Thursday, September 29, 2016

Trump the bitter misogynist, shooting himself in the foot in his own mouth

Trump lost to Hillary, badly, in the post debate campaigning.

His vaunted winning in unscientific polling is a lie; those polls where he did show ahead were hacked by 4chan and other alt-right white supremacist and neo-nazi thugs. Those are not 'real' numbers, and if he wants us to believe he is savvy enough to govern without prior experience, he better know this.

On the upside, at least this wasn't rigging by Russians this time.

From the Daily Dot:

4chan and Reddit bombarded debate polls to declare Trump the winner

Donald Trump supporters artificially manipulated the results of online polls to create a false narrative that the Republican nominee won the first presidential debate on Monday night.
The efforts originated from users of the pro-Trump Reddit community r/The_Donald and 4chan messaged boards, which bombarded around 70 polls, including those launched by Time, Fortune, and CNBC.
As Stephen Colbert noted, Trump also claimed he won a CBS poll.............except CBS didn't DO a post-debate poll.  Trump exaggerates himself, while he diminishes the very real accomplishments of others.  He is an egregious liar, as noted by USA Today which just declared him unsuitable and unqualified to be president, in an historic sort of anti-endorsement.

[USA Today] went on to list and expand on eight reasons for its stance, including: "He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief," "He traffics in prejudice," and "He’s a serial liar."
"Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent," the editorial said.

When Trump realizes he can't bully Hillary, because she deals with him so deftly, making him look the jerk he is, he goes after another woman instead on whom to vent his frustration. The surrogate this time for his bitterness and frustration is a woman he successfully bullied before, Ms. Alicia Machado. Trump complains bitterly that Machado gained weight, but Trump himself has been a bit of a porker for some time now, and if anyone has long term problems controlling what goes in or comes out of their mouth, including his own foot, it is clearly Trump, not Machado.

Trump has alternately defended and denied his interactions with Machado, which is itself a contradiction.  His conduct, whether he 'saved her job' or not, was wrong.  But this follows a similar pattern where Trump has excused the sexual harassment misconduct of his buddy, another ugly pig of a man in every sense of the word, Roger Ailes, giving him a pass because he paid women and helped their careers.  Apparently in Trump's dead-animal-covered mind, when a woman works for you he thinks you own her, and can abuse her, that she is not entitled and deserving of respect or consideration.  No COMPETENT executive treats employees this way, and it bodes ill for how Trump would conduct himself in the oval office.  His vulgarity is only exceeded by his misogyny and his ego.

Now, apparently not caring what kind of hole he is digging for himself with Latino/Latina voters, where this is widely being discussed and covered in Spanish language news in swing states like Florida, Trump is now claiming - as the New York Times noted, without evidence - that a sex tape exists featuring Ms Machado.  Machado DID pose nude for Playboy, but Trump appeared on the cover of Playboy himself, (clothed, thank God) so he can hardly FAIRLY complain about that. Further, Trump's own wife has posed in actual porn photos, so it is not perhaps wise for Trump to indulge in attempted slut shaming, although he may very well lack the presence of mind to recognize that.  Clearly Trump's hypocrisy rises far taller than his tallest building to date.

It appears that Trump is intending to attack Hillary on the basis of Bill's infidelity; given, AGAIN, Trump's own conduct and that of a number of his surrogates and advisors, like Rudy Guiliani and the Nut Gingrich, that cannot possibly end well.  Particularly since there is no evidence that Hillary has ever engaged in adultery.  Not Trump, not Guiliani and certainly not Nut G can fairly claim to be supporters of 'traditional monogamous marriage'.

He has gone on to claim Machado was involved in a murder plot, something claimed b a disgruntled ex-boyfriend, but she was never charged, much less prosecuted.  Rather this appears to be a he-said-she-said accusation without merit.  While the boyfriend was indicted he does not appear to have been convicted; THAT has been Trump's own 'out' before, notably in his settlement of two race discrimination cases and for accusations against him of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  Perhaps we should call him "Double-standard Drumpf", or maybe "Double-standard Donald"?

