Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-05-29.

2020-05-29__Trump 001

Il Presidente Trump ha emesso il seguente Ordine Esecutivo.

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.

«By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse. ….»

*

«US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at removing some of the legal protections given to social media platforms.

It gives regulators the power to pursue legal actions against firms such as Facebook and Twitter for the way they police content on their platforms.

President Trump accused social media platforms of having “unchecked power” while signing the order.

The order is expected to face legal challenges.

Legal experts says the US Congress or the court system must be involved to change the current legal understanding of protections for these platforms.

Mr Trump has regularly accused social media platforms of stifling or censoring conservative voices.

On Wednesday, Mr Trump accused Twitter of election interference, after it added fact-check links to two of his tweets.» [Bbc]

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. CNN. Biden avrebbe percentuali migliori, ma Trump otterrebbe più grandi elettori.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-05-21.

Trump 001

Negli Stati Uniti il Presidente non è eletto a suffragio universale. Ogni singolo stato elegge un numero di delegati (grandi elettori) proporzionale, grosso modo, alla popolazione residente. Quindi i delegati si trovano a Washington e procedono alla elezione. Il numero di delegati conquistati da un partito molto difficilmente replica il loro risultato percentuale: questa procedura serve infatti a garantire anche agli stati meno popolosi un adeguato peso nella elezione presidenziale.

Discorsi analoghi varrebbero anche per la elezione dei deputati e dei senatori, che concorrono per collegi: chi conquistasse la maggioranza nel collegio si aggiudicherebbe il seggio. Quindi, per queste elezioni conta la concentrazione dei voti e la radicazione locale.

Nelle scorse elezioni del 2016 Mrs Clinton aveva ottenuto il 48.2% dei voti contro il 46.1% di Mr Trump, ma questo ultimo ottenne 304 grandi elettori contro i 227 di Mrs Clinton.

A quei tempi i media si erano troppo entusiasmati dei sondaggi proporzionali, e fecero quindi magra figura: tutte le loro previsioni risultarono essere clamorosamente sconfitte.

* * * * * * *

«Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s lead over President Donald Trump now stands at five points, but Trump has an edge in the critical battleground states that could decide the electoral college»

«51% of registered voters nationwide back Biden, while 46% say they prefer Trump, while in the battlegrounds, 52% favor Trump and 45% Biden»

«The two are close among independents (50% back Trump, 46% Biden, not a large enough difference to be considered a lead)»

«The former vice president continues to hold healthy leads among women (55% Biden to 41% Trump) and people of color (69% Biden to 26% Trump)»

«The two run more closely among men (50% Trump to 46% Biden) and the President holds a clear edge among whites (55% Trump to 43% Biden)»

«Biden outpaces Trump among voters over age 45 by a 6-point margin, while the two are near even among those under age 45 (49% Biden to 46% Trump)»

«that younger voters in the battleground states are tilted in favor of Trump»

«Trump’s biggest advantage over Biden in the poll comes on his handling of the economy. Most voters, 54%, say they trust the President to better handle the nation’s economy, while 42% say they prefer Biden»

«battleground states, defined as the 15 states decided by 8 points or less in 2016 — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin»

* * * * * * *

La conquista degli stati assume anche un’altra grande importanza. Ogni stato elegge infatti due senatori, indipendentemente dalla sua popolosità. Se è vero che il Congresso può emanare delle leggi, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordare come il Senato sia l’organo statale chiamato a convalidare le nomine presidenziali, specialmente quelle nella Suprema Corte e nelle Corti federali.

Si tenga infine presente che nel quadro politico americano stanno accadendo grandi sommovimenti.

Repubblicani stravincono le suppletive in California e Wisconsin.

In altri tempi sarebbe stato impossibile che un candidato repubblicano avesse potuto scalzare l’uscente democratico, specie poi in California. Saranno determinanti gli orientamenti degli stati critici.

*


CNN Poll: Biden tops Trump nationwide, but battlegrounds tilt Trump.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden‘s lead over President Donald Trump now stands at five points, but Trump has an edge in the critical battleground states that could decide the electoral college, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

In the new poll, 51% of registered voters nationwide back Biden, while 46% say they prefer Trump, while in the battlegrounds, 52% favor Trump and 45% Biden. Partisans are deeply entrenched in their corners, with 95% of Democrats behind Biden and the same share of Republicans behind Trump. The two are close among independents (50% back Trump, 46% Biden, not a large enough difference to be considered a lead), but Biden’s edge currently rests on the larger share of voters who identify as Democrats.

