Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump include altri cinque giudici nella lista per la Supreme Court.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-22.

Supreme Court

«Already well on his way to reshaping the federal judiciary, President Trump announced Friday the names of five more conservative jurists that he will consider for the next Supreme Court vacancy»

*

«While there are no current vacancies on the Court, there has been persistent speculation about possible retirements, including liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and swing-vote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di capire cosa ciò possa significare.

Trump. Silurato ed affondato l’Office of Congressional Ethics.

Trump ed il nodo della Supreme Court.

America. Differenza tra il titolo di Judge e di Justice.

Trump. Supreme Court. Il chiodo nella carne dei democratici.

*

Giudice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Decano della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti.

Trump. Neil Gorsuch nominato alla Suprema Corte. Sviluppi futuri.

Stati Uniti. È in corso una guerra civile. Occorre prenderne atto.

Guerra civile americana. Si avvicina lo scontro finale.

Trump. Lunedì scatta l’operazione sulle Corti di Giustizia. Una vera rivoluzione.

* * * * * * *

L’Amministrazione Obama, con il pieno supporto del partito democratico, ha mutato la Corte Suprema da giudice ultimo e serenamente obiettivo di costituzionalità in strumento di azione politica. Nessuno intende usare parole grosse, che qui sarebbero peraltro appropriate: si constata che sotto la pregressa Amministrazione la Corte Suprema ha dichiarato essere costituzionale oppure incostituzionale ciò che tale pareva essere agli occhi del Former President Obama. Le motivazioni politiche hanno prevalso su quelle giuridiche.

Questa mutazione ha cambiato la tecnica di governo: tutto ciò che non era possibile con le urne o con il parlamento, lo diventava nelle aule dei tribunali. Le corti di giustizia diventavano immediatamente un potentissimo strumento di dominio. Dal momento in cui i giudici potevano ‘interpretare‘ la legge invece che applicarla, tutto diventava possibile. Avere la Suprema Corte a schieramento democratico avrebbe consentito di sovvertire l’intero sistema democratico.

Infatti, la Suprema Corte emette sentenze inappellabili.

I liberal democratici hanno de facto istituito un regime ove governavano persone non elette, bensì nominate.

*

Orbene.

La Suprema Corte ha al momento l’organico ricoperto.

Da tempo corrono voci sempre più insistenti che il Giudice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ed il Giudice Anthony M. Kennedy potrebbero ritirarsi. Si dice anche che non abbiamo ottima salute.

Se ciò avvenisse entro il mandato di Mr Trump, l’orientamento della Corte Suprema passerebbe ai repubblicani, e per almeno una quarantina di anni.

Ciò fa comprendere l’attuale clima da guerra civile.


The Washington Times. 2017-11-19. Trump announces five more judges to be considered for Supreme Court

Already well on his way to reshaping the federal judiciary, President Trump announced Friday the names of five more conservative jurists that he will consider for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

The new list of candidates for the high court includes Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative stalwart on the high-profile U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Also named as potential Supreme Court picks are Judge Amy Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Britt Grant of the Georgia Supreme Court; Judge Kevin Newsom of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick.

While there are no current vacancies on the Court, there has been persistent speculation about possible retirements, including liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and swing-vote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The White House said the new candidates, who are added to the president’s original campaign list of 20 potential judicial nominees, are in the mold of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“President Trump will choose a nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, from this updated list of 25 individuals,” the White House said. “The president remains deeply committed to identifying and selecting outstanding jurists in the mold of Justice Gorsuch. These additions, like those on the original list released more than a year ago, were selected with input from respected conservative leaders.”

Judicial Crisis Network chief counsel and policy director Carrie Severino called the new candidates “some of the best and brightest judges in the nation.”

“These men and women have spent years in the trenches of state and federal government fighting for the Constitution and the rule of law,” she said. “They represent a diverse range of backgrounds, including both state and federal judges, three who were former state solicitors general with first-hand experience protecting our constitutional balance of powers.”

In his first year in office, Mr. Trump has already appointed eight federal appeals court judges, the most at this point in a presidency since President Richard Nixon. The Senate is expected to confirm his ninth appellate judicial nominee — former Trump deputy White House counsel Gregory Katsas — within weeks.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump

Mobilize America. Le dimostrazioni dei liberal non portano voti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-19.

2017-11-17__Virginia__002

Mr Trump è un outsider: è alieno sia al partito democratico sia al partito repubblicano.

Non è un politico di professione, bensì un industriale, ed è arrivato alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti chiamando a raccolta tutte le componenti dei comparti produttivi, quasi in opposizione al mondo finanziario e, soprattutto, a quello di burocrati federali e statali.

Né è riconosciuto da parte delle numerose lobby trasversali, ovvero centri di interessi e poteri che contano membri in ambedue i partiti che da due secoli si alternano al potere negli Stati Uniti.

*

Questo è il motivo di fondo per cui ha vinto tutte le competizioni elettorali tenutesi nel corso dell’anno, nonostante una campagna avversa parlamentare e sui media senza precedenti nella storia.

È un anno che i liberal democratici cercano un qualsiasi cavillo per poter fare avviare una pratica di impeachment, senza riuscirci.

È un anno che i media lo bombardano in continuazione, senza cavar altro che Cnn e The New York Times hanno dovuto licenziare dei loro giornalisti che avevano mentito oltre ogni limite dell’umana creduloneria.

Trump. CNN, NYT ed AP ammettono di aver riportato artatamente notizie false su Mr Trump.

CNN Accused of Blackmailing The Reddit User Who Made Trump Wrestling Meme

Trump. La CNN come la mafia intimidisce l’autore delle vignette animate.

Questa strada si è dimostrata non solo improduttiva, ma anche controproducente.

Cnn. Crollo dell’audience dopo la pubblicazione di troppe fake news.

* * *

«Almost as soon as Donald Trump was elected, an energetic resistance arose to counter him, spawning hundreds of new grass-roots activist groups and the Jan. 21 Women’s March that drew 2.6 million protesters in Washington, D.C., and across the globe»

*

«But Democrats have learned the hard way that antipathy for Trump doesn’t automatically translate to votes—and if the resistance marchers don’t show up at the ballot box next year, their protests won’t matter»

*

Risultati elettorali non si sono visti: quelli che ci sono stati sconfessano le azioni pregresse.

Adesso i nemici di Mr Trump stanno tentando un’altra via.

«Since November, a new generation of progressive entrepreneurs and activists have quit their jobs to run for office or launch startups aimed at helping Democrats identify and turn out supporters, especially among groups like millennials and minorities that didn’t show up for Clinton»

*

Tra queste nuove iniziative segnaliamo MobilizeAmerica.

«After the recent presidential election, a small army of U.S. citizens started forming various groups aimed at, among other things, electing Democratic candidates. There’s a lengthy list of these folks: Swing Left, Sister District Project, Red2Blue. You get the idea. …. Building a platform allowing people to find out about and sign on with activities seemed like a good idea. But to be sure, they ended up talking to more than 300 people over two months “to validate what was needed, as opposed to building a piece of technology and trying to put it out in the world,” …. They also created videos teaching people about how to canvass door to door, among other actions»

*

La prova sul campo è avvenuta in Virginia, nelle elezioni del 7 novembre.

La Virginia era ed è rimasta uno stato democratico, ma non per questo è esente da tutte le contraddizioni politiche riscontrabili di norma nelle elezioni locali, ove il fascino di un candidato può superare l’avversione al partito che rappresenta.

La Virginia ha in Campidoglio11 rappresentanti, sette repubblicani e quattro democratici, ma i due senatori sono ambedue democratici.

«According to the reported count as of November 8, 2017, Republicans lead in 51 seats, and Democrats lead in 49 seats …. Virginia state law provides that election results for the 2017 election will be certified by its State Board of Elections on November 24, 2017 (the 4th Friday of November)» [Fonte]

È stato un buon risultato elettorale, tenendo conto che i repubblicani avevano 66 seggi contro i 34 dei democratici: tuttavia non è stato sufficiente per un epsilon a conquistare la maggioranza.

Il Governatore è stato invece riconfermato democratico con il 53.0% dei voti, contro il repubblicano a 44.97%.

*

La rimonta democratica è evidente, ma con un grande scollamento tra i risultati delle elezioni a governatore e quelle per il Congresso locale.

