - Healthcare is the top issue Americans want Donald Trump to address during his first 100 days in the White House, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday, an apparent rebuke of outgoing President Barack Obama's signature reform, Obamacare.
Some 21 percent of Americans want Trump to focus on the healthcare system when he enters the White House on Jan. 20, according to the Nov. 9-14 poll, conducted in the week after the Republican won the U.S. presidential election.
Jobs took second place with 16 percent of Americans hoping it would be Trump's first agenda item, while immigration came third - picked by 14 percent of Americans, according to the poll. Some 11 percent picked race relations.
[Graphic: What should Trump prioritize in his first 100 days? tmsnrt.rs/2fZRP4V]
The poll shows what priorities Americans would set on the new president, but it does not measure exactly what people want him to do. A separate Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found in late October that most Americans want cheaper prescription drugs and access to larger networks of doctors and hospitals. Only a minority, 37 percent, want to repeal Obamacare altogether and start over, as Trump has promised to do.
"We can't afford it -- that's the problem," said Daphne Saunders, 50, of LaFollette, Tennessee, who took the Reuters/Ipsos poll, explaining why she picked healthcare as the top issue.
Saunders lost her employer-subsidized insurance when she left a job at a university in 2011 and has been paying roughly $300 per month since then for check-ups and prescription drugs to manage a heart condition and diabetes.
She said the cheapest Obamacare plan would cost her $450 per month with a $50 co-pay every time she saw a doctor.
"Those premiums should be more manageable," Saunders said. "I would expect to pay no more than $100" per month.
Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act has been credited with expanding coverage to as many as 25 million people. But the law has been weakened through various legal challenges. Some of the biggest health insurers have pulled out of insurance exchanges after losing money, and insurance premiums have increased for those who do not receive government insurance subsidies.
Trump has promised to repeal Obamacare with "something that works," though he has not articulated what he would propose in its place. It is also not clear how swiftly a Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress could change the law.
Obama said this week he would endorse a Trump plan if it improved the healthcare system while insuring the same number of people.
GETTING USED TO 'PRESIDENT TRUMP'
The poll also found that Americans have mostly accepted the result of the Nov. 8 election, after one of the most divisive campaigns in memory. Some 85 percent said they accept the results as legitimate, and 63 percent said they would support the new president.
Obama mengatakan hal itu ketika ditanya Wakil Presiden RI Jusuf Kalla tentang masa depan AS di sela-sela Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Kerja Sama Ekonomi Asia-Pasifik (APEC) di Lima, Peru.
"Saya tadi bicara dengan Obama. Pertanyaan saya tentang kampanye Trump (Donald Trump, Presiden terpilih AS)," katanya seusai penutupan KTT APEC di Ibu Kota Peru itu, Minggu sore (Senin WIB), seperti dilansir Antara.
Menurut Kalla, Obama mengingatkan semua negara agar tidak terlalu resah terhadap kampanye Trump yang dinilai bakal menerapkan kebijakan proteksionis.
"Saya tanya, apakah Trump merealisasikan 50% (program) kampanyenya ataukah di bawahnya? Obama jawab, di bawah 50%. Jadi, saya yang buat angka (persentase) agar dia (mudah) jawab," ujar Kalla.
Menurut Kalla, topik pembicaraan KTT APEC di Lima itu lebih banyak pada kebijakan AS di bawah pemerintahan Trump pada tahun depan.
"Semua negara memang sudah mengantisipasinya agar tidak terjadi perang dagang, tapi memang AS itu konsumen terbesar," kata Wapres.
Selain dengan Obama, Kalla juga sempat berbicara dengan Perdana Menteri Jepang Shinzo Abe.
"Saya tadi bicara dengan Obama. Pertanyaan saya tentang kampanye Trump (Donald Trump, Presiden terpilih AS)," katanya seusai penutupan KTT APEC di Ibu Kota Peru itu, Minggu sore (Senin WIB), seperti dilansir Antara.
Menurut Kalla, Obama mengingatkan semua negara agar tidak terlalu resah terhadap kampanye Trump yang dinilai bakal menerapkan kebijakan proteksionis.
"Saya tanya, apakah Trump merealisasikan 50% (program) kampanyenya ataukah di bawahnya? Obama jawab, di bawah 50%. Jadi, saya yang buat angka (persentase) agar dia (mudah) jawab," ujar Kalla.
Menurut Kalla, topik pembicaraan KTT APEC di Lima itu lebih banyak pada kebijakan AS di bawah pemerintahan Trump pada tahun depan.
"Semua negara memang sudah mengantisipasinya agar tidak terjadi perang dagang, tapi memang AS itu konsumen terbesar," kata Wapres.
Selain dengan Obama, Kalla juga sempat berbicara dengan Perdana Menteri Jepang Shinzo Abe.
"Jepang tanya kepada kita, mana lagi yang perlu dibantu. Dia sangat terbuka untuk bantu kita. Tapi kitanya yang memperlambat," ujarnya seraya menyebutkan beberapa proyek di Indonesia yang dibiayai Jepang.
Kalla menjelaskan bahwa KTT APEC telah menghasilkan komunike sebanyak 350 baris yang memuat banyak hal, termasuk komitmen bersama untuk mewujudkan perdagangan bebas tanpa diskriminasi sebagaimana yang dicita-citakan para deklarator APEC di Bogor (Bogor Goals) pada 1994.
"Indonesia selalu jadi bagian pokok APEC karena tujuan APEC itu mengacu ke Bogor. Maka dari itu, Indonesia selalu....seperti keterbukaan perdgangan dan industri mengacu ’Bogor Goals’ dalam setiap KTT APEC," katanya.
KTT APEC Peru dihadiri 21 pemimpin ekonomi yang digelar pada 14-20 November 2016.
Penutupan KTT APEC tersebut ditandai dengan penyerahan keketuaan APEC dari Presiden Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski kepada Presiden Republik Sosialis Vietnam Tran Dai Quang. (gor)
Kalla menjelaskan bahwa KTT APEC telah menghasilkan komunike sebanyak 350 baris yang memuat banyak hal, termasuk komitmen bersama untuk mewujudkan perdagangan bebas tanpa diskriminasi sebagaimana yang dicita-citakan para deklarator APEC di Bogor (Bogor Goals) pada 1994.
"Indonesia selalu jadi bagian pokok APEC karena tujuan APEC itu mengacu ke Bogor. Maka dari itu, Indonesia selalu....seperti keterbukaan perdgangan dan industri mengacu ’Bogor Goals’ dalam setiap KTT APEC," katanya.
KTT APEC Peru dihadiri 21 pemimpin ekonomi yang digelar pada 14-20 November 2016.
Penutupan KTT APEC tersebut ditandai dengan penyerahan keketuaan APEC dari Presiden Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski kepada Presiden Republik Sosialis Vietnam Tran Dai Quang. (gor)
🙏
ALSO IN U.S.
The 2016 campaign appears also to have mostly energized the public. Some 45 percent of Americans say they "feel more motivated" to vote in future elections, and 42 percent are more motivated to read and inform themselves about politics.
A majority of Americans still think the country is headed on the wrong track, however, and their expectations for a Trump presidency differed according to party membership.
Most Republicans were optimistic about his presidency, while most Democrats were pessimistic.
Overall, a plurality of Americans believe Trump will be helpful for businesses and corporations, military veterans, people who work in the manufacturing industry, the middle class and the elderly. A plurality also believes that he will be harmful for gays, women, blacks, Hispanics, and people living in poverty.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English in all 50 states. It included 1,782 American adults and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points.
(Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Alistair Bell)
💦
New York, Nov 15, 2016 (AFP)
Donald Trump huddled with Vice president-elect Mike Pence on Tuesday to nail down their next round of cabinet appointments, amid reports of intense infighting over the key posts.
The Republican billionaire drew a barrage of criticism over his pick of chief strategist: the anti-establishment firebrand Steve Bannon, onetime head of the provocative Breitbart website seen by critics as a darling of white supremacists.
And his transition team has faced a string of setbacks as it tackles the daunting task of building an administration with the clout to support the 70-year-old political novice when he takes office in just nine weeks.
The first shake-up came last Friday, when the president-elect reshuffled the team, placing Pence in charge. Then on Tuesday, the transition team's head of national security, Mike Rogers, resigned in what was interpreted as a new sign of disarray.
In a statement, the former congressman said he was "proud of the team that we assembled at Trump for America to produce meaningful policy, personnel and agency action guidance on the complex national security challenges facing our great country," and was now "pleased to hand off our work" to a new team.
Further reinforcing the impression of tensions, The New York Times reported Tuesday that Trump had removed from the transition team a second top defense and foreign policy official, consultant Matthew Freedman.
The high-stakes process of filling more than a dozen cabinet posts has been tumultuous by many accounts. One source cited by CNN described the intense lobbying as a "knife fight."
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, hawkish former UN ambassador John Bolton, retired general Michael Flynn and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions are all reported to be on the shortlist for a top job.
Pence made no comment to the media as he arrived at Trump Tower -- which has been a hive of activity since last Tuesday's vote.
- Giuliani for State? -
Jason Miller, a transition communications adviser, told reporters at the building in Manhattan that Trump and Pence would be "reviewing a number of names" for cabinet positions.
He gave few details on the new candidates under consideration, saying: "You can't believe everything you read."
Miller added: "There will be non-traditional names, a number of people who have had wide-ranging success in a number of different fields... People will be excited when they see the type of leaders the president-elect brings into this administration."
According to a top Trump aide, Giuliani has emerged as a "serious" contender to become the next secretary of state.
But CNN reported that Team Trump was looking into whether his business ties -- including work as a lobbyist for a Venezuelan oil firm -- could complicate his confirmation in the role.
Giuliani, a member of Trump's inner circle, had been considered a leading candidate for attorney general, but at a public forum in Washington on Monday, he said he would not be heading the Justice Department.
"His name has been mentioned in a serious way in connection with secretary of state, a job that he's qualified for and a job that he would do exceedingly well," Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager, said Tuesday on Fox News.
The 72-year-old Giuliani was mayor of New York on 9/11, and his decisive leadership after the World Trade Center's twin towers were toppled in the September 2001 attacks made him a national hero.
The crime-fighting former prosecutor made a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 but withdrew after learning he had prostate cancer.
- Or could it be Bolton? -
Bolton, a neo-conservative hawk and former undersecretary of state, also was reported to be in the running for the top diplomatic post.
"John would be a very good choice," Giuliani said at the forum sponsored by The Wall Street Journal.
Asked if there were anybody better, Giuliani quipped: "Maybe me, I don't know."
Bolton made no mention of his chances in an interview Tuesday with Fox News but seemed like he was auditioning for it, weighing in heavily on US relations with Moscow the day after Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"I think one of the reasons that Putin is very casual about expanding Russian influence, taking advantage of America in Eastern Europe and the Middle East is that he sees, quite correctly, Barack Obama as an exceedingly weak leader," he said.
"I think Trump is going to be the opposite."
Bolton was a controversial choice for UN envoy in 2005, having once said if the UN headquarters lost 10 floors, "it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
- Trump torn -
Also in the mix is Senator Sessions of Alabama, an early Trump supporter who is reported to be under consideration for attorney general, secretary of defense or head of the Department of Homeland Security.
Sessions has been a fierce advocate for restrictions on immigration, but was once rejected for a federal judgeship after officials testified he made racist remarks, The New York Times reported.
Also expected to find a spot on Trump's governing team is retired general Flynn, a possible national security advisor pick.
On Sunday, Trump named Reince Priebus, a mainstream Republican operative who backed Trump while chairman of the Republican National Committee, as his White House chief of staff.
Trump's choice of Priebus -- announced at the same time as Bannon -- suggested a leader torn between a promise to shake up Washington and the need to build a cabinet with political experience and connections with Congress.
bur-ec/acb
<org idsrc="isin" value="US1248572026">CBS CORPORATION</org>
☝
Washington, Aug 8, 2016 (AFP)
Republican Donald Trump said Monday he would slash taxes, block onerous financial regulations and unleash the energy sector as he pledged to "jump-start America" with a new economic plan if he is elected president.
The brash billionaire unveiled his proposals in a speech in economically depressed Detroit as he resets his campaign and focuses on policies that draw a sharp contrast with Hillary Clinton.
"We are in a competition with the world, and I want America to win," Trump told the Detroit Economic Club, as he highlighted "disastrous" policies that he said have snuffed out US jobs in the nearly eight years of Barack Obama's presidency.
"I want to jump-start America. It can be done, and it won't even be that hard," he said.
Trump laid out a series of policies to revitalize a limping economic engine, including a sharp reduction of corporate tax from 35 percent to 15 percent, something he floated back in September as a way to lure back US corporations that relocated abroad.
He would also set a 10 percent tax on the "trillions of dollars from American businesses that is now parked overseas" and gets repatriated into the United States.
Personal taxes would drop too, with the top rate at 33 percent, compared with 39.6 percent today.
Trump said he wants to "cut regulations massively," a move he said would lift the "anchor" weighing down small businesses, something Republicans have sought for years during Obama's tenure.
The 70-year-old real estate mogul also proposed repealing the estate tax, the controversial levy on the estates of the deceased valued at above $5.45 million.
"American workers have paid taxes their whole lives, and they should not be taxed again at death -- it's just plain wrong," Trump said.
The speech was interrupted more than a dozen times by protesters, who were escorted out by security.
- 'Trickle down economics?' -
As he pivots away from recent controversy about his campaign, Trump portrayed Clinton as the "nominee from yesterday."
"There will be no change under Hillary Clinton -- only four more years of Obama," he warned. "But we are going to look boldly into the future."
Clinton, he said, offers more of the same: "more taxes, more regulations, more bureaucrats, more restrictions on American energy."
Republican Senator David Purdue praised Trump's plan as "a bold vision" from "an outsider and businessman who is listening to the American people."
But Clinton, a 68-year-old former secretary of state and senator, has enjoyed a strong bounce in polls since officially becoming the Democratic nominee last month, the first time a woman has become the flagbearer of a major US party.
A Monmouth University Poll released Monday shows Clinton ahead of Trump by double digits, 46 percent to 34 percent -- a dramatic increase from the three-point lead she held days before the Republican convention.
Clinton used her rally in St. Petersburg, Florida as an opportunity to savage Trump's economic plan rollout as his effort to "repackage trickle down economics."
"His tax plans will give super big tax breaks to large corporations and the really wealthy," she said.
"I am not going to raise taxes on the middle class, but with your help we are going to raise it on the wealthy, because that's where the money is!"
She cited a study by Mark Zandi, a former economic advisor to Republican Senator John McCain, which predicted that under Trump's plan, the economy would shed 3.4 million jobs and tumble into recession.
"Economists left, right, in the middle all say the same things, that Trump's policies would throw us into a recession," she said.
Clinton has spent several days attacking Trump on the economy.
She has also ventured into America's so-called "Rust Belt" seeking to win over white working-class voters in areas that have suffered factory closures.
The nation's unemployment rate stood at 4.9 percent in July, a substantial decline from the peak of about 10 percent in October 2009 after a major recession, according to federal statistics.
But Trump insisted the economy was lagging badly and that letting an insider like Clinton guide the economic ship would only exacerbate the problem.
"We can't fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place," Trump warned.
"A Trump administration will end this war on the American worker," he said, noting in particular that Obama's "anti-energy regulations" have destroyed millions of jobs.
Trump's plan to revitalize the energy industry, including coal, would "open a new chapter in American prosperity," he said.
He renewed his opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact backed by the Obama administration, insisting Washington will withdraw from the deal.
"Americanism, not globalism, will be our new credo," he said.
Women have been avoiding the businesses more than men
Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015, foot traffic to hotels, casinos and golf courses that carry the Trump name has fallen.
Foursquare has been tracking foot traffic data at Trump-branded businesses. When Trump declared his candidacy in Aug. 2015, the number of people going to Trump-branded properties dropped by 17%, compared to the year before. During the time of the primary elections, foot traffic was down by by 17% in March, compared to March 2015.
The hardest-hit businesses were Trump SoHo, Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago and Trump Taj Mahal, which compared to last year, were down 17% to 24% in foot traffic. Trump Taj Mahal had also recently announced it would close after Labor Day due to an employee strike.
FourSquare also found that foot traffic from women in Democrat-leaning states to Trump-branded businesses decreased more than foot traffic from men. In July, foot traffic from women was down 29% from last year.
Presiden Barack Obama menyerang calon presiden Republik, Donald Trump, dengan menyebut Trump tak layak menjadi presiden Amerika Serikat.
Obama mempertanyakan mengapa Partai Republik tetap saja mendukung pencalonan Trump.
Obama mengacu ke kecaman Trump terhadap keluarga Muslim yang anaknya tewas saat bertugas sebagai kapten militer Amerika di Irak.
- Homer Simpson dukung Hillary Clinton sebagai presiden
- Donald Trump sebut Hillary Clinton 'iblis'
- Soal tentara Muslim, John McCain kecam keras Trump
Menurut Obama, kecaman ini menunjukkan Trump sangat tidak siap menjadi presiden.
"Kenyataan bahwa ia menyerang keluarga Amerika yang sangat terhormat, yang berkorban untuk Amerika ... juga minimnya pemahaman atas masalah-masalah penting di Eropa, Timur Tengah, Asia, ini semua menunjukkan ia tak siap menjadi presiden," kata Obama.
Menanggapi serangan ini, Trump mengatakan pesaingnya dari Demokrat, Hillary Clinton, yang tidak pantas menjadi presiden.
Para politikus senior Republik seperti ketua parlemen Paul Ryan dan ketua senat Mitch McConnell dalam beberapa kesempatan mengkritik Trump, namun Trump, yang juga dikenal sebagai miliuner secara keseluruhan tetap mendapatkan sokongan Republik.
WASHINGTON DC, KOMPAS.com
— Tampaknya calon presiden AS dari Partai Republik, Donald Trump, semakin identik dengan kontroversi. Kali ini terkait komentarnya terhadap situasi politik di Ukraina.
Sebagaimana telah diketahui, Rusia menganeksasi Semenanjung Crimea dari Ukraina lewat provokasi militer dan akhirnya referendum.
Pemerintahan Presiden Vladimir Putin juga memasok persenjataan kepada para pemberontak di wilayah timur Ukraina dalam perang yang masih berkobar hingga kini.
Ternyata, Donald Trump agaknya tak mengetahui kondisi di Ukraina itu. Hal ini terlihat saat diwawancarai dalam program This Week di stasiun televisi ABC News.
"Dia (Putin) tidak akan masuk ke Ukraina, paham?" kata Trump kepada sang pewawancara.
"Dia tidak akan masuk ke Ukraina. Anda bisa menggarisbawahi ini," ujar Trump menegaskan.
Namun, saat pewawancara George Stephanopoulous mengatakan bahwa pasukan Rusia sudah berada di wilayah timur Ukraina selama hampir dua tahun, Trump kemudian mencoba membela diri.
"Oke...Putin di sana dalam cara tertentu, tetapi saya tidak di sana. Obama yang ada di sana. Sejujurnya, seluruh dunia kacau di bawah Obama dengan semua kekuatan yang Anda bicarakan, kekuatan NATO dan semuanya," ujar Trump.
Komentar Trump di televisi ini memicu olok-olok dari berbagai pihak, termasuk juru bicara Hillary Clinton, Jake Sullivan.
"Pada saat Trump tak memiliki pengetahuan dasar soal situasi dunia, dia sangat menguasai pernyataan Putin soal Crimea," ujar Sullivan.
"Trump mengulangi argumen Putin yang melakukan pembenaran atas aksi Rusia merebut wilayah sebuah negara berdaulat dengan menggunakan kekuatan senjata," lanjut Sullivan.
"Rusia sudah berada di Ukraina. Apakah Trump tak mengetahui soal itu? Apa yang sebenarnya dia ketahui?" lanjut Sullivan.
Sullivan melanjutkan, pernyataan-pernyataan Trump sangat mengejutkan, tetapi jauh dari mengejutkan.
Bahkan harian NY Daily News yang sejak lama menjadi kritikus Donald Trump memuat ledekan terhadap pengusaha tersebut di halaman depannya.
Harian tersebut dengan terang-terangan menyebut sang kandidat presiden itu sebagai seorang yang "dungu".
Para netizen juga tak mau ketinggalan mengolok-olok Trump. Lewat Twitter, para netizen berlomba menunjukkan bukti bahwa Trump tak pantas menjadi presiden AS.
Beberapa netizen mengatakan, sejak 1976, baru kali ini seorang kandidat presiden AS salah memandang peran Rusia di Eropa Timur.
Saat itu dalam debat melawan Jimmy Carter, Presiden Gerald Ford membuat kesalahan besar saat menyebut Rusia, saat itu masih Uni Soviet, tak akan mendominasi Eropa Timur.
Di sisi lain, Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin adalah satu dari sedikit pemimpin dunia yang menyambut pencalonan Donald Trump sebagai presiden AS.
Nama lain yang mendukung Trump adalah pemimpin Korea UtaraKim Jong Un.
Bukan kali ini saja Trump memicu kontroversi terkait Rusia. Pekan lalu, pada saat Partai Demokrat menggelar konvensi, Trump meminta Rusia untuk meretas surat elektronik Hillary Clinton.
Setelah mendapat kecaman luas atas pernyataannya itu, Trump berkelit dan mengatakan ucapannya itu hanya bentuk sebuah sarkasme semata.
The New York Times() had a piece headlined “For Whites Sensing Decline, Donald Trump Unleashes Words of Resistance.” As FAIR contributing analyst Adam Johnson put it on Twitter(), “NYT editors had a bet to see who could find the most convoluted way of saying ‘Trump panders to racists.'”
“Trump Mines Grievances of Whites Who Feel Lost” was the headline in the print edition (), and that euphemistic tone continued through the piece, written by the Times‘ Nicholas Confessore; “racial conservatives” is the term it uses to characterize people who believe that, for example, “blacks suffer greater poverty because of…lack of effort.” The goal of white supremacists is, in theTimes‘ own language, “that race should matter as much to white people as it does to everyone else.”
But there is also valuable information here on the extent to which ideological white supremacists have embraced the Trump campaign, recognizing the candidate as a kindred spirit. “He is bringing identity politics for white people into the public sphere in a way no one has,” says one far-right activist. TheTimes documents how Trump, in turn, makes organized racists feel welcome in his movement, sometimes indirectly; the article notes, for instance, that analysis of Trump’s Twitter activity found that “ of the accounts Mr. Trump retweeted in turn followed one or more of 50 popular self-identified white nationalist accounts.”
The article attempts to provide insight into how modern-day racists negotiate the contemporary racial terrain. But this is hard to do, given that the Timesalong with other establishment media outlets are a crucial part of that terrain.
Take the article’s observations about America’s shifting racial scapegoats. Confessore writes:
While open racism against blacks remains among the most powerful taboos in American politics, Americans feel more free expressing worries about illegal immigrants and dislike of Islam, survey research shows.
This, the Times suggests, is what fuels the “birther” fantasy (which Trump used to thrust himself to the front of the conservative movement) that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim: As one of the paper’s sources puts it, “It is a catchall for expressing ethnocentric opposition to Obama, without saying you’re against him because he’s black.”
But why is it that white Americans feel more free to express Islamophobia and xenophobia than anti-black bigotry? Surely this has much to do with the fact that in recent years powerful media outlets have done much to legitimize the former biases. The press’s use of “terrorism” as synonymous with “violence committed by Muslims” (FAIR Media Advisory, ) has cemented the idea of Islam as a threat in the minds of millions. Media insistence on the term “illegal immigrant”—a usage championed by the Times ()—has literally criminalized millions of people.
And it’s not as if has ever gone away in the United States—or even been denied a prominent place in the media hierarchy. For years, the nation’s No. 1 radio talkshow host has been Rush Limbaugh—a bigot who once told a black caller, “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back” (FAIR.org, ).
The Times also exaggerates the degree to which Trump is a break from rather than an extension of recent conservative history in his flirtation with white supremacism. After all, Ronald Reagan, the right’s great hero, by proclaiming “I believe in state’s rights” in Neshoba County, Mississippi—a county best known for the murders of civil rights activists Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney 16 years earlier in 1964.
Discussing Trump’s coy reaction to endorsements from hate-group leaders, Confessore wrote:
Modern political convention dictates that candidates receiving such embraces instantly and publicly spurn them. In 2008, when it was revealed that a minister who endorsed the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, had made anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim remarks, Mr. McCain forcefully repudiated them.
Mr. Trump did something different.
Actually, that’s not what McCain did when he was endorsed by hatemongering preacher John Hagee (Extra! Update, ). What he actually did was say that Hagee “supports what I stand for and believe in,” though “that does not mean that I endorse everything that he stands for and believes in”—and that he was “proud” of Hagee’s spiritual leadership as a pastor (AP, ). It was a week later that complaints from Catholic groups, and observations that Catholics were an important voting bloc in crucial swing states, prompted McCain to say that he “categorically reject[ed] and repudiate[d] any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic”—without saying that he regretted soliciting Hagee’s support in the first place (Boston Globe, 3/8/08).
The real story—of McCain and the Hagee endorsement, and of hate in America in general—is less flattering to the political establishment that the New York Times identifies with and protects.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of Fair
Kabar24.com, CLEVELAND - Penolakan Senator Amerika Ted Cruz untuk mendukung calon Presiden dari Partai Republik Donald Trump pada konvensi Rabu (20/7/2016) memicu kemarahan dari pendukung Trump dan menghancurkan persatuan partai yang telah dibangun secara perlahan.
Cruz yang menempati posisi kedua dengan selisih dukungan lumayan jauh dari Trump untuk penominasian sebagai calon dari Partai Republik dalam pidatonya menyatakan ia berhenti mendukung Trump.
Cruz memulai pidatonya dengan mengatakan bahwa dia ingin mengucapkan selamat kepada Donald Trump atas kemenangannya.
Dia kemudian melajutkan, menghimbau agar orang-orang tidak hanya tinggal diam di rumah pada November nanti tetapi agar mereka menyerukan pemikiran mereka dan memilih kandidat yang mereka percaya bisa mempertahankan kebebasan dan setia kepada konstitusi.
Beberapa kritikus melihat dukungan bagi warga untuk memilih sesuai dengan hati nurani mereka sebagai mosi tidak percaya kepada Trump.
“Saya membutuhkan sekitar 30 menit untuk bisa menenangkan diri dan berhenti gemetar karena kemarahan saya. Saya tidak mengerti kenapa Cruz melakukan ini. Ini membuat saya bingung,” kata Erik Layton seorang delegasi alternative dari California yang kemudian menyerukan agar Cruz pulang setelah pidatonya usai seperti dikutip dari Reuters, Kamis (21/7/2016).
Dalam sebuah cuitan di Twitter setelah pembubaran konvensi, Trump menulis bahwa Cruz melanggar janji yang mereka buat untuk mendukung pilihan partai untuk melaju ke Gedung Putih.
“Wow, Ted Cruz dicemooh di panggung, tidak menghormati janji! Aku sudah menyaksikan pidatonya selama dua jam tapi tetap membiarkan dia berbicara. Bukan masalah besar,” cuit Trump.
Sementara itu, Delegasi Anti-Trump Ken Cuccinelli menyebutkan dia mengawal istri Cruz, Heidi, keluar dari konvensi karena khawatir akan keselamatannya usai pidato yang disampaikan suaminya.
“Ketika pidatonya berakhir ada kerumunan di belakang kami,” kata itu Cuccinelli, seorang mantan Jaksa Agung dari Virginia.
CLEVELAND—The protests in Cleveland have been a dud—at least until Tuesday afternoon. Despite grave concerns about security, most demonstrations had been small, undersubscribed, and low-key.
That changed mid-afternoon in Public Square, in the center of the city. When I arrived a little before 4 p.m., the ratio of police to reporters to civilians was roughly 1:1:1. There were isolated pockets of demonstration: A man and his daughter, wearing camo pants and hand-written T-shirts, shouted about Tamir Rice. A Black Lives Matter supporter, a young African American, and an older man, also black, wearing a Second Amendment T-shirt, shouted at each other. But for the most part, things were calm.
Then Alex Jones, the talk-radio host and conspiracy theorist, showed up. Although his own rally in the Flats on Monday was unexpectedly small, a crowd of journalists surged around him as he shouted into a megaphone in the center of the square. A crowd of reporters, observers, and leftist activists stood on steps on the south side of the square, and a few—led by Pat Mahoney, who was waving a red flag and smoking a cigar—started singing to drown him out, delivering several verses of the union anthem “Solidarity Forever.” (Mahoney, of the western suburb of North Olmsted, was wearing an Industrial Workers of the World shirt and identified himself as a member of the Wobblies’ Northeast Ohio chapter.) The scrum around Jones surged toward the steps. There was shoving and shouting, and suddenly it seemed like fights might break out. But peace prevailed, and police made their way in, grabbed Jones, and hustled him out of the square and into his own waiting SUV—followed by cameramen and young men shouting, “InfoWars dot com!”—which then peeled out.
As Jones left, the Revolutionary Communist Party was setting up for a planned rally in the center of Public Square. They bore a huge banner with pictures of black people killed by police and small signs that read “America Was Never Great: We need to OVERTHROW the system.” With their own megaphones, they took turns railing against police violence. In their view, law enforcement’s problem isn’t a few bad apples—it’s that police departments are designed as a tool of systemic class oppression. As Mark Oppenheimer explained in a Boston Globepiece years ago, the Revolutionary Communists are an esoteric bunch, led by a reclusive leader named Bob Avakian. The keynote speaker for the rally was Cornel West, the academic and public intellectual who was a major backer of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential run. West has the unusual distinction of being a member of the Democratic Party’s platform committee, endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and appearing at a rally for the Revolutionary Communists—although he identified himself as a revolutionary Christian.
Meanwhile, police began to move into the square, gradually blocking off areas with their bicycles: One for the Revolutionary Communists to the north, one for a group of Christian demonstrators to the east, and observers of all sorts all around. The police occupied the center of the square and eventually closed off the sides, letting people leave but not enter. It was a diverse coalition of cops: Cleveland Police; Cleveland Clinic Police; officers from the Ohio cities of Akron, Avon Lake, Columbus, and Wauseon; state troopers and highway patrol from Ohio, Georgia, Indiana, California, Utah, and South Carolina. Members of a special Cleveland police unit detailed to filming demonstrations roamed, holding digital cameras aloft. Cleveland Chief of Police Calvin Williams stalked between officers in his crisp white shirt and hat, directing things.
West finally spoke around 4:45 p.m. “We want the young people to know that there will be no peace unless there’s fairness. There will be no justice unless there’s accountability,” West said. Then he shuffled out of the crowd, surrounded by reporters. West’s departure seemed to pull the air out of the whole scene. The Revolutionary Communists were burnt out and ready to leave. The rest of the crowd had exhausted itself too, and the cops by this time controlled most of the square.
The police managed to prevent much in the way of confrontations, though heated words were exchanged. The irony was that in many cases, the parties involved in the furious shouting matches had different solutions in mind but agreed on the underlying point: The police need reform. Preston Kamler shouted at the RevComs, accusing them of being paid by George Soros. Kamler, who wore a red Trump T-shirt, told me he’d driven from Springfield, Missouri, to be there. He agreed that the police needed reforming, but he felt the way to do that was to end the war on drugs.
“The judicial system is prejudiced against the poor, not necessarily against blacks,” he said. “If you’re a rich white kid or a rich black kid, you can get off. If you want to end abuses, end the drug war. It gives them a reason to militarize.”
Earlier, during a West-led press conference to preview the rally, I spoke with Andrew Smith, a young man from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, who wore a camouflage Make America Great Again hat and a T-shirt that depicted Trump with a revolver, a la Dirty Harry, and read, “Go ahead ISIS, make my day.” Smith shook his head. “There are real problems with the police, but this stuff doesn’t help,” he said. Smith’s theory was as overarching as the communists: He believed police-reform movements were a cover for a progressive effort to federalize the police, which he said would only make things worse. The demonstrators and the Trump supporters on hand were, it seems, separated by a common language, as a well as dozens and dozens of bicycle police.
Many of the attendees were neither affiliated with the groups nor members of the press: They were just there to gawk and see what happened. Marty Thompson said he was backing Trump, but he hastened to distance himself from the hardest-core backers. Mostly, he was downtown to see what went down.
“When I got down here it was a little quiet,” he said. “I was hoping for a little excitement,” though not too much. And despite the very real tension and buzz of worry in Public Square—Would there be a crush? Would there be tear gas? What was the police strategy?—there were only hundreds of people in the square anyway. Just a block away, the streets were quiet, sunbaked, and mostly empty thoroughfares of summer in the city, peopled only by hot-dog vendors and tired bus drivers. the ATLANTIC
Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015, foot traffic to hotels, casinos and golf courses that carry the Trump name has fallen.
Foursquare has been tracking foot traffic data at Trump-branded businesses. When Trump declared his candidacy in Aug. 2015, the number of people going to Trump-branded properties dropped by 17%, compared to the year before. During the time of the primary elections, foot traffic was down by by 17% in March, compared to March 2015.
The hardest-hit businesses were Trump SoHo, Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago and Trump Taj Mahal, which compared to last year, were down 17% to 24% in foot traffic. Trump Taj Mahal had also recently announced it would close after Labor Day due to an employee strike.
FourSquare also found that foot traffic from women in Democrat-leaning states to Trump-branded businesses decreased more than foot traffic from men. In July, foot traffic from women was down 29% from last year.
Presiden Barack Obama menyerang calon presiden Republik, Donald Trump, dengan menyebut Trump tak layak menjadi presiden Amerika Serikat.
Obama mempertanyakan mengapa Partai Republik tetap saja mendukung pencalonan Trump.
Obama mengacu ke kecaman Trump terhadap keluarga Muslim yang anaknya tewas saat bertugas sebagai kapten militer Amerika di Irak.
- Homer Simpson dukung Hillary Clinton sebagai presiden
- Donald Trump sebut Hillary Clinton 'iblis'
- Soal tentara Muslim, John McCain kecam keras Trump
Menurut Obama, kecaman ini menunjukkan Trump sangat tidak siap menjadi presiden.
"Kenyataan bahwa ia menyerang keluarga Amerika yang sangat terhormat, yang berkorban untuk Amerika ... juga minimnya pemahaman atas masalah-masalah penting di Eropa, Timur Tengah, Asia, ini semua menunjukkan ia tak siap menjadi presiden," kata Obama.
Menanggapi serangan ini, Trump mengatakan pesaingnya dari Demokrat, Hillary Clinton, yang tidak pantas menjadi presiden.
Para politikus senior Republik seperti ketua parlemen Paul Ryan dan ketua senat Mitch McConnell dalam beberapa kesempatan mengkritik Trump, namun Trump, yang juga dikenal sebagai miliuner secara keseluruhan tetap mendapatkan sokongan Republik.
WASHINGTON DC, KOMPAS.com
— Tampaknya calon presiden AS dari Partai Republik, Donald Trump, semakin identik dengan kontroversi. Kali ini terkait komentarnya terhadap situasi politik di Ukraina.