The former vice president continues to hold healthy leads among women (55% Biden to 41% Trump) and people of color (69% Biden to 26% Trump). The two run more closely among men (50% Trump to 46% Biden) and the President holds a clear edge among whites (55% Trump to 43% Biden). The poll suggests Biden outpaces Trump among voters over age 45 by a 6-point margin, while the two are near even among those under age 45 (49% Biden to 46% Trump).

Though other recent polling has shown some signs of concern for Biden among younger voters and strength among older ones, few have pegged the race as this close among younger voters. The results suggest that younger voters in the battleground states are tilted in favor of Trump, a stark change from the last CNN poll in which battleground voters were analyzed in March, even as other demographic groups shifted to a smaller degree. Given the small sample size in that subset of voters, it is difficult to determine with certainty whether the movement is significant or a fluke of random sampling. Nationally, Biden holds a lead over Trump among voters age 65 and older, a group which has been tilted Republican in recent presidential elections.

Trump’s biggest advantage over Biden in the poll comes on his handling of the economy. Most voters, 54%, say they trust the President to better handle the nation’s economy, while 42% say they prefer Biden. An earlier release from the same CNN poll found the public’s ratings of the economy at their worst level since 2013, as a growing share said the economic damage wrought by the coronavirus outbreak could be permanent. But Biden does have the advantage as more trusted to handle the response to the coronavirus outbreak (51% Biden to 45% Trump) and health care (54% Biden to 42% Trump).

Voters divide over which of the two has the stamina and sharpness to be president (49% say Trump, 46% Biden), a frequent attack Trump levels against the former vice president. But Biden outpaces Trump across five other tested attributes. His advantage is largest on which candidate would unite the country and not divide it (55% say Biden would, 38% Trump), followed by being honest and trustworthy (53% choose Biden, 38% Trump). Biden is seen as caring more about people like you (54% Biden vs. 42% Trump), better able to manage government effectively (52% Biden to 45% Trump) and more trusted in a crisis (51% Biden to 45% Trump).

A majority of Americans say they have an unfavorable view of the President (55%) while fewer feel negatively about Biden (46%). Among the 14% of registered voters who say they have a negative impression of both Trump and Biden, the former vice president is the clear favorite in the presidential race: 71% say they would vote for Biden, 19% for Trump. Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, who announced he is exploring a run for the presidency on the Libertarian ticket, is unknown to 80% of Americans, and is viewed more unfavorably (13%) than favorably (8%).

As Biden’s campaign moves closer to the selection of a vice presidential running mate, 38% of Democratic voters say choosing a candidate who brings racial and ethnic diversity to the Democratic ticket is one of the top two traits they’d like to see in Biden’s choice, 34% name executive experience as a top-two trait, 32% say bringing ideological balance to the ticket is one of their top two criteria, and 31% say representing the future of the Democratic Party is that important. Proven appeal to swing voters and legislative experience were top tier for about a quarter of voters.

Among Democratic voters of color, 43% say racial and ethnic diversity is one of their top two most important traits, topping all others by 11 points. Among white Democratic voters, diversity and executive experience are about even at the top of the list.

Biden has said he will choose a woman as his vice president. Although several of the possible contenders are unknown to sizable chunks of the population, , five of the women widely considered to be on his list of potential choices — including three of Biden’s former 2020 rivals — are far more liked than disliked among Democratic voters, according to the poll.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren fares best, viewed favorably by 69% of Democratic voters and unfavorably by 19%. California Sen. Kamala Harris is also viewed positively by a majority of Democrats (59% favorable vs. 15% unfavorable). Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar is viewed favorably by 49% of Democratic voters, unfavorably by 15%. Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor of Georgia in 2018, is seen favorably by 43% of Democrats while 11% have an unfavorable view. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is the least widely known of this group, with 63% of Democratic voters saying they haven’t heard of her or don’t yet have an opinion of her, but those who do largely tilt positive, 29% favorable to 9% unfavorable.