* * * * * * *

Sicuramente il metodo porta-a-porta è molto più fruttifero della contrapposizione muro-a-muro finora perseguita.


Bloomberg. 2017-11-07. Can Democrats Harness the #Resistance?

The party’s fortunes hinge on turning anti-Trump energy into votes. A wave of new startups aims to help.

*

Almost as soon as Donald Trump was elected, an energetic resistance arose to counter him, spawning hundreds of new grass-roots activist groups and the Jan. 21 Women’s March that drew 2.6 million protesters in Washington, D.C., and across the globe. But Democrats have learned the hard way that antipathy for Trump doesn’t automatically translate to votes—and if the resistance marchers don’t show up at the ballot box next year, their protests won’t matter. In her new memoir, Hillary Clinton expresses admiration for them, but adds a dig: “I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election?”

Clinton wasn’t the only one to whom this thought occurred. Since November, a new generation of progressive entrepreneurs and activists have quit their jobs to run for office or launch startups aimed at helping Democrats identify and turn out supporters, especially among groups like millennials and minorities that didn’t show up for Clinton.

To reach people who didn’t vote, it helps to meet them on their turf, with enough of an enticement to grab their attention. That’s why, one night in September, the staff of MobilizeAmerica, a new field-organizing app, was crammed into a dressing room backstage at an Arcade Fire concert at Capital One Arena in Washington—and why they’d brought along Danica Roem, the first transgender candidate to run for Virginia’s House of Delegates.

MobilizeAmerica was founded in May by two friends, Allen Kramer, 26, and Alfred Johnson, 31. Until last November, both were happily toiling in the private sector. Kramer, who grew up in New York City, worked at Bain & Co. in San Francisco. Johnson, who hails from Washington, played defensive end on Stanford’s football team, then stuck around Palo Alto for business school and a job at a fintech startup. Trump’s election jolted them in a new direction. “Alfred and I had a collective realization,” says Kramer, who’d returned to Bain after taking a leave to work on Clinton’s campaign. “I was helping a large corporation figure out how to sell IT hardware online. Quantitively, very interesting problem. But I’d just come back from the campaign with the gut-wrenching context of having seen what happened up close. We knew we had to do something.”

They quit their jobs and moved back east. With business-school rigor, they set off on a fact-finding tour, quizzing campaign managers, organizers, activists, and data scientists to find the gaps in the system that were causing Democrats up and down the ticket to lose winnable races. They were searching for a business idea. “We kept coming back to the fact that we had millions of people marching in the streets,” says Johnson. “There had to be ways to plug those people into the electoral opportunities that mattered most.”

What MobilizeAmerica landed on could be described as “Tinder for the Resistance”: a mobile app and web interface that matches grass-roots activists—many newly politicized by Trump—with nearby candidates who need volunteer support.

With seed funding from Higher Ground Labs, a Chicago-based progressive technology accelerator, Kramer and Johnson hired a small staff of engineers and organizers, and then fanned out across Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia to connect with hundreds of resistance groups, small and large. Like many of the new political-technology startups, MobilizeAmerica is focusing first on Virginia, the only battleground state with elections in 2017, and one that also approximates the larger country, with urban and rural areas and a fast-growing immigrant population. MobilizeAmerica chose to focus on a dozen House of Delegate races—including Roem’s.

“Local politics is a matter of quality of life and an issue of life and death”

If Virginia is a microcosm of America, then the 13th District race between Roem and the 13-term GOP incumbent, Bob Marshall, is like the 2016 presidential election glimpsed in a fun-house mirror: Everything is exaggerated even further. Roem grew up in the Northern Virginia district, working for nine years as a local political reporter and moonlighting as a singer in a heavy-metal band. She began her gender transition in 2013. Trump’s victory pushed her into electoral politics. “What the election taught me,” Roem says drily, a rainbow scarf in her hair, “is that there is literally nothing in my background that’s disqualifying. That bar is gone.” (Even in a race bursting with sociocultural significance, Roem’s campaign pitch is a hyperlocal focus on alleviated traffic congestion along Route 28, the district’s main thoroughfare. “Traffic hates everyone,” she notes.)

Her opponent, Marshall, is a kind of ur-Trump, who refuses to debate Roem or call her by her preferred gender pronoun. Marshall is best known for unsuccessfully pushing a state “bathroom bill” to dictate which restrooms transgender people can use in public buildings. Last week, his Republican backers sent out a campaign flier reminding voters that Roem was “born male.” But Marshall is falling out of step with his district, which is increasingly composed of highly educated voters and went for Clinton by 14 points. David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report calls the race a “toss-up” and a harbinger of national political sentiment heading into 2018.

Roem, in other words, is exactly the sort of candidate Democrats must find a way to push to victory. To boost her volunteer network and raise awareness of the election, MobilizeAmerica had gotten Arcade Fire’s Will Butler to livestream a pre-concert interview with Roem on the band’s Facebook page. “Local politics is a matter of quality of life and an issue of life and death,” Butler, wearing a “Butler-Roem” campaign button, told the 150,000 fans who tuned in. Trump “has treated a lot of people like garbage. So let’s get our shit together and help the people who need it the most.” 

Butler asked fans to text “MOBILIZE” to a special number if they could volunteer, a request he repeated at a late-night afterparty at a D.C. club, to which Arcade Fire had invited several hundred local friends. Johnson described these actions as “an engagement funnel” to pull motivated locals into a MobilizeAmerica list. The next morning, they were sent a video from Butler thanking them and asking them to join a recruitment effort. “Anger at Trump is important for convening volunteers,” Johnson says. “But it doesn’t necessarily move voters. They’re moved by local issues, such as Danica’s traffic campaign. Our job is to build a bridge that connects one to the other.”

On Nov. 7, Virginia’s elections will serve as a testing ground for MobilizeAmerica and dozens of similar efforts, with the goal of improving Democratic turnout next year. The vital question for Democrats is this: Can they harness the energy of the resistance and steer its members to the ballot box in 2018? Control of Congress, and the future of Trump’s presidency, hangs in the balance.

One reason Democrats struggle to turn out voters in down-ballot races is that the cutting-edge technology they’ve developed since Barack Obama’s rise has mostly been housed inside presidential campaigns. When the campaign ends, the tools vanish. Four years later, the process repeats. “Our reputation as Democrats is that we invest in technology, and that’s true,” says Betsy Hoover, a partner at Higher Ground Labs, who directed digital organizing for Obama’s 2012 campaign. “But the way we do that is really inefficient. We invest a ton of money inside a presidential campaign, which requires hard-dollar campaign donations that are difficult to raise and sustain. And then we build the same thing over and over. Down-ballot races never really benefit.”

After Trump’s victory, Hoover and two partners, staked to $3 million by Reid Hoffman and other Democratic donors, founded Higher Ground to provide mentorship and early-stage investment in politically focused tech startups. They hoped to foster an ecosystem outside of national campaigns and focus on state and local races, which often lack the specialized personnel and budget to make use of technology built for presidential races. 

“Where most people who invest in companies are looking for a monetary return, they’re looking first and foremost for a political return,” says Steve Spinner, the chief executive officer of RevUp, a fundraising company that grew out of his experience as a tech adviser and top fundraiser for Obama’s campaigns.

Over the summer, Higher Ground invested in 11 companies, many of them focused on reaching voters through mobile technology and social media. Field organizers Shola Farber, 27, and Michael Luciani, 25, who worked in Michigan for Clinton’s campaign, say this is important because two groups Democrats struggle to activate—young people and minorities—are more transient than others, making them harder to reach, since they often don’t own a landline telephone or pay for cable television.

“In the past it’s been hard to lure the brightest young minds in tech into the world of campaign politics”

Trump’s election prompted them, too, to leave their jobs and found the Tuesday Company, another HGL startup working in Virginia that’s developing “digital door-knocking” technology. While working for Clinton, Farber could see that the standard voter contact methods of door knocking, phone banking, and TV ads were not reaching many millennials. “When we talk to people via Facebook or text, they often don’t know there’s an election,” she says. A Tufts University poll taken a month before the 2016 election found that just 30 percent of millennials had been contacted by a campaign. “That’s a figure that haunts us,” says Luciani. 