Sebagaimana telah diketahui, Rusia menganeksasi Semenanjung Crimea dari Ukraina lewat provokasi militer dan akhirnya referendum.
Pemerintahan Presiden Vladimir Putin juga memasok persenjataan kepada para pemberontak di wilayah timur Ukraina dalam perang yang masih berkobar hingga kini.
Ternyata, Donald Trump agaknya tak mengetahui kondisi di Ukraina itu. Hal ini terlihat saat diwawancarai dalam program This Week di stasiun televisi ABC News.
"Dia (Putin) tidak akan masuk ke Ukraina, paham?" kata Trump kepada sang pewawancara.
"Dia tidak akan masuk ke Ukraina. Anda bisa menggarisbawahi ini," ujar Trump menegaskan.
Namun, saat pewawancara George Stephanopoulous mengatakan bahwa pasukan Rusia sudah berada di wilayah timur Ukraina selama hampir dua tahun, Trump kemudian mencoba membela diri.
"Oke...Putin di sana dalam cara tertentu, tetapi saya tidak di sana. Obama yang ada di sana. Sejujurnya, seluruh dunia kacau di bawah Obama dengan semua kekuatan yang Anda bicarakan, kekuatan NATO dan semuanya," ujar Trump.
Komentar Trump di televisi ini memicu olok-olok dari berbagai pihak, termasuk juru bicara Hillary Clinton, Jake Sullivan.
"Pada saat Trump tak memiliki pengetahuan dasar soal situasi dunia, dia sangat menguasai pernyataan Putin soal Crimea," ujar Sullivan.
"Trump mengulangi argumen Putin yang melakukan pembenaran atas aksi Rusia merebut wilayah sebuah negara berdaulat dengan menggunakan kekuatan senjata," lanjut Sullivan.
"Rusia sudah berada di Ukraina. Apakah Trump tak mengetahui soal itu? Apa yang sebenarnya dia ketahui?" lanjut Sullivan.
Sullivan melanjutkan, pernyataan-pernyataan Trump sangat mengejutkan, tetapi jauh dari mengejutkan.
Bahkan harian NY Daily News yang sejak lama menjadi kritikus Donald Trump memuat ledekan terhadap pengusaha tersebut di halaman depannya.
Harian tersebut dengan terang-terangan menyebut sang kandidat presiden itu sebagai seorang yang "dungu".
Para netizen juga tak mau ketinggalan mengolok-olok Trump. Lewat Twitter, para netizen berlomba menunjukkan bukti bahwa Trump tak pantas menjadi presiden AS.
Beberapa netizen mengatakan, sejak 1976, baru kali ini seorang kandidat presiden AS salah memandang peran Rusia di Eropa Timur.
Saat itu dalam debat melawan Jimmy Carter, Presiden Gerald Ford membuat kesalahan besar saat menyebut Rusia, saat itu masih Uni Soviet, tak akan mendominasi Eropa Timur.
Di sisi lain, Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin adalah satu dari sedikit pemimpin dunia yang menyambut pencalonan Donald Trump sebagai presiden AS.
Nama lain yang mendukung Trump adalah pemimpin Korea UtaraKim Jong Un.
Bukan kali ini saja Trump memicu kontroversi terkait Rusia. Pekan lalu, pada saat Partai Demokrat menggelar konvensi, Trump meminta Rusia untuk meretas surat elektronik Hillary Clinton.
Setelah mendapat kecaman luas atas pernyataannya itu, Trump berkelit dan mengatakan ucapannya itu hanya bentuk sebuah sarkasme semata.
The New York Times() had a piece headlined “For Whites Sensing Decline, Donald Trump Unleashes Words of Resistance.” As FAIR contributing analyst Adam Johnson put it on Twitter(), “NYT editors had a bet to see who could find the most convoluted way of saying ‘Trump panders to racists.'”
“Trump Mines Grievances of Whites Who Feel Lost” was the headline in the print edition (), and that euphemistic tone continued through the piece, written by the Times‘ Nicholas Confessore; “racial conservatives” is the term it uses to characterize people who believe that, for example, “blacks suffer greater poverty because of…lack of effort.” The goal of white supremacists is, in theTimes‘ own language, “that race should matter as much to white people as it does to everyone else.”
But there is also valuable information here on the extent to which ideological white supremacists have embraced the Trump campaign, recognizing the candidate as a kindred spirit. “He is bringing identity politics for white people into the public sphere in a way no one has,” says one far-right activist. TheTimes documents how Trump, in turn, makes organized racists feel welcome in his movement, sometimes indirectly; the article notes, for instance, that analysis of Trump’s Twitter activity found that “ of the accounts Mr. Trump retweeted in turn followed one or more of 50 popular self-identified white nationalist accounts.”
The article attempts to provide insight into how modern-day racists negotiate the contemporary racial terrain. But this is hard to do, given that the Timesalong with other establishment media outlets are a crucial part of that terrain.
Take the article’s observations about America’s shifting racial scapegoats. Confessore writes:
While open racism against blacks remains among the most powerful taboos in American politics, Americans feel more free expressing worries about illegal immigrants and dislike of Islam, survey research shows.
This, the Times suggests, is what fuels the “birther” fantasy (which Trump used to thrust himself to the front of the conservative movement) that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim: As one of the paper’s sources puts it, “It is a catchall for expressing ethnocentric opposition to Obama, without saying you’re against him because he’s black.”
But why is it that white Americans feel more free to express Islamophobia and xenophobia than anti-black bigotry? Surely this has much to do with the fact that in recent years powerful media outlets have done much to legitimize the former biases. The press’s use of “terrorism” as synonymous with “violence committed by Muslims” (FAIR Media Advisory, ) has cemented the idea of Islam as a threat in the minds of millions. Media insistence on the term “illegal immigrant”—a usage championed by the Times ()—has literally criminalized millions of people.
And it’s not as if has ever gone away in the United States—or even been denied a prominent place in the media hierarchy. For years, the nation’s No. 1 radio talkshow host has been Rush Limbaugh—a bigot who once told a black caller, “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back” (FAIR.org, ).
The Times also exaggerates the degree to which Trump is a break from rather than an extension of recent conservative history in his flirtation with white supremacism. After all, Ronald Reagan, the right’s great hero, by proclaiming “I believe in state’s rights” in Neshoba County, Mississippi—a county best known for the murders of civil rights activists Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney 16 years earlier in 1964.
Discussing Trump’s coy reaction to endorsements from hate-group leaders, Confessore wrote:
Modern political convention dictates that candidates receiving such embraces instantly and publicly spurn them. In 2008, when it was revealed that a minister who endorsed the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, had made anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim remarks, Mr. McCain forcefully repudiated them.Mr. Trump did something different.
Actually, that’s not what McCain did when he was endorsed by hatemongering preacher John Hagee (Extra! Update, ). What he actually did was say that Hagee “supports what I stand for and believe in,” though “that does not mean that I endorse everything that he stands for and believes in”—and that he was “proud” of Hagee’s spiritual leadership as a pastor (AP, ). It was a week later that complaints from Catholic groups, and observations that Catholics were an important voting bloc in crucial swing states, prompted McCain to say that he “categorically reject[ed] and repudiate[d] any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic”—without saying that he regretted soliciting Hagee’s support in the first place (Boston Globe, 3/8/08).
The real story—of McCain and the Hagee endorsement, and of hate in America in general—is less flattering to the political establishment that the New York Times identifies with and protects.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of Fair
CLEVELAND—The protests in Cleveland have been a dud—at least until Tuesday afternoon. Despite grave concerns about security, most demonstrations had been small, undersubscribed, and low-key.
Meanwhile, police began to move into the square, gradually blocking off areas with their bicycles: One for the Revolutionary Communists to the north, one for a group of Christian demonstrators to the east, and observers of all sorts all around. The police occupied the center of the square and eventually closed off the sides, letting people leave but not enter. It was a diverse coalition of cops: Cleveland Police; Cleveland Clinic Police; officers from the Ohio cities of Akron, Avon Lake, Columbus, and Wauseon; state troopers and highway patrol from Ohio, Georgia, Indiana, California, Utah, and South Carolina. Members of a special Cleveland police unit detailed to filming demonstrations roamed, holding digital cameras aloft. Cleveland Chief of Police Calvin Williams stalked between officers in his crisp white shirt and hat, directing things.
West finally spoke around 4:45 p.m. “We want the young people to know that there will be no peace unless there’s fairness. There will be no justice unless there’s accountability,” West said. Then he shuffled out of the crowd, surrounded by reporters. West’s departure seemed to pull the air out of the whole scene. The Revolutionary Communists were burnt out and ready to leave. The rest of the crowd had exhausted itself too, and the cops by this time controlled most of the square.
The police managed to prevent much in the way of confrontations, though heated words were exchanged. The irony was that in many cases, the parties involved in the furious shouting matches had different solutions in mind but agreed on the underlying point: The police need reform. Preston Kamler shouted at the RevComs, accusing them of being paid by George Soros. Kamler, who wore a red Trump T-shirt, told me he’d driven from Springfield, Missouri, to be there. He agreed that the police needed reforming, but he felt the way to do that was to end the war on drugs.
Kabar24.com, CLEVELAND - Penolakan Senator Amerika Ted Cruz untuk mendukung calon Presiden dari Partai Republik Donald Trump pada konvensi Rabu (20/7/2016) memicu kemarahan dari pendukung Trump dan menghancurkan persatuan partai yang telah dibangun secara perlahan.
Cruz yang menempati posisi kedua dengan selisih dukungan lumayan jauh dari Trump untuk penominasian sebagai calon dari Partai Republik dalam pidatonya menyatakan ia berhenti mendukung Trump.
Cruz memulai pidatonya dengan mengatakan bahwa dia ingin mengucapkan selamat kepada Donald Trump atas kemenangannya.
Dia kemudian melajutkan, menghimbau agar orang-orang tidak hanya tinggal diam di rumah pada November nanti tetapi agar mereka menyerukan pemikiran mereka dan memilih kandidat yang mereka percaya bisa mempertahankan kebebasan dan setia kepada konstitusi.
Beberapa kritikus melihat dukungan bagi warga untuk memilih sesuai dengan hati nurani mereka sebagai mosi tidak percaya kepada Trump.
“Saya membutuhkan sekitar 30 menit untuk bisa menenangkan diri dan berhenti gemetar karena kemarahan saya. Saya tidak mengerti kenapa Cruz melakukan ini. Ini membuat saya bingung,” kata Erik Layton seorang delegasi alternative dari California yang kemudian menyerukan agar Cruz pulang setelah pidatonya usai seperti dikutip dari Reuters, Kamis (21/7/2016).
Dalam sebuah cuitan di Twitter setelah pembubaran konvensi, Trump menulis bahwa Cruz melanggar janji yang mereka buat untuk mendukung pilihan partai untuk melaju ke Gedung Putih.
“Wow, Ted Cruz dicemooh di panggung, tidak menghormati janji! Aku sudah menyaksikan pidatonya selama dua jam tapi tetap membiarkan dia berbicara. Bukan masalah besar,” cuit Trump.
Sementara itu, Delegasi Anti-Trump Ken Cuccinelli menyebutkan dia mengawal istri Cruz, Heidi, keluar dari konvensi karena khawatir akan keselamatannya usai pidato yang disampaikan suaminya.
“Ketika pidatonya berakhir ada kerumunan di belakang kami,” kata itu Cuccinelli, seorang mantan Jaksa Agung dari Virginia.
CLEVELAND—The protests in Cleveland have been a dud—at least until Tuesday afternoon. Despite grave concerns about security, most demonstrations had been small, undersubscribed, and low-key.
That changed mid-afternoon in Public Square, in the center of the city. When I arrived a little before 4 p.m., the ratio of police to reporters to civilians was roughly 1:1:1. There were isolated pockets of demonstration: A man and his daughter, wearing camo pants and hand-written T-shirts, shouted about Tamir Rice. A Black Lives Matter supporter, a young African American, and an older man, also black, wearing a Second Amendment T-shirt, shouted at each other. But for the most part, things were calm.
Then Alex Jones, the talk-radio host and conspiracy theorist, showed up. Although his own rally in the Flats on Monday was unexpectedly small, a crowd of journalists surged around him as he shouted into a megaphone in the center of the square. A crowd of reporters, observers, and leftist activists stood on steps on the south side of the square, and a few—led by Pat Mahoney, who was waving a red flag and smoking a cigar—started singing to drown him out, delivering several verses of the union anthem “Solidarity Forever.” (Mahoney, of the western suburb of North Olmsted, was wearing an Industrial Workers of the World shirt and identified himself as a member of the Wobblies’ Northeast Ohio chapter.) The scrum around Jones surged toward the steps. There was shoving and shouting, and suddenly it seemed like fights might break out. But peace prevailed, and police made their way in, grabbed Jones, and hustled him out of the square and into his own waiting SUV—followed by cameramen and young men shouting, “InfoWars dot com!”—which then peeled out.
As Jones left, the Revolutionary Communist Party was setting up for a planned rally in the center of Public Square. They bore a huge banner with pictures of black people killed by police and small signs that read “America Was Never Great: We need to OVERTHROW the system.” With their own megaphones, they took turns railing against police violence. In their view, law enforcement’s problem isn’t a few bad apples—it’s that police departments are designed as a tool of systemic class oppression. As Mark Oppenheimer explained in a Boston Globepiece years ago, the Revolutionary Communists are an esoteric bunch, led by a reclusive leader named Bob Avakian. The keynote speaker for the rally was Cornel West, the academic and public intellectual who was a major backer of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential run. West has the unusual distinction of being a member of the Democratic Party’s platform committee, endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and appearing at a rally for the Revolutionary Communists—although he identified himself as a revolutionary Christian.
West finally spoke around 4:45 p.m. “We want the young people to know that there will be no peace unless there’s fairness. There will be no justice unless there’s accountability,” West said. Then he shuffled out of the crowd, surrounded by reporters. West’s departure seemed to pull the air out of the whole scene. The Revolutionary Communists were burnt out and ready to leave. The rest of the crowd had exhausted itself too, and the cops by this time controlled most of the square.
“The judicial system is prejudiced against the poor, not necessarily against blacks,” he said. “If you’re a rich white kid or a rich black kid, you can get off. If you want to end abuses, end the drug war. It gives them a reason to militarize.”
Earlier, during a West-led press conference to preview the rally, I spoke with Andrew Smith, a young man from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, who wore a camouflage Make America Great Again hat and a T-shirt that depicted Trump with a revolver, a la Dirty Harry, and read, “Go ahead ISIS, make my day.” Smith shook his head. “There are real problems with the police, but this stuff doesn’t help,” he said. Smith’s theory was as overarching as the communists: He believed police-reform movements were a cover for a progressive effort to federalize the police, which he said would only make things worse. The demonstrators and the Trump supporters on hand were, it seems, separated by a common language, as a well as dozens and dozens of bicycle police.
Many of the attendees were neither affiliated with the groups nor members of the press: They were just there to gawk and see what happened. Marty Thompson said he was backing Trump, but he hastened to distance himself from the hardest-core backers. Mostly, he was downtown to see what went down.
“When I got down here it was a little quiet,” he said. “I was hoping for a little excitement,” though not too much. And despite the very real tension and buzz of worry in Public Square—Would there be a crush? Would there be tear gas? What was the police strategy?—there were only hundreds of people in the square anyway. Just a block away, the streets were quiet, sunbaked, and mostly empty thoroughfares of summer in the city, peopled only by hot-dog vendors and tired bus drivers. the ATLANTIC
MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
A July 13 New York Times article explained how presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has given voice to white nationalist groups.
Trump has a long and complicated history of white nationalist support that includes endorsements from vocal anti-Semitists and praise from hate groups that laud him for bringing white nationalist viewpoints “firmly into the mainstream.” Specifically, Trump’s anti-immigration policies and racist attacks have been celebrated and reinforced by these groups and Trump has been slow to condemn their support, often failing to disavow it altogether.
As New York Times political correspondent Nicholas Confessore reports, “In making the explicit assertion of white identity and grievance more widespread, the otherwise marginal world of avowed white nationalists and self-described ‘race realists’ [...] hail him as a fellow traveler.” Trump’s attacks, policies, and defense of his racist attacks, Confessore reports, have “opened the door to assertions of white identity and resentment in a way not seen so broadly in American culture in over half a century.” In addition, Confessore notes that Trump’sfailure to denounce that white nationalist support is “comfortingly nonspecific” and “reassuring” to those groups. From Confessore’s article:
His rallies vibrate with grievances that might otherwise be expressed in private: about “political correctness,” about the ranch house down the street overcrowded with day laborers, and about who is really to blame for the death of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo. In a country where the wealthiest and most influential citizens are still mostly white, Mr. Trump is voicing the bewilderment and anger of whites who do not feel at all powerful or privileged.
But in doing so, Mr. Trump has also opened the door to assertions of white identity and resentment in a way not seen so broadly in American culture in over half a century, according to those who track patterns of racial tension and antagonism in American life.
[...]
In making the explicit assertion of white identity and grievance more widespread, Mr. Trump has galvanized the otherwise marginal world of avowed white nationalists and self-described “race realists.” They hail him as a fellow traveler who has driven millions of white Americans toward an intuitive embrace of their ideals: that race should matter as much to white people as it does to everyone else. He has freed Americans, those activists say, to say what they really believe.
[...]
Mr. Trump’s campaign electrified the world of white nationalists. They had long been absent from mainstream politics, taking refuge at obscure conferences and in largely anonymous havens online. Most believed that the Republican Party had been subverted and captured by liberal racial dictums.
[...]
Asked about the [white nationalist-sponsored] robocall, Mr. Trump seemed to sympathize with its message while affecting a vague half-distance. “Nothing in this country shocks me; I would disavow it, but nothing in this country shocks me,” Mr. Trump told a CNN anchor. “People are angry.”
Pressed, Mr. Trump grew irritable, saying: “How many times you want me to say it? I said, ‘I disavow.’”
Asked six weeks later about Mr. Duke’s support, he said he had been unaware of it: “David Duke endorsed me? O.K. All right. I disavow, O.K.?” Later, on Twitter, he repeated the phrase: “I disavow.”
Mr. Trump has often used those words when confronted by reporters. The phrase is comfortingly nonspecific, a disavowal of everything and nothing. And whatever Mr. Trump’s intentions, it has been powerfully reassuring to people on the far right.
time.com: Christopher Hale is executive director at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and the co-founder of Millennial.
A July 13 New York Times article explained how presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has given voice to white nationalist groups.
Trump has a long and complicated history of white nationalist support that includes endorsements from vocal anti-Semitists and praise from hate groups that laud him for bringing white nationalist viewpoints “firmly into the mainstream.” Specifically, Trump’s anti-immigration policies and racist attacks have been celebrated and reinforced by these groups and Trump has been slow to condemn their support, often failing to disavow it altogether.
As New York Times political correspondent Nicholas Confessore reports, “In making the explicit assertion of white identity and grievance more widespread, the otherwise marginal world of avowed white nationalists and self-described ‘race realists’ [...] hail him as a fellow traveler.” Trump’s attacks, policies, and defense of his racist attacks, Confessore reports, have “opened the door to assertions of white identity and resentment in a way not seen so broadly in American culture in over half a century.” In addition, Confessore notes that Trump’sfailure to denounce that white nationalist support is “comfortingly nonspecific” and “reassuring” to those groups. From Confessore’s article:
His rallies vibrate with grievances that might otherwise be expressed in private: about “political correctness,” about the ranch house down the street overcrowded with day laborers, and about who is really to blame for the death of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo. In a country where the wealthiest and most influential citizens are still mostly white, Mr. Trump is voicing the bewilderment and anger of whites who do not feel at all powerful or privileged.But in doing so, Mr. Trump has also opened the door to assertions of white identity and resentment in a way not seen so broadly in American culture in over half a century, according to those who track patterns of racial tension and antagonism in American life.[...]In making the explicit assertion of white identity and grievance more widespread, Mr. Trump has galvanized the otherwise marginal world of avowed white nationalists and self-described “race realists.” They hail him as a fellow traveler who has driven millions of white Americans toward an intuitive embrace of their ideals: that race should matter as much to white people as it does to everyone else. He has freed Americans, those activists say, to say what they really believe.[...]Mr. Trump’s campaign electrified the world of white nationalists. They had long been absent from mainstream politics, taking refuge at obscure conferences and in largely anonymous havens online. Most believed that the Republican Party had been subverted and captured by liberal racial dictums.[...]Asked about the [white nationalist-sponsored] robocall, Mr. Trump seemed to sympathize with its message while affecting a vague half-distance. “Nothing in this country shocks me; I would disavow it, but nothing in this country shocks me,” Mr. Trump told a CNN anchor. “People are angry.”Pressed, Mr. Trump grew irritable, saying: “How many times you want me to say it? I said, ‘I disavow.’”Asked six weeks later about Mr. Duke’s support, he said he had been unaware of it: “David Duke endorsed me? O.K. All right. I disavow, O.K.?” Later, on Twitter, he repeated the phrase: “I disavow.”Mr. Trump has often used those words when confronted by reporters. The phrase is comfortingly nonspecific, a disavowal of everything and nothing. And whatever Mr. Trump’s intentions, it has been powerfully reassuring to people on the far right.
time.com: Christopher Hale is executive director at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and the co-founder of Millennial.
The two have both frequently disrespected Catholic values
As goes the Catholic vote, so goes the nation? It sure seems that way. Catholics have voted for the winner of the popular vote in almost every presidential election since Franklin D. Roosevelt. (They just didn’t like Ike in ’52). Whether it’s the Church’s claim on the Holy Spirit or just plain dumb luck, it’s clear that winning the Catholic vote is a crucial part to becoming President of the United States.
Donald Trump doesn’t seem to get that.
In February, Trump attacked the wildly popular Pope Francis as being “disgraceful” and a “political pawn.” Perhaps that helps explain why Hillary Clinton holds a remarkable seventeen-point lead (56% to 39%) against Trump among Catholics. Among Latino Catholics, the margin balloons to fifty-one points (77% to 16%).
So could it get any worse for Trump among Catholics? Absolutely. And it did.
Trump’s selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence is his latest step in creating what is perhaps the most anti-Catholic GOP presidential ticket in modern history. This is a remarkable turn from 2012, where Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made a very strong play to the Catholic community throughout the campaign.
While introducing Pence as his vice president on Saturday, Trump said he and Pence were both fighters, and that together they would both fight for the religious liberty of Christians in the United States. Pence’s record suggests otherwise.
Mike Pence definitely fights hard. But for Christians? Not so much.
He fought hard against Pope Francis and the Catholic Church’s attempt to resettle Syrian refugees in Indiana. Citing security concerns after last November’s Paris attacks, Pence tried to pressure the local Catholic Charities into longer welcoming and housing refugees fleeing violence and terrorism in the Middle East. However, Joseph Tobin, Indianapolis’s archbishop, courageously defied the governor’s orders. Tobin said at the time that welcoming refugees “is an essential part of our identity as Catholic Christians, and we will continue this life-saving tradition.”
Republicans too have been troubled by Pence’s record on religious liberty. Conservative intellectual David French just accused Pence of throwing religious liberty “under the bus” during his tenure as governor.
Donald Trump says when he’s President, Christianity will have power again in the United States. “Christians don’t use their power,” Trump has complained. “We have to strengthen. Because we are getting—if you look, it’s death by a million cuts—we are getting less and less and less powerful in terms of a religion, and in terms of a force.”
In typical Trump fashion, he thinks this starts in the marketplace: “I’ll tell you one thing: I get elected president, we’re going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ [at department stores] again.” He continued, “Because if I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power. You don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”
With due respect, Christians do need someone else.
Donald Trump doesn’t get it. The heart of Christian “power” isn’t strength and visibility in the public sphere. The central claim of Christianity itself has always been that the rejected, crucified and executed Jesus Christ is somehow Lord of the entire earth. In Trump’s world, those like Christ are the losers. In God’s world, those are the victors.
Christian power is derived from our ability to communicate and practice God’s saving love in the invisible spheres of society. Saying “Merry Christmas” at the department store might win an empty-shell public-relations battle, but it does nothing to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If Donald Trump and Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton and her running mate want to fight for Christian values, then ensure this is a nation that fights for God’s dreams of a place where the last are first, the poor are blessed, and enemies are loved.
Want to be a champion for the Christian cause? Make sure that this is a nation where mercy reigns supreme, a country where black lives matter, where LGBT lives matter, and so too do the lives of refugees, the imprisoned, the unborn and anyone else who suffers dehumanization, exclusion and injustice.
Of course, this is a great way to get a ticket into heaven. But if the last seventy years of American politics mean anything as well, it’s a great way to stamp your ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as well—in short, a win-win.
LA DAILY NEWS: WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” hats proudly tout they are “Made in USA.” Not necessarily always the case, an Associated Press review found.
The iconic, baseball-style hats are indeed stitched together at a small factory in the Los Angeles area. But at least one of the hats in a small sample tested by AP and an outside expert did not contain the specific type of American-made fabric the hats’ manufacturer insists his factory always uses to make each one.
The true origin of the fabric in that hat remains a mystery — whether U.S.- or foreign-made and by whom — and a striking example of how difficult and murky it can be to verify something is actually “Made in USA.” The Republican presidential candidate has made it a cornerstone of his campaign that U.S. companies and individuals should aim for that standard to bring back American jobs, even if it means paying more.
Informed of the AP’s findings, Trump said any misrepresentation would be unacceptable. “I pay a good price for that hat. If it’s not made in the USA, we’ll bring a lawsuit.”
The AP review included a microscopic analysis of five hats bought from Trump’s campaign website, which showed the fabric in one was of a different type than that made by the supplier the manufacturer told the AP provides all his hat fabric.
In addition to the fabric analysis, two of the manufacturer’s employees, including a top sales agent, said the hats’ fabric, bills and stiffeners were imported from overseas.
The factory’s owner, Brian Kennedy of Cali-Fame of Los Angeles Inc., said the two employees were wrong, but he refused to explain the fabric discrepancy. Federal law requires that items labeled “Made in USA” be made from materials “all or virtually all” from the United States.
“I’m not using imported materials,” Kennedy told the AP. “We’re playing by the rules.”
On a broad level, the tale of Trump’s hats shows the challenge of revitalizing U.S. manufacturing, which has been ravaged by cheap competition from overseas. Trump has accused Asian countries of unfairly manipulating their currencies to boost exports.
Labor costs in Asia are so low that hats or other clothing can cost less than half the price of products made in the United States. Asian fabric prices are also lower, though less dramatically. While Trump has tried to get Made in USA hats for his campaign, knockoffs of those hats, clearly made in China, do a brisk business for other vendors. And Trump’s private companies and the clothing line run by his daughter, Ivanka, routinely sell clothes and other products made in China and other Asian countries.
Trump has warned Ford Motor Co. that he would place a 35 percent tax on cars sent to the U.S. from a planned plant in Mexico, and he has pledged to “get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country.”
“All it takes is a commitment to winning and making ‘Made in America’ a badge of honor like it used to be,” Trump wrote last year.
But the Trump campaign’s experience shows how difficult it can be to be utterly certain of a product’s provenance. Trump told the AP that his staff had visited Cali-Fame’s factory and reviewed paperwork guaranteeing the hats qualified for Made in the USA labeling. “It was very important to us that these hats be made in the USA,” he said.
The fabric tells a complicated tale.
Kennedy, the factory owner, provided the AP with a copy of a certificate dated March 24, 2016. It shows the purchase of 1,488 yards of U.S.-origin, red polyester-cotton blended fabric, called Saxtwill, from Carr Textile Corp. of Fenton, Missouri. Kennedy later provided copies of three other certificates from Carr Textile, dated September 2015, for components of black and white hats of U.S. origin.
Kennedy declined to comment further after the AP told him that a microscopic analysis of the fabric in a red cap the AP purchased directly from Trump’s campaign website did not match the red Saxtwill material that the AP obtained directly from Carr Textile. He said providing any further detail would reveal proprietary information.
To do the microscopic analysis, the AP obtained samples directly from Carr of the same red polyester-cotton blended fabric that Kennedy said was in the hats: one type imported and one U.S.-made. The AP asked Deborah Young, a professor of textiles and clothing at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles, to compare two Trump hats that the AP had purchased from the campaign website with the fabric samples. The AP did not identify the fabric samples to prevent bias.
Her conclusion: The material in one Trump hat was inconsistent with either Carr sample. The pattern of the weave was noticeably different, later confirmed by the AP using a school-grade microscope: All Carr-made Saxtwill fabric is a 2/1 weave; the other Trump hat was a 3/1 pattern weave.
“I am completely confident of this outcome,” Young said. “There’s no way this hat was made out of either (Carr) sample.”
The analysis was not able to determine where the fabric in that hat actually came from.
Young said the other “Make America Great Again” hat that the AP had also purchased from Trump’s campaign could have come from either the U.S.-made Carr fabric, from Carr’s cheaper imported fabric, or from an entirely different source.
After receiving Young’s opinion, the AP bought an additional three hats from the Trump campaign for review. Those were also compatible with either Carr’s Saxtwill or the cheaper fabric that Carr imports.
In addition to the fabric analysis, two of Cali-Fame’s employees, Andy Meade and Angela Olague, told the AP and a product distributor, separately, that the hats were made from imported fabric and other components.
The AP asked Kevin O’Brien, the president of Ethix Ventures Inc. of Boston, a distributor specializing in U.S.-produced, sweatshop-free merchandise, to call Meade, Cali-Fame’s top sales agent, on the AP’s behalf to ask about the company’ hat prices and the origin of the hats’ materials. The AP asked O’Brien to call so that the company’s employees would respond as they would to a regular industry customer.
“It’s domestic made of imported,” Meade said.
An AP reporter separately called Olague in the company’s sales department to ask which materials were imported, disclosing that he worked for The Associated Press when asked.
The hats “are made in the USA, but all the materials are not,” Olague told the AP of the company’s Made in America product line. Pressed further, she said the factory could hypothetically produce hats from American-made fabric — but only if the customer supplied domestic fabric with the same specifications of the material Cali-Fame used.
Meade and Olague declined subsequently to speak to the AP. Kennedy, the factory owner, said the two employees had their facts wrong.
Closely policing all U.S.-made claims would take considerable bureaucracy and expense.
The Federal Trade Commission considers a product made in the U.S. only when “all or virtually all” the product is U.S.-made. It defines that as cases where “all significant parts and processing that go into the product are of U.S. origin.”
The FTC generally requires Made-in-USA labeled products to be assembled or “substantially transformed” in the U.S. and to contain “negligible” foreign content.
Under the FTC rules, if a hat were made from imported fabrics, the maker could comply with the law by using a different, more qualified label, such as “Made of U.S. and imported fabric” or “Made in U.S. of imported fabric.”
The FTC can punish violators in an administrative process that prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. The agency can and sometimes does investigate such cases when it receives a formal complaint.
Through a spokeswoman, the FTC declined to comment on Trump’s hats specifically, referring the AP to its guidelines requiring all significant components to be domestically made.
State law also regulates Made in USA claims. Under California law, 95 percent of a “Made in the USA” product’s value must come from U.S. sources unless key components are unavailable domestically. Foreign fabric is often in greater supply, but domestic fabric is available.
Ironically, even as the Trump campaign strives to provide Made in USA hats, unofficial knock-offs of Trump hats, made in China and not endorsed by Trump’s campaign, are widely available.
Trump’s campaign sells its hats for $25 to $30 each on its website. It was unclear how many it has sold, but the campaign has paid Cali-Fame nearly $1.5 million for hats through the end of last month. The knockoffs, sometimes worn by Trump supporters at his rallies, can be had for as little as $6 on Amazon.com.
Trump acknowledged there appeared to be a demand for the cheaper, foreign hats. He said he was unsure whether supporters buying those hats ever checked the tags. “I don’t know if they know,” he said.
Trump said his organization has been writing letters trying to force the knockoff makers to stop.
“Maybe we’ll end up suing companies,” he said. “Who knows where they are.”
___
Associated Press writer Chad Day contributed to this report.
PF: In an effort to take out frontrunner Donald Trump, Republican presidential candidates have pelted Trump with criticism over his multiple trips to federal bankruptcy court.
That criticism was on full display in CNN’s Republican debate Sept. 16. Most notably, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina criticized Trump’s history of bankruptcies in his businesses.
"You know, there are a lot of us Americans who believe that we are going to have trouble someday paying back the interest on our debt because politicians have run up mountains of debt using other people's money," Fiorina said. "That is in fact precisely the way you ran your casinos. You ran up mountains of debt, as well as losses, using other people's money, and you were forced to file for bankruptcy not once, not twice, four times."
Trump doesn’t deny that four of his businesses have filed for bankruptcy. He argues, however, that filing for bankruptcy is a common business decision, and he was smart to make the moves when he did.
"Hundreds of companies" have filed for bankruptcy, Trump said earlier in the debate. "I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job."
Trump’s four bankruptcies were Chapter 11 reorganizations (named for its location in federal bankruptcy code), which are designed to restructure businesses without shutting them down completely. The purpose is to "save" the business, as opposed to other forms of bankruptcy which would liquidate the company, said Michael Venditto, a partner at the ReedSmith law firm who has extensive experience with Chapter 11.
Because they keep coming up, we decided to outline Trump’s four bankruptcies. We also talked to some finance experts, who told us Trump is correct that Chapter 11 reorganization is not always the result of bad business decisions.
Bankruptcy 1: The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991
The first bankruptcy associated with Trump was perhaps the most significant in terms of his personal finances, according to news reports at the time. He funded the construction of the $1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which opened in 1990. By 1991, the casino was nearly $3 billion in debt, while Trump had racked up nearly $900 million in personal liabilities, so the business decided to file for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to the New York Times. As a result, Trump gave up half his personal stake in the casino and sold his yacht and airline, according to the Washington Post.
Bankruptcy 2: Trump Plaza Hotel, 1992
Trump acquired the Plaza Hotel in New York for $390 million in 1988. By 1992, the hotel had accumulated $550 million in debt. As a result of the bankruptcy, in exchange for easier terms on which to pay off the debts, Trump relinquished a 49 percent stake in the Plaza to a total of six lenders, according to ABC News. Trump remained the hotel’s CEO, but it was merely a gesture -- he didn’t earn a salary and had no say in the hotel’s day-to-day operations, according to the New York Times.
Bankruptcy 3: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004
Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004 when his casinos -- including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City and a riverboat casino in Indiana -- had accrued an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to the Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he was still the company’s largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Trump told the Associated Press at the time that the company represented less than 1 percent of his net worth.
Bankruptcy 4: Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009
Trump Entertainment Resorts -- formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts -- was hit hard by the 2008 economic recession and missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008, according to ABC News. After debating with the company’s board of directors, Trump resigned as the company’s chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trump’s name in licensing.
So four Trump companies filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. Is that as big a deal as Fiorina says?
Risky business
While it would be better to avoid a situation where Chapter 11 reorganization is necessary, filing for bankruptcy can be a "sound business decision" when the company is facing serious financial problems, Venditto said. It’s better than the business shutting down completely.