There is an irony here in so far as Machado did not gain nearly the amount of weight claimed by Trump, successfully took her body and her career in hand, successfully was the spokesperson for a diet aid in Latin American, and has been consistently successful internationally following her year as Miss Universe, including success as an actress, singer and dancer, AND reality tv star far beyond the accomplishments wold wide in reality tv of Donald Trump. It would be fair to say Trump is not good with numbers. By not good I mean in a Republican Math kind of way where numbers exist to exaggerate and lie, not as factual numeric values. Most recently, not only was Trump gone from NBC, who asserts they do not want him back post-campaign, but also that Trump has per NBC grossly exaggerated his compensation numbers as far back as 2011.

I think it is a reasonable expectation that Trump will be making that face below again and again in the next few weeks, as he gets beaten by Hillary, and probably by Alicia Machado as well.  He is continuing to lose ground with women, including Republican and other conservative women.  Women will beat him in the general election, perhaps more than any other demographic.

And Trump will have a long time to make the sour face below:

When is Trump moving HIS products back to the US? Part 2

Given the OTHER markets outside the US for Ford products, and the import of US made components to manufacture Ford cars, Trump's plan would make them less competitive in the US, but still very competitive elsewhere in other large markets in this hemisphere.  The Trump Tax would be counterproductive, ONLY hurting the US market.  It is NOT a strategy that would stop Ford expansion as a world brand -- world branding is something you would think Trump understands better than his debate and policy positions show.  Trump's policies would only harm the US economy and US consumers.

Other sources have cited Moody's Analytics as supporting Hillary's economic policies, but there are others, notably Oxford Economics, a Brit firm with offices in the US as well as the UK. That includes the Wharton School from which Trump graduated.

From CNN Money:
Oxford Economics found that if fully implemented, Trump's economic, tax and immigration policies would cost 4 million U.S. jobs, weigh down global growth and U.S. consumer spending, and could spark a trade war with other nations.
"Combining these policies together, the impact could be significantly negative for the U.S. economy," says Jamie Thompson, head of macro scenarios at Oxford Economics.
Oxford's figures are in line with other analysis. The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Budget Model forecasts Trump's immigration policy costing 4 million jobs and Moody's economist Mark Zandi -- a Clinton supporter -- also forecasts a similar job loss under Trump.

Thompson argues that Trump could hurt the very workers he says he'll help in America's manufacturing sector. In Oxford's "adverse case scenario" Trump slaps a 35% tariff on goods coming from Mexico, like cars and air conditioners.
But the problem is that almost half of the parts in those cars and ACs originate from U.S. suppliers. In other words, U.S. manufacturers who ship to Mexico stand to lose customers if the U.S. imposes a tariff on the products they contribute to.
CNNMoney also found similar stories when we spoke to denim manufacturers in South Carolina. They send an overwhelming amount of denim to Mexico, where it is cut and sewn into jeans, which are sold in America. They say NAFTA, the trade deal with Mexico and Canada, is critical.
"Without NAFTA, we would be out of business," says Rich Turner, who employs 2,700 workers at his denim plant in Mauldin, S.C. Turner is still supporting Trump because he refuses to vote for Hillary Clinton.


Wednesday, September 28, 2016

How Trump is wrong on protectionism, anti-globalism, and in-sourcing jobs


Trump of the tiny hands and big mouth is apparently willfully ignorant about jobs, outsourcing, the national economy and the global economy.  He is specifically bone ignorant about the auto industry generally and Ford Motor Company specifically.