Tuesday’s technology aims to extend field organizing’s best practices into the digital realm. “The one thing Democrats absolutely excel at is volunteers,” says Farber. “Our system uses a bottom-up approach to built a grass-roots volunteer network among voters who aren’t being reached by traditional Democrat efforts.” Tuesday’s app, Team, allows users to share campaign content with their social network. When friends “like” or comment on a video, meme, or GIF, Tuesday learns what issues excite them and can then encourage friend-to-friend outreach. Roem’s campaign is using the technology to connect with people whose doors are harder to knock on, either because they live in private buildings, gated communities, or rural areas difficult to canvass. 

Reaching voters through Facebook is particularly urgent, Luciani adds, because Trump’s campaign used the platform to send “dark posts” with negative messages to blacks and millennials to weaken their support for Clinton. “The same people that they don’t want to vote are the people we do want to vote,” he says.

Senior Clinton officials who have studied the reasons for her loss say these startup efforts are vital to reversing the party’s electoral doldrums. “In the past it’s been hard to lure the brightest young minds in tech into the world of campaign politics,” says Brian Fallon, a top Clinton campaign adviser. “We’ve still only really scratched the surface of social media platforms’ potential to make voter persuasion more effective, targeting more precise, and organizing more efficient. The coming midterms and even the down-ballot races [in Virginia] will give us the chance to experiment with new technologies.”

Unlike Silicon Valley startups, these enterprises offer little money or glamour for their young founders. Since leaving her job, Farber has spent nine months in couch-surfing transience as she works to launch the Tuesday Company. “There’s a generational aspect to many of these startups,” says Hoover, “a lot of energy and dedication, a lot of founders’ stories tied to the day after the election. Many of them pivoted, changed careers, or changed focus based on that moment. People are woke.”

“People are happier to engage by text than by phone. … That’s how we communicate with our friends. Calling would be weird”

On a Tuesday evening just before Halloween, the staff of MobilizeAmerica and a small crowd of volunteers are gathered in a downtown Washington loft for a weekly text-banking session, an update on the phone banks long employed by campaigns to contact voters. The scene looks oddly familiar, though more suited to a dormitory common room than an old-fashioned political campaign. Dozens of millennials are sprawled in comfortable chairs and couches amid towering stacks of pizza boxes and a few empty beer bottles, all peering intently at their laptops and iPhones. The purpose of all this virtual activity, however, is to generate real-world engagement that will lead to votes. 

“Texting is a more social form of recruitment,” says Yasmin Radjy, 30, MobilizeAmerica’s Virginia state director. “You hang out, you meet people, eat pizza, drink beer, and play music—all things you can’t do when you’re phone banking.” Radjy and other organizers have found it’s also more effective for reaching people. Unlike a phone call, a text message isn’t nearly so intrusive and allows people to answer at their leisure—and many do. “People are happier to engage by text than by phone,” she says, adding with a shrug, “It’s a level of intimacy that’s kind of crazy. But that’s how we communicate with our friends. Calling would be weird.”

On this night, Radjy and her cohorts are recruiting volunteers to Virginia from a list compiled by Do the Most Good, a resistance group in Montgomery County, Md., that’s partnered with MobilizeAmerica. They’re using a computer-based texting system designed by yet another HGL startup, Ground Game, which was founded by a former Clinton staffer.

One early discovery from the push into new technologies is that volunteers recruited by text are far more likely to follow through on their commitments. During the Clinton campaign, the “flake rate” among people who agreed by phone to volunteer ran as high as 90 percent. But Radjy says that those reached by text sign up for jobs and follow through, particularly when they’re members of enthusiastic resistance groups. “The conversion rate of SMS has been incredible,” she says. “Now, they’re showing up in higher numbers and volunteering.”

On weekends, these volunteers carpool or bus to the dozen Virginia districts MobilizeAmerica has targeted, to knock on doors and have the face-to-face conversations that are still the most reliable way of getting people to vote. As Radjy steps over scarecrows and Halloween pumpkins to canvass a row of townhouses in Gainesville on behalf of Roem, she ticks through a long list of resistance groups that have joined the effort, many of them formed in reaction to Trump.

It will take an enormous turnout for Democrats to flip the Virginia House of Delegates, which Republicans control 66-34. As polls tightened in recent weeks, even holding onto the governorship is no sure thing. 

Regardless of outcome, Johnson and his peers are convinced Virginia will leave Democrats better prepared to compete and win next year. “We have a better lens into the grass roots than almost anyone—the volunteers, the delegates, and all the local groups,” he says. “When we leave Virginia, we’ll know what works, how it works, and how it can work better—and all that will be brought to bear on the midterm elections.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Inizia l’escalation ai media liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-19.

2017-08-04__Trump TELEMMGLPICT000136310797-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqHwnvh86NCImGNxSron0kTyxqUYn5PGopOSNBtx07gTA

Mr Rupert Murdoch e Mr Donald Trump sembrerebbero essere legati da ottimi rapporti di lavoro nonché da una ragionevolmente buona amicizia.

Evitando giri di parole e l’uso del politicamente corretto, Mr Trump ed i repubblicani intendono acquisire i principali media americani, licenziare tutti i giornalisti liberal e sostituirli con personale fidato.

Il Pew ci assicura come l’influenza dei media a livello continentale sia molto bassa in termini di raccolta di voti,  ma questa operazione porterebbe via ai liberal democratici uno degli ultimi strumenti a loro mani.

Non a caso otto senatori democratici

«hanno scritto una lettera a Makan Delrahim, capo dell’ufficio antitrust, sollecitandolo ad opporsi a qualunque interferenza della Casa Bianca nelle decisioni dell’organismo di vigilanza.»

Ma non è detto che l’operazione possa essere condotta in modo tale da aggirare l’antitrust.

*

Staremo a vedere, ma Mr Trump sembrerebbe essere un avversario politico molto più robusto di quanto è solitamente detto.

Rupert Murdoch ‘interested in buying CNN’ after reports Trump administration may force AT&T to sell it

«Rupert Murdoch is said to be interested in buying CNN – which, if true, could prove to be an interesting development given Mr Murdoch’s reported close association with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly railed against the network. 

The news comes after reports saying Mr Trump’s administration may force AT&T to ditch the network to receive antitrust approval of its $85.4bn deal with Time Warner. 

According to Reuters, Mr Murdoch called AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson twice in the last six months and talked about CNN.»

*

Exclusive: Rupert Murdoch twice discussed CNN with AT&T CEO – sources

«Rupert Murdoch telephoned AT&T Inc (T.N) Chief Executive Randall Stephenson twice in the last six months and talked about cable network CNN, sources briefed on the matter told Reuters on Friday.

According to one of the sources, the 86-year-old executive chairman of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc (FOXA.O) offered to buy CNN in both conversations.

U.S. Department of Justice staff have recommended that AT&T sell either its DirecTV unit or Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting unit – which includes CNN – a government official told Reuters on Thursday, in order to gain antitrust approval.

The fate of CNN has broader political significance. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked the network for its coverage of his campaign and his administration, while he has publicly praised Murdoch’s Fox News.»

*

Rupert Murdoch may have offered to buy CNN from AT&T: reports

«Two of the people say Murdoch didn’t offer to buy CNN, while others say he did mention buying it and Stephenson said it wasn’t for sale, the Journal report said.

The calls between Murdoch and Stephenson were first reported on Friday by Reuters, which said one source told the news agency that Murdoch has “zero interest” in owning CNN, but another source said the 86-year-old media exec offered to buy the news outlet in both conversations.

This is just the latest sign of possible efforts to transform 21st Century Fox. Reports earlier this month said Walt Disney Co. DIS, -0.09%  had recently held talks to buy Fox’s cable-TV networks, international distribution operations and movie and TV studio, a tie-up that would allow Fox to focus on sports, news and broadcast TV.»

*

Asse Trump-Murdoch per cedere Cnn al magnate australiano

«Rubert Murdoch guarda con interesse alla Cnn. Secondo rumors riportate dalla stampa americana, il magnate dei media a capo del gruppo 21st Century Fox, nonché amico di Donald Trump, negli ultimi sei mesi avrebbe chiamato almeno due volte il numero uno di At&t Randall Stephenson per sondare il terreno. E il sospetto, secondo alcuni, è che dietro questo interessamento ci sarebbe lo stesso presidente americano.