The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS May 7-10 among a random national sample of 1,112 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer, including 1,001 registered voters and 583 voters in battleground states, defined as the 15 states decided by 8 points or less in 2016 — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Repubblicani stravincono le suppletive in California e Wisconsin.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-05-15.

Signorelli Luca (1445-1523). Dannati all'inferno (1499-1502), dettaglio 2, Cappella di San Brizio, Duomo di Orvieto

«Mike Garcia, a Republican political newcomer and former military pilot, appeared to have a comfortable lead over his Democratic opponent late Tuesday in a special election to fill a House seat in Southern California»

«A victory would give the Republican Party a lift ahead of November in an election that was held mostly by mail and reflected the nation’s bitter partisan mood.»

«Mr. Garcia and Christy Smith, a Democratic member of the State Assembly, were competing to replace former Representative Katie Hill, who resigned last year after admitting to an affair with a campaign staff member.»

«Mr. Garcia had a lead of nearly 12 percentage points over Ms. Smith with roughly three-quarters of precincts reporting»

«If he wins, it would be the first time a Republican had flipped a previously Democratic House seat in the state since 1998, and would clinch a two-for-two showing by the G.O.P. in Tuesday’s special House elections.»

«In rural northern Wisconsin, Tom Tiffany, a Republican state senator, handily beat Tricia Zunker, a Democratic school board member»

«But his roughly 14-percentage-point margin of victory in a district President Trump won by 20 points in 2016 demonstrated that rural voters in a key battleground state may be slipping away from Mr. Trump in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.»

«The debate over vote-by-mail has grown increasingly rancorous and partisan, with Republicans portraying it as ripe for fraud»

«With just seven polling places open in the 25th District for in-person voting, the vast majority of voters cast their ballots by mail»

«In 2018, liberal activists from Los Angeles flocked to the district to knock on doors and register new voters, which helped to fuel one of the most high-profile victories for Democrats in the midterm elections.»

«State Senator Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin will fill the seat left open by Representative Sean P. Duffy, a Republican who resigned last year.»

«Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, sought to delay the contests and hold all-mail voting, but he was blocked by Republicans in the State Legislature and the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court.»

«’Trump’s base is cracking,’ said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin»

* * * * * * *

«Trump’s base is cracking».

Ben strana frana dell’Elettorato, che ha procurato altri due seggi ai Repubblicani ….

*



Mike Garcia, G.O.P. House Candidate, Is Ahead in California.

VALENCIA, Calif. Mike Garcia, a Republican political newcomer and former military pilot, appeared to have a comfortable lead over his Democratic opponent late Tuesday in a special election to fill a House seat in Southern California. A victory would give the Republican Party a lift ahead of November in an election that was held mostly by mail and reflected the nation’s bitter partisan mood.

Mr. Garcia and Christy Smith, a Democratic member of the State Assembly, were competing to replace former Representative Katie Hill, who resigned last year after admitting to an affair with a campaign staff member. They will meet again in November, when both candidates are planning to run for a full term.

Mr. Garcia had a lead of nearly 12 percentage points over Ms. Smith with roughly three-quarters of precincts reporting. If he wins, it would be the first time a Republican had flipped a previously Democratic House seat in the state since 1998, and would clinch a two-for-two showing by the G.O.P. in Tuesday’s special House elections.

In rural northern Wisconsin, Tom Tiffany, a Republican state senator, handily beat Tricia Zunker, a Democratic school board member. But his roughly 14-percentage-point margin of victory in a district President Trump won by 20 points in 2016 demonstrated that rural voters in a key battleground state may be slipping away from Mr. Trump in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

The California race in particular became a microcosm of national politics amid the pandemic. Negative advertisements blanketed the airwaves in suburbs north of Los Angeles, and national Republicans, led by Mr. Trump, repeatedly tried to sow doubts about the integrity of the election, suggesting without evidence that the contest was rigged.

At the same time, with California now set to conduct the November election primarily through the mail, the contest was also a kind of practice run. The debate over vote-by-mail has grown increasingly rancorous and partisan, with Republicans portraying it as ripe for fraud, without evidence.

In the district, California’s 25th Congressional, where Latinos make up the second-largest group of voters, Mr. Garcia was seen as a top-notch recruit for Republicans. The party has struggled to shore up its support from Latino and Asian voters in such diverse suburban districts of Southern California.