1. Ford is NOT firing anyone when it exports jobs to Mexico.  Rather it is retooling the existing Ford plant in the US, a process of investment in US manufacturing which itself creates jobs, and it is continuing to employ all of the existing workers on a different set of vehicles.
As noted by CNN Money:
The automaker quickly shot down Donald Trump’s latest hyperbolic claim, made on Fox News Thursday, that Ford plans to “fire all its employees in the United States” as part of a plan to build a plant in Mexico.
Ford said there will be zero job losses in the U.S. as a result of the new plant in Mexico. The Wayne, Michigan, plant that now builds the Focus and C-Max that will move to Mexico will instead start building other models — probably the new Ford Bronco SUV and Ranger small pickup.
“Ford has been in the United States for more than 100 years. Our home is here. We will be here forever,” said spokeswoman Christine Baker.
The company has 85,000 U.S. employees, up 28,000, or nearly 50%, in just the last five years. It has 8,800 employees at Mexican plants, and will add 2,800 jobs there when the new $1.6 billion plant opens there in 2018.
Ford committed to build new vehicles at the Michigan Assembly Plant to take the place of the Focus and C-Max when it reached a new contract late last year with the United Auto Workers union, which represents 3,900 hourly workers at the plant.
2. This shift in manufacturing models is because, as noted in multiple sources, the small cars being sent to Mexico are the least profitable in the United States.
Again from CNN Money:
The small cars Ford is shifting to Mexico are less popular and less profitable models. Trump has been using Ford for months as a prime example of what’s wrong with U.S. trade policy, but Ford has been strongly rebutting the GOP nominee.
3. Cars are assembled, but not manufactured in Mexico; the parts (at least 50%) from which the cars are assembled are made in the United States. That is ACTUAL US manufacturing and product export, unlike the assembly process.
Continuing from CNN Money, addressing multiple products including cars:
But the problem is that almost half of the parts in those cars and ACs originate from U.S. suppliers. In other words, U.S. manufacturers who ship to Mexico stand to lose customers if the U.S. imposes a tariff on the products they contribute to.
4. Cars assembled in Mexico and other foreign countries are not ONLY sold to the US market, they are also sold in many other nations. Central and South America are among the biggest new markets for US vehicles, both used and new, comprising considerable exports that benefit the US economy. This is part of the United States maintaining a competitive economic global presence, which is arguably most important in our own part of the globe.
From the LA Times:
Vehicle sales growth in China, now the world’s No. 1 car market, is grabbing headlines. But Latin American countries including Brazil, Peru, Argentina and Colombia also are seeing car sales skyrocket. A rapidly expanding middle class and easier credit are feeding the regionwide boom.
5. Trump policies panders to xenophobic anti-immigrant members that comprise the majority of his base; however what would really result from those policies is a loss of jobs, NOT the expansion of jobs in the United States.  It is worth noting that multiple sources (besides those listed below) find the same thing, INCLUDING the Wharton School from which Trump himself graduated.
From another piece at CNN money:
Oxford Economics found that if fully implemented, Trump’s economic, tax and immigration policies would cost 4 million U.S. jobs, weigh down global growth and U.S. consumer spending, and could spark a trade war with other nations.
“Combining these policies together, the impact could be significantly negative for the U.S. economy,” says Jamie Thompson, head of macro scenarios at Oxford Economics.
Oxford’s figures are in line with other analysis. The University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Budget Model forecasts Trump’s immigration policy costing 4 million jobs and Moody’s economist Mark Zandi — a Clinton supporter — also forecasts a similar job loss under Trump.
6. The buying power and a resultant decline in the standard of living from an overwhelming majority of US citizens and residents would be the actual effect, not the result that Donald Trump is selling to largely economics illiterate supporters.  This is the antithesis of what Trump claims he would do in making America great again.  Going this time to economists from a far right source, although this is a finding broadly found across the political spectrum of economics, we see from the National Review, in reference to actual tariffs imposed on China by the Obama administration, that relate directly to auto manufacturing and consumption:
By 2009, the United States was importing tires from China at a rate of about 50 million per year. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union complained to the Obama administration that there was a “large, rapid, and continuing” increase in the number of Chinese-made tires entering American markets. In September of that year, Obama approved relief for domestic producers by increasing tariffs on most new tire imports for three years.
But the tariff also forced consumers to spend $1.1 billion more on tires than they otherwise would have — or roughly $900,000 per U.S. tire industry job created. And retaliatory tariffs imposed by the Chinese further hurt our economy. In early 2010, China’s Ministry of Commerce imposed tariffs ranging from 50.3 to 105.4 percent on American poultry imports, which “reduced exports by $1 billion as U.S. poultry firms experienced a 90 percent collapse in their exports of chicken parts to China,” according to Hufbauer and Lowry.