Ricordiamo a questo proposito che, giovedí scorso, l’amministrazione Trump aveva posto come condizione indispensabile alle nozze tra AT&T e Time Warner, proprio  la cessione della Cnn, emittente televisiva che fa parte di Time Warner e che spesso è stata preso di mira da Trump, convinto che dissemini “fake news”.

E sempre più commentatori parlano di un ‘fattore Murdoch’ in tutta questa vicenda. Lui che ha sempre osteggiato le nozze tra At&t e Time Warner e che – raccontano i ben informati – più volte alla settimana sente al telefono il presidente americano Donald Trump per dargli consigli. ….

Intanto, sospettando che Trump voglia forzare la cessione della Cnn per farla passare nelle mani del suo alleato Murdoch, otto senatori democratici hanno scritto una lettera a Makan Delrahim, capo dell’ufficio antitrust, sollecitandolo ad opporsi a qualunque interferenza della Casa Bianca nelle decisioni dell’organismo di vigilanza.»

Pubblicato in: Amministrazione, Fisco e Tasse, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. I liberal democratici pagheranno la riforma fiscale federale.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-15.

Caravaggio_the-cardsharps_e1

Tutte le leggi necessitano di fondi per essere applicate: non a caso la maggior parte delle costituzioni prescrive che ogni provvedimento possa essere approvato in parlamento sotto la condizione che indichi donde reperire i mezzi necessari.

A maggior ragione questa norma deve essere rispetatta da leggi che riducano le entrate dello stato.

La riforma fiscale proposta dal Presidente Trump sembrerebbe quasi autofinanziarsi, nonostante che riduca le tasse al 20%.

Questo avviene perché più che una riduzione delle tasse è un riequilibrio, una razionalizzazione, di chi le deve pagare.

«The most recent example is a GOP tax plan that would limit local and state sales, income and property tax deductions»

*

«Republicans are doing away with the deduction because they need to lower the cost of their tax bill, which reduces the corporate tax rate to 20 percent»

*

«While the House bill preserves a maximum $10,000 property tax deduction, the Senate tax bill would go even further by completely eliminating the deduction»

*

«There are no Republican senators from the states of California, New York and New Jersey, while in the House, blue-state Republicans won a concession»

*

«Six states claim more than half of the value of the deduction nationwide, according to the Tax Foundation, and four voted for Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential election: California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois»

*

«It just looks like the Republicans are taking the money from the Democrat states and giving it to the Republican states»

*  * * * * * *

Ricapitoliamo.

I liberal democratici sono concentrati negli stati costieri sia ad est sia ad ovest, nonché nell’Illinois. Sono stati molto ricchi e molto popolosi.

La Precedente Amministrazione Obama aveva avuto una genialata: aveva ammesso alla scarico per il pagamento delle tasse federali quanto versato per le tasse locali allo stato di appartenenza. Senza porre limite.

La conseguenza era semplicissima: California, New York, New Jersey ed Illinois avevano aumentato a dismisura l’imposizione fiscale, tanto poi i Contribuenti le avrebbero dedotte dalla quota dovuta con le tasse federali. In poche parole, la federazione avrebbe dovuto mantenere gli eccessi di bilancio degli stati. Il Contribuente versava alle casse dello stato salatissime tasse per le quali chiedeva rimborsa da quelle federali. Pur essendo molto ricchi, California, New York, New Jersey ed Illinois quasi non pagavano tasse federali. Perfetta morale liberal.

Così sei stati, tutti casualmente liberal democratici, erano responsabili di oltre la metà delle tasse scaricate in tutta la federazione di cinquanta stati: erano in poche parole perfetti parassiti delle pubbliche risorse.

La nuova legge proibisce lo scarico delle tasse statali nel computo di quanto dovuto per le tasse federali.

Adesso consegue che gli stati liberal democratici dovranno nettamente ridimensionare il loro budget e, quindi, la pressione fiscale locale, altrimenti i loro Cittadini si troverebbero sotto un peso di oltre il 70% di imposte da pagare sull’unghia.

Fine della pacchia: anche i soldi degli altri alla fine terminano.

L’epoca degli allegri bilanci statali alle spalle di quello federali è finita.

Adesso siamo comodamente seduti in poltrona con un buon bicchiere di bourbon a vedere con quali risorse la California finanzierà la sua rivolta contro Washington, oppure la sua battaglia per il ‘clima‘.

Ne vedremo proprio delle belle.

Nota.

Adesso è chiaro perché i liberal democratici odiano Mr Trump?


Red state lawmakers find blue state piggy bank

«Red states are using blue states as their new piggy bank in the GOP Congress. ….

The most recent example is a GOP tax plan that would limit local and state sales, income and property tax deductions — which would hurt suburban taxpayers in blue states with high property taxes. ….

Republicans are doing away with the deduction because they need to lower the cost of their tax bill, which reduces the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. It just so happens that the major deduction getting the axe delivers big benefits to blue-state taxpayers. ….

While the House bill preserves a maximum $10,000 property tax deduction, the Senate tax bill would go even further by completely eliminating the deduction.

The more stringent Senate bill reflects a political reality: There are no Republican senators from the states of California, New York and New Jersey, while in the House, blue-state Republicans won a concession.

Six states claim more than half of the value of the deduction nationwide, according to the Tax Foundation, and four voted for Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential election: California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. ….

Tax reform is the second high-profile example of GOP legislation that has dramatically shifted benefits from blue states to red states. ….

It just looks like the Republicans are taking the money from the Democrat states and giving it to the Republican states»

Pubblicato in: Amministrazione, Trump

America. Elezioni di mezzo termine 2018.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-11.

Statua_Libertà__

«Le elezioni di metà mandato o medio termine (dall’inglese Midterm Elections) si tengono negli Stati Uniti e riguardano il Congresso, le assemblee elettive dei singoli Stati, e alcuni dei governatori dei singoli Stati. Non riguardano l’elezione del presidente degli Stati Uniti.

Tale tornata elettorale si tiene il primo martedì dopo il primo lunedì del mese di novembre degli anni pari e riguarda i 435 membri della Camera dei rappresentanti e un terzo dei 100 membri del Senato (alternativamente 33 o 34). Le elezioni di metà mandato si tengono a metà del mandato presidenziale (4 anni), e da ciò deriva la loro denominazione.

Le elezioni di metà mandato riguardano anche i governatori di trentasei dei cinquanta Stati membri degli Stati Uniti: trentaquattro Stati infatti eleggono il loro governatore per un mandato quadriennale durante le elezioni midterm, mentre il Vermont ed il New Hampshire eleggono i propri governatori per un mandato biennale in concomitanza, quindi, una volta con le elezioni presidenziali, e una volta con le midterm elections. Vengono eletti inoltre in questa occasione i membri delle assemblee legislative degli Stati membri e degli organi di contea per un mandato di due anni.

Le ultime elezioni di metà mandato per la Camera dei rappresentanti, per il Senato e per i governatori degli Stati membri si sono tenute il 4 novembre 2014, mentre le prossime si terranno il 6 novembre 2018.» [Fonte]

Ricapitolando.

Il 6 novembre 2018, tra poco più di un anno, negli Stati Uniti di America si terranno elezioni per:

– rinnovare tutti i 435 membri della Camera dei Rappresentanti;

– eleggere il Delegato per il Distretto di Columbia ed i delegati dei territori, eccetto il Commissario residente di Puerto Rico.

– rinnovare 33 dei 100 seggi senatoriali;

– rinnovare 39 governatori di stati o territori;

– rinnovare un elevato numero di deputati e senatori di stati;

– eleggere un certo quale numero di giudici locali e federali.

Nota.

– Gli stati dispongono di un numero di deputati alla Camera dei Rappresentanti grosso modo proporzionale alla popolazione: per esempio, la California eleggerà 53 deputati, essendo lo stato più popolato degli Stati Uniti.

– Ogni stato ha diritto ad essere rappresentato in Senato da due senatori: tale numero è fisso e non dipende quindi dalla popolosità dello stato. Così, sia l’Alaska sia la California hanno ciascuno due senatori.