A victory for Mr. Garcia would most likely be seized upon by party leaders who are eager to show that the president maintains support in the kinds of suburban areas that Democrats are counting on to win back the White House. Even before the pandemic, Democrats had tried to cast the race as a referendum on Mr. Trump, a message they hoped would resound with voters who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 by nearly seven points.

All of the roughly 425,000 registered voters in the district received a ballot by mail, postage paid, so that they only had to fill it out and slip it back in the mailbox.

For weeks leading up to Election Day, Republicans appeared to be sending back their ballots at a higher rate than Democrats. And in recent days, Democrats had begun to tamp down expectations, saying that Ms. Smith would fare better against Mr. Garcia in November, when they will face off for the seat again and when there is expected to be more voter enthusiasm for the presidential election.

With just seven polling places open in the 25th District for in-person voting, the vast majority of voters cast their ballots by mail. The voting centers were largely set up in parking lots across the suburban district, with a steady trickle of voters showing up wearing face coverings, while poll workers wiped each machine between uses.

Those who chose to vote in person said they did so either because they had not received a ballot by mail or because they did not trust the United States Postal Service.

‘The system is rigged,’ said Robert Buchanan, a 41-year-old Santa Clarita resident who lost his job in film production in March. A staunch Republican, Mr. Buchanan echoed the doubts voiced by the president. ‘This is the only way I can try to make sure that my vote matters, and even then, will it really?

Though the overwhelming majority of ballots were sent by mail, several voting centers were open Tuesday, primarily for those needing assistance or same-day voter registration. That, too, drew criticism from Mr. Trump and other Republicans, who blasted the decision to add a voting center in Lancaster despite the fact that the move was supported by the longtime Republican mayor of the city, who supports both Mr. Garcia and the president.

Democrats had privately worried that Ms. Hill’s resignation had left the party vulnerable in the district. In 2018, liberal activists from Los Angeles flocked to the district to knock on doors and register new voters, which helped to fuel one of the most high-profile victories for Democrats in the midterm elections.

In Wisconsin, Democrats tried to spin Ms. Zunker’s defeat, saying the margin was evidence that Mr. Trump and Republicans are losing ground in the state.

ImageState Senator Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin will fill the seat left open by Representative Sean P. Duffy, a Republican who resigned last year.

State Senator Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin will fill the seat left open by Representative Sean P. Duffy, a Republican who resigned last year. Credit…Michael P. King/Wisconsin State Journal, via Associated Press

‘Trump’s base is cracking,’ said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. ‘Rural voters are running away from Trump because they know they can’t afford four more years of his broken promises in the Oval Office.’

Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, called Mr. Tiffany’s victory ‘a win for President Trump and Tom Tiffany that demonstrates the enthusiasm behind our president across Wisconsin.’

In addition to Mr. Trump’s 20-point victory in the district in 2016, Representative Sean P. Duffy won re-election in 2018 by 22 points. Even a small slippage from Mr. Trump’s 2016 support could damage his chances of carrying Wisconsin, a state he won by just 22,748 votes four years ago.

Mr. Duffy, a Tea Party darling whom Republicans tried to persuade to run for the Senate in 2018, resigned from his seat last year to care for a baby born with health complications.

Wisconsin’s election was the state’s second in six weeks to take place with in-person voting amid a health crisis that has otherwise shut down most public life in America. Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, sought to delay the contests and hold all-mail voting, but he was blocked by Republicans in the State Legislature and the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Materie Prime, Trump, Unione Europea

EU. Messi i dazi sull’acciaio inossidabile da Cina, Indonesia e Taiwan.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-04-14.

Acciaio a rotoli 001

«The European Commission has imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on some stainless steel products from China, Indonesia and Taiwan, according to the official EU journal, nearly eight months after launching a probe into low-price imports»

«The duties on hot-rolled stainless steel sheets and coils include a rate of 17% on shipments from two Indonesian subsidiaries of Chinese stainless steel maker Tsingshan Holding Group, whose rapid expansion and low production costs in the southeast Asian country have left EU producers fretting over market share»

«Tsingshan’s Chinese rival Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co (000825.SZ) Ltd and three affiliates were hit with the highest rate of 18.9%, while other mainland China firms saw rates of 14.5% and 17.4%. The Taiwan duties were lower, ranging from 6% to 7.5%.»