"However, the source of the financial problems varies from case to case," he said. "Sometimes it is the result of circumstances beyond the control of the business. Sometime it caused by poor judgment. More frequently, it is a combination."
Trump’s four bankruptcies all happened within the past 25 years. That’s a lot, said Stephen Lubben, a leading expert in corporate finance and professor at Seton Hall School of Law. But to be fair, the gaming industry has been struggling the past few years, he added, and three out of four of Trump’s bankruptcies were tied to casinos.
It’s not fair to put all the blame on Trump for the four bankruptcies because he’s acting as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,said Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University.
He added that people typically wouldn’t personally blame former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or investor Warren Buffett for individual failures within their investment companies, Bain Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, respectively.
"The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space," Levitan said. "These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him."
Our ruling
Fiorina said Trump was "forced to file for bankruptcy not once, not twice, four times."
While it is accurate that Trump filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, Fiorina’s statement doesn’t tell the whole story. In context, Fiorina’s phrasing suggests Trump was personally responsible for the failures of these businesses, but in reality, much was out of Trump’s control -- such as a struggling casino industry. But Trump is certainly not blameless.
We rate Fiorina’s statement Mostly True.
Kabar24.com, WASHINGTON -- Lewat sentuhan sarkasme, calon presiden Hillary Clinton mengejek calon presiden dari Partai Republik Donald Trump karena temperamennya.
Selama pidato kebijakan luar negerinya Kamis lalu Clinton meluncurkan serangan terberatnya melawan Trump di salah satu pidato kampanye dengan fokus pada temperamen Trump.
"Tidak sulit untuk membayangkan Donald Trump memimpin kita ke dalam perang hanya karena seseorang mengganggu kulit tipisnya,"kata Hillary
Trump secara terang-terangan menunjukkan permusuhan dengan lawan partainya dan mengkritik bahwa ia akan melakukan hantaman yang bahkan lebih keras atas serangan politik atau laporan berita tak menyenangkan.
Menurut daftar yang disusun oleh The New York Times, di Twitter Trump telah menghina setidaknya 210 orang, tempat dan hal-hal sejak mendeklarasikan pencalonan presidennya Juni lalu, dan daftar itu belum termasuk sasaran penghinaan Trump yang disiarkan pada tv kabel
"Apakah kita ingin dia membuat panggilan itu? Seseorang berkulit tipis dan cepat marah yang mengeluarkan caci-maki bahkan pada kritik terkecil Apakah kita ingin jarinya di dekat tombol," tanya Clinton.
Clinton pada pidatonya membuat sindiran tentang keadaan psikologis Trump. Menggambarkan Trump sebagai "temperamental tidak layak" untuk presiden AS
"Saya tidak mengerti daya tarik aneh Donald terhadap diktator dan laki-laki yang kuat yang tidak memiliki cinta untuk Amerika," kata Clinton, merujuk pujian masa lalu Trump untuk Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin dan kata-kata Trump akan berbicara dengan Presiden Korea Utara Kim Jong Un jika terpilih.
"Saya akan menyerahkan kepada psikiater untuk menjelaskan mengapa dia begitu memuja tiran," katanya.
Menanggapi pernyataan Clinton, Trump menyebut pidato tersebut sebagai "pidato kebencian."
"Jika orang ingin menang, mereka membutuhkan temperamen seperti saya. Jika orang ingin stagnan dan turun, mereka membutuhkan temperamen yang mudah bengkok seperti Hillary,” kata Trump pada hari Kamis dalam sebuah wawancara dengan The Wall Street Journal.
Menurut jajak pendapat Wall Street Journal / ABC News yang dirilis pada bulan Mei, mayoritas orang Amerika berpikir Clinton akan lebih baik daripada Trump untuk menangani kebijakan luar negeri.
"Sebagai Menteri Luar Negeri dan mantan ibu negara, saya mendapat kehormatan untuk mewakili Amerika di luar negeri dan membantu membentuk kebijakan luar negeri kita dari rumah," kata Clinton.
"Dan saya telah duduk pada posisi yang menyarankan presiden pada beberapa pilihan terberat yang dihadapinya," tambahnya.
Meskipun dia mencatat perannya dalam membantu membentuk kebijakan luar negeri AS di tahun-tahun terakhir, Clinton tidak menyebutkan perannya dalam partisipasi AS pada pemboman NATO terhadap perang Libya pada 2011 perang yang menyebabkan negara Afrika Utara sebagai negara gagal dan surga teroris.
Bogota, June 4, 2016 (AFP)
American photographer Spencer Tunick, famous for his pictures of huge crowds of naked people, is not a fan of Donald Trump.
In fact, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee travels to Cleveland next month for the party's convention, Tunick plans to greet him with 100 nude women holding up mirrors in a form of art photography-turned-protest.
"There shouldn't be a rhetoric of hate in a presidential election," Tunick, 49, said of the billionaire tycoon's campaign, which has featured virulent diatribes against Mexicans, Arabs and women journalists, among others.
Speaking in Colombia, where he plans to assemble 4,000 naked people Sunday in what he calls a message of "peace and unity," Tunick said he felt a duty as a husband and father of two daughters to speak out against Trump.
"I can't just vote. I have to do something," he told AFP.
"I think every artist in the US should make an artwork before the election and get it out there."
His plan is to line up 100 nude women at sunrise on July 17, the day before the Republican national convention starts, wielding mirrored discs to capture the blinding light of the sun -- and expose what he calls The Donald's misguided policies.
Volunteers can sign up online at spencertunickcleveland.com to pose for the shoot, which the artist says will take place on private property near the arena.
"Republicans, Democrats and all other political parties are welcome to take part," says the website.
"It's an artwork, not so much a protest but an action to heat up the city... (and) show that women have power," Tunick said.
"Women in the city should look themselves in the mirror, and mirrors should shine back at them and they should see the language of hate that is coming from the Republican party."
Tunick accused the GOP, whose leadership long resisted the seemingly unstoppable Trump nomination, of "heading backwards" on women's and minority rights.
- 'Body as art object' -
The New York-based photographer, who has completed major installations around the world, is in Colombia as the conflict-torn country closes in on a peace deal between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
"It's an honor to be here at this moment when life is changing and hopefully a peace agreement will be signed," he said.
Tunick said his Bogota installation -- the largest he has done in six years -- would feature unclothed Colombians sprawled out across a government square at different elevations.
He said the aim was "to work with the body as an art object as opposed to an object of crime or violence, just show the body as a beautiful organic entity that transforms the space, the governmental space of the square."
The Colombia conflict, which began in the aftermath of a peasant uprising in the 1960s, has killed 260,000 people and uprooted 6.6 million over more than half a century.
In this diverse country with deep inequalities and roots in Europe, Africa and the Americas, Tunick said he was hoping his photo shoot would attract "an alphabet soup of skin tonalities, ethnicities, people from all walks of life."
Kabar24.com, WASHINGTON - Calon presiden Amerika Serikat dari Partai Demokrat Hillary Clinton dalam pidatonya mengecam kebijakan politik luar negeri Donald Trump, menyebut kebijakan tersebut sangat kacau.
Clinton juga menyebut saingannya dari Partai Republik tersebut sebagai seseorang yang sangat menakutkan dan konyol.
“Ide-ide Trump bukan hanya berbeda tetapi sangat tidak koheren. Ide itu bahkan tidak layak disebut ide, hanya segelintir omong kosong yang aneh, persoalan pribadi dan kebohongan,” katanya seperti dikutip Reuters, Jumat (3/6/2016).
Clinton menyampaikan pidatonya di San Diego menjelang pemilihan di California yang akan diadakan pada 7 Juni mendatang.
Para pemimpin partai Demokrat sedang berusaha untuk menemukan cara terbaik guna menghadapi Trump yang berhasil melumpuhkan 16 rivalnya dari partai republik dalam penominasian calon presiden dari partainya tersebut.
Trump menyebut Clinton sebagai Croked Hillary, dan mengorek perselingkuhan suaminya, Bill Clinton, yang merupakan mantan presiden Amerika Serikat.
Sementara itu, pernyataan Clinton dimaksudkan untuk menunjukkan bahwa dia tidak gentar dan bisa berhadapan dengan Trump .
“Dia mengatakan bahwa dia berpengalaman dalam hal kebijakan luar negeri hanya karena dia mengadakan kontes Miss Universe di Rusia,” katanya pada orang-orang yang menyaksikan pidatonya.
Dia juga mengatakan bahwa Trump akan mengelola ekonomi Amerika sama seperti dia mengelola kasinonya.
“Dia memuji para diktator seperti Vladimir Putin dan menyulut perkelahian dengan teman-teman kita, termasuk Perdana Menteri Inggris, Wali Kota London, Kanselir Jerman, Presiden Meksiko dan Paus,” kata Clinton menyebutkan daftar sekutu Amerika yang telah diusik Trump.
Dalam pidatonya, Clinton memprediksi bahwa Trump yang telah mengkritik habis-habisan terkait kebijakan luar negeri, akan menulis cuitan menghina dirinya di Twitter dan Trump benar-benar melakukan hal itu.
Clinton juga sempat mengemukakan sekelumit pengalamannya sendiri ketika dia menjabat sebagai sekretaris negara, khususnya perannya dalam menasihati Presiden Barack Obama selama misi pencarian pemimpin Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
Di sisi lain, Obama yang telah berulang kali dicela oleh Trump, juga balas mencela Trump dan mengatakan Trump seorang yang bebal dan angkuh dalam berkata-kata dan Trump telah menggertak pemimpin lain.
Los Angeles, June 2, 2016 (AFP)
Donald Trump is fond of saying Hispanics love him, but his Republicans face an all-but-impossible task in winning over the fast-growing, Democratic-leaning group that the billionaire has alienated time and again.
In California, whose Republican White House primary takes place June 7, the Grand Old Party is facing a massive challenge in the most populous US state where whites no longer are a majority.
Hispanics are the largest US minority group and a majority of Hispanic Americans are Mexican American; Trump has enraged many by referring to Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers, and pledging to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.
Ronald Reagan's once-Republican-leaning California has become increasingly diverse, Hispanic and Democratic at the ballot box. And no Republican has won presidential polls in the state in over two decades.
"This is the worst nightmare for the national Republican party," said Raul Hinojosa, Associate Professor at the UCLA Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies.
"What has happened to the Republican Party in California is that they have become irrelevant electorally," he said. "They have no expectation of winning a senate or governor's seat for the foreseeable future."
According to a recent Gallup study 77 percent of Latinos have a negative view of Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.
- Changing times, changing state -
In California, Hispanics now make up the largest single racial or cultural group and account for 20 percent of the state's four million registered voters.
"The Latino vote more than doubled in the last 20 years," said Hinojosa.
And according to Diana Colin, of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, registered Republicans make up just 16.5 percent of the state's Hispanic voters.
To glance around crowds at Trump speeches in California these days, the billionaire businessman and reality TV star appears to have had success courting whites, Asian, men, women, young people and old... but very few Latinos.
Among the anti-Trump protesters who regularly picket his rallies, there are a great deal of Hispanics toting signs denouncing the billionaire as "xenophobic" or "racist."
- Sprint to voter registration -
Trump has threatened to deport the country's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants -- which experts say has fueled a surge in voter registration among Hispanics.
According to Political Data, a group that tracks electoral data, two million new voters have registered in California since January 1 -- a 200-percent jump compared to 2012. Half are Democrat, and a quarter are Hispanic.
"There has been a huge Latino turnout," said Colin.
Of course these are not all Democrats, but Republicans are a small minority, Hinojosa noted.
And the hard demographic fact is that Mexican Americans make up more than 60 percent of Hispanics in the United States.
Many of them benefited from a massive amnesty under the Ronald Reagan administration in 1986.
"The vast majority of (the Latino) population is related to an undocumented person -- that share is very high, and the sympathy is very in favor of immigrant rights," Colin stressed.
But there are other voices, too, among America's Latino voters.
In the past, Cuban Americans tended to vote Republican; some immigrants from South American countries have warmed to Trump's tough stance on illegal migration, Hijonosa said.
"This notion that you're the good guys, you're the legal immigrants," explained.
- Hiding in plain sight? -
Delores Chavez, of the California Republican National Hispanic Assembly, suspects the true number of Latino Trump supporters may be higher -- and that they are simply afraid to go public with their support.
"There's a lot of Trump voters in the closet who are afraid of being chastised if they say they support him," she said.
But there is no denying that Hispanics have become a demographic time bomb for the Republicans.
Aside from their clout in California, Latinos are forecast to make up one third of the US population by 2060, official data shows. That would mean 30 to 40 million Latino voters in the next 15 years, Hinojosa said.
Many states, thanks in part to that trend, are shifting demographically towards voting Democratic -- such as Texas and Florida, Hinojosa said.
Liputan6.com, New York - Sebuah analisis terbaru mengungkapkan miliarder dunia,Donald Trump ternyata bukanlah orang kaya karena otaknya. Trump menjadi miliarder karena warisan.
Seperti dikutip dari VOX, Senin (7/9/2015), analisis itu menyebutkan, Trump akan tetap jadi seorang miliarder meskipun dia tak pernah sukses di bisnis real estate. Warisan dari ayahnyalah yang membuatnya menjadi seperti ini.
Dalam Jurnal Nasional, reporter S.v, Date mencatat pada 1974, kerajaan bisnis real estate milik ayah Trump senilai US$ 200 juta. Trump sendiri adalah anak pertama dari 5 bersaudara, yang saat itu punya porsi warisan senilai US$ 40 juta.
Jika seseorang menginvestasikan uang senilai US$ 40 juta di S&P 500 pada Agustus 1974, menginvestasikan kembali dividennya, kemudian tidak menarik tunai dana tersebut, lalu tak harus membayarcapital gain, tidak membayar biaya investasi, maka di Agustus 2015 dia akan punya US$ 3,4 miliar. Itu menurut penghitungan kalkulator S&P.
Cukup sulit untuk mengetahui berapa kekayaan Trump secara pasti, tapi Bloombergmencatat kekayaannya US$ 2,9 miliar. Sementara Forbes menyebut US$ 4 miliar.
Kalau membandingkan kinerja Trump di 1982, saat pasar saham sedang lepas landas di awal resesi 1980-an, cukup mencengangkan. Forbes memperkirakan kekayaan Trump mencapai US$ 200 juta tahun itu.
Jika dia menyimpan uangnya untuk investasi dengan biaya 0,15 persen, sekarang dia bakal punya US$ 6,3 miliar setelah dipotong pajak dividen. Lebih dari apa yang dia punya sekarang.
Penghitungan ini bisa bervariasi. Tapi intinya bukan angka tersebut, intinya adalah setelah bertahun-tahun dia menempatkan investasi di waktu dan tempat yang tepat, kemampuan dia untuk bernegosiasi dan menghabiskan masa kampanyenya untuk menyebut dia pantas jadi pemimpin karena keahliannya di pasar, Trump tetap punya rekam jejak di pasar seperti investor lain pada umumnya.
Di pernah mencapai level terbaik, dan juga pernah menunjukkan kinerja buruk. Tapi lagi-lagi, itu tidak begitu impresif karena analisa tersebut mengatakan bahwa hal itu hampir seluruhnya adalah karena warisan sang ayah. (Zulfi Suhendra/Ndw)
ny times May 2016:
As goes the Catholic vote, so goes the nation? It sure seems that way. Catholics have voted for the winner of the popular vote in almost every presidential election since Franklin D. Roosevelt. (They just didn’t like Ike in ’52). Whether it’s the Church’s claim on the Holy Spirit or just plain dumb luck, it’s clear that winning the Catholic vote is a crucial part to becoming President of the United States.
Donald Trump doesn’t seem to get that.
In February, Trump attacked the wildly popular Pope Francis as being “disgraceful” and a “political pawn.” Perhaps that helps explain why Hillary Clinton holds a remarkable seventeen-point lead (56% to 39%) against Trump among Catholics. Among Latino Catholics, the margin balloons to fifty-one points (77% to 16%).
So could it get any worse for Trump among Catholics? Absolutely. And it did.
Trump’s selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence is his latest step in creating what is perhaps the most anti-Catholic GOP presidential ticket in modern history. This is a remarkable turn from 2012, where Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made a very strong play to the Catholic community throughout the campaign.
While introducing Pence as his vice president on Saturday, Trump said he and Pence were both fighters, and that together they would both fight for the religious liberty of Christians in the United States. Pence’s record suggests otherwise.
Mike Pence definitely fights hard. But for Christians? Not so much.
He fought hard against Pope Francis and the Catholic Church’s attempt to resettle Syrian refugees in Indiana. Citing security concerns after last November’s Paris attacks, Pence tried to pressure the local Catholic Charities into longer welcoming and housing refugees fleeing violence and terrorism in the Middle East. However, Joseph Tobin, Indianapolis’s archbishop, courageously defied the governor’s orders. Tobin said at the time that welcoming refugees “is an essential part of our identity as Catholic Christians, and we will continue this life-saving tradition.”
Republicans too have been troubled by Pence’s record on religious liberty. Conservative intellectual David French just accused Pence of throwing religious liberty “under the bus” during his tenure as governor.
Donald Trump says when he’s President, Christianity will have power again in the United States. “Christians don’t use their power,” Trump has complained. “We have to strengthen. Because we are getting—if you look, it’s death by a million cuts—we are getting less and less and less powerful in terms of a religion, and in terms of a force.”
In typical Trump fashion, he thinks this starts in the marketplace: “I’ll tell you one thing: I get elected president, we’re going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ [at department stores] again.” He continued, “Because if I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power. You don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”
With due respect, Christians do need someone else.
Donald Trump doesn’t get it. The heart of Christian “power” isn’t strength and visibility in the public sphere. The central claim of Christianity itself has always been that the rejected, crucified and executed Jesus Christ is somehow Lord of the entire earth. In Trump’s world, those like Christ are the losers. In God’s world, those are the victors.
Christian power is derived from our ability to communicate and practice God’s saving love in the invisible spheres of society. Saying “Merry Christmas” at the department store might win an empty-shell public-relations battle, but it does nothing to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If Donald Trump and Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton and her running mate want to fight for Christian values, then ensure this is a nation that fights for God’s dreams of a place where the last are first, the poor are blessed, and enemies are loved.
Want to be a champion for the Christian cause? Make sure that this is a nation where mercy reigns supreme, a country where black lives matter, where LGBT lives matter, and so too do the lives of refugees, the imprisoned, the unborn and anyone else who suffers dehumanization, exclusion and injustice.
Of course, this is a great way to get a ticket into heaven. But if the last seventy years of American politics mean anything as well, it’s a great way to stamp your ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as well—in short, a win-win.
LA DAILY NEWS: WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” hats proudly tout they are “Made in USA.” Not necessarily always the case, an Associated Press review found.
The iconic, baseball-style hats are indeed stitched together at a small factory in the Los Angeles area. But at least one of the hats in a small sample tested by AP and an outside expert did not contain the specific type of American-made fabric the hats’ manufacturer insists his factory always uses to make each one.
The true origin of the fabric in that hat remains a mystery — whether U.S.- or foreign-made and by whom — and a striking example of how difficult and murky it can be to verify something is actually “Made in USA.” The Republican presidential candidate has made it a cornerstone of his campaign that U.S. companies and individuals should aim for that standard to bring back American jobs, even if it means paying more.
Informed of the AP’s findings, Trump said any misrepresentation would be unacceptable. “I pay a good price for that hat. If it’s not made in the USA, we’ll bring a lawsuit.”
The AP review included a microscopic analysis of five hats bought from Trump’s campaign website, which showed the fabric in one was of a different type than that made by the supplier the manufacturer told the AP provides all his hat fabric.
In addition to the fabric analysis, two of the manufacturer’s employees, including a top sales agent, said the hats’ fabric, bills and stiffeners were imported from overseas.
The factory’s owner, Brian Kennedy of Cali-Fame of Los Angeles Inc., said the two employees were wrong, but he refused to explain the fabric discrepancy. Federal law requires that items labeled “Made in USA” be made from materials “all or virtually all” from the United States.
“I’m not using imported materials,” Kennedy told the AP. “We’re playing by the rules.”
On a broad level, the tale of Trump’s hats shows the challenge of revitalizing U.S. manufacturing, which has been ravaged by cheap competition from overseas. Trump has accused Asian countries of unfairly manipulating their currencies to boost exports.
Labor costs in Asia are so low that hats or other clothing can cost less than half the price of products made in the United States. Asian fabric prices are also lower, though less dramatically. While Trump has tried to get Made in USA hats for his campaign, knockoffs of those hats, clearly made in China, do a brisk business for other vendors. And Trump’s private companies and the clothing line run by his daughter, Ivanka, routinely sell clothes and other products made in China and other Asian countries.
Trump has warned Ford Motor Co. that he would place a 35 percent tax on cars sent to the U.S. from a planned plant in Mexico, and he has pledged to “get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country.”
“All it takes is a commitment to winning and making ‘Made in America’ a badge of honor like it used to be,” Trump wrote last year.
But the Trump campaign’s experience shows how difficult it can be to be utterly certain of a product’s provenance. Trump told the AP that his staff had visited Cali-Fame’s factory and reviewed paperwork guaranteeing the hats qualified for Made in the USA labeling. “It was very important to us that these hats be made in the USA,” he said.
The fabric tells a complicated tale.
Kennedy, the factory owner, provided the AP with a copy of a certificate dated March 24, 2016. It shows the purchase of 1,488 yards of U.S.-origin, red polyester-cotton blended fabric, called Saxtwill, from Carr Textile Corp. of Fenton, Missouri. Kennedy later provided copies of three other certificates from Carr Textile, dated September 2015, for components of black and white hats of U.S. origin.
Kennedy declined to comment further after the AP told him that a microscopic analysis of the fabric in a red cap the AP purchased directly from Trump’s campaign website did not match the red Saxtwill material that the AP obtained directly from Carr Textile. He said providing any further detail would reveal proprietary information.
To do the microscopic analysis, the AP obtained samples directly from Carr of the same red polyester-cotton blended fabric that Kennedy said was in the hats: one type imported and one U.S.-made. The AP asked Deborah Young, a professor of textiles and clothing at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles, to compare two Trump hats that the AP had purchased from the campaign website with the fabric samples. The AP did not identify the fabric samples to prevent bias.
Her conclusion: The material in one Trump hat was inconsistent with either Carr sample. The pattern of the weave was noticeably different, later confirmed by the AP using a school-grade microscope: All Carr-made Saxtwill fabric is a 2/1 weave; the other Trump hat was a 3/1 pattern weave.
“I am completely confident of this outcome,” Young said. “There’s no way this hat was made out of either (Carr) sample.”
The analysis was not able to determine where the fabric in that hat actually came from.
Young said the other “Make America Great Again” hat that the AP had also purchased from Trump’s campaign could have come from either the U.S.-made Carr fabric, from Carr’s cheaper imported fabric, or from an entirely different source.
After receiving Young’s opinion, the AP bought an additional three hats from the Trump campaign for review. Those were also compatible with either Carr’s Saxtwill or the cheaper fabric that Carr imports.
In addition to the fabric analysis, two of Cali-Fame’s employees, Andy Meade and Angela Olague, told the AP and a product distributor, separately, that the hats were made from imported fabric and other components.
The AP asked Kevin O’Brien, the president of Ethix Ventures Inc. of Boston, a distributor specializing in U.S.-produced, sweatshop-free merchandise, to call Meade, Cali-Fame’s top sales agent, on the AP’s behalf to ask about the company’ hat prices and the origin of the hats’ materials. The AP asked O’Brien to call so that the company’s employees would respond as they would to a regular industry customer.
“It’s domestic made of imported,” Meade said.
An AP reporter separately called Olague in the company’s sales department to ask which materials were imported, disclosing that he worked for The Associated Press when asked.
The hats “are made in the USA, but all the materials are not,” Olague told the AP of the company’s Made in America product line. Pressed further, she said the factory could hypothetically produce hats from American-made fabric — but only if the customer supplied domestic fabric with the same specifications of the material Cali-Fame used.
Meade and Olague declined subsequently to speak to the AP. Kennedy, the factory owner, said the two employees had their facts wrong.
Closely policing all U.S.-made claims would take considerable bureaucracy and expense.
The Federal Trade Commission considers a product made in the U.S. only when “all or virtually all” the product is U.S.-made. It defines that as cases where “all significant parts and processing that go into the product are of U.S. origin.”
The FTC generally requires Made-in-USA labeled products to be assembled or “substantially transformed” in the U.S. and to contain “negligible” foreign content.
Under the FTC rules, if a hat were made from imported fabrics, the maker could comply with the law by using a different, more qualified label, such as “Made of U.S. and imported fabric” or “Made in U.S. of imported fabric.”
The FTC can punish violators in an administrative process that prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. The agency can and sometimes does investigate such cases when it receives a formal complaint.
Through a spokeswoman, the FTC declined to comment on Trump’s hats specifically, referring the AP to its guidelines requiring all significant components to be domestically made.
State law also regulates Made in USA claims. Under California law, 95 percent of a “Made in the USA” product’s value must come from U.S. sources unless key components are unavailable domestically. Foreign fabric is often in greater supply, but domestic fabric is available.
Ironically, even as the Trump campaign strives to provide Made in USA hats, unofficial knock-offs of Trump hats, made in China and not endorsed by Trump’s campaign, are widely available.
Trump’s campaign sells its hats for $25 to $30 each on its website. It was unclear how many it has sold, but the campaign has paid Cali-Fame nearly $1.5 million for hats through the end of last month. The knockoffs, sometimes worn by Trump supporters at his rallies, can be had for as little as $6 on Amazon.com.
Trump acknowledged there appeared to be a demand for the cheaper, foreign hats. He said he was unsure whether supporters buying those hats ever checked the tags. “I don’t know if they know,” he said.
Trump said his organization has been writing letters trying to force the knockoff makers to stop.
“Maybe we’ll end up suing companies,” he said. “Who knows where they are.”
___
Associated Press writer Chad Day contributed to this report.
PF: In an effort to take out frontrunner Donald Trump, Republican presidential candidates have pelted Trump with criticism over his multiple trips to federal bankruptcy court.
That criticism was on full display in CNN’s Republican debate Sept. 16. Most notably, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina criticized Trump’s history of bankruptcies in his businesses.
"You know, there are a lot of us Americans who believe that we are going to have trouble someday paying back the interest on our debt because politicians have run up mountains of debt using other people's money," Fiorina said. "That is in fact precisely the way you ran your casinos. You ran up mountains of debt, as well as losses, using other people's money, and you were forced to file for bankruptcy not once, not twice, four times."
Trump doesn’t deny that four of his businesses have filed for bankruptcy. He argues, however, that filing for bankruptcy is a common business decision, and he was smart to make the moves when he did.
"Hundreds of companies" have filed for bankruptcy, Trump said earlier in the debate. "I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job."
Trump’s four bankruptcies were Chapter 11 reorganizations (named for its location in federal bankruptcy code), which are designed to restructure businesses without shutting them down completely. The purpose is to "save" the business, as opposed to other forms of bankruptcy which would liquidate the company, said Michael Venditto, a partner at the ReedSmith law firm who has extensive experience with Chapter 11.
Because they keep coming up, we decided to outline Trump’s four bankruptcies. We also talked to some finance experts, who told us Trump is correct that Chapter 11 reorganization is not always the result of bad business decisions.
Bankruptcy 1: The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991
The first bankruptcy associated with Trump was perhaps the most significant in terms of his personal finances, according to news reports at the time. He funded the construction of the $1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which opened in 1990. By 1991, the casino was nearly $3 billion in debt, while Trump had racked up nearly $900 million in personal liabilities, so the business decided to file for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to the New York Times. As a result, Trump gave up half his personal stake in the casino and sold his yacht and airline, according to the Washington Post.
Bankruptcy 2: Trump Plaza Hotel, 1992
Trump acquired the Plaza Hotel in New York for $390 million in 1988. By 1992, the hotel had accumulated $550 million in debt. As a result of the bankruptcy, in exchange for easier terms on which to pay off the debts, Trump relinquished a 49 percent stake in the Plaza to a total of six lenders, according to ABC News. Trump remained the hotel’s CEO, but it was merely a gesture -- he didn’t earn a salary and had no say in the hotel’s day-to-day operations, according to the New York Times.
Bankruptcy 3: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004
Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004 when his casinos -- including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City and a riverboat casino in Indiana -- had accrued an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to the Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he was still the company’s largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Trump told the Associated Press at the time that the company represented less than 1 percent of his net worth.
Bankruptcy 4: Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009
Trump Entertainment Resorts -- formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts -- was hit hard by the 2008 economic recession and missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008, according to ABC News. After debating with the company’s board of directors, Trump resigned as the company’s chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trump’s name in licensing.
So four Trump companies filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. Is that as big a deal as Fiorina says?
Risky business
While it would be better to avoid a situation where Chapter 11 reorganization is necessary, filing for bankruptcy can be a "sound business decision" when the company is facing serious financial problems, Venditto said. It’s better than the business shutting down completely.
"However, the source of the financial problems varies from case to case," he said. "Sometimes it is the result of circumstances beyond the control of the business. Sometime it caused by poor judgment. More frequently, it is a combination."
Trump’s four bankruptcies all happened within the past 25 years. That’s a lot, said Stephen Lubben, a leading expert in corporate finance and professor at Seton Hall School of Law. But to be fair, the gaming industry has been struggling the past few years, he added, and three out of four of Trump’s bankruptcies were tied to casinos.
It’s not fair to put all the blame on Trump for the four bankruptcies because he’s acting as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,said Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University.
He added that people typically wouldn’t personally blame former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or investor Warren Buffett for individual failures within their investment companies, Bain Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, respectively.
"The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space," Levitan said. "These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him."
Our ruling
Fiorina said Trump was "forced to file for bankruptcy not once, not twice, four times."
While it is accurate that Trump filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, Fiorina’s statement doesn’t tell the whole story. In context, Fiorina’s phrasing suggests Trump was personally responsible for the failures of these businesses, but in reality, much was out of Trump’s control -- such as a struggling casino industry. But Trump is certainly not blameless.
We rate Fiorina’s statement Mostly True.
Kabar24.com, WASHINGTON -- Lewat sentuhan sarkasme, calon presiden Hillary Clinton mengejek calon presiden dari Partai Republik Donald Trump karena temperamennya.
Selama pidato kebijakan luar negerinya Kamis lalu Clinton meluncurkan serangan terberatnya melawan Trump di salah satu pidato kampanye dengan fokus pada temperamen Trump.
"Tidak sulit untuk membayangkan Donald Trump memimpin kita ke dalam perang hanya karena seseorang mengganggu kulit tipisnya,"kata Hillary
Trump secara terang-terangan menunjukkan permusuhan dengan lawan partainya dan mengkritik bahwa ia akan melakukan hantaman yang bahkan lebih keras atas serangan politik atau laporan berita tak menyenangkan.
Menurut daftar yang disusun oleh The New York Times, di Twitter Trump telah menghina setidaknya 210 orang, tempat dan hal-hal sejak mendeklarasikan pencalonan presidennya Juni lalu, dan daftar itu belum termasuk sasaran penghinaan Trump yang disiarkan pada tv kabel
"Apakah kita ingin dia membuat panggilan itu? Seseorang berkulit tipis dan cepat marah yang mengeluarkan caci-maki bahkan pada kritik terkecil Apakah kita ingin jarinya di dekat tombol," tanya Clinton.
Clinton pada pidatonya membuat sindiran tentang keadaan psikologis Trump. Menggambarkan Trump sebagai "temperamental tidak layak" untuk presiden AS
"Saya tidak mengerti daya tarik aneh Donald terhadap diktator dan laki-laki yang kuat yang tidak memiliki cinta untuk Amerika," kata Clinton, merujuk pujian masa lalu Trump untuk Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin dan kata-kata Trump akan berbicara dengan Presiden Korea Utara Kim Jong Un jika terpilih.
"Saya akan menyerahkan kepada psikiater untuk menjelaskan mengapa dia begitu memuja tiran," katanya.
Menanggapi pernyataan Clinton, Trump menyebut pidato tersebut sebagai "pidato kebencian."
"Jika orang ingin menang, mereka membutuhkan temperamen seperti saya. Jika orang ingin stagnan dan turun, mereka membutuhkan temperamen yang mudah bengkok seperti Hillary,” kata Trump pada hari Kamis dalam sebuah wawancara dengan The Wall Street Journal.
Menurut jajak pendapat Wall Street Journal / ABC News yang dirilis pada bulan Mei, mayoritas orang Amerika berpikir Clinton akan lebih baik daripada Trump untuk menangani kebijakan luar negeri.
"Sebagai Menteri Luar Negeri dan mantan ibu negara, saya mendapat kehormatan untuk mewakili Amerika di luar negeri dan membantu membentuk kebijakan luar negeri kita dari rumah," kata Clinton.
"Dan saya telah duduk pada posisi yang menyarankan presiden pada beberapa pilihan terberat yang dihadapinya," tambahnya.
Meskipun dia mencatat perannya dalam membantu membentuk kebijakan luar negeri AS di tahun-tahun terakhir, Clinton tidak menyebutkan perannya dalam partisipasi AS pada pemboman NATO terhadap perang Libya pada 2011 perang yang menyebabkan negara Afrika Utara sebagai negara gagal dan surga teroris.
American photographer Spencer Tunick, famous for his pictures of huge crowds of naked people, is not a fan of Donald Trump.
In fact, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee travels to Cleveland next month for the party's convention, Tunick plans to greet him with 100 nude women holding up mirrors in a form of art photography-turned-protest.
"There shouldn't be a rhetoric of hate in a presidential election," Tunick, 49, said of the billionaire tycoon's campaign, which has featured virulent diatribes against Mexicans, Arabs and women journalists, among others.
Speaking in Colombia, where he plans to assemble 4,000 naked people Sunday in what he calls a message of "peace and unity," Tunick said he felt a duty as a husband and father of two daughters to speak out against Trump.
"I can't just vote. I have to do something," he told AFP.
"I think every artist in the US should make an artwork before the election and get it out there."
His plan is to line up 100 nude women at sunrise on July 17, the day before the Republican national convention starts, wielding mirrored discs to capture the blinding light of the sun -- and expose what he calls The Donald's misguided policies.
Volunteers can sign up online at spencertunickcleveland.com to pose for the shoot, which the artist says will take place on private property near the arena.
"Republicans, Democrats and all other political parties are welcome to take part," says the website.
"It's an artwork, not so much a protest but an action to heat up the city... (and) show that women have power," Tunick said.
"Women in the city should look themselves in the mirror, and mirrors should shine back at them and they should see the language of hate that is coming from the Republican party."
Tunick accused the GOP, whose leadership long resisted the seemingly unstoppable Trump nomination, of "heading backwards" on women's and minority rights.
- 'Body as art object' -
The New York-based photographer, who has completed major installations around the world, is in Colombia as the conflict-torn country closes in on a peace deal between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
"It's an honor to be here at this moment when life is changing and hopefully a peace agreement will be signed," he said.
Tunick said his Bogota installation -- the largest he has done in six years -- would feature unclothed Colombians sprawled out across a government square at different elevations.