– Ogni stato vota in accordo alla sua propria legge elettorale. Mentre in alcuni vige il sistema proporzionale, in altri vige invece il criterio di collegio. Lo stato è diviso in zone territoriali, con denominazioni varie (collegi, distretti, etc), che eleggono ciascuna il proprio deputato. Di conseguenza, il numero assoluto dei voti presi in uno stato da un partito non corrisponde necessariamente al numero di eletti attribuiti.

Nota lessicologica.

Il termine “trifecta” indica la condizioni in cui un partito abbia conquistato sia il governatorato sia il parlamento dello stato.

* * * * * * *

Al momento attuale assistiamo ad una ridda di sondaggi che porgono risultati conflittuali: sarebbe troppo prematuro per stabilire quali possano essere reali. Tutti i sondaggi dei media sarebbero concordi nel dire che la popolarità del Presidente Trump sia ai livelli di quelli che aveva a suo tempo Mrs Hollande.

2017-08-18__Trifects__001

Per contro, nelle cinque tornate elettive suppletive Mr Trump ha sempre conquistato la vittoria elettorale, ed anche con buone maggioranze, vittoria che potrebbe anche ripetersi nelle elezioni del 15 in Alabama.

2017-08-18__Trifects__002

Non solo, constatiamo che

Il Governatore democratico della West Virginia passa ai repubblicani.

Constatiamo infine anche che

«Over 1,000 seats have been lost nationally by Democrats, including the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and state chambers across the country»

In parole poverissime: i dati elettorali disponibili smentirebbero vistosamente le previsioni fatte dai media liberal democratici.

*

United States House of Representatives elections, 2018

435 seggi, 218 la maggioranza. Ad oggi 241 repubblicani e 194 democratici.

Le previsioni attuali prevedrebbero che i repubblicani possano mantenere la maggioranza.

*

United States Senate elections, 2018

100 seggi, 51 la maggioranza. Ad oggi 52 repubblicani e 46 democratici. Sono da rinnovare 33 dei 100 seggi senatoriali. 23 seggi sono al momento democratici ed 8 repubblicani: i restanti indipendenti.

Le previsioni attuali prevedrebbero che i repubblicani possano mantenere la maggioranza, aumentando a 54 – 56 senatori.

2017-08-18__Trifects__004

*

United States gubernatorial elections, 2018

Si debbono rinnovare 39 governatori di stati o territori.

Al momento, 26 trifecta sono repubblicani e 6 trifecta sono democratici. La maggior quota di candidati governatori democratici dovrà concorrere in stati che alle elezioni presidenziali avevano votato repubblicano.

2017-08-18__Trifects__003

* * * * * * *

Conclusione.

Questa sembrerebbe essere la situazione odierna. In un anno di tempo il clima politico potrebbe essere anche nettamente differente, per cui al momento azzardare previsioni sembrerebbe essere del tutto prematuro.

Forse, l’unico elemento che potrebbe essere preso in considerazione, ma con tutte le cautele, è quello economico: usualmente, in termini medi, gli americani privilegiano alle elezioni i candidati di partiti che hanno conservato il loro potere di acquisto, soprattutto quello locale. Da questo punto di vista sono una nazione a pelle di leopardo.

Se però, come potrebbe sembrare verosimile, Mr Trump potesse conservare la maggioranza sia alla Camera sia al Senato, eliminando i personaggi ambigui e facendo eleggere persone più affidabili, nei due anni rimanenti di mandato potrebbe davvero cambiare la storia degli Stati Uniti, e con loro del mondo occidentale.

Nota.

Il lessico potrebbe giocare brutti scherzi.

Il termine “vittoria” dovrebbe essere riservato al partito che riesce a fare eleggere il proprio candidato che subentra ad uno di parte avversa.

Il mero subentro prende nome di “conservazione“, ed ha un significato politico del tutto differente.


Independent Journal Review. 2017-08-11. The 10 Senate Seats Most Likely to Switch Parties in 2018 Should Terrify Democrats.

There are many polls out declaring doom and gloom for Republicans this mid-term election.

But Eric Bradner of CNN has grim news for Democrats: Don’t expect an easy ride in 2018. In fact, if you’re a betting man, bet on Democrats losing ground. Bradner handicapped the top 10 Senate races in the country most likely to flip this year.

According to his analysis:

«The across-the-board primary battles are complicating what should be a hugely advantageous map for Republicans. Democratic senators are running for re-election in 10 — that’s right, 10 — states that President Donald Trump won in 2016. The GOP, meanwhile, only has two members who currently look like they could be in real jeopardy

At stake is control of the Senate, where the GOP currently holds 52 of 100 seats.

Democrat Senate seats most likely to flip:

– Missouri: Sen. Claire McCaskill

– Indiana: Sen. Joe Donnelly

– West Virginia: Sen. Joe Manchin

– Montana: Sen. Jon Tester

– North Dakota: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp

– Wisconsin: Sen. Tammy Baldwin

– Ohio: Sen. Sherrod Brown

– Florida: Sen. Bill Nelson

Republican Senate seats most likely to flip:

– Nevada: Sen. Dean Heller

– Arizona: Sen. Jeff Flake

I’d encourage you to read the analysis here.

Democrats are on their heels out of pocket in 2018. According to David Wasserman, writing at FiveThirtyEight, Democrats could run the board in swing districts and still be in a terrible position:

«Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points — a pretty good midterm by historical standards — they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats.

This is partly attributable to the nature of House districts: GOP gerrymandering and Democratic voters’ clustering in urban districts has moved the median House seat well to the right of the nation. Part of it is bad timing. Democrats have been cursed by a terrible Senate map in 2018: They must defend 25 of their 48 seats1 while Republicans must defend just eight of their 52

Democrats must defend 23 seats in the Senate in 2018.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Commercio, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Geopolitica Mondiale, Stati Uniti, Trump

Cina ed Usa firmano accordi bilaterali per 250 miliardi di dollari.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-10.

 2017-11-10__Xi_Trump__001

Poniamoci una domanda e cerchiamo di rispondere, anche se la risposta sarebbe davvero molto complessa: a cosa servono i Governi ed i Capi dello stato?

Sicuramente servono a preservare la pace internazionale e domestica, frutto dell’esercizio di giuste costumanze e decisioni, di rapporti intrinsecamente corretti ed equi.

Altra importante componente è la conservazione del potere di acquisto della valuta ed una osservanza ragionevole dei rapporti giuridici ed economici, nel rispetto sostanziale della libertà umana.

Infine, un buon governo innalza il potere di acquisto della popolazione: non si chiedono miracoli impossibili, ma ogni anno diminuisca il numero delle persone indigenti, lasciando anche che i benestanti migliorino ed i ricchi continuino ad arricchirsi.

È da considerarsi buono il governo che abbassa le tasse.

*

Se a prima vista quanto detto sembrerebbe essere banale, uno sguardo alla storia ci permetterebbe di dire che governi del genere sono una rarità.

Esattamente come si resterebbe stupiti dal dover constatare che risultati del genere siano stati ottenuti anche, e soprattutto, da sistemi di governo profondamente differenti da quelli attuali in Occidente.

Ci si rende conto quanto un simile approccio euristico possa anche urtare la sensibilità di alcuni, ma alla fin fine tutto è giudicabile sulla base dei risultati conseguiti. I mezzi usati diventano immediatamente trasparenti.

* * * * * * *

«Two-way investment is gaining steam»

*

«Bilateral trade surged to 519.6 billion U.S.dollars in 2016 from 2.5 billion dollars in 1979 when the two countries established diplomatic ties»

*

«We also welcome U.S. companies and financial institutions to participate in the ‘Belt and Road Initiative»

*

«Chinese and U.S. companies signed deals worth more than 250 billion U.S. dollars during President Donald Trump’s state visit to China»

*

«China and the United States have huge potential in reciprocal economic and trade cooperation, Xi sai»

*

«China and the United States are highly complementary rather than competitive»

*

«Deals include purchases of Boeing aircraft, Ford automobiles, U.S. soybeans and joint development of liquified natural gas in Alaska»

*

«The two sides should uphold the principles of equality and mutual benefit, mutual understanding and accommodation, and handle disputes through dialogue and consultation»

* * * * * * *

Il Presidente Trump ha fatto ciò che avrebbe dovuto fare ogni capo di stato degno di tale nome: rafforzare i legami economici e commerciali e portare a casa contratti vantaggiosi per ambo le parti.

E così è stato: accordi per 250 miliardi sono un ottimo risultato.