«That came in the wake of a surge in imports after Washington’s 25% steel import tariffs effectively closed off the U.S. market.»

«Imports from China, Indonesia and Taiwan into the EU increased by 66% over the investigation period between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, reaching more than 30% of free market consumption, the Commission said.»

«Prices of these imports “undercut the (EU) industry’s prices,” it added, putting the undercutting margins at 4.1% for Taiwan, 9.3% for China and 10.7% for Indonesia»

* * * * * * *

Ecco un altro colpo all’applicazione della teoria della globalizzazione e del ‘libero’ mercato.

La Unione Europea aveva fortemente criticato Mr Trump quando aveva messo dei dazi sull’acciaio inossidabile prodotto da quelle nazioni.

Adesso, invece, è lei che mette dazi, ed anche elevati, per proteggere ciò che resta della propria produzione.

Ma se è vero che questo inedito protezionismo garantisce la sopravvivenza delle acciaierie tedesche, sarebbe altrettanto vero che gli altri paesi europei non potranno più approvvigionarsi dell’acciaio inossidabile a prezzi di mercato.

In poche parole, salva le acciaierie e scarica il peso della loro inefficienza sugli utilizzatori europei di tali prodotti.

Sembrerebbe essere una gran brutta azione.

*


EU puts anti-dumping duties on stainless steel from China, Indonesia and Taiwan.

The European Commission has imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on some stainless steel products from China, Indonesia and Taiwan, according to the official EU journal, nearly eight months after launching a probe into low-price imports.

The duties on hot-rolled stainless steel sheets and coils include a rate of 17% on shipments from two Indonesian subsidiaries of Chinese stainless steel maker Tsingshan Holding Group, whose rapid expansion and low production costs in the southeast Asian country have left EU producers fretting over market share.

Tsingshan’s Chinese rival Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co (000825.SZ) Ltd and three affiliates were hit with the highest rate of 18.9%, while other mainland China firms saw rates of 14.5% and 17.4%. The Taiwan duties were lower, ranging from 6% to 7.5%.

It is expected the duties will restore fair trading conditions, end the price depression and allow the EU industry to recover, said the regulation dated April 7, noting price pressure had had a serious impact on profitability.

The investigation began last August after a dumping complaint lodged by the European Steel Association, known as Eurofer, on behalf of four EU producers. That came in the wake of a surge in imports after Washington’s 25% steel import tariffs effectively closed off the U.S. market.

Imports from China, Indonesia and Taiwan into the EU increased by 66% over the investigation period between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, reaching more than 30% of free market consumption, the Commission said.

Prices of these imports “undercut the (EU) industry’s prices,” it added, putting the undercutting margins at 4.1% for Taiwan, 9.3% for China and 10.7% for Indonesia.

The EU has filed a separate complaint to the World Trade Organization about Indonesia’s ban on exports of nickel ore, which is used to make stainless steel ingredient nickel pig iron, from the start of this year.

The Commission said it received replies to questionnaires from the two known stainless steel sheet and coil exporters in Indonesia, both of whose ultimate parent was China’s Tsingshan.

“Both exporting producers failed to provide a meaningful worldwide structure of the group in their questionnaire replies and during the verification visits,” it said, adding it had found the price they paid for nickel ore was more than 30% below the international market price.

The commission gave interested parties 15 calendar days to submitted written comments on the regulation and five calendar days to request a hearing.

Pubblicato in: Economia e Produzione Industriale, Materie Prime, Stati Uniti, Trump

Guerra del petrolio. Trump telefona a Mohammed bin Salman.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-04-03.

2020-04-03__Oil WTI 001

«Oil prices spiked on Thursday morning after U.S. President Donald Trump said that he spoke with the Saudi Crown Prince, and hoped and expected that Saudi Arabia and Russia would “cut back approximately 10 Million Barrels, and maybe substantially more,” sending oil prices soaring by 20 percent»

«Just spoke to my friend MBS (Crown Prince) of Saudi Arabia, who spoke with President Putin of Russia, & I expect & hope that they will be cutting back approximately 10 Million Barrels, and maybe substantially more which, if it happens, will be GREAT for the oil & gas industry!»