He said the aim was "to work with the body as an art object as opposed to an object of crime or violence, just show the body as a beautiful organic entity that transforms the space, the governmental space of the square."
The Colombia conflict, which began in the aftermath of a peasant uprising in the 1960s, has killed 260,000 people and uprooted 6.6 million over more than half a century.
In this diverse country with deep inequalities and roots in Europe, Africa and the Americas, Tunick said he was hoping his photo shoot would attract "an alphabet soup of skin tonalities, ethnicities, people from all walks of life."
Kabar24.com, WASHINGTON - Calon presiden Amerika Serikat dari Partai Demokrat Hillary Clinton dalam pidatonya mengecam kebijakan politik luar negeri Donald Trump, menyebut kebijakan tersebut sangat kacau.
Clinton juga menyebut saingannya dari Partai Republik tersebut sebagai seseorang yang sangat menakutkan dan konyol.
“Ide-ide Trump bukan hanya berbeda tetapi sangat tidak koheren. Ide itu bahkan tidak layak disebut ide, hanya segelintir omong kosong yang aneh, persoalan pribadi dan kebohongan,” katanya seperti dikutip Reuters, Jumat (3/6/2016).
Clinton menyampaikan pidatonya di San Diego menjelang pemilihan di California yang akan diadakan pada 7 Juni mendatang.
Para pemimpin partai Demokrat sedang berusaha untuk menemukan cara terbaik guna menghadapi Trump yang berhasil melumpuhkan 16 rivalnya dari partai republik dalam penominasian calon presiden dari partainya tersebut.
Trump menyebut Clinton sebagai Croked Hillary, dan mengorek perselingkuhan suaminya, Bill Clinton, yang merupakan mantan presiden Amerika Serikat.
Sementara itu, pernyataan Clinton dimaksudkan untuk menunjukkan bahwa dia tidak gentar dan bisa berhadapan dengan Trump .
“Dia mengatakan bahwa dia berpengalaman dalam hal kebijakan luar negeri hanya karena dia mengadakan kontes Miss Universe di Rusia,” katanya pada orang-orang yang menyaksikan pidatonya.
Dia juga mengatakan bahwa Trump akan mengelola ekonomi Amerika sama seperti dia mengelola kasinonya.
“Dia memuji para diktator seperti Vladimir Putin dan menyulut perkelahian dengan teman-teman kita, termasuk Perdana Menteri Inggris, Wali Kota London, Kanselir Jerman, Presiden Meksiko dan Paus,” kata Clinton menyebutkan daftar sekutu Amerika yang telah diusik Trump.
Dalam pidatonya, Clinton memprediksi bahwa Trump yang telah mengkritik habis-habisan terkait kebijakan luar negeri, akan menulis cuitan menghina dirinya di Twitter dan Trump benar-benar melakukan hal itu.
Clinton juga sempat mengemukakan sekelumit pengalamannya sendiri ketika dia menjabat sebagai sekretaris negara, khususnya perannya dalam menasihati Presiden Barack Obama selama misi pencarian pemimpin Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
Di sisi lain, Obama yang telah berulang kali dicela oleh Trump, juga balas mencela Trump dan mengatakan Trump seorang yang bebal dan angkuh dalam berkata-kata dan Trump telah menggertak pemimpin lain.
Los Angeles, June 2, 2016 (AFP)
Donald Trump is fond of saying Hispanics love him, but his Republicans face an all-but-impossible task in winning over the fast-growing, Democratic-leaning group that the billionaire has alienated time and again.
In California, whose Republican White House primary takes place June 7, the Grand Old Party is facing a massive challenge in the most populous US state where whites no longer are a majority.
Hispanics are the largest US minority group and a majority of Hispanic Americans are Mexican American; Trump has enraged many by referring to Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers, and pledging to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.
Ronald Reagan's once-Republican-leaning California has become increasingly diverse, Hispanic and Democratic at the ballot box. And no Republican has won presidential polls in the state in over two decades.
"This is the worst nightmare for the national Republican party," said Raul Hinojosa, Associate Professor at the UCLA Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies.
"What has happened to the Republican Party in California is that they have become irrelevant electorally," he said. "They have no expectation of winning a senate or governor's seat for the foreseeable future."
According to a recent Gallup study 77 percent of Latinos have a negative view of Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.
- Changing times, changing state -
In California, Hispanics now make up the largest single racial or cultural group and account for 20 percent of the state's four million registered voters.
"The Latino vote more than doubled in the last 20 years," said Hinojosa.
And according to Diana Colin, of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, registered Republicans make up just 16.5 percent of the state's Hispanic voters.
To glance around crowds at Trump speeches in California these days, the billionaire businessman and reality TV star appears to have had success courting whites, Asian, men, women, young people and old... but very few Latinos.
Among the anti-Trump protesters who regularly picket his rallies, there are a great deal of Hispanics toting signs denouncing the billionaire as "xenophobic" or "racist."
- Sprint to voter registration -
Trump has threatened to deport the country's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants -- which experts say has fueled a surge in voter registration among Hispanics.
According to Political Data, a group that tracks electoral data, two million new voters have registered in California since January 1 -- a 200-percent jump compared to 2012. Half are Democrat, and a quarter are Hispanic.
"There has been a huge Latino turnout," said Colin.
Of course these are not all Democrats, but Republicans are a small minority, Hinojosa noted.
And the hard demographic fact is that Mexican Americans make up more than 60 percent of Hispanics in the United States.
Many of them benefited from a massive amnesty under the Ronald Reagan administration in 1986.
"The vast majority of (the Latino) population is related to an undocumented person -- that share is very high, and the sympathy is very in favor of immigrant rights," Colin stressed.
But there are other voices, too, among America's Latino voters.
In the past, Cuban Americans tended to vote Republican; some immigrants from South American countries have warmed to Trump's tough stance on illegal migration, Hijonosa said.
"This notion that you're the good guys, you're the legal immigrants," explained.
- Hiding in plain sight? -
Delores Chavez, of the California Republican National Hispanic Assembly, suspects the true number of Latino Trump supporters may be higher -- and that they are simply afraid to go public with their support.
"There's a lot of Trump voters in the closet who are afraid of being chastised if they say they support him," she said.
But there is no denying that Hispanics have become a demographic time bomb for the Republicans.
Aside from their clout in California, Latinos are forecast to make up one third of the US population by 2060, official data shows. That would mean 30 to 40 million Latino voters in the next 15 years, Hinojosa said.
Many states, thanks in part to that trend, are shifting demographically towards voting Democratic -- such as Texas and Florida, Hinojosa said.
Liputan6.com, New York - Sebuah analisis terbaru mengungkapkan miliarder dunia,Donald Trump ternyata bukanlah orang kaya karena otaknya. Trump menjadi miliarder karena warisan.
Seperti dikutip dari VOX, Senin (7/9/2015), analisis itu menyebutkan, Trump akan tetap jadi seorang miliarder meskipun dia tak pernah sukses di bisnis real estate. Warisan dari ayahnyalah yang membuatnya menjadi seperti ini.
Dalam Jurnal Nasional, reporter S.v, Date mencatat pada 1974, kerajaan bisnis real estate milik ayah Trump senilai US$ 200 juta. Trump sendiri adalah anak pertama dari 5 bersaudara, yang saat itu punya porsi warisan senilai US$ 40 juta.
Jika seseorang menginvestasikan uang senilai US$ 40 juta di S&P 500 pada Agustus 1974, menginvestasikan kembali dividennya, kemudian tidak menarik tunai dana tersebut, lalu tak harus membayarcapital gain, tidak membayar biaya investasi, maka di Agustus 2015 dia akan punya US$ 3,4 miliar. Itu menurut penghitungan kalkulator S&P.
Cukup sulit untuk mengetahui berapa kekayaan Trump secara pasti, tapi Bloombergmencatat kekayaannya US$ 2,9 miliar. Sementara Forbes menyebut US$ 4 miliar.
Kalau membandingkan kinerja Trump di 1982, saat pasar saham sedang lepas landas di awal resesi 1980-an, cukup mencengangkan. Forbes memperkirakan kekayaan Trump mencapai US$ 200 juta tahun itu.
Jika dia menyimpan uangnya untuk investasi dengan biaya 0,15 persen, sekarang dia bakal punya US$ 6,3 miliar setelah dipotong pajak dividen. Lebih dari apa yang dia punya sekarang.
Penghitungan ini bisa bervariasi. Tapi intinya bukan angka tersebut, intinya adalah setelah bertahun-tahun dia menempatkan investasi di waktu dan tempat yang tepat, kemampuan dia untuk bernegosiasi dan menghabiskan masa kampanyenya untuk menyebut dia pantas jadi pemimpin karena keahliannya di pasar, Trump tetap punya rekam jejak di pasar seperti investor lain pada umumnya.
Di pernah mencapai level terbaik, dan juga pernah menunjukkan kinerja buruk. Tapi lagi-lagi, itu tidak begitu impresif karena analisa tersebut mengatakan bahwa hal itu hampir seluruhnya adalah karena warisan sang ayah. (Zulfi Suhendra/Ndw)
ny times May 2016:
fortune: He used a tax code provision to claim negative income.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly paid absolutely nothing in federal income taxes for at least two years in the late 1970s thanks to a tax code provision giving major advantages to large property developers.
The Washington Post reports that Trump’s tax returns last became public in 1981 among a slew of casino regulatory filings. The real estate mogul reported negative income in several of those years, eliminating his tax liability.
As investigative reporter David Cay Johnston has previously noted, Trump was able to claim negative income of $406,379 in 1978 and $3.4 million in 1979. The reason? A tax provision requiring developers and building owners to depreciate buildings’ value over time and allowing them to count this loss in value as a deduction against their income. With enough buildings and their corresponding depreciation on the books, Trump’s income could technically turn negative.
Fortune has reached out to the Trump campaign for comment on the returns and will update this post if they respond.
Trump has adamantly refused to release his tax returns in recent months, citing an IRS audit and asserting that his financials are “none of your business” and drawing the ire of critics such as 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. There’s been rampant speculation that Trump’s resistance to disclosing the figures stems from a low tax rate, particularly for a man of his wealth, thanks to tax code provisions such as the building depreciation deduction.
He would be the first major party presidential nominee to not release his or her returns in four decades if he hews to his current position
reuters: The question of the moment is: If GOP front-runner Donald Trump were to be elected president, what would he do?
At least on the economic side, we recently had glimpses of what could lie ahead. And those fiscal hints have much broader implications, including for U.S. national security.
Trump contends he can run Washington far better by treating the federal government like one of his companies. He has a very particular style as a real-estate developer, and his general approach to business could indeed be applied to fiscal and monetary policy. Any way that you look at what Trump is inclined to do, however, the result could lead to unprecedented disaster on a global scale.
Trump has already demonstrated a great ability to make the kinds of inconsistent comments that, -- if coming from the mouth of a president -- would
- scare investors,
- create a great deal of uncertainty,
- push up interest rates,
- lower employment,
- drive down stock market prices and
- cause the bottom to fall out of the value of other assets.
This kind of destabilization wouldn’t just have negative effects on investor and consumer confidence in the United States. It would spread rapidly around the world and
- drive up interest rates,
- bankrupt private-sector companies and
- plunge countries into a downward default-recession spiral.
U.S. exports would naturally crater in this scenario because U.S. allies and trading partners would be in deep crisis and could not afford to buy American products.
The Trump ripple effect would really be a devastating global tidal wave of rising interest rates.
Trump wants to be seen as a responsible business executive. Ironically, given his hostility toward Latinos and other immigrant groups, his messages most resemble those irresponsible populists who have repeatedly ruined Latin America. On three big macroeconomic issues -- debt, inflation and financial regulation -- Trump would put the United States firmly on the road to becoming Argentina, a once-prosperous country until Juan and Eva Perón took over.
On debt, Trump believes the more the better. His companies issue a great deal of debt because, in the downside scenario, developers like Trump can find ways to pay less than the face value of what is owed. He recently said this approach is an opportunity the U.S. Treasury is losing out on.
The U.S. government, however, is not a speculative real-estate company. Alexander Hamilton realized, at the very start of the nation that having the federal government pay its debts in full, as well as assuming the states’ debts, was of fundamental importance. This was crucial not just for public finance but also for the ability of the private credit markets to operate in a reasonable fashion. And this is what Washington has done for more than 200 years.
“Risk-free debt” is how U.S. debt is described in the world of finance. Once you introduce default risk into those calculations, interest rates would spike for both the government and the private sector.
Trump’s brand of real-estate development is about taking huge risks based on large amounts of debt, while making sure there is limited downside for himself. Bondholders get paid if things go well. If the project does not work out, however, those investors bear the brunt of the losses.
Trump’s companies have gone bankrupt in this tactical fashion -- using Chapter 11 reorganizations -- four times: the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City in 1991, the Trump Plaza Hotel in New York in 1992, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004, and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009. In the 2004 experience, for example, total debt was $1.8 billion, and the Chapter 11 filing was designed to reduce this by about a quarter ($500 million).
Trump sees all these debt-restructuring experiences in a positive light. As he put it during a primary debate in September 2015, "I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job."
Speaking on CNBC recently, Trump connected his past debt restructuring with prospective broad macroeconomic strategy for the United States. “I would borrow,” he declared, “knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”
This must rank as one of the most irresponsible economic policy statements ever made by a major party candidate for the presidency.
Second, Trump also seems very weak on inflation. When pressed on his purported plan for buying back federal government debt at a discount, he responded by suggesting that we could always print enough money to pay off the debt: “First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”
No doubt this is a fantasy of every highly leveraged real-estate developer whenever the value of their properties falls below the value of their debts. When you have borrowed far too much, the economy is turning down and you can’t make your interest and required principal payments, of course you would just like to print your own pieces of paper and hand those over to creditors.
As a statement of macroeconomic policy intentions from a potential president, this is another extremely scary idea. Combined with Trump’s earlier assertion that he would replace Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen, this amounts to politicizing the Federal Reserve – and pushing it toward a high inflation policy. What he is saying could lead to higher interest rates, disruptions in the flow of credit and a contraction of business that could translate into mass layoffs.
Third, on financial regulation, Trump has made clear that he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank financial regulations -- a view that he shares with many other business people who live high on debt. This proposal would essentially bring the U.S. rules back to the status quo before the financial crisis of 2008.
But this is a recipe for -- the financial collapse of 2008. That crisis crashed the economy, threw millions of people out of work, pushed up the U.S. national debt dramatically and undermined America’s national security.
Any president obviously operates with constitutional constraints on his or her powers. But on all three issues -- running up the debt, undermining the independence of the Federal Reserve and repealing or refusing to enforce financial regulations -- candidate Trump is making it completely clear that a President Trump would have a major destabilizing impact.
Or perhaps Trump will walk his statements back -- or forward -- again. Just speaking in this unstable way about matters of profound importance is frightening for credit markets, with immediate negative implications for investment and for employment.
Any economic slowdown that we now experience will be in the private sector. Investors, businesses and millions of consumers could take the rational view that, if Trump became the next president, irresponsible economic policies -- and the instability they would create -- would head America’s way.
Goodbye also to the idea that the United States plays a positive role in the world economy. Electing Trump, the self-proclaimed “king of debt,” would undermine Washington’s image, resources and ability to influence others around the globe. The best way to cause irreparable damage to our national security would be to make Trump president.
As it gets closer to November, if the probability of Trump being elected rises, expect long-term interest rates to increase, while business spending and household consumption will come under serious pressure. Because Trump could easily create a recession -- even if he doesn’t win the presidency.
(Simon Johnson is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Follow him on Twitter @baselinescene)
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Bakal calon presiden AS dari Partai Republik, Donald Trump, diragukan dapat menstabilkan perekonomian dunia jika terpilih jadi presiden pada akhir tahun ini.
Menurut mantan Duta Besar Indonesia untuk Amerika Serikat, Dino Patti Djalal, pertumbuhan perekonomian dunia justru bisa semakin terpuruk.
"Kalau Trump menang, kalau menurut saya, kalau dia melakukan hal-hal yang selama ini dia kampanyekan, dampaknya akan mengkhawatirkan," kata dia di Jakarta, Sabtu (14/5/2016).
Trump terkenal sebagai sosok fenomenal karena pernyataan-pernyataannya yang kontroversial. Misalnya, Trump pernah menyebut Meksiko mengirim ke AS warganya yang bermasalah, seperti pemerkosa, kriminal, dan pengedar narkoba.
Dia juga mengutarakan dirinya tidaklah rasialis dan kebijakannya keras terhadap imigran ilegal. Trump juga memicu kemarahan kaum veteran dan politisi Amerika setelah dia mengatakan pada Juli bahwa senator dan veteran Perang Vietnam John McCain bukanlah pahlawan perang.
McCain pernah menjadi tawanan perang saat Perang Vietnam dan mengalami penyiksaan berat. Trump pun menyinggung agama Presiden AS Barrack Obama, bahkan mendesaknya untuk memperlihatkan sertifikat kelahirannya guna membuktikan bahwa dia lahir di Hawaii dan bukan seorang Muslim.
Pernyataan-pernyataan Trump itu akan menjadi blunder dan tak ada yang bersimpatik kepada AS jika ia menjadi presiden.
"Trump itu menganut nasionalisme sempit dan konfrontasional, ekonomi dunia bisa terancam," kata Dino. Padahal, situasi yang terjadi di AS sangat berpengaruh pada ekonomi dunia.
Dino mengatakan, AS merupakan negara dengan ekonomi terbesar dan bagian dari area perdagangan bebas. Saat ini, kata Dino, AS membutuhkan pemimpin yang mampu meningkatkan pertumbuhan perekonomian dunia, bukan justru menjatuhkannya.
"Dunia mengharapkan kepemimpinan AS yang dewasa, terutama untuk menjaga laju pertumbuhan ekonomi dunia pada masa sekarang yang kata IMF masih sangat tidak bagus prospeknya," kata Dino.
Editor's note: This story was originally published in October. With Republican frontrunner Donald Trump closing in on the nomination and shifting his focus to the general election following the withdrawal of Ted Cruz, it's worth taking another look at what the U.S. economy may look like under a President Trump.
Emily Stewart the Street
There's no denying Trump has done a good job of making himself rich -- he's worth somewhere between $4.5 billion and $10 billion, depending who you ask. Can he make the rest of America rich, too?
The economy isn't something Trump looks forward to tackling. In a January interview with "Good Morning America," Trump offered up a bleak assessment of the U.S. economy but added that, in terms of fixing it, it's a task he'd rather skip.
"We're in a bubble," he said. "And, frankly, if there's going to be a bubble popping, I hope they pop before I become president because I don't want to inherit all this stuff. I'd rather it be the day before rather than the day after, I will tell you that."
In an April interview with the Washington Post, Trump reiterated his doomsday view of the economy, suggesting we might be headed for recession. But this time around, he appeared more open to the idea of his being in charge of finding remedies. "I can fix it. I can fix it pretty quickly," he said.
Many Americans appear to believe that is the case and that, more broadly, a Trump presidency would be good for the economy. According to a recent CNBC All-America Survey, Americans rate Trump and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton evenly on key economic issues. And in a January Zogby poll, Trump rated better than the former secretary of state.
Trump has certainly been this election cycle's most riveting figure. He initially focused his attention on immigration reform, calling for a wall to be built between Mexico and the United States and demanding the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants.
He has since rolled out other policies and positions: a major tax code overhaul; repeal and replace Obamacare; renegotiate or "break" NAFTA; stop hedge funds from "getting away with murder" on taxes; reforming the Veteran's Administration; andimpose import tariffs as high as 35%. All while keeping the deficit in check, growing the economy and leaving entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security untouched. Immigration remains a major pillar of his campaign, and he has now moved on to the question of Muslim immigration as well. He has finally laid out a plan to make Mexico pay for the wall, too.
Trump has made plenty of enemies along the way as well, including but limited to fellow GOP contenders Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly, the media in general and even the Pope.
Those who fear Trump's plans should find common cause with those who love them: "I'm not sure how much of what he actually says today will be his positions a year from now," said Michael Busler, professor of finance at Stockton University.
Trump's own campaign has suggested he is playing "a part" to garner votes.
While Trump certainly has some grandiose ideas -- and equally lofty rhetoric to accompany them -- deciphering the exact nature of his economic policies is a complex task, according to John Hudak, a fellow in governance studies at Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Brookings Institution.
Not to mention the fact that if he does make it to the Oval Office, Trump won't have a free pass from Congress, even if it remains under the control of the Republican Party (as you'll see, many of his positions don't exactly hew closely to GOP policies).
Taking legislative hurdles out of the equation, what will the U.S. economy and markets look like if Trump becomes No. 45.
Trump's Expensive Immigration Plan
Trump's immigration plans cost him a handful of business deals, but they might cost the United States much more.
The American Action Forum, a right-leaning policy institute based in Washington D.C., estimates that immediately and fully enforcing current immigration law, as Trump has suggested, would cost the federal government from $400 billion to $600 billion. It would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers, reduce the real GDP by $1.6 trillion and take 20 years to complete (Trump has said he could do it in 18 months).
"It will harm the U.S. economy," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and chief economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "Immigration is an enormous source of economic vitality."
The impact would be felt on both supply and demand.
A number of industries that depend heavily on cheap immigrant labor would be devastated -- especially agriculture. "There would be an abrupt drop in farm income and a sharp rise in food prices," said John McLaren, professor of economics at the University of Virginia with expertise in international trade, economic development and the political economy.
Companies that sell to the immigrant population would be affected as well, leading to decreased revenues for local businesses and a loss of American jobs.
"Immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, always spend a portion of their earnings in the location where they have their jobs," McLaren said. "And in a lot of our urban centers, this is actually an important part of the economy."
He pointed to the case of Postville, Iowa, where in 2008 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided a slaughterhouse and meat packing plant, detaining 389 undocumented workers (and jailing 300 of them). The raid caused most of the more than 1,000 immigrants not caught to leave the town of 2,300, devastating the local economy in the process.
He also noted his own research, which suggests each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, most of which go to U.S. natives. "Obviously, those jobs would disappear if the undocumented were just yanked away," he said.
Trump has also discussed reducing the number of jobs held by legal immigrants, namely by increasing the prevailing wage requirements for H-1B visas (visas that allow U.S. employers to recruit and employ foreign professionals). The Republican contender's thesis is that doing so would force companies to give jobs to domestic employees instead of overseas workers. The maneuver would benefit some, but not most.
"If I'm an American software programmer, I probably would benefit somewhat from making it harder for highly-skilled software programmers from elsewhere," McClaren said. "It's really hard to argue that the country, as a whole, benefits from that. It would be bad for most Americans, and it certainly would be bad for corporations."
An extreme anti-immigration policy could also cause collateral damage to the American image. "What's the American brand after we've rounded up 11 million people and sent them packing?" said Jim Pethokoukis, a columnist and blogger at theAmerican Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank based on Washington, D.C. "Do people still view America the same way?"
Perhaps it's a good thing the real estate magnate's immigration plans are essentially impossible to implement.
Tax Cuts for Everyone, and Deficits, Too
Trump's tax plan, unveiled in September, is perhaps the most detailed proposal he has put forth yet. It essentially entails implementing tax cuts across the board and literally sets forth a scenario in which the lowest earners get to send a form to the IRS reading, "I win."
"His tax plan is one of the most dynamic and pro-growth tax plans out there," said Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a Texas-based, right-leaning think tank. "You would find a huge amount of new business investment and companies willing to put their money out there to begin growing the economy."
Trump's tax plan stacks up fairly well against his fellow Republican presidential contenders. It isn't as drastic as proposals put forth by Ted Cruz and Ben Carson but does, like most GOP tax structures, favor the rich. Perhaps the biggest distinguishing feature of Trump's proposal is his hard cap on business taxes at 15%, which might be especially appealing to freelancers and the self-employed.
But there's a catch: Trump's tax plan would reduce revenue enormously, and the federal budget deficit would almost inevitably skyrocket.
Nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation calculates that Trump's plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the course of a decade. It would lead to 11% growth in the GDP, 6.5% higher wages and 29% larger capital stock as well as 5.3 million jobs. However, it would also reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion, even when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.
"That tax cut would produce faster economic growth and a bigger economy -- as long as you pay zero attention to the fact that it would dramatically increase the deficit and budget debt," said Pethokoukis.
Trump has promised to reduce spending, though he hasn't explicitly said how. Moreover, he has said he will maintain entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, two of the costliest parts of the federal budget.
"It reduces federal revenue by maybe a quarter. You can construct the United States at 75% revenue, but you have to have a plan for how you'd get there," said Alan Cole, an economist with the Center for Federal Tax Policy at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research think tank, based in Washington, D.C. "If there weren't any spending cuts that materialized, you would see the deficit widen substantially the moment the plan was enacted."
In the face of such an enormous deficit, creditors might begin demanding higher interest rates on U.S. bonds, and the markets would be spooked.
"I can't imagine markets would react well to it. I can't imagine global investors looking to relocate will look on a United States that is driving deliberately over a fiscal cliff," said Holtz-Eakin. "Sending the U.S. into a debt spiral where you're borrowing interest on previous borrowing will generate a market reaction that will be far from benign and that will, I think, in the end overwhelm the beneficial effects."
Of course, just because Trump hasn't yet explained how he will cut spending doesn't mean he won't. "It's not unusual for a politician to say, 'I'm going to cut spending,' and not give specifics," Matthews said.
Changing Views on Health Care
In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump touted universal health care and laid out an ideology on the subject that, frankly, looks pretty un-Republican. On the campaign trail, he has promised to "take care of everyone." But his campaign health care plan, released in March, sings a different tune.
The Trump camp finally outlined some of the details of his vision for health care reform in America after months of leaving voters to put together the pieces on his ideas about the issue. The seven-point plan calls for the repeal of Obamacare, the allowance of purchases of health insurance across state lines and block-grant Medicaid to states, among other things.
"This strikes me as a mixture of what is mostly Republican orthodoxy...with a couple of oddball proposals," said Roger Feldman, professor of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota. One of the unique aspects of the plan: allowing consumers to re-import drugs from overseas.
At a February town hall event hosted by CNN, Trump was critical of Obamacare, noting that "rates are going up 25, 35, 45, 55 percent," and emphasized that he is not receiving campaign money from insurance or pharmaceutical companies "so I can do what's right."
"I don't think [Trump's health care proposal] is based on economic analysis, I think it's based on channeling a populist dislike of insurance executives," said Feldman in an October interview. "If he really tried to do the things he said he would do the insurance industry would be in the crosshairs."
The ability for consumers to buy their health insurance in other states is perhaps the health-related proposal Trump has discussed most on the campaign trail. The idea is not new -- such a bill was introduced in Congress a decade ago -- but it is impactful.
When pressed for detail on his plan at the February 25 Republican debate hosted byCNN, Trump focused on the state lines issue, repeating on a handful of occasions his proposal to get rid of "the lines" around each state "so we can have real competition."
"You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition," he said. "So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York, or Texas, you'll have many. They'll compete, and it'll be a beautiful thing."
"I think it could be a potentially significant improvement in insurance," Feldman, who in 2011 co-authored a paper on consumer response to a national marketplace for individual health insurance, said. "It would do that by allowing people to buy insurance in states with fewer regulations, and that would, in turn, cause a restructuring of the health insurance industry."
Based on a pre-Obamacare baseline, Feldman and other researchers concluded such a system would result in seven million more people being insured by opening up the insurance markets to more competition.
Of course, not everyone agrees.
"It doesn't actually achieve you much," said Matthews, pointing out that a policy in another state may not translate to access to the network of physicians and pre-negotiated prices locally-purchased policies often afford. "It's not a bad idea, but it is no panacea."
Too Tough on Trade?
Trump likes to talk trade. And while has said he is a "free trader," he has also clarified he doesn't like the deals the U.S. has done, such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Art of the Deal author has promised to negotiate better agreements.
"One of the things that's often lost is that [Trump] has a strong business background, he understands how commerce works," Hudak said. "He has more business training than any American president we've ever had."
But the ramifications of some of Trump's proposals might be less than ideal.
Take China, one of his top talking points. He has proposed negotiating with the country to prevent it from manipulating its currency and keeping it too low for American manufacturers -- and workers -- from competing.
"The reality is that when China devalues its currency, the goods that they produce become cheaper, and as a result, while we may lose some manufacturing jobs, the rest of the population gets to buy things a lot cheaper than they would if the products were made [in the U.S.]," said Busler. "The jobs he would bring back are yesterday's jobs."
UPDATE: In November, Trump released his full plan for U.S.-China trade reform, in which he pledged to immediately declare it a "currency manipulator," force it to uphold intellectual property laws and end its "illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards," among other measures, in order to help American manufacturers -- and workers -- compete.
Trump has also pinpointed imposing tariffs on imported goods, for example, suggesting a 35% tax on automakers that manufacture cars in Mexico. Such a maneuver might bring jobs back stateside, but it might not. Instead, it could just mean people paying more for what they're buying.
"If he puts 35% taxes on products, the manufacturing will still not come back to the U.S., and all it will mean is U.S. consumers have to pay 35% more for the products that are made outside the country," said Busler.
"American consumers would end up paying more for things, and that hurts the economy if you're putting tariffs on those other things," said Matthews.
The Trump Effect
Trump's brand has contributed an enormous amount to his net worth -- he says more than $3 billion. But how will that Trumpiness translate to the White House? Perhaps not well.
"That off-the-cuff, gruff, tell-it-like-it-is approach that Donald Trump has may be great for headlines and a stadium full for supporters, but what unguarded comments like that from a president do is make dramatic fluctuations in the world economy, in stock markets in the United States and in the world," said Hudak. "Think about how much the market reaction is to the choice of two or three words from the Federal Reserve chairman."
The words chosen by American officials can have serious economic repercussions, and the country -- and the world -- have equally high expectations for their commercial and diplomatic capabilities. The blunt way of speaking that has made Trump so popular among Republican voters could be detrimental once he's in the Oval Office.
"His brand of rhetoric would actually make for profound economic instability," Hudak said. In an October interview with The Hill, Trump warned of a looming recession and stock market bubble and targeted Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen in his comments. "She's keeping the economy going, barely," he said. Such comments coming from a presidential candidate are one thing -- coming from the president of the United States they would be another.
But Trump is a smart guy, and may be able to adjust. Matthews pointed to the Clinton administration, which took a few months to settle in.
"You wonder if the Trump administration would be the same until they got things under control, or got him under control," he said.
Not everyone agrees.
"I think Donald Trump is good for the Republican Party, and I think he's good for the country," Busler said. "Donald Trump is not afraid to face the public and raise his voice, even if it is politically unpopular."
indonesiana.tempo: Banyak politikus Partai Republik AS yang kurang happy dengan popularitas Donald Trump yang terus menanjak dan meninggalkan ‘orang-orang dalam’ partai sendiri yang mencalonkan diri untuk jadi presiden. Para elite Republik agaknya cemas bahwa jika akhirnya Trump berhasil menghimpun delegasi terbanyak dan kemudian bertarung melawan Hillary Clinton sebagai calon presiden dari Partai Demokrat, Trump akan mudah dikalahkan. Tapi benarkah Trump akan mudah dikalahkan oleh Hillary? Belum tentu. Dalam beberapa dekade terakhir pemilihan presiden AS, suara rakyat Amerika cenderung berayun bagai bandul, ke kiri lalu ke kanan dan sebaliknya. Setelah George Bush, Sr. terpilih sebagai presiden dari Partai Republik, ia digantikan oleh Bill Clinton dari Demokrat. Berkuasa selama dua periode, kursi kepresidenan beralih ke Republik yang menampilkan George Bush, Jr. Begitu Bush, Jr. usai berkuasa selama dua periode, Barack Obama dari Demokrat terpilih menggantikannya. Bila mengikuti ayunan bandul ini, Trump berpeluang kuat untuk terpilih karena rakyat Amerika ingin berganti suasana. Boleh jadi, Trump akan memupus kekhawatiran elite Republik bahwa ia akan dikalahkan dengan mudah oleh Hillary. Kemampuannya menggalang dukungan yang tertinggi dibandingkan calon-calon lain yang orang dalam Republik telah mencengangkan banyak pihak. Trump bahkan demikian percaya diri sehingga berani melontarkan pernyataan “Saya bisa berdiri di tengah Fifth Avenue, menembak seseorang, dan saya tidak akan kehilangan pemilih.” Protes banyak pihak terhadap ucapan-ucapannya tidak membuat kepercayaan dirinya menurun. Bagi pihak-pihak di luar Republik, kecondongan banyak pemilih Republik kepada Trump seakan telah membunyikan lonceng bahaya. Banyak pihak di dalam negeri maupun dunia internasional yang cemas bahwa andul tersebut berayun terlampau ke kanan, sebagaimana terlihat dari pernyataan yang dilontarkan Trump dalam berbagai kesempatan.
Pertama, Trump bertekad untuk menggugat Amandemen Pertama yang menyatakan bahwa hukum menjamin atau menjembatani kebebasan berbicara atau kebebasan pers. Trump juga mengancam akan menuntut media massa AS jika terus menyerang dirinya.
Kedua, Trump mengatakan bahwa Islam bukan teman Amerika. “Islam membenci kita. Ada kebencian yang sangat besar,” kata Trump. “Kita harus sangat waspada. Kita harus sangat berhati-hati. Kita tidak bisa membiarkan orang-orang yang memiliki kebencian terhadap AS masuk ke negara ini.”
Ketiga, Trump menyarankan agar undang-undang AS diubah demi melegalkan penyiksaan terhadap tersangka teroris dan penyerangan terhadap keluarga teroris. Salah satu teknik penyiksaan yang diusulkan Trump ialah waterboarding, yakni interogasi dengan mengikat kaki dan tangan tahanan, menutup kepalanya, dan kemudian menuangkan air ke kepala tahanan. Penyiksaan ini sudah dilarang secara internasional.
Keempat, Trump membuat stereotyping dengan menyebutkan bahwa imigran asal Mexico telah membawa masuk obat-obatan dan kejahatan. Trump berkata akan memaksa pemerintah Mexico untuk membangun tembok perbatasan dan menghalangi masuknya orang Mexico ke AS. Ia juga berkata akan mendeportasi jutaan warga AS keturunan Hispanik yang tidak memiliki dokumen lengkap.
Kelima, Trump pernah mengatakan akan mengasingkan Cina dari perdagangan dengan Amerika dan menolak sistem perdagangan bebas, termasuk NAFTA. Berulang kali Trump mengatakan Cina telah memanipulasi mata uang. Trump juga telah menyerang sejumlah orang secara pribadi. Namun pada umumnya orang lebih mengkhawatirkan pandangannya terhadap isu-isu global yang melibatkan banyak negara dan komunitas global.