Come si vede, la strada degli accordi bilaterali è ben più proficua di quella dei trattati commerciali locoregionali.

Solo per fare un esempio pratico:

Boeing committed to forging closer partnership with China for common development

«According to Boeing’s 2017 China Current Market Outlook, China will need to purchase more than 7,240 new airplanes valued at 1.1 trillion U.S. dollars over the next 20 years, he said.»

Avere un mercato sicuro per venti anni e stimabile a circa 1,100 miliardi di dollari non è cosa da poco. E questo riguarda solo la Boeing.

L’accordo per il gas naturale liquefatto ha una stima ancora superiore a quello della Boeing.

Delfin taps China for US floating LNG plant

«Delfin Midstream, developing the first floating facility to export U.S. natural gas, has sealed a preliminary 15-year sales deal with city gas distributor China Gas Holdings ….

unnamed Chinese banks to fund its ambitious $8 billion as the current global supply overhang in liquefied natural gas (LNG)»

*

La White House ha voltato pagina.


Xinuanet. 2017-11-09. Chinese, U.S. companies sign over 250 bln USD business deals

BEIJING, Nov. 9 (Xinhua) — Chinese and U.S. companies signed deals worth more than 250 billion U.S. dollars during President Donald Trump’s state visit to China.

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday revealed the figure after he and President Trump witnessed the signing of the agreements.

China and the United States have huge potential in reciprocal economic and trade cooperation, Xi said.

Deals include purchases of Boeing aircraft, Ford automobiles, U.S. soybeans and joint development of liquified natural gas in Alaska.

Being the world’s biggest developing economy and developed economy, China and the United States are highly complementary rather than competitive, Xi said when meeting with business delegates from both countries.

“We are willing to expand imports of energy and farm produce from the United States, deepen service trade cooperation. We hope the U.S. side will increase exports of civil technology products to China. We will continue to encourage Chinese companies to invest in the United States. We also welcome U.S. companies and financial institutions to participate in the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’,” he said.

Given the rapid growth of bilateral trade, it’s unavoidable to have friction, said Xi. The two sides should uphold the principles of equality and mutual benefit, mutual understanding and accommodation, and handle disputes through dialogue and consultation, he said.

Xi reaffirmed China’s commitment to opening up and reform and said China will not close its door to the world, and it will only become more and more open.

Overseas-invested companies, including the U.S.-invested firms, will enjoy a more open, transparent and standard market environment in China, he said.

Xi said China’s economic outlook will look bright for a long time. The Chinese economy has been transitioning from a phase of rapid growth to a stage of high-quality development with improving economic structure. It has the foundation, condition and impetus to sustain the good momentum.

China is the United States’ largest trading partner while the U.S. is China’s second largest. Bilateral trade surged to 519.6 billion U.S.dollars in 2016 from 2.5 billion dollars in 1979 when the two countries established diplomatic ties.

Over the past decade, U.S. exports to China increased 11 percent annually on average, while China’s exports to the United States only rose 6.6 percent.

China holds a surplus in goods trade with the United States while the United States maintains service trade surplus with China.

Two-way investment is gaining steam. Jobs created by Chinese-invested firms across America had jumped ninefold since 2009 to 140,000 last year, according to a recent report by the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and Rhodium Group.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Conquista altri sei giudici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-09.

2017-11-09__Trump_Giudici__001

Prosegue la lunga marcia di Mr Trump verso il controllo della Corti Federali.

«Senate Republicans delivered a series of victories to President Donald Trump this week, confirming four federal appeals judges and two trial judges, with more expected soon»

*

«Republicans across the spectrum continue to complain about the Senate’s dysfunctional condition on a wide variety of issues, due in large part to the narrow 52-48 GOP margin in the Senate, aided by the fact that seven moderate Republican senators have proven unreliable in advancing the president’s agenda and conservative priorities, for many of them reversing the positions they took during the Obama presidency»

*

«Regarding the third branch of government, the president has nominated 56 people thus far to fill more than 150 current and upcoming vacancies on the federal bench at all three levels of the judiciary, comprised of the Supreme Court, 13 appeals courts, and 94 district courts»

* * * * * * *

Le nomine presidenziali nei posti di giudice federale devono essere approvate dal senato.

Il Presidente Trump ha una maggioranza appena sufficiente, 52 – 48, ma il vero problema risiede nel fatto che un certo numero di senatori repubblicani non condivide le scelte conservatrici, anche tenendo conto che sono nomine a vita. La scelta di giudici molto giovani, quarantenni usualmente, è destinata a lasciare in eredità agli Stati Uniti per circa un quarantennio le nomine fatte da Mr Trump.

È materia delicata, ed il continuo ripensarci sopra è del tutto ragionevole.

Tutto dovrebbe risolversi con i risultati delle elezioni di mezzo termine.

Se Mr Trump riuscisse a rinnovare il senato con propri seguaci, allora tutte le nomine sarebbero fatte velocemente. In caso contrario, si dovrà arrivare ad un compromesso.


Breitbart. 2017-11-05. Senate Confirms Trump’s Judicial Nominees Despite Democrats’ Opposition

WASHINGTON, DC — Senate Republicans delivered a series of victories to President Donald Trump this week, confirming four federal appeals judges and two trial judges, with more expected soon.

Republicans across the spectrum continue to complain about the Senate’s dysfunctional condition on a wide variety of issues, due in large part to the narrow 52-48 GOP margin in the Senate, aided by the fact that seven moderate Republican senators have proven unreliable in advancing the president’s agenda and conservative priorities, for many of them reversing the positions they took during the Obama presidency.

Conservative Republicans, in particular, have complained bitterly about the Senate’s inability to fill hundreds of positions, including, especially, nominations to serve on the federal courts.

Regarding the third branch of government, the president has nominated 56 people thus far to fill more than 150 current and upcoming vacancies on the federal bench at all three levels of the judiciary, comprised of the Supreme Court, 13 appeals courts, and 94 district courts. As of late last week, the number of confirmations for those 56 stood at seven—less than one per month.

That changed during the past week in a big way. In the final days of October, the Senate confirmed a federal trial judge. Then during this calendar week, senators added a second trial judge, as well as four judges on the powerful federal appellate courts, which sit only one step down from the Supreme Court.

Those appellate confirmations began on Tuesday with Judge Amy Barrett’s confirmation to the Seventh Circuit by a vote of 55-43. Then on Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Judge Joan Larsen to the Sixth Circuit by a vote of 60-38. On Thursday, the Senate confirmed Judge Stephanos Bibas to the Third Circuit, 53-43, and Judge Allison Eid to the Tenth Circuit, 56-41.

Two items regarding these confirmations deserve special note.

First, two of these jurists—Larsen and Eid—are on President Trump’s list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees. The one he selected already—Justice Neil Gorsuch—has proven one of the president’s greatest first-year accomplishments, making it likely that he will adhere to that list going forward.

Second, the votes against the nominees appear to be driven by pure partisanship by Senate Democrats. No substantive allegations have been made against any of the four judges. All four have spectacular credentials in terms of their education, experience, demonstrated brilliance, temperament, and reputations. There is no reason to vote against any one of them.

The fact that at least 40 Democrats voted against all of them suggests that Senate Democrats will vote against any Trump nominee. This will only serve to push Senate Republican leadership closer to revising Senate rules to end this obstruction.

Gone are the days when the Senate in 1986 voted to confirm Justice Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court by a vote of 98-0, even though Justice Scalia’s conservative views were very well known at the time.

The number of judges confirmed has jumped in a week from 7 to 13, with more than 40 nominations pending in the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is preparing to schedule additional judicial nominees for votes on the Senate floor.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Germania. Confindustria sempre più attrice politica anti-Merkel.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-07.

MERKEL 001

«Countries don’t have friends; they have interests»

Bismarck.


Questi tempi correnti ci trovano testimoni di grandi cambiamenti di idee e di modo di esprimerle.

Una delle principali mutazioni è stata quella della confindustria tedesca, che tradizionalmente era muta, mentre ora prende posizioni, opinabili sicuramente, ma chiaramente espresse in un linguaggio sobrio ma inequivocabile. Per avere un riscontro analogo si dovrebbe risalire ad un secolo fa: quando purtroppo non riuscì a farsi ascoltare dalla gente.