«Oil prices soared immediately after the tweet, with WTI Crude soaring 25.90 percent at $25.51 as of 11:04 a.m. EDT and Brent Crude surging 20.57 percent at $29.83»

* * * * * * *

2020-04-03__Oil WTI 002

Potenza di una telefonata.

2020-04-03__Oil WTI 003

Finché dura….

*

Trump Tweet Sends Oil Soaring 25%

Oil prices spiked on Thursday morning after U.S. President Donald Trump said that he spoke with the Saudi Crown Prince, and hoped and expected that Saudi Arabia and Russia would “cut back approximately 10 Million Barrels, and maybe substantially more,” sending oil prices soaring by 20 percent. 

“Just spoke to my friend MBS (Crown Prince) of Saudi Arabia, who spoke with President Putin of Russia, & I expect & hope that they will be cutting back approximately 10 Million Barrels, and maybe substantially more which, if it happens, will be GREAT for the oil & gas industry!” President Trump tweeted on Thursday.

Oil prices soared immediately after the tweet, with WTI Crude soaring 25.90 percent at $25.51 as of 11:04 a.m. EDT and Brent Crude surging 20.57 percent at $29.83.

According to the Saudi’s official news agency, SPA, Saudi Arabia is calling for an urgent meeting for OPEC+ states “and another group of countries”.

Making no mention of specific numbers.

The press agency later went on to make mention of the relationship with the United States.

Earlier today, prices were already gaining more than 8 percent after the market began to tentatively hope that former allies Russia and Saudi Arabia could re-launch talks on propping up oil prices, which are too low for both of those economies, regardless of their claims of ‘resilience’ even at these prices.

After weeks of ‘no-backing-down’ in the oil price war, the former allies Saudi Arabia and Russia have started hinting at readiness to re-launch cooperation to save oil prices from sliding further amid the massive demand loss in the coronavirus pandemic.

“Saudi Arabia has always welcomed and supported cooperation among oil producers in their efforts to stabilize the oil market during the current crisis, based on the principles of fairness and equity,” a Gulf source familiar with Saudi Arabia’s thinking told Reuters on Thursday but said that the OPEC+ break-up was Russia’s fault.

Russia, for its part, has decided it’s economically unfeasible for its producers to boost oil production right now, so Moscow called off an earlier promise to also increase supply, albeit at a much lower rate than Saudi Arabia.

With U.S. shale producers suffering the first immediate blow from the Saudi-Russian oil price war, U.S. President Trump discussed the situation on the oil market with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin earlier this week and said he held a separate phone call with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

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

Trump ha già nominato 51 giudici nelle corti di appello federali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-03-25.

2020-02-05__Trump 001

Negli Stati Uniti vi sono 179 posti di giudice federale nelle corti di appello, che sono organizzate su 13 circuiti, ossia zone di competenza. Le loro sentenze possono essere appellate presso la Corte Suprema, ma solo sotto un profilo giuridico costituzionale.

Dalla data della sua nomina a Presidente, Mr Trump ha nominato 51 (28.5%) giudici nelle corti di appello e due (22.2%) giudici nella Corte Suprema.

Ha ridisegnato per decenni l’alta giustizia americana, tenendo conto che queste sono nomine a vita. Se poi dovesse essere riconfermato alle prossime elezioni, la grande maggioranza dei giudici sarebbe repubblicana, ribaltando così il lungo periodo di predominio democratico.

In particolare, è riuscito quasi a riequilibrare il 9th Circuit, dalle cui corti sono uscite la maggior parte delle sentenze che cercavano di inficiare l’operato politico del Presidente.

* * * * * * *

«Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’»

«In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states»

«Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.»

«Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years»

«To be sure, some of the new appointees to the 9th Circuit have quickly won the respect of their colleagues»

«Among those who have caused the most consternation is Judge Daniel P. Collins, a former federal prosecutor and partner of a prestigious law firm …. »

«Some judges say that, in the early months of his tenure, Collins has appeared oblivious to court tradition. He …. objected to other judges’ rulings in language that some colleagues found combative»

«Collins also moved quickly to challenge rulings by his new colleagues, calling for review of five decisions by three-judge panels, and some of the calls came before Collins even had been assigned to his first panel»

«Collins has definitely bulldozed his way around here already in a short time»

«Democratic appointees still make up the majority of active judges — 16 to 13»

«Of the senior judges who will be deciding cases on “merits” panels — reading briefs and issuing rulings — 10 are Republicans and only three are Democratic appointees»

«The 9th Circuit is weighing challenges to Trump on a wide array of issues, from immigration to reproductive rights, and the rightward tilt is likely to make it easier for the president to prevail.»