Meskipun di AS banyak kelompok masyarakat sudah turun ke jalan untuk menyatakan penolakan terhadap Trump, tapi sejauh ini jika melihat dukungan resmi ia tetap unggul dibandingkan bakal calon lain Partai Republik. Apabila pandangan Trump mencerminkan sikap mayoritas rakyat AS terhadap berbagai isu global, maka Amerika akan berayun jauh ke kanan melampaui masa George Bush, Jr. Arah pendulum ini dapat menggoyahkan keseimbangan global yang berpotensi memicu ketegangan internasional. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), sebuah institusi riset dan analisis yang berpusat di Inggris, baru-baru ini menerbitkan laporannya. Seperti dikutip oleh BBC, 17 Maret 2016, maupun tempo.co, 18 Maret 2016, EIU menyebutkan bahwa Trump menempati urutan ke-6 dari 10 risiko yang paling mengancam dunia. Ancaman itu berpotensi menjadi nyata apabila Trump terpilih sebagai presiden AS dan berwenang mengambil keputusan-keputusan penting yang berdampak global, termasuk Indonesia. Bisakah kita tidak peduli? (sumber foto: tempo.co) **
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly paid absolutely nothing in federal income taxes for at least two years in the late 1970s thanks to a tax code provision giving major advantages to large property developers.
The Washington Post reports that Trump’s tax returns last became public in 1981 among a slew of casino regulatory filings. The real estate mogul reported negative income in several of those years, eliminating his tax liability.
As investigative reporter David Cay Johnston has previously noted, Trump was able to claim negative income of $406,379 in 1978 and $3.4 million in 1979. The reason? A tax provision requiring developers and building owners to depreciate buildings’ value over time and allowing them to count this loss in value as a deduction against their income. With enough buildings and their corresponding depreciation on the books, Trump’s income could technically turn negative.
Fortune has reached out to the Trump campaign for comment on the returns and will update this post if they respond.
Trump has adamantly refused to release his tax returns in recent months, citing an IRS audit and asserting that his financials are “none of your business” and drawing the ire of critics such as 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. There’s been rampant speculation that Trump’s resistance to disclosing the figures stems from a low tax rate, particularly for a man of his wealth, thanks to tax code provisions such as the building depreciation deduction.
He would be the first major party presidential nominee to not release his or her returns in four decades if he hews to his current position
reuters: The question of the moment is: If GOP front-runner Donald Trump were to be elected president, what would he do?
At least on the economic side, we recently had glimpses of what could lie ahead. And those fiscal hints have much broader implications, including for U.S. national security.
Trump contends he can run Washington far better by treating the federal government like one of his companies. He has a very particular style as a real-estate developer, and his general approach to business could indeed be applied to fiscal and monetary policy. Any way that you look at what Trump is inclined to do, however, the result could lead to unprecedented disaster on a global scale.
Trump has already demonstrated a great ability to make the kinds of inconsistent comments that, -- if coming from the mouth of a president -- would
- scare investors,
- create a great deal of uncertainty,
- push up interest rates,
- lower employment,
- drive down stock market prices and
- cause the bottom to fall out of the value of other assets.
This kind of destabilization wouldn’t just have negative effects on investor and consumer confidence in the United States. It would spread rapidly around the world and
U.S. exports would naturally crater in this scenario because U.S. allies and trading partners would be in deep crisis and could not afford to buy American products.
- drive up interest rates,
- bankrupt private-sector companies and
- plunge countries into a downward default-recession spiral.
U.S. exports would naturally crater in this scenario because U.S. allies and trading partners would be in deep crisis and could not afford to buy American products.
The Trump ripple effect would really be a devastating global tidal wave of rising interest rates.
Trump wants to be seen as a responsible business executive. Ironically, given his hostility toward Latinos and other immigrant groups, his messages most resemble those irresponsible populists who have repeatedly ruined Latin America. On three big macroeconomic issues -- debt, inflation and financial regulation -- Trump would put the United States firmly on the road to becoming Argentina, a once-prosperous country until Juan and Eva Perón took over.
On debt, Trump believes the more the better. His companies issue a great deal of debt because, in the downside scenario, developers like Trump can find ways to pay less than the face value of what is owed. He recently said this approach is an opportunity the U.S. Treasury is losing out on.
The U.S. government, however, is not a speculative real-estate company. Alexander Hamilton realized, at the very start of the nation that having the federal government pay its debts in full, as well as assuming the states’ debts, was of fundamental importance. This was crucial not just for public finance but also for the ability of the private credit markets to operate in a reasonable fashion. And this is what Washington has done for more than 200 years.
“Risk-free debt” is how U.S. debt is described in the world of finance. Once you introduce default risk into those calculations, interest rates would spike for both the government and the private sector.
Trump’s brand of real-estate development is about taking huge risks based on large amounts of debt, while making sure there is limited downside for himself. Bondholders get paid if things go well. If the project does not work out, however, those investors bear the brunt of the losses.
Trump’s companies have gone bankrupt in this tactical fashion -- using Chapter 11 reorganizations -- four times: the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City in 1991, the Trump Plaza Hotel in New York in 1992, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004, and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009. In the 2004 experience, for example, total debt was $1.8 billion, and the Chapter 11 filing was designed to reduce this by about a quarter ($500 million).
Trump sees all these debt-restructuring experiences in a positive light. As he put it during a primary debate in September 2015, "I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job."
Speaking on CNBC recently, Trump connected his past debt restructuring with prospective broad macroeconomic strategy for the United States. “I would borrow,” he declared, “knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”
This must rank as one of the most irresponsible economic policy statements ever made by a major party candidate for the presidency.
Second, Trump also seems very weak on inflation. When pressed on his purported plan for buying back federal government debt at a discount, he responded by suggesting that we could always print enough money to pay off the debt: “First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”
No doubt this is a fantasy of every highly leveraged real-estate developer whenever the value of their properties falls below the value of their debts. When you have borrowed far too much, the economy is turning down and you can’t make your interest and required principal payments, of course you would just like to print your own pieces of paper and hand those over to creditors.
As a statement of macroeconomic policy intentions from a potential president, this is another extremely scary idea. Combined with Trump’s earlier assertion that he would replace Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen, this amounts to politicizing the Federal Reserve – and pushing it toward a high inflation policy. What he is saying could lead to higher interest rates, disruptions in the flow of credit and a contraction of business that could translate into mass layoffs.
Third, on financial regulation, Trump has made clear that he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank financial regulations -- a view that he shares with many other business people who live high on debt. This proposal would essentially bring the U.S. rules back to the status quo before the financial crisis of 2008.
But this is a recipe for -- the financial collapse of 2008. That crisis crashed the economy, threw millions of people out of work, pushed up the U.S. national debt dramatically and undermined America’s national security.
Any president obviously operates with constitutional constraints on his or her powers. But on all three issues -- running up the debt, undermining the independence of the Federal Reserve and repealing or refusing to enforce financial regulations -- candidate Trump is making it completely clear that a President Trump would have a major destabilizing impact.
Or perhaps Trump will walk his statements back -- or forward -- again. Just speaking in this unstable way about matters of profound importance is frightening for credit markets, with immediate negative implications for investment and for employment.
Any economic slowdown that we now experience will be in the private sector. Investors, businesses and millions of consumers could take the rational view that, if Trump became the next president, irresponsible economic policies -- and the instability they would create -- would head America’s way.
Goodbye also to the idea that the United States plays a positive role in the world economy. Electing Trump, the self-proclaimed “king of debt,” would undermine Washington’s image, resources and ability to influence others around the globe. The best way to cause irreparable damage to our national security would be to make Trump president.
As it gets closer to November, if the probability of Trump being elected rises, expect long-term interest rates to increase, while business spending and household consumption will come under serious pressure. Because Trump could easily create a recession -- even if he doesn’t win the presidency.
(Simon Johnson is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Follow him on Twitter @baselinescene)
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Bakal calon presiden AS dari Partai Republik, Donald Trump, diragukan dapat menstabilkan perekonomian dunia jika terpilih jadi presiden pada akhir tahun ini.
Menurut mantan Duta Besar Indonesia untuk Amerika Serikat, Dino Patti Djalal, pertumbuhan perekonomian dunia justru bisa semakin terpuruk.
"Kalau Trump menang, kalau menurut saya, kalau dia melakukan hal-hal yang selama ini dia kampanyekan, dampaknya akan mengkhawatirkan," kata dia di Jakarta, Sabtu (14/5/2016).
Trump terkenal sebagai sosok fenomenal karena pernyataan-pernyataannya yang kontroversial. Misalnya, Trump pernah menyebut Meksiko mengirim ke AS warganya yang bermasalah, seperti pemerkosa, kriminal, dan pengedar narkoba.
Dia juga mengutarakan dirinya tidaklah rasialis dan kebijakannya keras terhadap imigran ilegal. Trump juga memicu kemarahan kaum veteran dan politisi Amerika setelah dia mengatakan pada Juli bahwa senator dan veteran Perang Vietnam John McCain bukanlah pahlawan perang.
McCain pernah menjadi tawanan perang saat Perang Vietnam dan mengalami penyiksaan berat. Trump pun menyinggung agama Presiden AS Barrack Obama, bahkan mendesaknya untuk memperlihatkan sertifikat kelahirannya guna membuktikan bahwa dia lahir di Hawaii dan bukan seorang Muslim.
Pernyataan-pernyataan Trump itu akan menjadi blunder dan tak ada yang bersimpatik kepada AS jika ia menjadi presiden.
"Trump itu menganut nasionalisme sempit dan konfrontasional, ekonomi dunia bisa terancam," kata Dino. Padahal, situasi yang terjadi di AS sangat berpengaruh pada ekonomi dunia.
Dino mengatakan, AS merupakan negara dengan ekonomi terbesar dan bagian dari area perdagangan bebas. Saat ini, kata Dino, AS membutuhkan pemimpin yang mampu meningkatkan pertumbuhan perekonomian dunia, bukan justru menjatuhkannya.
"Dunia mengharapkan kepemimpinan AS yang dewasa, terutama untuk menjaga laju pertumbuhan ekonomi dunia pada masa sekarang yang kata IMF masih sangat tidak bagus prospeknya," kata Dino.
Emily Stewart the Street
There's no denying Trump has done a good job of making himself rich -- he's worth somewhere between $4.5 billion and $10 billion, depending who you ask. Can he make the rest of America rich, too?
The economy isn't something Trump looks forward to tackling. In a January interview with "Good Morning America," Trump offered up a bleak assessment of the U.S. economy but added that, in terms of fixing it, it's a task he'd rather skip.
"We're in a bubble," he said. "And, frankly, if there's going to be a bubble popping, I hope they pop before I become president because I don't want to inherit all this stuff. I'd rather it be the day before rather than the day after, I will tell you that."
In an April interview with the Washington Post, Trump reiterated his doomsday view of the economy, suggesting we might be headed for recession. But this time around, he appeared more open to the idea of his being in charge of finding remedies. "I can fix it. I can fix it pretty quickly," he said.
Many Americans appear to believe that is the case and that, more broadly, a Trump presidency would be good for the economy. According to a recent CNBC All-America Survey, Americans rate Trump and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton evenly on key economic issues. And in a January Zogby poll, Trump rated better than the former secretary of state.
Trump has certainly been this election cycle's most riveting figure. He initially focused his attention on immigration reform, calling for a wall to be built between Mexico and the United States and demanding the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants.
He has since rolled out other policies and positions: a major tax code overhaul; repeal and replace Obamacare; renegotiate or "break" NAFTA; stop hedge funds from "getting away with murder" on taxes; reforming the Veteran's Administration; andimpose import tariffs as high as 35%. All while keeping the deficit in check, growing the economy and leaving entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security untouched. Immigration remains a major pillar of his campaign, and he has now moved on to the question of Muslim immigration as well. He has finally laid out a plan to make Mexico pay for the wall, too.
Trump has made plenty of enemies along the way as well, including but limited to fellow GOP contenders Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly, the media in general and even the Pope.
Those who fear Trump's plans should find common cause with those who love them: "I'm not sure how much of what he actually says today will be his positions a year from now," said Michael Busler, professor of finance at Stockton University.
Trump's own campaign has suggested he is playing "a part" to garner votes.
While Trump certainly has some grandiose ideas -- and equally lofty rhetoric to accompany them -- deciphering the exact nature of his economic policies is a complex task, according to John Hudak, a fellow in governance studies at Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Brookings Institution.
Not to mention the fact that if he does make it to the Oval Office, Trump won't have a free pass from Congress, even if it remains under the control of the Republican Party (as you'll see, many of his positions don't exactly hew closely to GOP policies).
Taking legislative hurdles out of the equation, what will the U.S. economy and markets look like if Trump becomes No. 45.
Trump's Expensive Immigration Plan
Trump's immigration plans cost him a handful of business deals, but they might cost the United States much more.
The American Action Forum, a right-leaning policy institute based in Washington D.C., estimates that immediately and fully enforcing current immigration law, as Trump has suggested, would cost the federal government from $400 billion to $600 billion. It would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers, reduce the real GDP by $1.6 trillion and take 20 years to complete (Trump has said he could do it in 18 months).
"It will harm the U.S. economy," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and chief economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "Immigration is an enormous source of economic vitality."
The impact would be felt on both supply and demand.
A number of industries that depend heavily on cheap immigrant labor would be devastated -- especially agriculture. "There would be an abrupt drop in farm income and a sharp rise in food prices," said John McLaren, professor of economics at the University of Virginia with expertise in international trade, economic development and the political economy.
Companies that sell to the immigrant population would be affected as well, leading to decreased revenues for local businesses and a loss of American jobs.
"Immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, always spend a portion of their earnings in the location where they have their jobs," McLaren said. "And in a lot of our urban centers, this is actually an important part of the economy."
He pointed to the case of Postville, Iowa, where in 2008 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided a slaughterhouse and meat packing plant, detaining 389 undocumented workers (and jailing 300 of them). The raid caused most of the more than 1,000 immigrants not caught to leave the town of 2,300, devastating the local economy in the process.
He also noted his own research, which suggests each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, most of which go to U.S. natives. "Obviously, those jobs would disappear if the undocumented were just yanked away," he said.
Trump has also discussed reducing the number of jobs held by legal immigrants, namely by increasing the prevailing wage requirements for H-1B visas (visas that allow U.S. employers to recruit and employ foreign professionals). The Republican contender's thesis is that doing so would force companies to give jobs to domestic employees instead of overseas workers. The maneuver would benefit some, but not most.
"If I'm an American software programmer, I probably would benefit somewhat from making it harder for highly-skilled software programmers from elsewhere," McClaren said. "It's really hard to argue that the country, as a whole, benefits from that. It would be bad for most Americans, and it certainly would be bad for corporations."
An extreme anti-immigration policy could also cause collateral damage to the American image. "What's the American brand after we've rounded up 11 million people and sent them packing?" said Jim Pethokoukis, a columnist and blogger at theAmerican Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank based on Washington, D.C. "Do people still view America the same way?"
Perhaps it's a good thing the real estate magnate's immigration plans are essentially impossible to implement.
Tax Cuts for Everyone, and Deficits, Too
Trump's tax plan, unveiled in September, is perhaps the most detailed proposal he has put forth yet. It essentially entails implementing tax cuts across the board and literally sets forth a scenario in which the lowest earners get to send a form to the IRS reading, "I win."
"His tax plan is one of the most dynamic and pro-growth tax plans out there," said Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a Texas-based, right-leaning think tank. "You would find a huge amount of new business investment and companies willing to put their money out there to begin growing the economy."
Trump's tax plan stacks up fairly well against his fellow Republican presidential contenders. It isn't as drastic as proposals put forth by Ted Cruz and Ben Carson but does, like most GOP tax structures, favor the rich. Perhaps the biggest distinguishing feature of Trump's proposal is his hard cap on business taxes at 15%, which might be especially appealing to freelancers and the self-employed.
But there's a catch: Trump's tax plan would reduce revenue enormously, and the federal budget deficit would almost inevitably skyrocket.
Nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation calculates that Trump's plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the course of a decade. It would lead to 11% growth in the GDP, 6.5% higher wages and 29% larger capital stock as well as 5.3 million jobs. However, it would also reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion, even when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.
"That tax cut would produce faster economic growth and a bigger economy -- as long as you pay zero attention to the fact that it would dramatically increase the deficit and budget debt," said Pethokoukis.
Trump has promised to reduce spending, though he hasn't explicitly said how. Moreover, he has said he will maintain entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, two of the costliest parts of the federal budget.
"It reduces federal revenue by maybe a quarter. You can construct the United States at 75% revenue, but you have to have a plan for how you'd get there," said Alan Cole, an economist with the Center for Federal Tax Policy at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research think tank, based in Washington, D.C. "If there weren't any spending cuts that materialized, you would see the deficit widen substantially the moment the plan was enacted."
In the face of such an enormous deficit, creditors might begin demanding higher interest rates on U.S. bonds, and the markets would be spooked.
"I can't imagine markets would react well to it. I can't imagine global investors looking to relocate will look on a United States that is driving deliberately over a fiscal cliff," said Holtz-Eakin. "Sending the U.S. into a debt spiral where you're borrowing interest on previous borrowing will generate a market reaction that will be far from benign and that will, I think, in the end overwhelm the beneficial effects."
Of course, just because Trump hasn't yet explained how he will cut spending doesn't mean he won't. "It's not unusual for a politician to say, 'I'm going to cut spending,' and not give specifics," Matthews said.
Changing Views on Health Care
In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump touted universal health care and laid out an ideology on the subject that, frankly, looks pretty un-Republican. On the campaign trail, he has promised to "take care of everyone." But his campaign health care plan, released in March, sings a different tune.
The Trump camp finally outlined some of the details of his vision for health care reform in America after months of leaving voters to put together the pieces on his ideas about the issue. The seven-point plan calls for the repeal of Obamacare, the allowance of purchases of health insurance across state lines and block-grant Medicaid to states, among other things.
"This strikes me as a mixture of what is mostly Republican orthodoxy...with a couple of oddball proposals," said Roger Feldman, professor of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota. One of the unique aspects of the plan: allowing consumers to re-import drugs from overseas.
At a February town hall event hosted by CNN, Trump was critical of Obamacare, noting that "rates are going up 25, 35, 45, 55 percent," and emphasized that he is not receiving campaign money from insurance or pharmaceutical companies "so I can do what's right."
"I don't think [Trump's health care proposal] is based on economic analysis, I think it's based on channeling a populist dislike of insurance executives," said Feldman in an October interview. "If he really tried to do the things he said he would do the insurance industry would be in the crosshairs."
The ability for consumers to buy their health insurance in other states is perhaps the health-related proposal Trump has discussed most on the campaign trail. The idea is not new -- such a bill was introduced in Congress a decade ago -- but it is impactful.
When pressed for detail on his plan at the February 25 Republican debate hosted byCNN, Trump focused on the state lines issue, repeating on a handful of occasions his proposal to get rid of "the lines" around each state "so we can have real competition."
"You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition," he said. "So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York, or Texas, you'll have many. They'll compete, and it'll be a beautiful thing."
"I think it could be a potentially significant improvement in insurance," Feldman, who in 2011 co-authored a paper on consumer response to a national marketplace for individual health insurance, said. "It would do that by allowing people to buy insurance in states with fewer regulations, and that would, in turn, cause a restructuring of the health insurance industry."
Based on a pre-Obamacare baseline, Feldman and other researchers concluded such a system would result in seven million more people being insured by opening up the insurance markets to more competition.
Of course, not everyone agrees.
"It doesn't actually achieve you much," said Matthews, pointing out that a policy in another state may not translate to access to the network of physicians and pre-negotiated prices locally-purchased policies often afford. "It's not a bad idea, but it is no panacea."
Too Tough on Trade?
Trump likes to talk trade. And while has said he is a "free trader," he has also clarified he doesn't like the deals the U.S. has done, such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Art of the Deal author has promised to negotiate better agreements.
"One of the things that's often lost is that [Trump] has a strong business background, he understands how commerce works," Hudak said. "He has more business training than any American president we've ever had."
But the ramifications of some of Trump's proposals might be less than ideal.
Take China, one of his top talking points. He has proposed negotiating with the country to prevent it from manipulating its currency and keeping it too low for American manufacturers -- and workers -- from competing.
"The reality is that when China devalues its currency, the goods that they produce become cheaper, and as a result, while we may lose some manufacturing jobs, the rest of the population gets to buy things a lot cheaper than they would if the products were made [in the U.S.]," said Busler. "The jobs he would bring back are yesterday's jobs."
UPDATE: In November, Trump released his full plan for U.S.-China trade reform, in which he pledged to immediately declare it a "currency manipulator," force it to uphold intellectual property laws and end its "illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards," among other measures, in order to help American manufacturers -- and workers -- compete.
Trump has also pinpointed imposing tariffs on imported goods, for example, suggesting a 35% tax on automakers that manufacture cars in Mexico. Such a maneuver might bring jobs back stateside, but it might not. Instead, it could just mean people paying more for what they're buying.
"If he puts 35% taxes on products, the manufacturing will still not come back to the U.S., and all it will mean is U.S. consumers have to pay 35% more for the products that are made outside the country," said Busler.
"American consumers would end up paying more for things, and that hurts the economy if you're putting tariffs on those other things," said Matthews.
The Trump Effect
Trump's brand has contributed an enormous amount to his net worth -- he says more than $3 billion. But how will that Trumpiness translate to the White House? Perhaps not well.
"That off-the-cuff, gruff, tell-it-like-it-is approach that Donald Trump has may be great for headlines and a stadium full for supporters, but what unguarded comments like that from a president do is make dramatic fluctuations in the world economy, in stock markets in the United States and in the world," said Hudak. "Think about how much the market reaction is to the choice of two or three words from the Federal Reserve chairman."
The words chosen by American officials can have serious economic repercussions, and the country -- and the world -- have equally high expectations for their commercial and diplomatic capabilities. The blunt way of speaking that has made Trump so popular among Republican voters could be detrimental once he's in the Oval Office.
"His brand of rhetoric would actually make for profound economic instability," Hudak said. In an October interview with The Hill, Trump warned of a looming recession and stock market bubble and targeted Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen in his comments. "She's keeping the economy going, barely," he said. Such comments coming from a presidential candidate are one thing -- coming from the president of the United States they would be another.
But Trump is a smart guy, and may be able to adjust. Matthews pointed to the Clinton administration, which took a few months to settle in.
"You wonder if the Trump administration would be the same until they got things under control, or got him under control," he said.
Not everyone agrees.
"I think Donald Trump is good for the Republican Party, and I think he's good for the country," Busler said. "Donald Trump is not afraid to face the public and raise his voice, even if it is politically unpopular."
indonesiana.tempo: Banyak politikus Partai Republik AS yang kurang happy dengan popularitas Donald Trump yang terus menanjak dan meninggalkan ‘orang-orang dalam’ partai sendiri yang mencalonkan diri untuk jadi presiden. Para elite Republik agaknya cemas bahwa jika akhirnya Trump berhasil menghimpun delegasi terbanyak dan kemudian bertarung melawan Hillary Clinton sebagai calon presiden dari Partai Demokrat, Trump akan mudah dikalahkan. Tapi benarkah Trump akan mudah dikalahkan oleh Hillary? Belum tentu. Dalam beberapa dekade terakhir pemilihan presiden AS, suara rakyat Amerika cenderung berayun bagai bandul, ke kiri lalu ke kanan dan sebaliknya. Setelah George Bush, Sr. terpilih sebagai presiden dari Partai Republik, ia digantikan oleh Bill Clinton dari Demokrat. Berkuasa selama dua periode, kursi kepresidenan beralih ke Republik yang menampilkan George Bush, Jr. Begitu Bush, Jr. usai berkuasa selama dua periode, Barack Obama dari Demokrat terpilih menggantikannya. Bila mengikuti ayunan bandul ini, Trump berpeluang kuat untuk terpilih karena rakyat Amerika ingin berganti suasana. Boleh jadi, Trump akan memupus kekhawatiran elite Republik bahwa ia akan dikalahkan dengan mudah oleh Hillary. Kemampuannya menggalang dukungan yang tertinggi dibandingkan calon-calon lain yang orang dalam Republik telah mencengangkan banyak pihak. Trump bahkan demikian percaya diri sehingga berani melontarkan pernyataan “Saya bisa berdiri di tengah Fifth Avenue, menembak seseorang, dan saya tidak akan kehilangan pemilih.” Protes banyak pihak terhadap ucapan-ucapannya tidak membuat kepercayaan dirinya menurun. Bagi pihak-pihak di luar Republik, kecondongan banyak pemilih Republik kepada Trump seakan telah membunyikan lonceng bahaya. Banyak pihak di dalam negeri maupun dunia internasional yang cemas bahwa andul tersebut berayun terlampau ke kanan, sebagaimana terlihat dari pernyataan yang dilontarkan Trump dalam berbagai kesempatan.
Pertama, Trump bertekad untuk menggugat Amandemen Pertama yang menyatakan bahwa hukum menjamin atau menjembatani kebebasan berbicara atau kebebasan pers. Trump juga mengancam akan menuntut media massa AS jika terus menyerang dirinya.
Kedua, Trump mengatakan bahwa Islam bukan teman Amerika. “Islam membenci kita. Ada kebencian yang sangat besar,” kata Trump. “Kita harus sangat waspada. Kita harus sangat berhati-hati. Kita tidak bisa membiarkan orang-orang yang memiliki kebencian terhadap AS masuk ke negara ini.”
Ketiga, Trump menyarankan agar undang-undang AS diubah demi melegalkan penyiksaan terhadap tersangka teroris dan penyerangan terhadap keluarga teroris. Salah satu teknik penyiksaan yang diusulkan Trump ialah waterboarding, yakni interogasi dengan mengikat kaki dan tangan tahanan, menutup kepalanya, dan kemudian menuangkan air ke kepala tahanan. Penyiksaan ini sudah dilarang secara internasional.
Keempat, Trump membuat stereotyping dengan menyebutkan bahwa imigran asal Mexico telah membawa masuk obat-obatan dan kejahatan. Trump berkata akan memaksa pemerintah Mexico untuk membangun tembok perbatasan dan menghalangi masuknya orang Mexico ke AS. Ia juga berkata akan mendeportasi jutaan warga AS keturunan Hispanik yang tidak memiliki dokumen lengkap.
Kelima, Trump pernah mengatakan akan mengasingkan Cina dari perdagangan dengan Amerika dan menolak sistem perdagangan bebas, termasuk NAFTA. Berulang kali Trump mengatakan Cina telah memanipulasi mata uang. Trump juga telah menyerang sejumlah orang secara pribadi. Namun pada umumnya orang lebih mengkhawatirkan pandangannya terhadap isu-isu global yang melibatkan banyak negara dan komunitas global.
Meskipun di AS banyak kelompok masyarakat sudah turun ke jalan untuk menyatakan penolakan terhadap Trump, tapi sejauh ini jika melihat dukungan resmi ia tetap unggul dibandingkan bakal calon lain Partai Republik. Apabila pandangan Trump mencerminkan sikap mayoritas rakyat AS terhadap berbagai isu global, maka Amerika akan berayun jauh ke kanan melampaui masa George Bush, Jr. Arah pendulum ini dapat menggoyahkan keseimbangan global yang berpotensi memicu ketegangan internasional. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), sebuah institusi riset dan analisis yang berpusat di Inggris, baru-baru ini menerbitkan laporannya. Seperti dikutip oleh BBC, 17 Maret 2016, maupun tempo.co, 18 Maret 2016, EIU menyebutkan bahwa Trump menempati urutan ke-6 dari 10 risiko yang paling mengancam dunia. Ancaman itu berpotensi menjadi nyata apabila Trump terpilih sebagai presiden AS dan berwenang mengambil keputusan-keputusan penting yang berdampak global, termasuk Indonesia. Bisakah kita tidak peduli? (sumber foto: tempo.co) **
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Donald Trump virtually clinched the Republican nomination for president Tuesday night, a stunning victory for the brash billionaire who was considered more a celebrity curiosity than a serious candidate when he entered the race less than a year ago. He soundly defeated Ted Cruz, his last real rival, in the Indiana primary and the Texas senator quickly dropped out.“Thank you Indiana, we were just projected to be the winner,” said Trump, still highly controversial in his own party but a long shot no more.Trump still must win about 200 more delegates to clinch the nomination. But his victory in Indiana — where he picked up at least 45 of the state’s 57 delegates — made it all but impossible for Cruz to block him from doing so.Cruz told a somber crowd in Indianapolis: I’ve said I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory; tonight I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.”Cruz campaigned aggressively in Indiana, but could not overcome Trump. The billionaire businessman has stunned the Republican Party with his appeal to voters deeply frustrated with Washington and their own party’s leaders.Before Tuesday’s results, Cruz had vowed to stay in the race through the final primaries in June, clinging to the possibility that Trump would fall short of the 1,237 delegates he needs and the race would go to a contested convention.Trump now faces pressure to unite a Republican Party that has been roiled by his candidacy. But whether he can accomplish that remains deeply uncertain.Even before the Indiana results were finalized, some conservative leaders were planning a Wednesday meeting to assess the viability of launching a third party candidacy to compete with Trump in the fall.One outside group trying to stop Trump suggested it would shift its attention to helping Republicans in other races. Rory Cooper, a senior adviser to the Never Trump super PAC, said the group will help protect “Republican incumbents and down-ballot candidates, by distinguishing their values and principles from that of Trump, and protecting them from a wave election.”Only about half of Indiana’s Republican primary voters said they were excited or even optimistic about any of their remaining candidates becoming president, according to exit polls. Still, most said they probably would support whoever won for the GOP.Clinton, too, needs to win over Sanders’ enthusiastic supporters. The Vermont senator has cultivated a deeply loyal following in particular among young people, a group Democrats count on in the general election.Sanders has conceded his strategy hinges on persuading superdelegates to back him over the former secretary of state. Superdelegates are Democratic Party insiders who can support the candidate of their choice, regardless of how their states vote. And they favor Clinton by a nearly 18-1 margin.Exit polls showed about 7 in 10 Indiana Democrats said they’d be excited or at least optimistic about either a Clinton or Sanders presidency. Most said they would support either in November.The exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for The Associated Press and television networks.A fall showdown between Clinton and Trump would pit one of Democrats’ most experienced political figures against a first-time candidate who is deeply divisive within his own party. Cruz and other Republicans have argued that Trump would be roundly defeated in the general election, denying their party the White House for a third straight term.Trump has now won seven straight primary contests and has 80 percent of the delegates needed to secure the GOP nomination. With his victory in Indiana, Trump now has at least 1,041 delegates. Cruz has 565 and Ohio Gov. John Kasich has 152.___Pace reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report from Washington.
boston.com: By Nik DeCosta-Klipa April 28, 2016
Elizabeth Warren says that Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Hillary Clinton are a sign that he feels threatened by the Democratic candidate’s presidential qualifications.
“That’s what weak men do,” said the Massachusetts senator, who despite not endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate came to bat for Clinton in an interview Thursday with The Boston Globe.
“It is an old story,” she said, “and I don’t think the American voters will fall for it.”
Following his sweep in Tuesday’s primaries, Trump attacked Clinton, saying the “only card she has is the woman’s card.”
“She’s got nothing else going,” he said. “And frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.”
Warren said Trump was afraid of equal rights for women and, according to the Globe, came with her own questions as well.
“I hoped you were going to ask me if I thought he was a sexist,” said the Democratic senator, who recently had her own back-and-forth with Trump.
“That’s like asking if he has bad hair,” Warren said, answering her own question. “He wears the sexism out front for everyone to see.”
Trump continued his “woman’s card” line of attack against Clinton this week.
“And the beautiful thing is, women don’t like her,” he said during Tuesday’s victory rally.
According to a recent Gallup poll, Clinton has a net favorability rating of negative-3 percent among U.S. women.
However, according to the same poll, 70 percent of women have an unfavorable view of Trump (as do 58 percent of men), for a net favorability rating of negative-47.
boston.com: By Nik DeCosta-Klipa April 28, 2016
Elizabeth Warren says that Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Hillary Clinton are a sign that he feels threatened by the Democratic candidate’s presidential qualifications.
“That’s what weak men do,” said the Massachusetts senator, who despite not endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate came to bat for Clinton in an interview Thursday with The Boston Globe.
“It is an old story,” she said, “and I don’t think the American voters will fall for it.”
Following his sweep in Tuesday’s primaries, Trump attacked Clinton, saying the “only card she has is the woman’s card.”
“She’s got nothing else going,” he said. “And frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.”
Warren said Trump was afraid of equal rights for women and, according to the Globe, came with her own questions as well.
“I hoped you were going to ask me if I thought he was a sexist,” said the Democratic senator, who recently had her own back-and-forth with Trump.
“That’s like asking if he has bad hair,” Warren said, answering her own question. “He wears the sexism out front for everyone to see.”
Trump continued his “woman’s card” line of attack against Clinton this week.
“And the beautiful thing is, women don’t like her,” he said during Tuesday’s victory rally.
According to a recent Gallup poll, Clinton has a net favorability rating of negative-3 percent among U.S. women.
However, according to the same poll, 70 percent of women have an unfavorable view of Trump (as do 58 percent of men), for a net favorability rating of negative-47.
Women Are Already Punished for Trying to End Their Pregnancies
By making legal abortion less and less accessible, anti-choice groups have pushed many women into a legal gray zone.
By Zoë Carpenter
It’s more than just a couple of retweets.
It’s a pattern
Is Trump's momentum unstoppable after Super Tuesday wins?
Buy Cemex, short Fluor
Buy Land’s End and L Brands, short Macy’s and Disney
Buy Air Canada, short Emirates Group
Buy oil stocks, sell solar stocks
Buy Smith & Wesson and Campbell Soup, short Las Vegas Sands and Caesars Entertainment
Buy real estate investment trusts, sell H&R Block
Buy Realogy and Sotheby’s
Let losers debate whether Trump’s tax-cut plans would really cost $9.5 trillion or expand the national debt by 80% of GDP.
Winners know this: Every time a president unleashes top-loaded tax cuts, there’s inflation in luxury housing and art. Hence, Sotheby’s BID, +3.28% the top publicly traded art dealer, and Realogy Holdings Corp. RLGY, +3.19% franchisor of Sotheby’s International Realty. When winners spend their winnings, these guys win first.
This was all a dozen of us, mostly high school friends, could come up with while actually trying to identify companies that would benefit from a Trump presidency. So let’s buy shares of Jack Daniel’s parent Brown-Forman Corp. BF.B, +0.37% even if its tequila comes from Mexico. Hillary Clinton says America needs a raise. But after Super Tuesday, we need a drink.
Kabar24.com, OHIO - Bakal calon presiden utama dari Partai Republik, Donald Trump, membatalkan kampanye di Ohio karena masalah keamanan di tempat acara, lapor laman berita Cincinnati.com seperti dikutip Reuters.
Eric Deters, juru bicara kampanye Trump, mengatakan pengecekan keamanan oleh tim pengawal khusus Trump tidak bisa menuntaskan kesiapannya sampai acara digelar di Pusat Konvensi Energi Duke di Cincinnati.
Ohio adalah salah satu dari lima negara bagian yang akan menggelar pemilihan pendahuluan(primary), Selasa waktu AS.