La confindustria tedesca rigetta e critica severamente sia l’ideologia sia la passata politica della Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel, ed indica strade che per i politici tedeschi sarebbero nuove.

«When Donald Trump was elected US president almost a year ago, Germany lost its most important friend»

*

«When it comes to foreign policy, the upcoming German government will need to readjust its relationship with the United States, especially since it seems that Mr. Trump could, in fact, change the country permanently during his term»

*

«Despite all justified criticism of Mr. Trump’s governing style, the United States remains a democracy with functioning checks and balances»

*

«Equating America with the autocracies in Russia and China invariably will lead to foreign policy aberrations.»

*

«The call for a post-Atlantic Western policy by some German columnists also misses the mark, as it suggests the West could exist as a political force without the United States»

*

«NATO’s eastern border certainly cannot be secured if the German military turns up with broomsticks instead of bullets»

*

«we have to take Washington’s demand for a stronger distribution of burdens within NATO seriously and fulfill Berlin’s commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on the defense budget»

*

«Reports of the death of the West are greatly exaggerated»

*

«it is also true that Germany and Europe are too weak, especially in military and strategic terms, to stand up to the autocratic leaders in Moscow and Beijing»

*

«Contrary to the beliefs of many people here, the West’s political model is not universally accepted in the rest of the world»

* * * * * * * * * * *

«the West’s political model is not

universally accepted in the rest of the world»

Questo è il cuore centrale della questione. La dottrina Merkel imponeva l’esclusione dai contatti diplomatici, politici ed economici di tutti gli stati che non avessero condiviso la Weltanschauung tedesca, ovvero, quella della Bundeskanzlerin.

Su questa base, Frau Merkel ha litigato con tutti, ivi compresi gli Ungheresi e di Polacchi: confindustria dice che è l’ora di finirla con questa manfrina.

Fondamentale la posizione assunta da Mr Macron.

«I believe in the sovereignty of states, and therefore, just as I don’t accept being lectured on how to govern my country, I don’t lecture others».

Sarà un gran brutto rospo da ingoiare per Frau Merkel, e ci si domanda seriamente se non sarebbe meglio andare ad elezioni anticipate con un nuovo candidato cancelliere.

*

Confindustria prende atto della presenza di Mr Trump al vertice degli Stati Uniti, e condanna quanti sostengano che l’Europa, la Germania, possa, o debba sopravvivere nel contesto internazionale senza gli Stati Uniti: senza esercito non è possibile politica estera alcuna. Frau Merkel, o chi per lei in futuro, sarà non solo obbligato ad adeguare le proprie ambizioni a quanto permetta Mr Trump, ma anche a seguirne le direttive,

Infine, cosa non da poco,

«Mr. Trump could, in fact, change the country permanently during his term».

Verissimo. Mentre i liberal democratici americani si baloccano con i loro deliri sessuali, Mr Trump sta sistematicamente rimpiazzando i giudici federali nominati a vita con persone a lui fedeli e sta tagliando i finanziamenti pubblici a tutte le realtà non governative gestite dai liberal.

Certamente sarà una mutazione permanente: senza potere e senza denaro pubblico i liberal sono condannati a morire politicamente. Ma con la fine dei liberal democratici avrebbero fine quelli che in passato furono i sodali di Frau Merkel.

*

Ci si pensi bene. Secondo confindustria il mondo è entrato nella

«Trump Era».


Handelsblatt. 2017-11-02. Redefining Relationships in the Trump Era

Germany’s incoming government needs a US strategy — one based on Western values that doesn’t alienate Washington and its temperamental leader, writes Handelsblatt’s international correspondent.

*

Countries don’t have friends; they have interests. When the members of the so-called Jamaica coalition — the Christian Democrats, the Free Democrats and the Greens — discuss Germany’s future foreign and security policy in Berlin this week, Bismarck’s old adage will hang like a warning over the meeting. When Donald Trump was elected US president almost a year ago, Germany lost its most important friend. When it comes to foreign policy, the upcoming German government will need to readjust its relationship with the United States, especially since it seems that Mr. Trump could, in fact, change the country permanently during his term.

Outgoing Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), is right to ask the new federal government for a US strategy. But that strategy cannot assume that Washington is as politically distant from Berlin as Moscow and Beijing, as Mr. Gabriel has. Despite all justified criticism of Mr. Trump’s governing style, the United States remains a democracy with functioning checks and balances. Equating America with the autocracies in Russia and China invariably will lead to foreign policy aberrations.

The call for a post-Atlantic Western policy by some German columnists also misses the mark, as it suggests the West could exist as a political force without the United States. This completely fails to recognize that without the American promise of security, the Western community would be reduced to a club of powerless people who would not be taken seriously by powerful politicians, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. Referring to Europe’s economic and political soft power is misleading. Soft power can only make a difference during conflicts if it is backed by hard power — military strength. NATO’s eastern border certainly cannot be secured if the German military turns up with broomsticks instead of bullets. And in the fight against terrorists and cybercriminals, Germany remains dependent on close cooperation with American intelligence agencies.

What would a new Atlanticism look like? Could it underscore Germany’s interest in preserving an open and liberal world without severing ties with the United States? First, we have to take Washington’s demand for a stronger distribution of burdens within NATO seriously and fulfill Berlin’s commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on the defense budget. Barack Obama insisted on this, as will Mr. Trump’s successor. If Germany’s new coalition government meets the United States’ demand, it would strengthen Mr. Trump’s involvement in NATO’s multilateral alliance. Currently, the US plays the leading role in the Ukraine crisis by deterring Russian aggression, which is in Berlin’s interest and is coordinated with Germany. Broadly speaking, including the United States in NATO is the best chance to keep Mr. Trump from going it alone and for saving the Iran deal.

«Including the United States in NATO is the best chance to keep Mr. Trump from going it alone and for saving the Iran deal»

Standing in stark contrast to international security issues is the Trump administration’s stance on trade and climate — a common denominator is nearly impossible to find. With these policy issues, it’s important to openly address conflicts and defend our own interests. Since the US president has largely isolated himself internationally on both issues, Europe is not alone. Europeans can cooperate on climate policy with numerous US states that do not want to toe the line drawn from Mr. Trump’s ignorance. And with the help of members of Congress, German companies in the United States can make it clear that Mr. Trump’s isolating policies betray the interests of the blue-collar workers in automobile factories.

Reports of the death of the West are greatly exaggerated. Yes, it is true that Mr. Trump has seriously undermined the community’s foundations and values. But it is also true that Germany and Europe are too weak, especially in military and strategic terms, to stand up to the autocratic leaders in Moscow and Beijing. However, if Europeans want to defend their interests, this is exactly what is needed.

Contrary to the beliefs of many people here, the West’s political model is not universally accepted in the rest of the world. Countries in Asia and Africa are flirting with the Chinese mix of economic nationalism and political autocracy. The only way the West can win in a competition for the world’s leaders is by sticking together. This doesn’t mean that Europe and the United States need to be best friends. They just need to recognize their common interests.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Virginia. Domani al voto sarà contato quanto vale Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-06.

Donald Trump photographed at Trump Tower in NYC
Donald Trump photographed at the Trump Tower on 5th Ave. in Manhattan, NYC on Monday, September 21, 2015. (Damon Winter/ The New York Times)

Domani in Virginia si tengono le elezioni per lo stato: governatore, deputati e giudici.

Al momento, tutte le cariche elettive sono in mano dei liberal democratici, per cui per i repubblicani sarà una difficile lotta.

Non solo.

Trump’s Numbers Are Really, Really Bad [Bloomberg]

«I last checked in on Donald Trump’s approval numbers …. and he’s now back down to 37.7 percent approval»

*

A quanto sembrerebbe, tutte le proiezioni darebbero i repubblicani sconfitti, ed anche in modo severo.

A dir loro, queste non sarebbero più elezioni in uno stato, bensì un referendum su Mr Trump, che dovrebbe uscirne severamente ridimensionato, distrutto.

Si aspettano quindi che il candidato repubblicano non superi il 36% – 38%, ma che gli vada davvero bene.