«The 9th Circuit court has been dominated by Democratic appointees for decades. In 1978, a federal law created 10 new judgeships on the court, allowing President Carter to fill them all»

«One study, examining the years 2010 to 2015, found that the 9th Circuit was the third most reversed by the Supreme Court, following the Ohio-based 6th and Georgia-based 11th circuits»

«That happened in July after a panel of three Republican appointees upheld a Trump ruling denying federal family planning funds to clinics that referred women for abortions. A Democratic appointee called for en banc review, and a majority voted in favor. But the randomly selected 11-member panel had a majority of Republican appointees»

«Trump appointed the successors to the late Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Harry Pregerson, two of the most liberal circuit judges in the nation, and filled other slots created by Republicans who opted to take senior status»

«Trump’s rapid transformation of the circuit courts — three others went from a majority of active judges appointed by Democrats to Republican majorities — was accomplished with the support of Senate Republicans.»

«Nominations of appellate judges may no longer be blocked by filibuster, and Republican Senate leaders have declined under Trump to follow the practice of allowing an appointee’s home-state senators to veto the president’s choice»

«The federal appeals courts are just one rung below the Supreme Court, and federal judges serve for life»

* * * * * * *

I punti centrali da comprendere sembrerebbero essere, inter alias, i seguenti.

«The 9th Circuit court has been dominated by Democratic appointees for decades. In 1978, a federal law created 10 new judgeships on the court, allowing President Carter to fill them all»

«One study, examining the years 2010 to 2015, found that the 9th Circuit was the third most reversed by the Supreme Court, following the Ohio-based 6th and Georgia-based 11th circuits»

Nel 1978, con un abile colpo di mano, Mr Carter aumentò di dieci unità il collegio dei giudici delle corti di appello federali del 9th Circuit, e vi nominò dieci giudici ferventi liberal democratici, che da allora emisero quasi soltanto sentenze politiche.

Da allora il nono circuito è stato il motore da cui sono partite salve di sentenze che avevano cercato di bloccare l’operato del Presidente, salvo poi essere anche clamorosamente smentite dalla Corte Suprema, ma dopo anni di iter giudiziario.

Adesso sarà impossibile che il nono circuito continui a svolgere una così intensa attività politica a supporto dei liberal democratici. E questo per qualche decennio.

Adesso, se anche una mano esaltata assassinasse Mr Trump, le 51 nomine resterebbero al loro posto, a vita.

*

Los Angeles Times. Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’

When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.

In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.

Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.

“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush.

To assess the early impact of these appointments, the Los Angeles Times interviewed several judges on the 9th Circuit. Some either declined to discuss their colleagues or inner deliberations or refused to be quoted by name, saying they were not authorized to speak about what went on behind the scenes.

To be sure, some of the new appointees to the 9th Circuit have quickly won the respect of their colleagues. But the rapid influx of so many judges — most without judicial experience — has put strains upon the court and stirred criticism among judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.

“Ten new people at once sends a shock wave through the system,” a 9th Circuit judge said.

Among those who have caused the most consternation is Judge Daniel P. Collins, a former federal prosecutor and partner of a prestigious law firm.

Some judges say that, in the early months of his tenure, Collins has appeared oblivious to court tradition. He has sent memos at all times of the night in violation of a court rule and objected to other judges’ rulings in language that some colleagues found combative, they said.

Collins also moved quickly to challenge rulings by his new colleagues, calling for review of five decisions by three-judge panels, and some of the calls came before Collins even had been assigned to his first panel, judges said.

Active judges vote on the calls behind the scenes, and the public becomes aware of a failed effort only when dissents are later filed by the judges who favored reconsideration. Judges said it was unprecedented for a new jurist to try to overturn so many decisions in such a short period of time. The court has so far rejected most of Collins’ calls.