When is Trump moving HIS products back to the US? Part 1

Trump big-mouth tiny-hands talks big about trade.

He brags about his many businesses and the items with his name on them.

So when is Trump going to promote American companies by putting his name on ONLY products here? Oh, wait ---- when he does that, those companies fail.  ONLY companies owned and run by someone else using his name seem to do well consistently. That includes the Trump golf courses overseas which are NOT doing well.  PBS Newshour did an excellent profile on the Trump businesses and outsourcing jobs HERE.

And the PBS News piece goes on to note:
It is obvious that consumers, already hard pressed by weak income growth, would see their buying power further constrained. But many would also discover their jobs are threatened. Our economy is currently deeply linked to the rest of the world, and millions of U.S. workers are employed in companies that sell imported goods and use imported components in the products they manufacture in the USA. Trump’s tariffs would wreak havoc with global supply chains and force many companies to reduce employment. In addition, foreigners would undoubtedly retaliate against our exports as they would be entitled to do under our trade agreements. Think about what a trade war would do to investment and employment.

As to Trump's claims about US companies, he does not prepare well for debates and other policy presentation;  he is not factual, he does NOT do his homework.  He was WRONG WRONG WRONG about Ford motor company sending jobs to Mexico costing US jobs.  They are shifting their LESS POPULAR models to Mexico, where they will no doubt be sold across Mexico, Central and South America as well as some brought back into the US.  Trump utterly fails to understand the US global market for US cars, unlike the analysis done by the LA Times on such sales.  But there is entirely new manufacturing in the same facility which is being retooled here.  NO jobs are being lost, and some new jobs are being created by the retooling process.

From CNN Money:
The automaker quickly shot down Donald Trump's latest hyperbolic claim, made on Fox News Thursday, that Ford plans to "fire all its employees in the United States" as part of a plan to build a plant in Mexico.
Ford said there will be zero job losses in the U.S. as a result of the new plant in Mexico. The Wayne, Michigan, plant that now builds the Focus and C-Max that will move to Mexico will instead start building other models -- probably the new Ford Bronco SUV and Ranger small pickup.
"Ford has been in the United States for more than 100 years. Our home is here. We will be here forever," said spokeswoman Christine Baker.
The company has 85,000 U.S. employees, up 28,000, or nearly 50%, in just the last five years. It has 8,800 employees at Mexican plants, and will add 2,800 jobs there when the new $1.6 billion plant opens there in 2018.
Ford committed to build new vehicles at the Michigan Assembly Plant to take the place of the Focus and C-Max when it reached a new contract late last year with the United Auto Workers union, which represents 3,900 hourly workers at the plant.
And while Ford is shifting production of all small cars to Mexico, it will continue to make many car models at U.S. plants, including the iconic Mustang.
The small cars Ford is shifting to Mexico are less popular and less profitable models. Trump has been using Ford for months as a prime example of what's wrong with U.S. trade policy, but Ford has been strongly rebutting the GOP nominee.
The issue surfaced again on Wednesday when a Ford executive, speaking at a conference for investors, reiterated the company's plans to move its small car production to Mexico. During a Fox News interview, Trump vowed to impose a 35% tax on cars built in Mexico if they're shipped back to the U.S.
"They think they're going to get away with this and they fire all their employees in the United States and...move to Mexico," said Trump. "When that car comes back across the border into our country that now comes in free, we're gonna charge them a 35% tax. And you know what's gonna happen, they're never going to leave."
This is called protectionism; it doesn't work. Trump's policy plan for reducing the outsourcing of jobs has been widely debunked as crap by economists who have looked at how this has worked when it was tried before.  It hurts, not helps, the economy and does not result in significant job saving.