Kampanye Trump di Chicago dibatalkan Jumat kemarin setelah pendukung dan demonstran anti-Trump baku hantam.
Kabar24.com, PARIS - Presiden Parlemen Eropa, Martin Schulz, menegaskan Uni Eropa (UE) dan Amerika Serikat (AS) keduanya tidak siap menerima kepemimpinan Donald Trump karena kandidat dari Partai Republik itu tidak memiliki pengalaman internasional dan seorang yang populis.
"Trump cocok dengan sebagian orang di sini, yang selalu memiliki kambing hitam untuk semua isu, tapi tidak pernah memiliki solusi konkret," kata Schulz kepada televisi Perancis i-Tele, Sabtu waktu setempat (Minggu WIB).
Ia menimpali, "Jujur saja, saya lebih memilih kandidat yang satunya lagi." Hal itu ditujukannya bagi calon Presiden AS dari Partai Demokrat, Hillary Clinton, mantan menteri luar negeri dan Ibu Negara AS.
Schulz, seorang dari partai Sosial Demokrat Jerman, adalah presiden parlemen yang dipilih langsung Parlemen Eropa yang 751 anggotanya memiliki kekuatan untuk menyetujui, mengubah, atau menolak undang-undang yang menentukan nasib 28 negara anggota UE.
Adapun bilioner Donald Trump tampil secara menjanjikan di kontes awal untuk nomine dari Partai Republik AS yang dipersiapkan bertanding di pemilu November 2016.
Trump memancing kritik keras atas usulannya membangun tembok di perbatasan AS dan Meksiko serta larangan Muslim masuk ke AS.
Kampanye Trump yang dijadwalkan Jumat malam di Chicago, tapi dibatalkan karena terjadi kekacauan, dengan ribuan peserta terpecah antara pendukung dan penentangnya.
Chicago (CNN)Donald Trump's campaign on Friday postponed a rally in Chicago amid fights between supporters and demonstrators, protests in the streets and concerns that the environment at the event was no longer safe.
The announcement, which came amid large protests both inside and outside the event at the University of Illinois at Chicago, follows heightened concerns about violence in general at the GOP front-runner's rallies. Illinois holds its Republican primary on Tuesday.
Hundreds of demonstrators packed into an arena, breaking out into protest even before Trump had shown up. At least five sections in the arena were filled with protesters.
"Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago, and after meeting with law enforcement, has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight's rally will be postponed to another date," the Trump campaign said in a statement. "Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace."
Several fistfights between Trump supporters and protesters could be seen after the announcement, as a large contingent of Chicago police officers moved in to restore order.
Supporters of Trump still inside chanted "We want Trump" after the event was canceled. Protesters, meanwhile, shouted "We shut s*** down" and "We stumped Trump." Others chanted "Bernie" as supporters whipped out Bernie Sanders campaign signs.
Some protesters were being detained and forcefully carried out.
Maria Hernandez, a 25-year-old community organizer, broke out into dance as a Trump campaign staffer announced that the rally had been canceled.
"I've never been more proud of my city," Hernandez told CNN.
Hernandez, who came out to protest Trump, said the Republican front-runner's immigration policies, as well as racial divisions in her city, pushed her to show up and protest Trump's planned event.
"I'm protesting because I'm black and Mexican and I'm not sure where he wants to deport me to, but I deal with racism daily in Chicago and I've had enough," she said.
One Trump supporter said he was "disappointed" that the event was postponed.
"Protesters have won now," Marlin Patrick, 55, told CNN. "We just feel as if the protesters have taken over."
Debi Patrick, a 53-year-old Trump supporter who lives outside Chicago, said there should have been more security planned for the event, but said she didn't blame Trump for the atmosphere at the rallies, saying people are responsible for their own behavior. Asked if she would still vote for Trump on Tuesday, she said, "Absolutely, more than ever."
But, Patrick said, "This is scaring the hell out of me, trying to leave here."
Let losers debate whether Trump’s tax-cut plans would really cost $9.5 trillion or expand the national debt by 80% of GDP.
Winners know this: Every time a president unleashes top-loaded tax cuts, there’s inflation in luxury housing and art. Hence, Sotheby’s BID, +3.28% the top publicly traded art dealer, and Realogy Holdings Corp. RLGY, +3.19% franchisor of Sotheby’s International Realty. When winners spend their winnings, these guys win first.
This was all a dozen of us, mostly high school friends, could come up with while actually trying to identify companies that would benefit from a Trump presidency. So let’s buy shares of Jack Daniel’s parent Brown-Forman Corp. BF.B, +0.37% even if its tequila comes from Mexico. Hillary Clinton says America needs a raise. But after Super Tuesday, we need a drink.
Kabar24.com, OHIO - Bakal calon presiden utama dari Partai Republik, Donald Trump, membatalkan kampanye di Ohio karena masalah keamanan di tempat acara, lapor laman berita Cincinnati.com seperti dikutip Reuters.
Eric Deters, juru bicara kampanye Trump, mengatakan pengecekan keamanan oleh tim pengawal khusus Trump tidak bisa menuntaskan kesiapannya sampai acara digelar di Pusat Konvensi Energi Duke di Cincinnati.
Ohio adalah salah satu dari lima negara bagian yang akan menggelar pemilihan pendahuluan(primary), Selasa waktu AS.
Kampanye Trump di Chicago dibatalkan Jumat kemarin setelah pendukung dan demonstran anti-Trump baku hantam.
Kabar24.com, PARIS - Presiden Parlemen Eropa, Martin Schulz, menegaskan Uni Eropa (UE) dan Amerika Serikat (AS) keduanya tidak siap menerima kepemimpinan Donald Trump karena kandidat dari Partai Republik itu tidak memiliki pengalaman internasional dan seorang yang populis.
"Trump cocok dengan sebagian orang di sini, yang selalu memiliki kambing hitam untuk semua isu, tapi tidak pernah memiliki solusi konkret," kata Schulz kepada televisi Perancis i-Tele, Sabtu waktu setempat (Minggu WIB).
Ia menimpali, "Jujur saja, saya lebih memilih kandidat yang satunya lagi." Hal itu ditujukannya bagi calon Presiden AS dari Partai Demokrat, Hillary Clinton, mantan menteri luar negeri dan Ibu Negara AS.
Schulz, seorang dari partai Sosial Demokrat Jerman, adalah presiden parlemen yang dipilih langsung Parlemen Eropa yang 751 anggotanya memiliki kekuatan untuk menyetujui, mengubah, atau menolak undang-undang yang menentukan nasib 28 negara anggota UE.
Adapun bilioner Donald Trump tampil secara menjanjikan di kontes awal untuk nomine dari Partai Republik AS yang dipersiapkan bertanding di pemilu November 2016.
Trump memancing kritik keras atas usulannya membangun tembok di perbatasan AS dan Meksiko serta larangan Muslim masuk ke AS.
Kampanye Trump yang dijadwalkan Jumat malam di Chicago, tapi dibatalkan karena terjadi kekacauan, dengan ribuan peserta terpecah antara pendukung dan penentangnya.
The announcement, which came amid large protests both inside and outside the event at the University of Illinois at Chicago, follows heightened concerns about violence in general at the GOP front-runner's rallies. Illinois holds its Republican primary on Tuesday.
Hundreds of demonstrators packed into an arena, breaking out into protest even before Trump had shown up. At least five sections in the arena were filled with protesters.
"Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago, and after meeting with law enforcement, has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight's rally will be postponed to another date," the Trump campaign said in a statement. "Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace."
Several fistfights between Trump supporters and protesters could be seen after the announcement, as a large contingent of Chicago police officers moved in to restore order.
Supporters of Trump still inside chanted "We want Trump" after the event was canceled. Protesters, meanwhile, shouted "We shut s*** down" and "We stumped Trump." Others chanted "Bernie" as supporters whipped out Bernie Sanders campaign signs.
Some protesters were being detained and forcefully carried out.
Maria Hernandez, a 25-year-old community organizer, broke out into dance as a Trump campaign staffer announced that the rally had been canceled.
"I've never been more proud of my city," Hernandez told CNN.
Hernandez, who came out to protest Trump, said the Republican front-runner's immigration policies, as well as racial divisions in her city, pushed her to show up and protest Trump's planned event.
"I'm protesting because I'm black and Mexican and I'm not sure where he wants to deport me to, but I deal with racism daily in Chicago and I've had enough," she said.
One Trump supporter said he was "disappointed" that the event was postponed.
"Protesters have won now," Marlin Patrick, 55, told CNN. "We just feel as if the protesters have taken over."
Debi Patrick, a 53-year-old Trump supporter who lives outside Chicago, said there should have been more security planned for the event, but said she didn't blame Trump for the atmosphere at the rallies, saying people are responsible for their own behavior. Asked if she would still vote for Trump on Tuesday, she said, "Absolutely, more than ever."
But, Patrick said, "This is scaring the hell out of me, trying to leave here."
Protests spill into streets
Trump responds
2016 hopefuls blast Trump
Heightened tensions at rallies
Protests and racial tensions have recently escalated at Trump rallies. On Thursday, a man attending a Trump rally this week was charged with assault after he allegedly sucker-punched a black protester being led out of a Trump event.
Last fall, Trump said a Black Lives Matter protester maybe "should have been roughed up." And despite an announcement at the start of his rallies urging protesters not to be violent toward protesters, Trump in February urged his supporters to "knock the crap out of" anybody "getting ready to throw a tomato" and vowed to pay for their legal fees should they face charges.
"Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," Trump said.
And Trump also said he personally wanted to punch a protester "in the face" during a rally in February.
But at CNN's Republican debate on Thursday, Trump insisted that he did not support violence at his events.
"I certainly do not condone that at all," Trump said, adding, "We have some protesters who are bad dudes. They have done bad things."
usa today: "We've had enough debates in my opinion," Trump told reporters Friday, the morning after the GOP's 12th debate of this campaign season.
The Republican Party has scheduled another debate for March 21 in Salt Lake City , but Trump said he was unaware of it and indicated he would not be there.
Trump praised Thursday's debate in Miami, a more genteel affair than previous events in which the New York businessman found himself under attack by rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz .
"It would be nice to finish off with this one," Trump said of the Miami debate.
The Republican field may well shrink after Tuesday's primaries — which include Rubio's home state of Florida and John Kasich 's home state of Ohio — but the businessman's remaining opponents will likely push for more debates. Cruz in particular has said he is eager for a one-on-one showdown with Trump.
time.com: Donald Trump, the White House hopeful whose campaign stops have in recent weeks been marred by violence, on Friday abruptly canceled a campaign rally in Chicago that had already grown rowdy before he even arrived.
Trump’s campaign cited safety in a statement.
Before Trump arrived at the venue, protesters were clearly ready for the event at the University of Illinois at Chicago arena. Some of the activists were from the Black Lives Matter movement, which has been showing up increasingly at Trump events in cities. Others wearing “Muslims United Against Trump” were ejected, according to tweets sent from the site. Video from inside the venue broadcast on national TV showed numerous fights breaking out between Trump supporters and protesters, and video from outside the event showed growing crowds. The evening had all the makings of a bad mix of political enthusiasm, civil rights activism and high emotions.
Trump’s recent campaign rallies have been marred by violence. But Friday night’s session was a first: The threat of violence kept Trump away entirely.
“Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago and after meeting with law enforcement has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight’s rally will be postponed to another date,” Trump’s campaign said in a statement. “Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace.”
Trump was scheduled to return to the campaign trail on Saturday, with an event scheduled in Cleveland.
- The Washington Times - Friday, March 4, 2016
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas led off his address at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday by highlighting the absence of 2016 GOP presidential rival Donald Trump, who has cancelled his planned Saturday appearance.
“So Donald Trump is skipping CPAC. I bet somebody told him Megyn Kelly was going to be here. Or even worse, he was told there were conservatives that were going to be here,” Mr. Cruz said.
Mr. Cruz, who is pitching himself as the only conservative in the race who can stop Mr. Trump’s path to the nomination, was greeted by a screaming crowd and chants of “Ted! Ted! Ted!” before he even spoke.
“Or even worse, he was told there were libertarians who were going to be here,” Mr. Cruz said to cheers. “Or even worse, they were told there were young people who were going to be here.”
Mr. Trump’s campaign said earlier Friday that his Saturday schedule, which includes stops in Kansas and Florida, won’t allow him to speak at CPAC.
“Mr. Trump would like to thank Matt Schlapp and all of the executives at CPAC and looks forward to returning to next year, hopefully as president of the United States,” the campaign said.
Mr. Cruz urged conservatives who don’t want Mr. Trump to be the party’s nominee to coalesce around his own campaign, and said the billionaire businessman hasn’t been reliable on issues like immigration.
“I’m told that Donald Trump talks a fair amount about immigration,” he said. “There’s a natural question to ask. During the Gang of Eight battle, where was Donald?”
“Well, sadly, worse than nowhere,” he said. “Donald was funding the Gang of Eight. He gave over $50,000 to five of the eight members of the Gang of Eight.”
Protests and racial tensions have recently escalated at Trump rallies. On Thursday, a man attending a Trump rally this week was charged with assault after he allegedly sucker-punched a black protester being led out of a Trump event.
Last fall, Trump said a Black Lives Matter protester maybe "should have been roughed up." And despite an announcement at the start of his rallies urging protesters not to be violent toward protesters, Trump in February urged his supporters to "knock the crap out of" anybody "getting ready to throw a tomato" and vowed to pay for their legal fees should they face charges.
"Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," Trump said.
And Trump also said he personally wanted to punch a protester "in the face" during a rally in February.
But at CNN's Republican debate on Thursday, Trump insisted that he did not support violence at his events.
"I certainly do not condone that at all," Trump said, adding, "We have some protesters who are bad dudes. They have done bad things."
The Republican Party has scheduled another debate for March 21 in Salt Lake City , but Trump said he was unaware of it and indicated he would not be there.
Trump praised Thursday's debate in Miami, a more genteel affair than previous events in which the New York businessman found himself under attack by rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz .
"It would be nice to finish off with this one," Trump said of the Miami debate.
The Republican field may well shrink after Tuesday's primaries — which include Rubio's home state of Florida and John Kasich 's home state of Ohio — but the businessman's remaining opponents will likely push for more debates. Cruz in particular has said he is eager for a one-on-one showdown with Trump.
time.com: Donald Trump, the White House hopeful whose campaign stops have in recent weeks been marred by violence, on Friday abruptly canceled a campaign rally in Chicago that had already grown rowdy before he even arrived.
Trump’s campaign cited safety in a statement.
Before Trump arrived at the venue, protesters were clearly ready for the event at the University of Illinois at Chicago arena. Some of the activists were from the Black Lives Matter movement, which has been showing up increasingly at Trump events in cities. Others wearing “Muslims United Against Trump” were ejected, according to tweets sent from the site. Video from inside the venue broadcast on national TV showed numerous fights breaking out between Trump supporters and protesters, and video from outside the event showed growing crowds. The evening had all the makings of a bad mix of political enthusiasm, civil rights activism and high emotions.
Trump’s recent campaign rallies have been marred by violence. But Friday night’s session was a first: The threat of violence kept Trump away entirely.
“Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago and after meeting with law enforcement has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight’s rally will be postponed to another date,” Trump’s campaign said in a statement. “Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace.”
Trump was scheduled to return to the campaign trail on Saturday, with an event scheduled in Cleveland.
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas led off his address at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday by highlighting the absence of 2016 GOP presidential rival Donald Trump, who has cancelled his planned Saturday appearance.
“So Donald Trump is skipping CPAC. I bet somebody told him Megyn Kelly was going to be here. Or even worse, he was told there were conservatives that were going to be here,” Mr. Cruz said.
Mr. Cruz, who is pitching himself as the only conservative in the race who can stop Mr. Trump’s path to the nomination, was greeted by a screaming crowd and chants of “Ted! Ted! Ted!” before he even spoke.
“Or even worse, he was told there were libertarians who were going to be here,” Mr. Cruz said to cheers. “Or even worse, they were told there were young people who were going to be here.”
Mr. Trump’s campaign said earlier Friday that his Saturday schedule, which includes stops in Kansas and Florida, won’t allow him to speak at CPAC.
“Mr. Trump would like to thank Matt Schlapp and all of the executives at CPAC and looks forward to returning to next year, hopefully as president of the United States,” the campaign said.
Mr. Cruz urged conservatives who don’t want Mr. Trump to be the party’s nominee to coalesce around his own campaign, and said the billionaire businessman hasn’t been reliable on issues like immigration.
“I’m told that Donald Trump talks a fair amount about immigration,” he said. “There’s a natural question to ask. During the Gang of Eight battle, where was Donald?”
“Well, sadly, worse than nowhere,” he said. “Donald was funding the Gang of Eight. He gave over $50,000 to five of the eight members of the Gang of Eight.”
Ten Reasons to Not Elect Donald Trump
As 2016 approaches, Republicans are salivating over the hopes and dreams that Hillary Clinton will be defeated by someone the Republicans select to run against her. Per usual, the Republican side of the aisle is a hot mess. They have candidates on top of candidates, sitting on top of candidates. They have everyone from pastors to celebrities looking to run for POTUS; it’s like Gary Coleman and pornographic actresses running against Arnold in California. It stands out as a huge joke. The craziest punchline, however, is actually in one of the Republicans’ most serious presidential prospects: Donald Trump.
Trump is someone the entire world knows, and thus the entire world knows that he’s a blowhard in a bad hairpiece. Even still, some misguided Republicans out there actually believe the man would make a great president. Oh, those poor, lost people. It’s hard to be angry at people you should probably feel sorry for. Since Republicans cannot seem to figure these things out for themselves, let’s examine some reasons why Donald Trump would be a horrific president and actually harm America indefinitely.
As 2016 approaches, Republicans are salivating over the hopes and dreams that Hillary Clinton will be defeated by someone the Republicans select to run against her. Per usual, the Republican side of the aisle is a hot mess. They have candidates on top of candidates, sitting on top of candidates. They have everyone from pastors to celebrities looking to run for POTUS; it’s like Gary Coleman and pornographic actresses running against Arnold in California. It stands out as a huge joke. The craziest punchline, however, is actually in one of the Republicans’ most serious presidential prospects: Donald Trump.
Trump is someone the entire world knows, and thus the entire world knows that he’s a blowhard in a bad hairpiece. Even still, some misguided Republicans out there actually believe the man would make a great president. Oh, those poor, lost people. It’s hard to be angry at people you should probably feel sorry for. Since Republicans cannot seem to figure these things out for themselves, let’s examine some reasons why Donald Trump would be a horrific president and actually harm America indefinitely.
Ten Reasons to Not Elect Donald Trump
1: The Man is a Jest
Donald Trump is not a serious political figure who commands respect. He’s a joke, a bad one at that, who hosts a television show and builds crappy hotels and ugly golf courses. He’s the punchline of the world, quite literally, as he was once the honorary punching bag of a celebrity roast. He has no shame and even less professionalism. Donald Trump as president makes the whole of America look like a joke.
Donald Trump is not a serious political figure who commands respect. He’s a joke, a bad one at that, who hosts a television show and builds crappy hotels and ugly golf courses. He’s the punchline of the world, quite literally, as he was once the honorary punching bag of a celebrity roast. He has no shame and even less professionalism. Donald Trump as president makes the whole of America look like a joke.
2: His “Values” are Actually Bigoted
Many Republicans are seal-clapping in anticipation that a religious conservative will actually get to have his views forced upon America. For the rest of us, however, this is a scary prospect. Trump believes marriage to be between one man and one woman, which means he’s openly bigoted against the LGBT community and the rights of same-sex couples. Donald Trump as president sends America’s progress back 50 years!
Many Republicans are seal-clapping in anticipation that a religious conservative will actually get to have his views forced upon America. For the rest of us, however, this is a scary prospect. Trump believes marriage to be between one man and one woman, which means he’s openly bigoted against the LGBT community and the rights of same-sex couples. Donald Trump as president sends America’s progress back 50 years!
3: He’s Not the Business Genius People Believe
“But Trump is a billionaire businessman,” people scream. True, but a couple of points here. (a) He inherited his wealth from a father who made a name for himself. (b) Most of his money today comes by way of his celebrity, not his business acumen. (c) He has filed bankruptcy multiple times, which means he’s make horrible decisions and has gone broke – more than once. Can America afford bankruptcy?
“But Trump is a billionaire businessman,” people scream. True, but a couple of points here. (a) He inherited his wealth from a father who made a name for himself. (b) Most of his money today comes by way of his celebrity, not his business acumen. (c) He has filed bankruptcy multiple times, which means he’s make horrible decisions and has gone broke – more than once. Can America afford bankruptcy?
4: He’s Too Cocky to Help America
Trump is so self assured that he makes Napoleon looks like he wasn’t entirely sure of himself. He’s far too self-important to ever be an effective politician, much less the POTUS. In foreign peace talks, the man would probably stand up and walk out, throwing a tantrum if people didn’t agree with him. And sorry, Donald, but you cannot fire the leaders of other nations! What will he do, besides whine like a toddler?
Trump is so self assured that he makes Napoleon looks like he wasn’t entirely sure of himself. He’s far too self-important to ever be an effective politician, much less the POTUS. In foreign peace talks, the man would probably stand up and walk out, throwing a tantrum if people didn’t agree with him. And sorry, Donald, but you cannot fire the leaders of other nations! What will he do, besides whine like a toddler?
5: He’s Not Intelligent Enough
Trump did attend the Wharton School and went to Penn, so he’s not unlettered. However, when it comes to knowledge outside of business (which has still failed him more than once), he’s really painfully lacking. He knows nothing of science or mathematics and thus doesn’t lend any credence to stem cell research and other scientific advancements. With the way his mind works, he would simply re-inflate the housing bubble and hope that it held this time.
Trump did attend the Wharton School and went to Penn, so he’s not unlettered. However, when it comes to knowledge outside of business (which has still failed him more than once), he’s really painfully lacking. He knows nothing of science or mathematics and thus doesn’t lend any credence to stem cell research and other scientific advancements. With the way his mind works, he would simply re-inflate the housing bubble and hope that it held this time.
6: He’s Uninformed on Key Positions
The most glaring here would be that Trump was the ringleader of the Obama’s-not-a-citizen crazies. But he also seems to know next to nothing about how sanctions on nations work, evidenced by his screaming for “more sanctions” and “more sanctions,” without ever addressing any positives or negatives from these “sanctions” whatsoever. He just likes saying the word, but he doesn’t know what it means.
The most glaring here would be that Trump was the ringleader of the Obama’s-not-a-citizen crazies. But he also seems to know next to nothing about how sanctions on nations work, evidenced by his screaming for “more sanctions” and “more sanctions,” without ever addressing any positives or negatives from these “sanctions” whatsoever. He just likes saying the word, but he doesn’t know what it means.
7: He Has a Greedmonger’s Spirit
America has been making strides toward social justice and leveling an uneven playing field for nearly a decade now. Trump, with his ultra-capitalistic beliefs, threatens to rip away welfare monies and job programs and education funding in favor of more of a meme-style of American living; e.g. “pull yourself up by the bootstraps.” Easier to do when one can afford bootstraps! Trump’s greedy spirit will cripple the poor.
America has been making strides toward social justice and leveling an uneven playing field for nearly a decade now. Trump, with his ultra-capitalistic beliefs, threatens to rip away welfare monies and job programs and education funding in favor of more of a meme-style of American living; e.g. “pull yourself up by the bootstraps.” Easier to do when one can afford bootstraps! Trump’s greedy spirit will cripple the poor.
8: He May In Fact Be a Racist
Not only has Trump said on Twitter that blacks and Latinos commit most crime in America, but he’s also on record saying that we should be giving Europeans access to America and a path to citizenship, but not Latinos south of our American/Mexican border. Why, Donald? Why does he seem to have disdain for racial minorities? We’re not saying he is a racist, but it smells, walks, quacks and swims like a duck. You do the math.
Not only has Trump said on Twitter that blacks and Latinos commit most crime in America, but he’s also on record saying that we should be giving Europeans access to America and a path to citizenship, but not Latinos south of our American/Mexican border. Why, Donald? Why does he seem to have disdain for racial minorities? We’re not saying he is a racist, but it smells, walks, quacks and swims like a duck. You do the math.
9: He Has a Shady Character
Donald Trump is not a man of high moral character. He recently left Scottish citizens homeless in order to build a golf course, bulldozing their lands and displacing proud residents of the nation. And he’s done the same to minority communities by destroying their areas for hotels and casinos. Plus he has spoken out repeatedly against affordable health care for American citizens who are poor. His morality meter’s needle is too low to read; his character is as shady as it gets.
Donald Trump is not a man of high moral character. He recently left Scottish citizens homeless in order to build a golf course, bulldozing their lands and displacing proud residents of the nation. And he’s done the same to minority communities by destroying their areas for hotels and casinos. Plus he has spoken out repeatedly against affordable health care for American citizens who are poor. His morality meter’s needle is too low to read; his character is as shady as it gets.
10: He’s Far Too Impulsive
Trump is a man of more base desires and vainglorious pursuits. He’s been known to have Sean Penn-like outbursts, and the biggest part of his multiple bankruptcies was because of his impulsive behaviors leading to bad investments and overspending. An American President cannot afford to be so impulsive. A President needs to be measured and calculated and willing to compromise. These words do not exist in Trump’s vocabulary.
This list could have gone on for at least 50 solid reasons, but listed above are the top ten why Trump should never be America’s President. We cannot afford to have a guy like him in our highest office.
The Donald Trump show has been a lot of fun. En route to what now seems to be his certain nomination as US Republican presidential candidate, he has torn strips off his opponents, joked about his prowess as a builder and boasted of his billions. But even as his tactics prove stunningly effective, the conventional wisdom continues to be that his outbursts and schoolyard taunts – not to mention his politics – make him unelectable against Hillary Clinton come November.
Beyond the liberal salons of New York and Washington lies a country wondering what happened to the American dream.
Suggest a bar on Muslims entering the United States? Racist lunacy, say the establishment commentators. Talk of building a wall on the Mexican border? Self-destructive rabble-rousing, the grandees from Trump's own party complain. Trump, they say, makes Clinton a White House shoo-in.
But they should also stop to ask Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio how such conventional wisdom has worked out so far in the Republican race.
For only now are pollsters starting to understand just how Trump has done it. And their findings will make tough reading for the business-as-usual politicians. Matthew MacWilliams, founder of a political communications firm, has been testing the factors that turn voters into Trump supporters. His surveys found the key wasn't race, age, income, church attendance, ideology or education: it was attitudes to authoritarianism.
Donald Trump's supporters are looking for a strongman.
Using that criterion, MacWilliams polled Republican voters in South Carolina last month and predicted that Trump would win with 33 per cent of the vote. Two weeks ago Trump actually won with 32.5 per cent. Not a bad indicator, then. Understand this, and the Trump discourse – strong versus weak, winners and losers, nativism, fear of the other – makes sense.
It is an attractive message in 2016 America. Nothing characterises this election better than a creeping sense of insecurity: from jihadists launching lone wolf attacks in San Bernardino and Chattanooga to China's expansionist position on the other side of the globe. America is no longer the world's lone economic and military superpower. Many blame Barack Obama for diminishing, not burnishing, US global reach.
Beyond the liberal salons of New York and Washington lies a country wondering what happened to the American dream. Globalisation is taking jobs. The old deal – work hard and you will succeed – has been shattered by global economic collapse.
So when Trump talks of his admiration for Vladimir Putin, plenty of American voters see not a gaffe but a reminder that a strong leader restored pride to a broken country. And when he describes that wall with Mexico, they see a man who will actually get things done – unlike Republicans who just talk of a secure border without saying quite how they would deliver it.
So far, Trump has read the mood of the US far better than Republican suits and political journalists. But he is no ordinary demagogue. He has ripped up his party's orthodoxy, eschewing traditional appeals for small government and tinier taxes. He has publicly lauded Planned Parenthood – the abortion service hated by conservatives – and praised Britain's National Health Service. All of which makes him well-placed to pick off some of Clinton's supporters in a general election.
The key lesson he has learnt is that America has polarised not between Left and Right but between those resistant or sympathetic to authority. Clinton's problem is that, being hawkish on foreign policy and pushing for a more thorough overhaul of healthcare, she is herself an authoritarian figure in an increasingly non-authoritarian party.
All of which leaves her facing an almighty battle in the general election if she faces Trump. Unlike her other possible opponents, he won't allow her the centre ground all to herself. And she risks losing some of her blue-collar backers to the other authoritarian in the race.
Internal Democrat polling obtained by the New York Post suggests the Clinton campaign is feeling the heat. She is even vulnerable against Trump in New York, her own backyard and one of the most liberal of electorates.
Of course, it is not too late for her. Already she has begun positioning herself against her presumed opponent, repeating the phrase: "Instead of building walls we need to be tearing down barriers." And the Clinton-supporting fundraising organisations are starting to test their Trump attack advertisements.
There is a long way to go in this election. But if Clinton wants to win, she has to understand what she is up against.
Donald Trump is no mere populist. Rather, he has spotted a defining shift in American politics. This campaign is already littered with the corpses of political heavyweights who arrogantly dismissed him as a reality TV star with funny hair and a quick line in insults. To their cost, they learnt that Trump is not a clown. He simply understands his country better that they do.
Rob Crilly is a columnist with The Telegraph, London.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/explaining-the-rise-of-donald-trump-20160303-gna9d3.html#ixzz41tNqhtQ3
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
washington times: House Speaker Paul D. Ryan weighed in on the GOP presidential race Tuesday, demanding candidates — apparently Donald Trump — denounce racism.
“If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices,” Mr. Ryan said at a press conference.
Mr. Trump over the last few days has seemed to stumble when asked if he would denounce the Ku Klux Klan and former KKK leader David Duke, a white supremacist.
While at one point he did renounce Mr. Duke’s endorsement, when asked later if he would specifically denounce the KKK, he demurred. He later said he had a problem with his earpiece and didn’t hear the question properly.
huffington post: Noam Chomsky, the renowned scholar and MIT professor emeritus, says that the rise of Donald Trump in American politics is, in part, fueled by deeply rooted fear and hopelessness that may be caused by an alarming spike in mortality rates for a generation of poorly educated whites.
“He’s evidently appealing to deep feelings of anger, fear, frustration, hopelessness, probably among sectors like those that are seeing an increase in mortality, something unheard of apart from war and catastrophe," Chomsky told The Huffington Post in an interview on Thursday.
Trump's rise as the Republican presidential front-runner has been confounding for Americans across the political spectrum. The bombastic, billionaire demagogue has won three of the first four primary states and holds a lead in the polls, both nationwide and in upcoming primary contests. He now appears poised to take aninsurmountable delegate lead over the next several weeks, based on a platform of hate and vitriol targeted at women, Latinos, Muslims and other minorities.
A legion of less educated, working-class white men has fueled Trump’s rise. And while many say the business mogul is capitalizing on their fears about the perceived decline of white dominance in America, Chomsky says there may also be more existential forces at play.
Life expectancy, in general, has increased steadily over time. And thanks largely toadvances in health care, many people around the world live longer lives. There are exceptions, of course -- during war or natural catastrophes, for example. But what’s happening now in America, he says, is “quite different.”
Despite vast wealth and modern medicine, the U.S. has lower average life expectancy than many other nations. And while the average has been increasing recently, the gains are not evenly spread out. Wealthier Americans are living longer lives, while the poor are living shorter ones.
Poorly educated, middle-aged American white males are particularly affected,multiple recent studies suggest. While Americans from other age, racial and ethnic groups are living longer lives than ever before, this particularly segment of the population is dying faster.
A study on the issue found that the rising death rate for this group is not due to the ailments that commonly kill so many Americans, like diabetes and heart disease, but rather by an epidemic of suicides, liver disease caused by alcohol abuse, and overdoses of heroin and prescription opioids.
“No war, no catastrophe," Chomsky says, has caused the spiking mortality rate for this population. "Just the impact of policies over a generation that have left them, it seems, angry, without hope, frustrated, causing self-destructive behavior."
That could well explain Trump’s appeal, he speculated.
In an interview with Alternet this week, Chomsky compared the poverty that many Americans now face with the conditions an older generation confronted during the Great Depression.
“It’s interesting to compare the situation in the ‘30s, which I’m old enough to remember,” he said. “Objectively, poverty and suffering were far greater. But even among poor working people and the unemployed, there was a sense of hope that is lacking now.”
Chomsky attributes some of that Depression-era hope to the growth of an aggressive labor movement and the existence of political organizations outside of the mainstream.
Today, however, he says the mood is quite different for Americans who are deeply affected by poverty.
“[They] are sinking into hopelessness, despair and anger -- not directed so much against the institutions that are the agents of the dissolution of their lives and world, but against those who are even more harshly victimized,” he said. “Signs are familiar, and here it does evoke some memories of the rise of European fascism.”
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated that a study on rising death rates for middle-aged white Americans received a Nobel Memorial Prize. It was, in fact, one of the authors of the study who won the prize for other work.
Editor's Note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist,birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.
Trump is a man of more base desires and vainglorious pursuits. He’s been known to have Sean Penn-like outbursts, and the biggest part of his multiple bankruptcies was because of his impulsive behaviors leading to bad investments and overspending. An American President cannot afford to be so impulsive. A President needs to be measured and calculated and willing to compromise. These words do not exist in Trump’s vocabulary.
This list could have gone on for at least 50 solid reasons, but listed above are the top ten why Trump should never be America’s President. We cannot afford to have a guy like him in our highest office.
The Donald Trump show has been a lot of fun. En route to what now seems to be his certain nomination as US Republican presidential candidate, he has torn strips off his opponents, joked about his prowess as a builder and boasted of his billions. But even as his tactics prove stunningly effective, the conventional wisdom continues to be that his outbursts and schoolyard taunts – not to mention his politics – make him unelectable against Hillary Clinton come November.
Beyond the liberal salons of New York and Washington lies a country wondering what happened to the American dream.
Suggest a bar on Muslims entering the United States? Racist lunacy, say the establishment commentators. Talk of building a wall on the Mexican border? Self-destructive rabble-rousing, the grandees from Trump's own party complain. Trump, they say, makes Clinton a White House shoo-in.
But they should also stop to ask Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio how such conventional wisdom has worked out so far in the Republican race.
For only now are pollsters starting to understand just how Trump has done it. And their findings will make tough reading for the business-as-usual politicians. Matthew MacWilliams, founder of a political communications firm, has been testing the factors that turn voters into Trump supporters. His surveys found the key wasn't race, age, income, church attendance, ideology or education: it was attitudes to authoritarianism.
Donald Trump's supporters are looking for a strongman.
Using that criterion, MacWilliams polled Republican voters in South Carolina last month and predicted that Trump would win with 33 per cent of the vote. Two weeks ago Trump actually won with 32.5 per cent. Not a bad indicator, then. Understand this, and the Trump discourse – strong versus weak, winners and losers, nativism, fear of the other – makes sense.
It is an attractive message in 2016 America. Nothing characterises this election better than a creeping sense of insecurity: from jihadists launching lone wolf attacks in San Bernardino and Chattanooga to China's expansionist position on the other side of the globe. America is no longer the world's lone economic and military superpower. Many blame Barack Obama for diminishing, not burnishing, US global reach.