*

Trump isn’t on the ballot, but he is on Virginia’s mind

«Virginia is considered a swing state, which means that neither Democrats nor Republicans have a clear majority. The state voted twice for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In last year’s presidential election, Hillary Clinton carried Virginia by a 5 percent margin against Donald Trump. »

*

«In this election, the candidates are the Republican loyalist and lobbyist Ed Gillespie and the Democrat Ralph Northam, the current lieutenant governor. Worrell said he wouldn’t give either one his vote because neither would bring real change. »

*

«Virginia is generally divided between its southern and more rural parts, which tend to vote Republican, and the area bordering the Washington metropolitan area, which leans Democratic»

*

«Issues don’t matter much in this election …. as people will vote for or against the candidates for governor mainly based on how they feel about Trump.»

* * * * * * *

Bene.

Domani vedremo se le urne elettorali confermeranno o meno quanto affermano concordi i sondaggi dei liberal democratici: repubblicani sotto il 38%.

Ovviamente, si considererà vittoria ogni punto in più i repubblicani di Mr Trump riescano ad ottenere sopra il 38%. Perdessero con un buon 43%, cinque punti percentuali sopra le previsioni, sarebbero già vincitori: sarebbe una conferma all’operato di Mr Trump.

Considereremo trionfo il caso che invece il candidato di Mr Trump vinca la carica di governatore della Virginia.

Ciò che conta sono i voti, non le previsioni elettorali.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Proposta di tagliare le tasse dal 35% al 20%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-04.

2017-11-05__Tesoro_americano__001

Questa riportata sarebbe la proposta del Presidente Trump per una prima riduzione delle tasse negli Stati Uniti.

Dovrà passare il vaglio dapprima dei repubblicani, quindi del Congresso: saranno quindi possibili variazioni anche sostanziali, che dipenderanno dalla reciproca capacità e peso contrattuale.

«I democratici non hanno i voti per bocciare la riforma, considerata sotto speciali regole di budget che consentono l’approvazione a maggioranza semplice al Senato anziché di 60 voti su cento»

*

«una legge che riscrive le aliquote e prevede sgravi netti per 1.500 miliardi di dollari in dieci anni»

*

«non ridurre le tasse menomerebbe il potenziale di crescita»

*

«Tax Cuts and Jobs Act»

*

«Per le imprese la proposta prescrive un taglio permanente delle aliquote al 20% dal 35 per cento»

*

«Per le multinazionali Usa viene creata l’una tantum sui profitti già accumulati all’estero, che forzi il loro rimpatrio. La tassa sarà del 12% su asset liquidi e del 5% su quelli illiquidi»

*

«Un’imposta globale minima del 10% verrà invece formulata anzitutto per le controllate estere considerate ad alto tasso di profitti»

*

«Per famiglie e individui, le aliquote verranno ridotte da sette a quattro»

*

«Rimarrà la più alta, al 39,6%, per i redditi milionari delle coppie e sopra il mezzo milione per gli individui. Le altre saranno fissate al 12%, per redditi individuali tra i 24mila e i 90mila dollari, al 25% fino a 250mila dollari, e al 35% fino al milione»

*

«La tassa di successione verrà applicata solo su eredità superiori a 11 milioni»

* * * * * * * *

Tenendo conto della situazione, questa proposta sembrerebbe essere ragionevolmente equilibrata.

Sicuramente delusi quanti si sarebbero aspettati miracoli, altrettanto delusi quanti siano fieri sostenitori della tassazione.

In ogni caso si constata come il 20 gennaio il debito pubblico totale ammontasse a 19,947.305 miliardi di dollari, mentre al 28 luglio fosse sceso a 19,844.885 miliardi Usd. Lo scorso anno, sotto l’Amministrazione Obama, nello stesso periodo il debito pubblico totale era salito di 700 miliardi circa.

Mr Trump dovrà infatti gestire il minor gettito fiscale con la riduzione del debito pubblico.


Sole 24 Ore. 2017-11-03. Imprese Usa, tasse dal 35 al 20%. Meno sconti per i contribuenti

I repubblicani, con l’appoggio dell’amministrazione Trump, hanno sollevato il sipario su una radicale legislazione di riforma della tasse, che ha l’ambizione di diventare la più profonda trasformazione del regime fiscale americano dalla metà degli anni 80 quando governava Ronald Reagan. La presentazione era stata ritardata di un giorno, segno delle difficoltà che restano sulla strada di una legge che riscrive le aliquote e prevede sgravi netti per 1.500 miliardi di dollari in dieci anni. Ma al battesimo del fuoco, i leader conservatori della Camera che hanno messo a punto i dettagli di un progetto finora emerso solo a grandi linee hanno rivendicato molte e significative svolte, con tagli generalizzati alle imposte di aziende e famiglie, dai ceti medi ai redditi più alti.

I repubblicani sperano di riuscire ad approvare il progetto e spedirlo a Trump – che ieri l’ha definito uno storico «regalo di Natale agli americani» – per la firma prima di fine anno. Con il messaggio, lanciato dallo speaker della Camera Paul Ryan, che «non ridurre le tasse menomerebbe il potenziale di crescita» e che il piano «renderà l’America competitiva nel mondo». Il nome stesso della legislazione rende omaggio a simili obiettivi di rilancio: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Il disegno, però, oltre a essere osteggiato dall’opposizione democratica come troppo favorevole ai più abbienti e alle grandi aziende, soffre anche di irrisolte perplessità su costi ed effetti, tuttora da stimare con precisione. Gli stessi mercati finanziari hanno reagito senza entusiasmi.

Per le imprese la proposta prescrive un taglio permanente delle aliquote al 20% dal 35 per cento. Una serie di business particolari quali le partnership, chiamati pass-through perché le imposte sono pagate sulle aliquote individuali, scenderebbero al 25 per cento. Le aziende perderebbero al contrario la deducibilità di alcune spese per compensi di dirigenti sopra il milione. Gran parte dei business – con l’eccezione di gruppi immobiliari e piccole società – vedranno ulteriori limiti alle deduzioni. Per le multinazionali Usa viene creata l’una tantum sui profitti già accumulati all’estero, che forzi il loro rimpatrio. La tassa sarà del 12% su asset liquidi e del 5% su quelli illiquidi. Un’imposta globale minima del 10% verrà invece formulata anzitutto per le controllate estere considerate ad alto tasso di profitti. Passi, anche se parziali, verso un approccio “territoriale” alla tassazione, dove gli utili siano tassati dove vengono generati.

Per famiglie e individui, le aliquote verranno ridotte da sette a quattro. Rimarrà la più alta, al 39,6%, per i redditi milionari delle coppie e sopra il mezzo milione per gli individui. Le altre saranno fissate al 12%, per redditi individuali tra i 24mila e i 90mila dollari, al 25% fino a 250mila dollari, e al 35% fino al milione. La tassa di successione verrà applicata solo su eredità superiori a 11 milioni, doppie rispetto alle attuali, per essere cancellata nel 2024. Per i ceti medi, le deduzioni standard saranno raddoppiate a 24mila dollari (le coppie) o 12mila (i single); un credito d’imposta per figli a carico salirà del 60% a 1.600 dollari e nascerà un credito per anziani a carico da 300 dollari. Non ci saranno riduzioni nei popolari contributi esentasse ai piani privati di risparmio pensionistico. Verrà piuttosto ridimensionata la deducibilità di imposte locali: solo quelle sugli immobili rimarranno con tetti a diecimila dollari, nonostante le proteste dalle regioni più progressiste del Paese con elevate tasse statali quali New York e California. Un limite a mezzo milione verrà istituito sul valore delle case comprate in futuro per poter dedurre interessi sui mutui. Eliminate infine le deduzioni per spese mediche, molto usate dai ceti medi.

Il prossimo appuntamento per la complessa e tuttora provvisoria legislazione prevede ora un’accesa discussione in Commissione alla Camera, dove dalla prossima settimana saranno analizzate esatte stime economiche e fiscali e probabili emendamenti – il cosiddetto markup del progetto.

Toccherà poi al Senato fare propria la versione dei deputati o alterarla, allungando i tempi per concordare una versione finale. I democratici non hanno i voti per bocciare la riforma, considerata sotto speciali regole di budget che consentono l’approvazione a maggioranza semplice al Senato anziché di 60 voti su cento. Ma divisioni nella maggioranza repubblicana potrebbero ancora far deragliare le ambizioni della Casa Bianca. E la polemica promette di rimanere dura sui veri beneficiari della riforma.