Donald Trump, DON'T do black Americans any more of your "favors"!

There was no positive thing done by Donald Trump for ANY Americans, least of all black Americans in promoting birtherism, or in the goal of birtherism to de-legitimize the first black President by attacking his citizenship.

That is a spin too far.

Rather than quote his self-congratulatory toxic sludge, here is the video of the worst of his comments during the debate.




Hat tip to the Washington Monthly for the video link that demonstrates the reality of black American feeling, with which Trump is dangerously, tragically out of touch.  This kind of thinking portends policies that will incite a firestorm of racial unrest, the furthest possible antithesis of national healing.

I commend the eloquence of Mr. Thurston's video.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Trump was wrong about Stop and Frisk

Call it lies, or call it ignorance; either way it does not reflect well on Trump for president.  Stop and Frisk does not decrease crime. 

Among the many ways that Trump was wrong, or outright lied, in the first presidential debate was on Stop and Frisk - among many other topics.
Stop an Frisk does not work, as well as being unconstitutional.   Trump knows, or should know, that to be true.  Instead he persists in defending the indefensible.
The fourth amendment guarantees against the overreach of governmental authority, which conservatives give empty lip service claims to valuing:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
And the NYC Civil Liberties Union found that Stop and Frisk erodes community confidence in the police, while NOT being effective in stopping crime. Effectively, there is no up side, while there is a significant down side to stop and frisk.  Further it argues for a failure to grasp basic cause and effect.
“While violent crimes fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2010, other large cities experienced larger violent crime declines without relying on stop and frisk abuses: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, 49 percent in Dallas, and 37 percent in Baltimore."

Donald Trump did NOT fare well in the debate, not in self control, but especially not the fact checks

Image result for donald trump, clown, penigmaThere were a number of fact check failures for Trump, most notably that he was wrong on ISIS controlling oil in Libya, he was wrong on blaming Obama for the way we left Iraq, and he was especially wrong about Clinton and her campaign starting birtherism.

From CBS.com fact checking:
TRUMP STATEMENT:  ISIS has “oil all over the place, including the oil, a lot of the oil, in Libya.”
FACT CHECK: According to a Bloomberg analysis, Libyan oil fields and pipelines are controlled by a combination of the Government of National Accord, allies of the Tripoli Petroleum Facilities Guard, and the Libyan National Army (and groups aligned with them).
Claudia Gazzini, a Tripoli-based senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told the Washington Post that it was simply not true that the Islamic State has control of any Libyan oil.
“While it is true that ISIS has attacked oil fields in the Sirte basin area and destroyed key equipment there, they have not sought to keep control of the oil fields,” Gazzini said.
and
Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, told Wolf Blitzer a volunteer forwarded an email promoting “birtherism” and that that person was fired. “The campaign nor Hillary did not start the ‘birther’ movement, period, end of story,” Solis Doyle told CNN, saying the volunteer’s actions were “beyond the pale” and that Clinton called Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to apologize.
Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton confidante but not a current campaign staffer, denies ever contacting McClatchy; the former McClatchy bureau chief, James Asher, recently said he clearly recalled the conversation with Blumenthal.
What CBS either omitted or did not know is that James Asher no longer is making the claim of recalling the Blumenthal conversation, and that the investigatory mission to Kenya by McClatchy news was the result of multiple stories being published at the time.

Trump fat out LIED when he claimed he only filed for bankruptcy four times -- which is a LOT of bankruptcies.  Four bankruptcies argues being very bad at business. It was not four it was six bankruptcies. 