Beyond the liberal salons of New York and Washington lies a country wondering what happened to the American dream. Globalisation is taking jobs. The old deal – work hard and you will succeed – has been shattered by global economic collapse.
So when Trump talks of his admiration for Vladimir Putin, plenty of American voters see not a gaffe but a reminder that a strong leader restored pride to a broken country. And when he describes that wall with Mexico, they see a man who will actually get things done – unlike Republicans who just talk of a secure border without saying quite how they would deliver it.
So far, Trump has read the mood of the US far better than Republican suits and political journalists. But he is no ordinary demagogue. He has ripped up his party's orthodoxy, eschewing traditional appeals for small government and tinier taxes. He has publicly lauded Planned Parenthood – the abortion service hated by conservatives – and praised Britain's National Health Service. All of which makes him well-placed to pick off some of Clinton's supporters in a general election.
The key lesson he has learnt is that America has polarised not between Left and Right but between those resistant or sympathetic to authority. Clinton's problem is that, being hawkish on foreign policy and pushing for a more thorough overhaul of healthcare, she is herself an authoritarian figure in an increasingly non-authoritarian party.
All of which leaves her facing an almighty battle in the general election if she faces Trump. Unlike her other possible opponents, he won't allow her the centre ground all to herself. And she risks losing some of her blue-collar backers to the other authoritarian in the race.
Internal Democrat polling obtained by the New York Post suggests the Clinton campaign is feeling the heat. She is even vulnerable against Trump in New York, her own backyard and one of the most liberal of electorates.
Of course, it is not too late for her. Already she has begun positioning herself against her presumed opponent, repeating the phrase: "Instead of building walls we need to be tearing down barriers." And the Clinton-supporting fundraising organisations are starting to test their Trump attack advertisements.
There is a long way to go in this election. But if Clinton wants to win, she has to understand what she is up against.
Donald Trump is no mere populist. Rather, he has spotted a defining shift in American politics. This campaign is already littered with the corpses of political heavyweights who arrogantly dismissed him as a reality TV star with funny hair and a quick line in insults. To their cost, they learnt that Trump is not a clown. He simply understands his country better that they do.
Rob Crilly is a columnist with The Telegraph, London.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/explaining-the-rise-of-donald-trump-20160303-gna9d3.html#ixzz41tNqhtQ3
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
“If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices,” Mr. Ryan said at a press conference.
Mr. Trump over the last few days has seemed to stumble when asked if he would denounce the Ku Klux Klan and former KKK leader David Duke, a white supremacist.
While at one point he did renounce Mr. Duke’s endorsement, when asked later if he would specifically denounce the KKK, he demurred. He later said he had a problem with his earpiece and didn’t hear the question properly.
huffington post: Noam Chomsky, the renowned scholar and MIT professor emeritus, says that the rise of Donald Trump in American politics is, in part, fueled by deeply rooted fear and hopelessness that may be caused by an alarming spike in mortality rates for a generation of poorly educated whites.Fascism Is All the Rage in Europe, and It’s Coming to America
December 9, 2015
The spectre of fascism has loomed over Europe for several years, and it’s reached a fever pitch. In France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Greece, Denmark, and Sweden, right-wing nationalist movements are gaining steam with every election.
In 2014 [3], when elections were held for the European Parliament, it was evident that the political winds were shifting rightward. Thane Rosenbaum [4] summarized Europe’s “Weimar moment” well:
“In some countries, like France, where fashion always matter, the voters gave the boorish National Front the largest share of votes. Similar extreme right-wing sentiment fueled the electoral outcome in England, where the United Kingdom Independence Party out-polled all other parties. In both countries, extremists captured more than a quarter of the vote…Things were only slightly better in Austria, Denmark, and Sweden. In Hungary, the demonstrably anti-Semitic Jobbik party finished second. In Greece, the Golden Dawn party, a neo-Nazi outfit that dresses in what looks like Nazi uniforms, captured seats for the first time. Even in Germany, where Nazi memorabilia and romanticism are outlawed, a neo-fascist claimed a seat…All across the Atlantic the fringe is looking more and more like the mainstream. These groups are generally united in their thuggery and xenophobia. Openly racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic feelings seem to be the first plank atop each party’s platform. To be sure, economic recession, the ongoing European debt crisis, and high unemployment contributed to this dash toward extremism, but anti-foreigner rhetoric ultimately dominated the campaigns.”
Everyone saw this coming.
There are very real fears in Europe, fears that we would do well to understand, however exaggerated they are. Against the backdrop of a disintegrating European Union, a global recession, a massive migration crisis, entrenched unemployment, the growth of Islamist movements and the recent Paris terror attacks, far-right parties have become all the more attractive to an increasingly paranoid and defensive populace.
This is fertile soil for fascism. And make no mistake: Fascism is not a political artifact of twentieth century Europe. History and human nature being what they are, it can – and almost certainly will – happen again. Fascism feeds on a stew of nationalism, militarism, and state power. And an enemy, real or imagined, is needed in order to whip people into a patriotic frenzy.
Muslims have become that enemy.
Over the weekend [5] France’s far-right National Front (FN) won 30 percent of the national vote in the first round of regional elections, becoming the most popular party in France. The FN, as Salon’s Ben Norton [6] noted, “runs on a harshly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim platform. Le Pen [president of the FN], wants to eliminate immigration and make it much more difficult for migrants already in the country to attain citizenship. The FN says it has zero tolerance for undocumented immigrants, and hopes to ban dual nationality for non-Europeans.”
The rise of the FN is an indication of where France – and Europe more generally – is heading. Across Europe, parties that traffic in xenophobia and neo-fascism are finding more and more success in electoral politics, and right-wing demagogues are capitalizing on growing frustrations among their electorates.
And it’s impossible to miss the parallels in America.
In an interview with the Washington Post [7], Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, argued that the fascistic undertones of Donald Trump’s campaign mirror those of Europe: “I see the phenomena as very similar. Trump is the functional equivalent of the far-right in Europe, he performs the same functions in the political system, and attracts the same kind of support…white, nativist, lower-educated and very unhappy with the establishment.”
A recent New York Times analysis [8] of Trump’s rhetoric showed just how tinged with fascist language his speeches are:
“The most striking hallmark was Mr. Trump’s constant repetition of divisive phrases, harsh words and violent imagery that American presidents rarely use, based on a quantitative comparison of his remarks and the news conferences of recent presidents, Democratic and Republican. He has a particular habit of saying “you” and “we” as he inveighs against a dangerous “them” or unnamed other — usually outsiders like illegal immigrants (“they’re pouring in”), Syrian migrants (“young, strong men”) and Mexicans, but also leaders of both political parties.”
The emphasis on the “other” is crucial. Reactionary movements make considerable use of in-group/out-group tribalism. The goal is always to use the other’s otherness as a means of dehumanization. Fascist regimes need an enemy, something against which to define themselves. This is the basis for total unity under a common – often totalitarian – cause.
Trump presents a real challenge to our political system. It’s a mistake to think fascism – real fascism – can’t happen here, or that it would never look anything like it has in the past. That’s a dangerous illusion. It’s not at all implausible to say we’re one more terrorist attack or economic downturn away from something like a Donald Trump presidency.
Trump’s shtick is perfectly attuned to our chaotic climate. However ridiculous his ideas may be (and they are ridiculous), he’s exploiting legitimate fears among the populace. Radical Islamism is a real problem, and conservative aren’t wrong to be worried about it. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of solutions, however. He’s added nothing to the conversation but hysteria and hate. And that’s all he’ll do so long as he’s part of our discourse.
The Left and Republican centrists have got to deny as much oxygen as possible to people like Trump, who flourishes in a media culture that prizes entertainment over news. If they don’t, bigotry and paranoia will subsume our politics. And the struggle against Jihadism will become a war against all of Islam, which is both wrong and counterproductive.
Sean Illing is a USAF veteran and a former political science professor. He is currently a staff writer for Salon.
“In some countries, like France, where fashion always matter, the voters gave the boorish National Front the largest share of votes. Similar extreme right-wing sentiment fueled the electoral outcome in England, where the United Kingdom Independence Party out-polled all other parties. In both countries, extremists captured more than a quarter of the vote…Things were only slightly better in Austria, Denmark, and Sweden. In Hungary, the demonstrably anti-Semitic Jobbik party finished second. In Greece, the Golden Dawn party, a neo-Nazi outfit that dresses in what looks like Nazi uniforms, captured seats for the first time. Even in Germany, where Nazi memorabilia and romanticism are outlawed, a neo-fascist claimed a seat…All across the Atlantic the fringe is looking more and more like the mainstream. These groups are generally united in their thuggery and xenophobia. Openly racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic feelings seem to be the first plank atop each party’s platform. To be sure, economic recession, the ongoing European debt crisis, and high unemployment contributed to this dash toward extremism, but anti-foreigner rhetoric ultimately dominated the campaigns.”Everyone saw this coming.
There are very real fears in Europe, fears that we would do well to understand, however exaggerated they are. Against the backdrop of a disintegrating European Union, a global recession, a massive migration crisis, entrenched unemployment, the growth of Islamist movements and the recent Paris terror attacks, far-right parties have become all the more attractive to an increasingly paranoid and defensive populace.
This is fertile soil for fascism. And make no mistake: Fascism is not a political artifact of twentieth century Europe. History and human nature being what they are, it can – and almost certainly will – happen again. Fascism feeds on a stew of nationalism, militarism, and state power. And an enemy, real or imagined, is needed in order to whip people into a patriotic frenzy.
Muslims have become that enemy.
Over the weekend [5] France’s far-right National Front (FN) won 30 percent of the national vote in the first round of regional elections, becoming the most popular party in France. The FN, as Salon’s Ben Norton [6] noted, “runs on a harshly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim platform. Le Pen [president of the FN], wants to eliminate immigration and make it much more difficult for migrants already in the country to attain citizenship. The FN says it has zero tolerance for undocumented immigrants, and hopes to ban dual nationality for non-Europeans.”
The rise of the FN is an indication of where France – and Europe more generally – is heading. Across Europe, parties that traffic in xenophobia and neo-fascism are finding more and more success in electoral politics, and right-wing demagogues are capitalizing on growing frustrations among their electorates.
And it’s impossible to miss the parallels in America.
In an interview with the Washington Post [7], Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, argued that the fascistic undertones of Donald Trump’s campaign mirror those of Europe: “I see the phenomena as very similar. Trump is the functional equivalent of the far-right in Europe, he performs the same functions in the political system, and attracts the same kind of support…white, nativist, lower-educated and very unhappy with the establishment.”
A recent New York Times analysis [8] of Trump’s rhetoric showed just how tinged with fascist language his speeches are:
“The most striking hallmark was Mr. Trump’s constant repetition of divisive phrases, harsh words and violent imagery that American presidents rarely use, based on a quantitative comparison of his remarks and the news conferences of recent presidents, Democratic and Republican. He has a particular habit of saying “you” and “we” as he inveighs against a dangerous “them” or unnamed other — usually outsiders like illegal immigrants (“they’re pouring in”), Syrian migrants (“young, strong men”) and Mexicans, but also leaders of both political parties.”The emphasis on the “other” is crucial. Reactionary movements make considerable use of in-group/out-group tribalism. The goal is always to use the other’s otherness as a means of dehumanization. Fascist regimes need an enemy, something against which to define themselves. This is the basis for total unity under a common – often totalitarian – cause.
Trump presents a real challenge to our political system. It’s a mistake to think fascism – real fascism – can’t happen here, or that it would never look anything like it has in the past. That’s a dangerous illusion. It’s not at all implausible to say we’re one more terrorist attack or economic downturn away from something like a Donald Trump presidency.
Trump’s shtick is perfectly attuned to our chaotic climate. However ridiculous his ideas may be (and they are ridiculous), he’s exploiting legitimate fears among the populace. Radical Islamism is a real problem, and conservative aren’t wrong to be worried about it. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of solutions, however. He’s added nothing to the conversation but hysteria and hate. And that’s all he’ll do so long as he’s part of our discourse.
The Left and Republican centrists have got to deny as much oxygen as possible to people like Trump, who flourishes in a media culture that prizes entertainment over news. If they don’t, bigotry and paranoia will subsume our politics. And the struggle against Jihadism will become a war against all of Islam, which is both wrong and counterproductive.
Sean Illing is a USAF veteran and a former political science professor. He is currently a staff writer for Salon.
marketwatch: Trump thanks 'poorly educated' after Nevada win
Donald Trump won the Nevada Republican caucuses by sweeping nearly every demographic group. During his victory speech, he thanked his diverse group of supporters and said he "loves the poorly educated."
salon: Donald Trump, the political necromancer, has been able to manipulate the death anxieties of right-wing voters for his own political gain. Trump won the New Hampshire primary by a substantial margin. If current public opinion polls are accurate, he will also win the Republican South Carolina primary as well.
Trump’s base of white working-class authoritarians is scared of what they view as a “new” America, one in which they believe that the psychological and material wages of Whiteness will not be as great. A combination of the brain structures and cognitive processes of conservative-authoritarians, socialization by family and community, and disinformation from the right-wing “news” entertainment complex, reinforce those anxieties while also ginning up deep feelings of racial resentment toward non-whites.
Donald Trump is not necessarily the prime instigator or cause of those fears; he is just the Republican candidate who is most adept at manipulating them. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is a direct promise to restore a world where white folks are central to all things in the United States (to the degree that they are not), and their dominance, privilege and power are uncontested.
Approximately a week ago, I offered an essay here at Salon that examined Trump’s ability to manipulate his supporters’ death anxieties. In “Secrets of Donald Trump’s cult: This is why the angriest white voters will not leave his side,” I focused on the psychological concept known as “terror management theory” and its relationship to social scientist Seymour Lipset’s insights about “working-class authoritarianism.”
There, I wrote:
Biology, socialization and cultural norms influence how a given person manages their fear of death. The death anxiety also interacts with one’s political values. In some ways, conservative authoritarians manage their death anxieties differently than people who possess a “liberal” or “progressive” political personality type. Conservative authoritarians display high levels of nationalism, social dominance behavior, intolerance, out-group anxiety and bigotry, racism, a need for binary “yes” or “no” answers, a yearning for epistemic closure, and higher levels of religiosity. Terror management theory suggests that conservative authoritarians are especially prone to loving “the flag, guns, god, and religion” because these symbols and institutions are fixed points that will, in theory, outlive a given person.
Neuroscientists and social psychologists have determined that the brains of conservative authoritarians are especially sensitive to feelings of fear and disgust. Research on terror management theory complements those findings by showing that when scared or under threat, conservative authoritarians are more likely to become tribal, bigoted, racist and generally more hostile to those they identify as some type of Other.
The intersection of terror management theory and contemporary American conservatism is a profile of the Republican voter en masse, and Donald Trump supporters in particular.
Public opinion research has repeatedly shown that today’s Republican voters are angry, afraid and motivated by racial animus, white racial resentment and nativism. Because he is the id of contemporary conservatism, Donald Trump’s supporters display those worrisome and ugly traits in the extreme.
I concluded with the following observation:
In many mythological traditions, the necromancer controls the dead by using a drum or playing a song. These sounds trick the “living” corpse into thinking that it has a heartbeat. When the necromancer stops hitting the drum or ceases the music, the corpse reverts back to inert matter.
The political necromancer and cult leader Donald Trump beats a drum of nativism, fear, racism and sexism to control the right-wing political zombies that follow him. The problem is, unlike the undead ghouls of myth and folklore, once Donald Trump stops beating his metaphorical drum, his followers will not return to their graves. Trump’s people are now the walking dead of American political and cultural life, a group that threatens to devour us all.
Sheldon Solomon, one of the psychologists who did some of the first work on terror management theory, has recently completed a new paper that focuses on Donald Trump and how death anxieties relate to support for his campaign.
As indicated by Solomon’s new paper (written with co-author Florette Cohen) “You’re hired! Mortality Salience Increases Americans’ Support for Donald Trump,” matters may be worse than I suggested in my earlier essay.
Solomon and Cohen frame their new research on Donald Trump and terror management theory in the following way:
The 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign is occurring at a historical moment that is, from Max Weber’s perspective, ripe for the ascendance of a charismatic leader: economic uncertainty juxtaposed with environmental instability compounded by concerns about immigration magnified by ongoing threats of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. And Donald Trump has many characteristics of a (secular) charismatic leader: a powerful (i.e. rich) and self-assured public figure pledging to “Make America Great Again” and to keep U.S. citizens safe by stemming the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico by building a wall at the border to keep out their “criminals” and “rapists,” “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and bombing “the shit out of ISIS.”
The paper’s conclusions include:
Among a sample of Americans, support for presidential candidate Donald Trump increased in response to reminders of death, consistent with previous research (Landau et al., 2004; Cohen et al., 2005) showing that MS increased support for President Bush by participants across the political spectrum. Overall, participants in the study did not have particularly favorable impressions of Mr. Trump, with mean support for him below the mid-point (5 = “somewhat” supportive) of the scale in both the control and MS conditions. However, this makes the fact that support for Mr. Trump increased in response to the MS induction particularly interesting in that existing attitudes are typically polarized following death reminders; for example, Jong, Halberstadt, & Bluemke (2012) found that following an MS induction, participants who believed in God became more confident of God’s existence whereas atheists became more confident that God does not exist…
Although clearly additional research is in order to establish if the MS-induced boost in support for Donald Trump will persist closer to the 2016 presidential election (if he becomes the Republican candidate), this study adds to the burgeoning literature (reviewed by Cohen & Solomon, 2011) demonstrating that subtle alterations in psychological conditions have a pronounced effect on political preferences. This could have ominous implications for democracy in that public policy and electoral outcomes should ideally result from rational deliberations rather than defensive reactions to mortal terror.
These findings are especially worrisome given that the sample was focused on young college age students (a group not likely to support Trump) who did not have a particularly strong predisposition or orientation to support Trump’s campaign. Given what is known about death anxiety, authoritarianism, age and political values, this dynamic can only be expected to be even more extreme among Donald Trump’s base.
In all, there is a clear relationship between terror management theory, conservative-authoritarianism and an embrace of “Trumpmania.”
As another complement to Sheldon Solomon’s new research (as well as the claims I made in my earlier essay), the intoxicating and noxious power of working-class authoritarianism for Trump supporters, specifically, and for Republican voters, in general, has been further buttressed by new research from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
salon: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin both resemble fictional characters more than real people, which may help explain Trump’s repeated assertions that he understands the Russian president and would get along with him. “In terms of leadership, he’s getting an A,” the putative GOP frontrunner told Bill O’Reilly, while essentially endorsing Putin’s current campaign to prop up Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, a major factor in the mounting tensions between the United States and Russia. So far the bromance has been one-sided, thankfully. Putin is nothing if not a shrewd operator, and whoever in his inner circle has been tasked with making sense of the Trump phenomenon has no doubt advised him to steer clear.
But if Putin and Trump seem like satirical or symbolic figures out of novels or movies, they come from different kinds of stories and, more to the point, from radically different fictional traditions. Trump is a larger-than-life caricature taken from a Sinclair Lewis novel or an early Frank Capra film, a vicious and merciless plutocrat-turned-politician who appeals (as I have previously suggested) to deep, ugly currents within human nature and American history. Putin may look like a similarly blunt instrument from this distance, an old-time Russian strongman who invades neighboring nations, imprisons political opponents and causes voices of dissent to die or disappear under mysterious circumstances.
But the man who consolidated power in post-Soviet Russia 15 years ago with startling rapidity – in a process that has been much investigated but never entirely explained – is a subtler and more shadowy creation than that outline suggests. He’s a character out of a postmodern, metafictional work by Don DeLillo or Philip K. Dick, about whom so little is certain that the reader begins to suspect he does not exist. Certain facts about Putin’s life and career can be ascertained, but the more you examine them, the more they seem like “facts” in quotation marks, or come to resemble the constant Russian media images of Putin fighting forest fires in Siberia, diving beneath the Black Sea in a submersible or riding a motorbike with the Russian equivalent of the Hell’s Angels. I mean, he really went to those places and put on those uniforms, right? Those are facts too.
Clear across the American political spectrum, from those eager to cast Putin as an unhinged, power-mad tyrant who is singlehandedly relaunching the Cold War tothose on the radical left who halfheartedly try to cast him as a hero standing up to the American empire (i.e., because he is singlehandedly relaunching the Cold War), our problem is that we think we have Putin figured out but we don’t. We don’t understand Putin because we know almost nothing about Russian society or Russian political history, and we don’t understand him because the invented or self-invented character called “Putin” is not meant to be understood. If those sound like contradictory proposals, well, welcome to Putin-land.
When I waded into “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin,” a whopping volume by the Brookings Institution scholars Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy that is viewed as the authoritative work on Putin in English, I did not suspect that the American foreign policy establishment would embrace this sort of literary or philosophical ambiguity. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are all said to have read this book, which was expressly intended to provide Western policy-makers and bureaucrats with a psychological and historical framework for understanding this most perplexing of contemporary world leaders.
But you barely get five pages into “Mr. Putin” before Hill and Gaddy start to sound like bright liberal-arts undergrads who just got stoned and read Jacques Derrida or Slavoj Žižek for the first time. “Attempting to write about Vladimir Putin,” they observe, presented challenges they had not noticed or imagined until they were well into the project. When you “delve into his hidden aspects, whether in the past or present, you are playing a game with Putin. It is a game where he is in charge. He controls the facts and the ‘stories.’” They could not afford to “take any story or so-called fact at face value when it comes to Vladimir Putin,” they continue, because “we are dealing with someone who is a master at manipulating information, suppressing information, and creating pseudo-information … after 15 years, we remain ignorant of some of the most basic facts about a man who is arguably the most powerful individual in the world, the leader of an important nation.”
Very little is known about Putin’s childhood in Leningrad (as it was then called), and almost all the so-called information comes either from stories he has told himself or official campaign biographies. Putin was married for more than 30 years (he is now divorced) and has two adult daughters, but his wife and children “are conspicuously absent from the public domain,” as Hill and Gaddy put it. During the latter stages of the Soviet era, he was a KGB officer for about 15 years, a fact often reported as if it explained anything. But Putin was nowhere near the top of the Soviet bureaucracy, and there are any number of onetime KGB officials and Communist Party apparatchiks among the ruling elite of contemporary Russia. Only one of them rose to undisputed control of the entire country.
How that happened is the great mystery of Putin’s career, one he appears to have purposefully clouded in doubt and one that “Mr. Putin” makes only tentative efforts to unpack. Somehow or other, Putin went from being the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg in 1996 (who was nearly brought down by a local corruption scandal that threatened the city’s food supply) to becoming the acting president of Russia on the last day of 1999, following Boris Yeltsin’s abrupt resignation. He has run the show in Moscow ever since, and whether that outcome resulted from a coordinated backroom coup d’état or represents the unintended consequence of a chaotic chain of events remains a huge unanswered question.
In the grand tradition of political science doorstops, “Mr. Putin” includes considerable wonky dissection of power struggles within the Russian oligarchy and the contributory factors behind specific policy decisions of the Putin era. I particularly enjoyed the detective work that leads Hill and Gaddy to conclude, purely on circumstantial evidence, that Putin’s strategic thinking was shaped by an American business-school textbook from 1978 that was apparently in vogue at the KGB academy when he studied there. On a more substantive level, the book offers a succinct account of how Putin came to feel increasingly disrespected and undermined by both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations between 1999 and the Iraq invasion in 2003, and moved from a generally pro-American position to the view that the United States was a fatally arrogant and grossly incompetent player on the world stage. You don’t have to like the guy to concede that he had a point.
(CNN)New Hampshire voters may be stunned to hear the latest robocall asking for their vote; it's from white nationalists with a simple, disturbing message.
"We don't need Muslims. We need smart, educated, white people," according to the male voice on the calls, which began Thursday night and urge voters in New Hampshire to vote for Donald Trump.
Three white nationalist leaders have banded together to form their own super PAC in support of Trump, even though Trump doesn't want their support.
The American National Super PAC is funding the robocall effort, which is organized under a separate group called the American Freedom Party.
On its website, the American Freedom Party says it "shares the customs and heritage of the European American people."
Hear the entire unauthorized phone call endorsing Trump at the American Freedom Party website. It was not immediately clear how many New Hampshire homes would receive the calls. Similar robocalls were placed ahead of the Iowa caucuses.
Jared Taylor, online editor of AmRen, the media outlet of the white nationalist group called American Renaissance, is one of the voices on the robocall. Taylor is also spokesman for the group the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is widely considered to be white supremacist group, though they call themselves a "white rights" group on their website. The group dates back decades and inspired Dylann Roof, who last summer confessed to shooting and killing nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
Taylor said he prefers to be called a "white advocate" rather than a white nationalist or white supremacist.
"Most white people would prefer to live in majority white neighborhoods and send their children to majority white schools, and deep in their bones, they are deeply disturbed by an immigration policy that is making the United States majority non-white," said Taylor. "So when Donald Trump talks about sending out all the illegals, building a wall and a moratorium on Islamic immigration, that's very appealing to a lot of ordinary white people."
Taylor added, "They will say that I support Donald Trump because he's going to send away all illegal immigrants and build a wall and that he wants to put a moratorium on Islamic immigration, and I will say that what this means is that he wants immigrants who will assimilate to our Western values. And I'm all for that, and I think all of the people in New Hampshire are all for that, too."
"And if a school and their parents and their kids wanted to be multicultural?" asked CNN's Drew Griffin.
"God bless them, too. Complete freedom of association is what I stand for. And if people wish to mix it up, fine," Taylor replied. "You'll just find that when the government isn't shoving them together, there just aren't that many who wish to mix it up. But if they want to? Go right ahead."
Donald Trump won the Nevada Republican caucuses by sweeping nearly every demographic group. During his victory speech, he thanked his diverse group of supporters and said he "loves the poorly educated."
salon: Donald Trump, the political necromancer, has been able to manipulate the death anxieties of right-wing voters for his own political gain. Trump won the New Hampshire primary by a substantial margin. If current public opinion polls are accurate, he will also win the Republican South Carolina primary as well.
Trump’s base of white working-class authoritarians is scared of what they view as a “new” America, one in which they believe that the psychological and material wages of Whiteness will not be as great. A combination of the brain structures and cognitive processes of conservative-authoritarians, socialization by family and community, and disinformation from the right-wing “news” entertainment complex, reinforce those anxieties while also ginning up deep feelings of racial resentment toward non-whites.
Donald Trump is not necessarily the prime instigator or cause of those fears; he is just the Republican candidate who is most adept at manipulating them. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is a direct promise to restore a world where white folks are central to all things in the United States (to the degree that they are not), and their dominance, privilege and power are uncontested.
Approximately a week ago, I offered an essay here at Salon that examined Trump’s ability to manipulate his supporters’ death anxieties. In “Secrets of Donald Trump’s cult: This is why the angriest white voters will not leave his side,” I focused on the psychological concept known as “terror management theory” and its relationship to social scientist Seymour Lipset’s insights about “working-class authoritarianism.”
There, I wrote:
Biology, socialization and cultural norms influence how a given person manages their fear of death. The death anxiety also interacts with one’s political values. In some ways, conservative authoritarians manage their death anxieties differently than people who possess a “liberal” or “progressive” political personality type. Conservative authoritarians display high levels of nationalism, social dominance behavior, intolerance, out-group anxiety and bigotry, racism, a need for binary “yes” or “no” answers, a yearning for epistemic closure, and higher levels of religiosity. Terror management theory suggests that conservative authoritarians are especially prone to loving “the flag, guns, god, and religion” because these symbols and institutions are fixed points that will, in theory, outlive a given person.Neuroscientists and social psychologists have determined that the brains of conservative authoritarians are especially sensitive to feelings of fear and disgust. Research on terror management theory complements those findings by showing that when scared or under threat, conservative authoritarians are more likely to become tribal, bigoted, racist and generally more hostile to those they identify as some type of Other.The intersection of terror management theory and contemporary American conservatism is a profile of the Republican voter en masse, and Donald Trump supporters in particular.Public opinion research has repeatedly shown that today’s Republican voters are angry, afraid and motivated by racial animus, white racial resentment and nativism. Because he is the id of contemporary conservatism, Donald Trump’s supporters display those worrisome and ugly traits in the extreme.
I concluded with the following observation:
In many mythological traditions, the necromancer controls the dead by using a drum or playing a song. These sounds trick the “living” corpse into thinking that it has a heartbeat. When the necromancer stops hitting the drum or ceases the music, the corpse reverts back to inert matter.The political necromancer and cult leader Donald Trump beats a drum of nativism, fear, racism and sexism to control the right-wing political zombies that follow him. The problem is, unlike the undead ghouls of myth and folklore, once Donald Trump stops beating his metaphorical drum, his followers will not return to their graves. Trump’s people are now the walking dead of American political and cultural life, a group that threatens to devour us all.
Sheldon Solomon, one of the psychologists who did some of the first work on terror management theory, has recently completed a new paper that focuses on Donald Trump and how death anxieties relate to support for his campaign.
As indicated by Solomon’s new paper (written with co-author Florette Cohen) “You’re hired! Mortality Salience Increases Americans’ Support for Donald Trump,” matters may be worse than I suggested in my earlier essay.
Solomon and Cohen frame their new research on Donald Trump and terror management theory in the following way:
The 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign is occurring at a historical moment that is, from Max Weber’s perspective, ripe for the ascendance of a charismatic leader: economic uncertainty juxtaposed with environmental instability compounded by concerns about immigration magnified by ongoing threats of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. And Donald Trump has many characteristics of a (secular) charismatic leader: a powerful (i.e. rich) and self-assured public figure pledging to “Make America Great Again” and to keep U.S. citizens safe by stemming the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico by building a wall at the border to keep out their “criminals” and “rapists,” “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and bombing “the shit out of ISIS.”
The paper’s conclusions include:
Among a sample of Americans, support for presidential candidate Donald Trump increased in response to reminders of death, consistent with previous research (Landau et al., 2004; Cohen et al., 2005) showing that MS increased support for President Bush by participants across the political spectrum. Overall, participants in the study did not have particularly favorable impressions of Mr. Trump, with mean support for him below the mid-point (5 = “somewhat” supportive) of the scale in both the control and MS conditions. However, this makes the fact that support for Mr. Trump increased in response to the MS induction particularly interesting in that existing attitudes are typically polarized following death reminders; for example, Jong, Halberstadt, & Bluemke (2012) found that following an MS induction, participants who believed in God became more confident of God’s existence whereas atheists became more confident that God does not exist…Although clearly additional research is in order to establish if the MS-induced boost in support for Donald Trump will persist closer to the 2016 presidential election (if he becomes the Republican candidate), this study adds to the burgeoning literature (reviewed by Cohen & Solomon, 2011) demonstrating that subtle alterations in psychological conditions have a pronounced effect on political preferences. This could have ominous implications for democracy in that public policy and electoral outcomes should ideally result from rational deliberations rather than defensive reactions to mortal terror.
These findings are especially worrisome given that the sample was focused on young college age students (a group not likely to support Trump) who did not have a particularly strong predisposition or orientation to support Trump’s campaign. Given what is known about death anxiety, authoritarianism, age and political values, this dynamic can only be expected to be even more extreme among Donald Trump’s base.
In all, there is a clear relationship between terror management theory, conservative-authoritarianism and an embrace of “Trumpmania.”
As another complement to Sheldon Solomon’s new research (as well as the claims I made in my earlier essay), the intoxicating and noxious power of working-class authoritarianism for Trump supporters, specifically, and for Republican voters, in general, has been further buttressed by new research from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
But if Putin and Trump seem like satirical or symbolic figures out of novels or movies, they come from different kinds of stories and, more to the point, from radically different fictional traditions. Trump is a larger-than-life caricature taken from a Sinclair Lewis novel or an early Frank Capra film, a vicious and merciless plutocrat-turned-politician who appeals (as I have previously suggested) to deep, ugly currents within human nature and American history. Putin may look like a similarly blunt instrument from this distance, an old-time Russian strongman who invades neighboring nations, imprisons political opponents and causes voices of dissent to die or disappear under mysterious circumstances.
But the man who consolidated power in post-Soviet Russia 15 years ago with startling rapidity – in a process that has been much investigated but never entirely explained – is a subtler and more shadowy creation than that outline suggests. He’s a character out of a postmodern, metafictional work by Don DeLillo or Philip K. Dick, about whom so little is certain that the reader begins to suspect he does not exist. Certain facts about Putin’s life and career can be ascertained, but the more you examine them, the more they seem like “facts” in quotation marks, or come to resemble the constant Russian media images of Putin fighting forest fires in Siberia, diving beneath the Black Sea in a submersible or riding a motorbike with the Russian equivalent of the Hell’s Angels. I mean, he really went to those places and put on those uniforms, right? Those are facts too.
Clear across the American political spectrum, from those eager to cast Putin as an unhinged, power-mad tyrant who is singlehandedly relaunching the Cold War tothose on the radical left who halfheartedly try to cast him as a hero standing up to the American empire (i.e., because he is singlehandedly relaunching the Cold War), our problem is that we think we have Putin figured out but we don’t. We don’t understand Putin because we know almost nothing about Russian society or Russian political history, and we don’t understand him because the invented or self-invented character called “Putin” is not meant to be understood. If those sound like contradictory proposals, well, welcome to Putin-land.
When I waded into “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin,” a whopping volume by the Brookings Institution scholars Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy that is viewed as the authoritative work on Putin in English, I did not suspect that the American foreign policy establishment would embrace this sort of literary or philosophical ambiguity. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are all said to have read this book, which was expressly intended to provide Western policy-makers and bureaucrats with a psychological and historical framework for understanding this most perplexing of contemporary world leaders.
But you barely get five pages into “Mr. Putin” before Hill and Gaddy start to sound like bright liberal-arts undergrads who just got stoned and read Jacques Derrida or Slavoj Žižek for the first time. “Attempting to write about Vladimir Putin,” they observe, presented challenges they had not noticed or imagined until they were well into the project. When you “delve into his hidden aspects, whether in the past or present, you are playing a game with Putin. It is a game where he is in charge. He controls the facts and the ‘stories.’” They could not afford to “take any story or so-called fact at face value when it comes to Vladimir Putin,” they continue, because “we are dealing with someone who is a master at manipulating information, suppressing information, and creating pseudo-information … after 15 years, we remain ignorant of some of the most basic facts about a man who is arguably the most powerful individual in the world, the leader of an important nation.”
Very little is known about Putin’s childhood in Leningrad (as it was then called), and almost all the so-called information comes either from stories he has told himself or official campaign biographies. Putin was married for more than 30 years (he is now divorced) and has two adult daughters, but his wife and children “are conspicuously absent from the public domain,” as Hill and Gaddy put it. During the latter stages of the Soviet era, he was a KGB officer for about 15 years, a fact often reported as if it explained anything. But Putin was nowhere near the top of the Soviet bureaucracy, and there are any number of onetime KGB officials and Communist Party apparatchiks among the ruling elite of contemporary Russia. Only one of them rose to undisputed control of the entire country.