Again per CBS and politifact (because it is important to multisource):
FACT CHECK: Clinton is correct. When Politifact looked into this issue, they found six times that Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: The Trump Taj Mahal in 1991; Trump Castle in 1992; Trump Plaza and Casino in 1992; the Plaza Hotel in 1992; Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004; and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009.
I think my greatest outrage is that Trump believes he is in some way more presidential APPEARING than Clinton. Ms. Clinton was elegantly groomed and very presentable. Trump in contrast, has demanded that his appearance NOT be an issue, while he has repeatedly demeaned his women opponents from Carly Fiorina to Clinton, and has demeaned women more broadly, including those in his employ. Women are not qualified or unqualified from office on the basis of appearance. But if we were going to assess ability on the basis of appearance, Trump is a fat, jowly, puffy-eyed, badly spray-tanned smirking swine with an unattractive piece of roadkill on his head, like a tacky version of a Daniel Boone hat. He is in no position to criticize anyone's appearance, other than he clearly believes this view of women as sexual objects and male accessories, sometimes called the demeaning term eye candy, is the exclusive prerogative of men.

The hypocrisy in this, the obscene double standard, is that Trump behaved badly, interrupting Clinton repeatedly - in the first 26 minutes of the debate, Trump interrupted Hillary 25 times, per Vox.

Huff Po referred to this an manterupting:
Manterrupting, defined by journalist and author Feminist Fight Club Jessica Bennett as “unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man,” is a phenomenon that many professional women are (unfortunately) familiar with.
A 2014 study found that women are significantly more likely to be interrupted than men are, and research has shown that when women do speak up, their words are given less weight and treated as less valid than men’s. This phenomenon is especially problematic in fields ― like politics ― which are dominated by men’s voices just by virtue of the numbers.
Women who want to circumvent these professional obstacles have to learn to play the game, and part of that game means dealing with the frustrating habits of one’s male colleagues ― or in the case of a presidential race, one’s political opponents. As Clinton well knows, in order to avoid having her words dismissed, she has to modulate the way she presents her ideas in a way that male candidates simply don’t.
To Clinton’s credit, she appeared unperturbed by Trump’s attempts to verbally bulldoze over her. Each and every time, she kept speaking, often with a sly smile. Because as any professional woman knows, the best way to shut down a manterrupter is to simply refuse to acknowledge him.

Although to be fair, Trump also talked over the moderator, and Hillary Clinton in the second half of the debate did interrupt Trump a few times as well, 17 total to Trump interrupting her 51 times.

I hope this was not a drinking game exercise for the good folks over at Vox.

Counting the interruptions of both candidates by moderator Lester Holt, Clinton was interrupted a total of 70 times, and Trump was interrupted 47 times.
Some of Trump’s interruptions of Clinton featured outright lies, like insisting that he never said climate change was a Chinese conspiracy, or denying that he ever said some of the offensive things about women that Clinton called him out on saying.
Some of his interruptions were petulant asides; at one point he even threw in a one-word, schoolboy-like “Not.”
Other interruptions turned into loud, insistent filibusters, with Trump barreling over Clinton until she finally smiled and relented to let him keep talking — or until Holt interjected to insist that Trump give Clinton her allotted two minutes to talk.
If anything renders someone "unpresidential" it would be this Trump failure to control his mouth and his toxic attitudes of special entitlement towards others.

Friday, September 23, 2016

and a little more Friday Fun, some FB wit and wisdom via John Fugelsang

It's another Friday Fun Day, something for a change from politics

And now for a completely different post from the usual politics and economics and genera social commentary.


Ah, but can it parallel park?

Still current eventstopical, in an era seeing the beginnings of self-driving cars.

This is a remote controlled car, not a car you can actually ride in.

This is from MSN autos
Nerds of a certain age have wanted their very own transformer since the very first time we watched Optimus kick the crap out of Megatron thirty-some years ago. Now, thanks to an ambitious Turkish company, that dream may finally come true. According to Gizmodo, a company out of Ankara, Turkey called Letvision unveiled a transforming robot based on a BMW 3 Series coupe. A series of videos hosted on Letvision's website and YouTube account showed Letrons, as the bright red transformer is called, being put through its paces by an operator with a remote control.