How that happened is the great mystery of Putin’s career, one he appears to have purposefully clouded in doubt and one that “Mr. Putin” makes only tentative efforts to unpack. Somehow or other, Putin went from being the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg in 1996 (who was nearly brought down by a local corruption scandal that threatened the city’s food supply) to becoming the acting president of Russia on the last day of 1999, following Boris Yeltsin’s abrupt resignation. He has run the show in Moscow ever since, and whether that outcome resulted from a coordinated backroom coup d’état or represents the unintended consequence of a chaotic chain of events remains a huge unanswered question.
In the grand tradition of political science doorstops, “Mr. Putin” includes considerable wonky dissection of power struggles within the Russian oligarchy and the contributory factors behind specific policy decisions of the Putin era. I particularly enjoyed the detective work that leads Hill and Gaddy to conclude, purely on circumstantial evidence, that Putin’s strategic thinking was shaped by an American business-school textbook from 1978 that was apparently in vogue at the KGB academy when he studied there. On a more substantive level, the book offers a succinct account of how Putin came to feel increasingly disrespected and undermined by both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations between 1999 and the Iraq invasion in 2003, and moved from a generally pro-American position to the view that the United States was a fatally arrogant and grossly incompetent player on the world stage. You don’t have to like the guy to concede that he had a point.
(CNN)New Hampshire voters may be stunned to hear the latest robocall asking for their vote; it's from white nationalists with a simple, disturbing message.
Hear the entire unauthorized phone call endorsing Trump at the American Freedom Party website. It was not immediately clear how many New Hampshire homes would receive the calls. Similar robocalls were placed ahead of the Iowa caucuses.
Jared Taylor, online editor of AmRen, the media outlet of the white nationalist group called American Renaissance, is one of the voices on the robocall. Taylor is also spokesman for the group the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is widely considered to be white supremacist group, though they call themselves a "white rights" group on their website. The group dates back decades and inspired Dylann Roof, who last summer confessed to shooting and killing nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
Taylor said he prefers to be called a "white advocate" rather than a white nationalist or white supremacist.
"Most white people would prefer to live in majority white neighborhoods and send their children to majority white schools, and deep in their bones, they are deeply disturbed by an immigration policy that is making the United States majority non-white," said Taylor. "So when Donald Trump talks about sending out all the illegals, building a wall and a moratorium on Islamic immigration, that's very appealing to a lot of ordinary white people."
Taylor added, "They will say that I support Donald Trump because he's going to send away all illegal immigrants and build a wall and that he wants to put a moratorium on Islamic immigration, and I will say that what this means is that he wants immigrants who will assimilate to our Western values. And I'm all for that, and I think all of the people in New Hampshire are all for that, too."
"And if a school and their parents and their kids wanted to be multicultural?" asked CNN's Drew Griffin.
"God bless them, too. Complete freedom of association is what I stand for. And if people wish to mix it up, fine," Taylor replied. "You'll just find that when the government isn't shoving them together, there just aren't that many who wish to mix it up. But if they want to? Go right ahead."
Racist calls hurting Trump
There is some evidence the calls may be doing more harm than good for Trump.
William Johnson, a California attorney who helped organize the racist, pro-Trump phone calls, told CNN initial response from New Hampshire residents has been "voluminous" but not exactly supportive.
"I personally answered scores and scores of calls," Johnson wrote to CNN. "Most were: 'Stop calling me' ... the next most popular response was 'I'll never vote for Trump, so there!'"
Johnson said he has received only "a noteworthy minority of calls that were favorable to Donald Trump and/or to our pro-white message."
There is some evidence the calls may be doing more harm than good for Trump.
William Johnson, a California attorney who helped organize the racist, pro-Trump phone calls, told CNN initial response from New Hampshire residents has been "voluminous" but not exactly supportive.
"I personally answered scores and scores of calls," Johnson wrote to CNN. "Most were: 'Stop calling me' ... the next most popular response was 'I'll never vote for Trump, so there!'"
Johnson said he has received only "a noteworthy minority of calls that were favorable to Donald Trump and/or to our pro-white message."
Trump doesn't want group's support
Contacted by CNN, the Trump campaign would not speak specifically about Taylor, his group, the robocalls, or the group's white nationalist ideas.
"Mr. Trump has disavowed all Super PACs offering their support and continues to do so," said Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman.
The American National super PAC says it has nothing to do with the official Trump campaign and has no communication with the candidate.
Its white nationalist members just say they like Trump, and are willing to support him whether the candidate welcomes them or not.
Asked whether he thinks Trump wants his support, Taylor said: "I don't know whether he wants it or not. I think he wants support from everyone. Whether or not he would agree with me is an entirely other matter. Remember, it is I who am supporting Donald Trump, and not Donald Trump who is supporting me."
Taylor said there are only a handful of people involved in the effort. But he claims the movement he supports, white supremacy, is attractive to hundreds of thousands of Americans eager for a candidate to restore order.
Taylor added that of all the candidates, Trump "is the best man so far."
Contacted by CNN, the Trump campaign would not speak specifically about Taylor, his group, the robocalls, or the group's white nationalist ideas.
"Mr. Trump has disavowed all Super PACs offering their support and continues to do so," said Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman.
The American National super PAC says it has nothing to do with the official Trump campaign and has no communication with the candidate.
Its white nationalist members just say they like Trump, and are willing to support him whether the candidate welcomes them or not.
Asked whether he thinks Trump wants his support, Taylor said: "I don't know whether he wants it or not. I think he wants support from everyone. Whether or not he would agree with me is an entirely other matter. Remember, it is I who am supporting Donald Trump, and not Donald Trump who is supporting me."
Taylor said there are only a handful of people involved in the effort. But he claims the movement he supports, white supremacy, is attractive to hundreds of thousands of Americans eager for a candidate to restore order.
Taylor added that of all the candidates, Trump "is the best man so far."
... jika trump menjadi PRESIDEN AS, MAKA SALAH SATU RISIKO SEJARAHnya, mungkin amrik balik k sejarah : politik isolasi...
MILESTONES: 1937–1945
American Isolationism in the 1930s
During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War I contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America. The leaders of the isolationist movement drew upon history to bolster their position.
In his Farewell Address, President George Washington had advocated non-involvement in European wars and politics. For much of the nineteenth century, the expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had made it possible for the United States to enjoy a kind of “free security” and remain largely detached from Old World conflicts.
During World War I, however, President Woodrow Wilson made a case for U.S. intervention in the conflict and a U.S. interest in maintaining a peaceful world order. Nevertheless, the American experience in that war served to bolster the arguments of isolationists; they argued that marginal U.S. interests in that conflict did not justify the number of U.S. casualties.
In the wake of the World War I, a report by Senator Gerald P. Nye, a Republican from North Dakota, fed this belief by claiming that American bankers and arms manufacturers had pushed for U.S. involvement for their own profit. The 1934 publication of the book Merchants of Death by H.C. Engelbrecht and F. C. Hanighen, followed by the 1935 tract “War Is a Racket” by decorated Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler both served to increase popular suspicions of wartime profiteering and influence public opinion in the direction of neutrality. Many Americans became determined not to be tricked by banks and industries into making such great sacrifices again. The reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the United States should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe. During the interwar period, the U.S. Government repeatedly chose non-entanglement over participation or intervention as the appropriate response to international questions. Immediately following the First World War, Congress rejected U.S. membership in the League of Nations. Some members of Congress opposed membership in the League out of concern that it would draw the United States into European conflicts, although ultimately the collective security clause sank the possibility of U.S. participation. During the 1930s, the League proved ineffectual in the face of growing militarism, partly due to the U.S. decision not to participate.
The isolationists were a diverse group, including progressives and conservatives, business owners and peace activists, but because they faced no consistent, organized opposition from internationalists, their ideology triumphed time and again. Roosevelt appeared to accept the strength of the isolationist elements in Congress until 1937. In that year, as the situation in Europe continued to grow worse and the Second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia, the President gave a speech in which he likened international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to “quarantine.” At that time, however, Americans were still not prepared to risk their lives and livelihoods for peace abroad. Even the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 did not suddenly diffuse popular desire to avoid international entanglements. Instead, public opinion shifted from favoring complete neutrality to supporting limited U.S. aid to the Allies short of actual intervention in the war. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 served to convince the majority of Americans that the United States should enter the war on the side of the Allies.The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and subsequent push to gain control over larger expanses of Northeast China in 1931 led President Herbert Hoover and his Secretary of State, Henry Stimson, to establish theStimson Doctrine, which stated that the United States would not recognize the territory gained by aggression and in violation of international agreements. With the Stimson Doctrine, the United States expressed concern over the aggressive action without committing itself to any direct involvement or intervention. Other conflicts, including the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War, also resulted in virtually no official commitment or action from the United States Government. Upon taking office, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tended to see a necessity for the United States to participate more actively in international affairs, but his ability to apply his personal outlook to foreign policy was limited by the strength of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. Congress. In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a Congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts. The bill ran into strong opposition from the leading isolationists in Congress, including progressive politicians such as Senators Hiram Johnson of California, William Borah of Idaho, and Robert La Follette of Wisconsin. In 1935, controversy over U.S. participation in the World Court elicited similar opposition. As tensions rose in Europe over Nazi Germany’s aggressive maneuvers, Congress pushed through a series ofNeutrality Acts, which served to prevent American ships and citizens from becoming entangled in outside conflicts. Roosevelt lamented the restrictive nature of the acts, but because he still required Congressional support for his domestic New Deal policies, he reluctantly acquiesced.
Pew Research menurunkan hasil penelitiannya sbb:
On the other hand, the share of American adults who say they would be less likely to vote for an atheist candidate has been declining over time. Moreover, one of the candidates who is widely viewed by Republicans as a potentially “good” or “great” president, Donald Trump, is not widely viewed as a religious person, even by those in his own party. And on the Democratic side, the share of Americans who say Hillary Clinton is not a religious person now stands at 43%, which is sharply higher than it was in the summer of 2007, when she was seeking the presidential nomination for the first time.
The study also shows that having a president who shares their religious beliefs is important to many Americans, with about half of U.S. adults saying it is “very important” (27%) or “somewhat important” (24%) to have someone in the White House who shares their religious perspective. This view is particularly common among Republicans, among whom roughly two-thirds say it is at least “somewhat important” to them that the president share their religious beliefs.
At the same time, the new survey also finds that the share of Americans who have reservations about voting for an atheist president has been declining over time. As recently as 2007, more than six-in-ten Americans said they would be less likely to support an atheist presidential candidate, while just 51% express this view today. Over this period, the share who say a candidate’s lack of belief would not be a factor in how they vote has been growing.
While there are about as many evangelicals who think Trump would be a “good” or “great” president as say the same about Cruz and Carson, there also is considerably more wariness about Trump than about Carson or Cruz; three-in-ten evangelicals (29%) say Trump would be a “poor” or “terrible” president, which is roughly twice the share who say this about either Cruz or Carson.
When asked about their view of religion’s influence in American society, the survey finds that the large majority of U.S. adults continue to believe that religion is losing influence. And most who hold this view – about half of all U.S. adults – say they think religion’s declining influence is a bad thing for American society.
Pew Research menurunkan hasil penelitiannya sbb:
Faith and the 2016 Campaign
GOP candidates seen as religious – except for Trump
The conventional wisdom in American politics has long been that someone who is not religious cannot be elected president of the United States. Most Americans have consistently said that it is important to them that the president have strong religious beliefs. And a new Pew Research Center survey finds that being an atheist remains one of the biggest liabilities that a presidential candidate can have; fully half of American adults say they would be less likely to vote for a hypothetical presidential candidate who does not believe in God, while just 6% say they would be more likely to vote for a nonbeliever.
On the other hand, the share of American adults who say they would be less likely to vote for an atheist candidate has been declining over time. Moreover, one of the candidates who is widely viewed by Republicans as a potentially “good” or “great” president, Donald Trump, is not widely viewed as a religious person, even by those in his own party. And on the Democratic side, the share of Americans who say Hillary Clinton is not a religious person now stands at 43%, which is sharply higher than it was in the summer of 2007, when she was seeking the presidential nomination for the first time.
These are among the key findings of a new Pew Research Center survey conducted Jan. 7-14, 2016, on landlines and cellphones among a national sample of 2,009 adults. This is the latest in a long line of research the Center has conducted on the role of religion in presidential campaigns. In 2012, for instance, polling found that Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith was a potentially important factor in the Republican primaries but was not likely to play a major role in determining the outcome of the general election. In the run-up to the2008 campaign, voters who saw presidential candidates as at least “somewhat” religious expressed more favorable views of those candidates; but the Center’s research also showed that White House contenders need not be seen as very religious to be broadly acceptable to the voting public. And in 2004, a majority of the U.S. public thought it was improper for the Catholic Church to deny communion to pro-choice politicians like John Kerry.
The new survey confirms that being an atheist continues to be one of the biggest perceived shortcomings a hypothetical presidential candidate could have, with 51% of adults saying they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who does not believe in God. Indeed, in the eyes of the public, being a nonbeliever remains a bigger drawback than having had an extramarital affair (37% say they would be less likely to support a candidate who had been unfaithful), having had personal financial troubles (41% say they would be less likely to support a candidate who had had financial struggles), or having used marijuana in the past (20% would be less likely to support a former pot smoker).
The study also shows that having a president who shares their religious beliefs is important to many Americans, with about half of U.S. adults saying it is “very important” (27%) or “somewhat important” (24%) to have someone in the White House who shares their religious perspective. This view is particularly common among Republicans, among whom roughly two-thirds say it is at least “somewhat important” to them that the president share their religious beliefs.At the same time, the new survey also finds that the share of Americans who have reservations about voting for an atheist president has been declining over time. As recently as 2007, more than six-in-ten Americans said they would be less likely to support an atheist presidential candidate, while just 51% express this view today. Over this period, the share who say a candidate’s lack of belief would not be a factor in how they vote has been growing.
The new survey finds that Trump is widely viewed as a potentially “good” or “great” president by GOP voters in spite of the fact that, compared with other leading candidates, relatively few Republicans think Trump is a particularly religious person. Overall, 44% of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party say Trump is a “very religious” (5%) or “somewhat religious” (39%) person, while 47% say he is “not too religious” or “not at all religious.” By contrast, fully eight-in-ten Republicans say they think Ben Carson is a religious person, three-quarters view Ted Cruz as a religious person, and seven-in-ten say the same about Marco Rubio.
Being seen as a religious person is generally an asset for candidates; people who think a candidate is a religious person tend to be more likely to see that candidate as a potentially good president. But many Republicans think Trump would be a good president despite his perceived lack of religiousness. Of the 56% of GOP voters who think Trump would be a good or great president, a substantial minority of them (17% of Republican registered voters overall) say they think Trump is not religious. The pattern is very different for the other leading GOP candidates; virtually all Republicans who think Cruz, Rubio and Carson would be successful presidents (and who express a view about their religiousness) also say they view those candidates as at least somewhat religious. Just 2% of GOP voters think Rubio would be a good president and that he is not particularly religious, with just 1% saying the same about Cruz and Carson.
The new survey shows that among religious groups, fully half of white evangelical Protestant voters (including both Republicans and those who identify with the Democratic Party or as political independents) think Trump would make a “good” or a “great” president. Evangelicals – who are among the most reliably Republican religious constituencies in the electorate – express a similar degree of confidence that Carson and Cruz would be successful presidents.1 Evangelical voters are less convinced that other Republican candidates would be good presidents. And few evangelical voters think Bernie Sanders (16%) or Clinton (15%) would be good presidents.
While there are about as many evangelicals who think Trump would be a “good” or “great” president as say the same about Cruz and Carson, there also is considerably more wariness about Trump than about Carson or Cruz; three-in-ten evangelicals (29%) say Trump would be a “poor” or “terrible” president, which is roughly twice the share who say this about either Cruz or Carson.
On the Democratic side, the view that Sanders and Clinton would be good presidents is most common among two reliably Democratic religious constituencies – black Protestants and religiously unaffiliated voters (i.e., religious “nones”). Fully half of religiously unaffiliated registered voters (51%) think Sanders would be a successful president, while four-in-ten (42%) think Clinton would be a good or great president. Among black Protestant voters, about six-in-ten (62%) think Clinton will be a “good” or a “great” president, while 36% say this about Sanders. Among both groups (religious “nones” and black Protestants), just 15% or fewer think any of the Republican candidates would be good presidents. (More information on religious groups’ views of which candidates would be successful presidents is available in Chapter 1 and in the detailed tables included at the end of this report.)
More people view Clinton as “very” or “somewhat” religious than say the same about Sanders. This is true among both the public as a whole (48% vs. 40%) and those who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (65% vs. 47%). But the share of Americans who say Hillary Clinton is “not too” or “not at all” religious has risen sharply since 2007. At that time, during the run-up to the campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination, 24% of adults said Clinton was “not too” or “not at all” religious; today, 43% say she is not religious. Over this period, the share of Americans expressing no opinion about Clinton’s religiousness declined from 22% to 9%, while the share describing her as “very” or “somewhat” religious ticked down from 53% to 48%. The uptick in the view that Clinton is not particularly religious is most pronounced among Republicans, but also seen among Democrats. (See Chapter 1 for more details.)
When asked about their view of religion’s influence in American society, the survey finds that the large majority of U.S. adults continue to believe that religion is losing influence. And most who hold this view – about half of all U.S. adults – say they think religion’s declining influence is a bad thing for American society.
The survey also shows that four-in-ten Americans think there has been too little expression of religious faith and prayer by political leaders, compared with roughly a quarter (27%) who say there has been too much religious talk by politicians. These figures have not changed much since 2014, but they are considerably different from the results of a survey taken at a similar point in the 2012 presidential election cycle. At that time, there were more people who thought there was too much religious discussion (38%) than who said there wasn’t enough (30%).
Other key findings include:
- Candidates are viewed as religious by more people in their own party than the opposing party. The biggest partisan gap on these questions is seen in views about Hillary Clinton; two-thirds of Democrats say she is “very” or “somewhat” religious, while two-thirds of Republicans express the opposite view, saying that she is “not too” or “not at all” religious.
- Like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is also seen as less religious today than in 2007; about one-third of adults (35%) now say Obama is “not too” or “not at all” religious, up from 9% in 2007.
- Half of Americans (51%) believe religious conservatives have too much control over the GOP, and more than four-in-ten (44%) think that liberals who are not religious have too much control over the Democratic Party. Partisans are deeply divided on this question. Two-thirds of Democrats say the GOP has been co-opted by religious conservatives, while most Republicans reject this notion. Conversely, two-thirds of Republicans believe that secular liberals have too much power in the Democratic Party, while two-thirds of Democrats disagree.
- One-quarter of adults (26%) say they would be less likely to vote for a gay or lesbian presidential candidate, while 4% say they would be more likely to support such a candidate and seven-in-ten (69%) say it would make no difference to their vote. Since 2007, the share of Americans who say a candidate’s sexual orientation would not matter in their vote has been steadily rising, while the share who say they would be less likely to support a gay or lesbian candidate has been declining.
- There are more than twice as many Republicans who say they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who has been an elected official in Washington for many years as who would be more likely to support such a candidate (44% vs. 18%). Among Democrats, the balance of opinion leans in the opposite direction; 27% see extensive Washington experience as a positive, compared with 19% who see it as a liability.
The candidate has not endorsed them.
Donald Trump has a new group of supporters, but they may not be the kind the Republican Presidential frontrunner wants.
Homes across Iowa started receiving pro-Trump robocalls on Saturday from a white supremacist group called the American Freedom Party, after the group endorsed the candidate on Friday. The AFP called him their “Great White Hope.”
In the automated calls that the AFP says are not authorized by Trump, leaders of the nationalist group quote the Bible and discuss immigration. In one message, Jared Taylor from the white supremacist website American Renaissancesays: “I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America. We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”
(Taylor, it turns out, is a former spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens — a group which Dylan Roof, the man who killed nine in a mass shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, cited as an inspiration.)
So far, Trump seems to have avoided acknowledging the support in his highly active Twitter feed or campaign website. The Trump campaign has not yet returnedFortune’s request for comment, though this article will be updated if they respond.
The candidate has dodged white supremacists before: When KKK Grand Wizard David Duke told theWashington Post that he was the “best of the lot” of candidates, Trump rebuffed the support. The candidate told Bloomberg News in August, “I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement. I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.” And when asked whether he would repudiate the support, Trump agreed, telling the Bloomberg reporters, “Sure, if it would make you feel better.”
Donald Trump has developed an extremely effective way of dispatching would-be rivals. He tells a less than flattering story about the person. Sometimes he makes accusations head-on. Sometimes he does so more discreetly with hints and innuendo. He’s at his comic best when he pretends he’s doing it to help the person in question.
By an amazing coincidence, Mr. Trump’s allegations, concerns and innuendo all seem to come whenever a fellow candidate begins to gain on him in the polls. It doesn’t matter if his attacks are debunked. It doesn’t matter if most people recognize Mr. Trump’s comments aren’t true. He just keeps repeating the accusation over and over enough times to damage the opponent before moving on.
It may be time for some of his own medicine.
Is Donald Trump a white supremacist?
Goodness knows he’s taken shots at Latinos and at Muslims, but has the smoking gun of his true colors finally leaked out?
Is Donald Trump a white supremacist?
The American National Super PAC, which is organized and funded by the American Freedom Party, recently announced they have paid for “hundreds of thousands” of robo-calls boosting Donald Trump to Iowa voters ahead of the state’s Feb. 1 caucuses. That’s good for Mr. Trumpisn’t it? A super PAC spending money so he doesn’t have to? Not exactly.
The American Freedom Party’s website welcomes you to its site with the following statement. “White Americans should elect a party that advocates for issues and concerns affecting (sic) European Americans.” That’s right, the American Freedom Party is a white supremacist group. It organized a super PAC and that PAC is spending its money pushingDonald Trump as its candidate. Mr. Trump promised he wouldn’t take any help from super PACs. Not only is he reneging on that promise, but he is getting a big push from one — and a white supremacist one at that.
Is Donald Trump a white supremacist?
Trump has not distanced himself from the group. He has not denounced the group nor their message. He’s reaping the benefit of robo-calls to a chunk of the Iowa electorate compliments of white supremacists and he doesn’t seem to have any issue with it at all.
Is Donald Trump a white supremacist?
Imagine the fun Mr. Trump would have with this if it were any of his rivals. He would raise the issue. He would brand the candidate a white supremacist. He would wonder why the other challenger hadn’t disavowed the group’s efforts and he would repeat the opponent’s name and the term “white supremacist” at least a dozen times a day. Perhaps it’s time for someone else to raise the question on the Donald — and raise it again, and again and again.
Is Donald Trump a white supremacist?
According to the way Mr. Trump plays the game, we should assume so until he can prove otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt.
This article has been updated to clarify that the Council of Conservative Citizens, not the American Freedom Party, was cited by Dylan Roof.
marketwatch: 26th Feb 2016: Trump University first launched in 2005 and it wasn’t a university in a traditional sense. Instead it functioned more as a series of business and real estate-focused seminars — some online — and mentorship programs. In 2010, the company changed its name to the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative after years of pressure for the New York State Education Department, which argued that it was misleading. The program later shut down in 2010.
The court documents, filed in federal court in California, claim that Trump University used radio and newspaper ads to draw students to free seminars with radio and newspaper ads promising access to instructors and information that made Trump a success. Once they got there, they were urged by speakers flanked by banners of Trump to sign up for a “one year apprenticeship” program, offering “a comprehensive real estate education” as well as access to mentors for a year, at the cost of $1,495, the documents claim.
The one-year program turned out to be a three-day seminar aimed at convincing students to pay $34,995 for a “full education,” the lawsuit alleges. During the program, students were told to raise their credit card limits by four times so they could purchase property. However, the students were then asked to use the increased credit to buy the “Gold Program” seminar, the documents claim. Students were told that participating in this program would give them access to mentors and deals that would teach them how to earn up to tens of thousands of dollars a month doing real-estate investing, the lawsuit claims. Instead, few deals materialized and mentors disappeared after two days looking at properties and a half day trip to Home Depot, according to court documents.
Tarla Makaeff, the lead plaintiff in the case, spent nearly $60,000 to pay for Trump University products over the course of one year, the lawsuit claims. What she got in return were two offers for real estate deals that were “flawed” and “appeared unprofitable,” the lawsuit says.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also filed a $40 million suit against Trump in 2013 over Trump University. Shortly after filing the suit, Schneiderman claimed Trump University used “Trump’s name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand.”
reuters.com: A former finance co-chair of Chris Christie's presidential campaign on Sunday slammed Christie's recent endorsement of Donald Trump, according to NBC, calling for the New Jersey governor's supporters to reject the Republican front-runner.
"Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump is an astonishing display of political opportunism. Donald Trump is unfit to be president," Meg Whitman, chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard, said in a statement reported by NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
Christie, appearing on ABC's "This Week" program, responded by describing Whitman "a great friend" with a different political opinion. "And that's OK. That's what makes this country great is that people can have differences of political opinion," he said.
Just days before the Super Tuesday nominating contests, Christie on Friday became the most prominent mainstream Republican to get behind the billionaire Republican front-runner and former reality TV star, declaring Trump to have the best chance of defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.
But Whitman's statement said the New Jersey governor made his statement despite his own public misgivings about a Trump presidency.
"Trump would take America on a dangerous journey. Christie knows all that and indicated as much many times publicly," Whitman said.
Trump's unorthodox candidacy has shaken the Republican Party and has drawn increasingly vehement criticism from his rivals. But a growing number of senior Republicans are becoming resigned to the idea he will be their candidate in November.
Christie, who withdrew his own White House bid earlier this month, denied that he reversed course on Trump after promising New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper publisher Joe McQuaid that he would not endorse him after the billionaire won the state's Feb. 9 primary election.
"It's just not true. He called me two days after the primary and said, I was just told that you're about to endorse Donald Trump. And I said to him, that's absolutely untrue. I'm not about to endorse anybody," Christie told ABC.
(Reporting by Alana Wise and David Morgan; Editing by Ros Russell)
Saya sangat bersyukur kepada Ibu Fraanca Smith karena telah memberi saya
BalasHapuspinjaman sebesar Rp900.000.000,00 saya telah berhutang selama
bertahun-tahun sehingga saya mencari pinjaman dengan sejarah kredit nol dan
saya telah ke banyak rumah keuangan untuk meminta bantuan namun semua
menolak saya karena rasio hutang saya yang tinggi dan sejarah kredit rendah
yang saya cari di internet dan tidak pernah menyerah saya membaca dan
belajar tentang Franca Smith di salah satu blog saya menghubungi franca
smith konsultan kredit via email:(francasmithloancompany@gmail.com) dengan
keyakinan bahwa pinjaman saya diberikan pada awal tahun ini tahun dan
harapan datang lagi, kemudian saya menyadari bahwa tidak semua perusahaan
pinjaman di blog benar-benar palsu karena semua hautang finansial saya
telah diselesaikan, sekarang saya memiliki nilai yang sangat besar dan
usaha bisnis yang patut ditiru, saya tidak dapat mempertahankan ini untuk
diri saya jadi saya harus memulai dengan membagikan kesaksian perubahan
hidup ini yang dapat Anda hubungi Ibu franca Smith via email:(
francasmithloancompany@gmail.com)
Apakah Anda mencari pinjaman untuk memulai bisnis atau proyek yang sesuai keinginan Anda? Di KARINA ROLAND LOAN COMPANY, kami menawarkan semua jenis bantuan keuangan untuk semua individu yang membutuhkan pinjaman seperti "pinjaman pribadi, pinjaman investasi, pinjaman rumah dan perusahaan pinjaman di seluruh dunia, suku bunga kami adalah 2% per tahun. Kami juga memberikan saran keuangan dan Bantuan untuk klien dan pelamar kami. Jika Anda memiliki proyek yang baik atau ingin memulai bisnis dan memerlukan pinjaman untuk segera membiayainya, kami dapat membicarakannya, menandatangani kontrak, dan kemudian mendanai proyek atau bisnis Anda untuk Anda bersama dengan Bank Dunia dan Bank Industri.
BalasHapusHubungi KARINA ROLAND LOAN COMPANY hari ini untuk mata uang yang Anda inginkan.
Kategori Bisnis
Bisnis Merchandising.
Bisnis manufaktur
Bisnis Hibrid.
Kepemilikan tunggal
Kemitraan.
Perusahaan.
Perseroan terbatas.
pinjaman pribadi.
pinjaman investasi.
Pinjaman Hutang.
Kredit Pemilikan Rumah.
Pinjaman hipotek
Laon otomatis.
Pinjaman pelajar.
Pinjaman bayaran.
Pinjaman syariah.
Pinjaman pertanian.
Pinjaman gereja.
PERUSAHAAN LOAN ROLAND KARINA ELENA
Email: karinaloancompany @ gmail com WhatsApp only +1 (585) 708-3478.
Nama Facebook: Karina Elena Roland
Salam! Salam!! Salam semuanya !!!
BalasHapusSaya punya kabar baik untuk Anda semua. Saya mencoba menyimpannya untuk diri saya sendiri tetapi saya tidak bisa berhasil dan menyaksikan penderitaan sesama manusia. Nama saya Ampang Luci Burhan dari kota Semarang di Indonesia bersama suami dan anak-anak.
Saya ingin semua orang membaca pesan ini dengan cermat. Saya sangat senang memberikan kesaksian tentang bagaimana saya mendapatkan pinjaman saya, pemberi pinjaman kredit yang sah, saya telah menderita di tangan pemberi pinjaman internet palsu di halaman web tertentu, saya telah digunakan di beberapa perusahaan pinjaman di sini dan yang mereka lakukan hanyalah bertanya saya untuk pembayaran dan setelah pembayaran, saya tidak akan mendapatkan pinjaman dari mereka, mereka adalah orang-orang palsu dari Inggris dan India. Saya kesakitan karena hutang saya, dan saya dibayar pembayaran lain untuk mendapatkan pinjaman untuk membuat hutang saya lebih besar. Saya senang ketika teman saya memberi tahu saya bahwa dia mendapat pinjaman melalui internet, dia adalah orang yang memberi tahu saya tentang REBACCA ALMA LOAN COMPANY, dan saya memohon pinjaman 3 Miliar Rupiah, saya mengikuti semua prosedur, saya berpikir bahwa Saya tidak akan mendapatkan pinjaman, tetapi saya sangat senang bahwa pinjaman saya diteruskan dan dikirimkan ke rekening bank saya dalam waktu 2 hari setelah verifikasi dan otentikasi. Sekarang saya telah berdiri di perusahaan saya yang sebelumnya. Saya telah membayar semua hutang saya sekarang dan saya memiliki kedudukan keuangan yang stabil ketika saya menulis pesan ini. Jadi, jika ada orang di sini yang ingin mengajukan pinjaman, Anda harus menghubungi MRS REBACCA ALMA LOAN COMAPNY dalam emailnya, mereka adalah satu-satunya pemberi pinjaman nyata, yang lain palsu. Cukup ikuti semua prosedur dalam Rabacca Alma Loan dan saya jamin Anda akan mendapat pinjaman, sebaiknya Anda tidak kehilangan uang seperti saya.
Rabacca Alma Meminjamkan The Good Mother Rincian Kontak. Silakan hubungi dia dia sah.
Nama: Rebacca Alma
Telepon: +14052595662
WhatsApp: +14052595662
https://Instagram.com/rebaccaalma
e_mail: rebaccaalmaloancompany@gmail.com
Situs web: https://rebaccaalmaloancompany.blogspot.com
Hubungi saya juga sehingga saya dapat memberikan informasi dan perkumpulan lebih lanjut:
Email Saya: ampanglusiburhan@gmail.com
Nama: Ampang Luci Burhan
Alamat: Semarang
Negara: Indonesia
Telepon: +62 81223046876
WhatsApp: +62 81223046876
Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
Tolong kalian semua harus membaca apa yang saya katakan. . . .
BalasHapusBiarkan saya perkenalkan dulu diri saya, Nama saya Adhityas Kripsiani, saya berasal dari kota Bandung, saya bekerja sebagai karyawan di salah satu perusahaan di Yogyakarta.
Harapan saya dan impian tertinggi saya adalah ingin memiliki bisnis atau toko sendiri, tetapi jika Anda hanya mengandalkan gaji Anda, mungkin butuh waktu yang sangat lama di mana biaya sewa dan anak-anak yang telah terakumulasi hanya akan lebih sulit dan lebih lama mimpi itu tidak akan terwujud
Saya mencoba "buka internet dan saya melihat tulisan orang-orang sukses yang dibantu oleh seorang klerus dari sana saya mencoba untuk menghubunginya, pada awalnya saya terus mengirim sms sampai saya mendapat balasan dari perusahaan yang merupakan awal kesuksesan saya. Jika Anda mau untuk mendapatkan cara mudah menuju SOLUSI MUDAH, CEPAT MEMBAYAR HUTANG ANDA, DAN MASALAH EKONOMI LAINNYA, TANPA KEBUTUHAN RITUAL, CEPAT CEPAT. Saya mencoba menghubungi Perusahaan Pinjaman Rebacca Alma dengan kompensasi yang sama untuk impian saya dan untuk membayar hutang, terima kasih Tuhan kepada Tuhan yang maha kuasa melalui bantuannya. Saya sekarang membuka bisnis distribusi di Bandung. Sekali lagi saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih banyak kepada Erlina Tuty Sartika untuk merujuk saya ke perusahaan pinjaman tempat saya mencapai impian saya sekarang.
Hubungi ibu yang baik REBACCA ALMA LOAN COMPANY melalui emailnya: rebaccaalmaloancompany@gmail.com Untuk penjelasan lebih rinci, silakan. Anda juga dapat menghubunginya melalui Whatsapp +14052595662
Anda mungkin ingin mengajukan pertanyaan, hubungi saya melalui email saya adhityaskripsiani@gmail.com. Anda juga dapat menghubungi wanita yang merujuk saya ke perusahaan pinjaman yang sah ini. Erlina Tuty Sartika email: erlinatutysartika15@gmail.com
Anda tidak perlu ragu atau dibodohi dan dikejar-kejar oleh hutang lagi, sekarang saya berbagi pengalaman yang saya rasakan dan buktikan. Semoga bermanfaat. Amin ...
Hello everyone,
BalasHapusMy name is Mrs Shinta Angga, I live in Sihanoukville here in Cambodia and i am a happy woman today and i've decided to share my testimoney hear, i was in need of a loan to carry out a construction project and a friend introduced me to GANNETT INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LLP indeed they delivered as they promised, And not only did i complete the project i also had the advantage of an incredible opportunity to relocate and expand my business, at a pivotal time. The support I received from "Gannett International Finance LLP" staff was priceless." - Nancy Bosben,
If you are in need of financing, don’t hesitate to contact them through
WhatsApp: +447449373835 or
E-mail: loans@gannettfinancellp.com
"Thank you (Gannett International Finance LLP) for having faith in us to get us started!"