“Collins has definitely bulldozed his way around here already in a short time,” one 9th Circuit judge said. “Either he doesn’t care or doesn’t realize that he has offended half the court already.”

Collins did not respond to a request for an interview.

Democratic appointees still make up the majority of active judges — 16 to 13. But the court also has judges on “senior status” who continue to sit on panels that decide cases. Senior-status rank gives judges more flexibility but allows them to continue to work, even full time.

Of the senior judges who will be deciding cases on “merits” panels — reading briefs and issuing rulings — 10 are Republicans and only three are Democratic appointees, Smith said.

“You will see a sea change in the 9th Circuit on day-to-day decisions,” Smith predicted.

The biggest change will come in controversial cases that test the constitutionality of laws and the legal ability of presidents to establish contentious new rules. The 9th Circuit is weighing challenges to Trump on a wide array of issues, from immigration to reproductive rights, and the rightward tilt is likely to make it easier for the president to prevail.

Only two of the 9th Circuit appointees have prior judicial experience — Bridget S. Bade and Danielle Hunsaker. They also are the only women among the court’s new judges. Three are Asian Americans — one an openly gay man who has two children with his husband. The other five are white men. Several went to the nation’s top universities.

The American Bar Assn. rated six of the 10, including Collins, “well qualified,” the group’s highest rating for circuit judge candidates. Three received the lower “qualified” rating, and one, Lawrence VanDyke, was found to be “not qualified.”

Though conservative, the Trump appointees to the 9th Circuit are not monolithic. Two Trump appointees — Bade, a former federal court magistrate, and Mark J. Bennett, a former attorney general of Hawaii — are regarded by their colleagues as experienced and collegial.

Trump appointee Eric D. Miller also has drawn positive reviews from both Democratic and Republican appointees. Before his appointment, Miller headed up the appellate division of a major law firm.

“I think he will be a good judge,” a 9th Circuit veteran said.

But Trump appointee Judge Ryan D. Nelson rattled other members of the court when he suggested during a hearing in August that the 9th Circuit remove a respected San Francisco district judge, Edward M. Chen, from a case. The 9th Circuit rarely takes cases away from district judges and only in extreme situations.

Chen, a former ACLU lawyer, was serving as a federal magistrate when Obama elevated him to the district court. Nelson complained about him during a hearing on a case in which Chen imposed an injunction on a Trump plan to take away protected status from many immigrants.

“You can reverse Ed Chen from time to time, but to suggest from the bench that are you are going to reassign” a case is “off the reservation,” one longtime 9th Circuit judge said. “Ed is an extremely well-respected judge.”

Another veteran called Nelson’s suggestion “beginner stuff.”

“When he is in a china shop, he doesn’t walk around with caution,” the judge said.

Nelson, an Idaho lawyer who worked as general counsel for a wellness consumer goods company, did not respond to a request for comment.

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th Circuit, a Clinton appointee, noted that most of the Trump appointees were still in transition, with the heat of the political process of Senate confirmation not far behind them. She said she was optimistic the 9th Circuit would continue to be collegial.

Another judge predicted that even the hard-charging Collins, educated at Harvard and Stanford, would “mellow.”

“I think he will be fine,” the judge said, “though he will never be a go-along-get-along guy.”

The behind-the-scenes tensions over Collins spilled into public last month in an order rejecting a call, presumably made by Collins, to reconsider a panel’s decision. The panel had upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of suppressing evidence from a tribal officer’s search of a vehicle on a public highway. The highway ran through tribal land.

Collins, dissenting from the court’s refusal to reconsider, was joined by three judges, two Trump appointees and one appointed by President George W. Bush.

Collins called the panel’s decision “deeply flawed,” “plagued” by legal error and marked by “confused analysis.”

Two Democratic appointees whose ruling Collins wanted reversed wrote that, even in the genre of such dissents, Collins’ was an “outlier.”

“It misrepresents the legal context of this case and wildly exaggerates the purported consequences of the panel opinion,” wrote Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a Clinton appointee, and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, an Obama appointee.

“This case involves an unusual factual scenario and a technical issue of Indian tribal authority,” they said. “It certainly does not present a ‘question of exceptional importance’ meriting en banc consideration.”

The 9th Circuit court has been dominated by Democratic appointees for decades. In 1978, a federal law created 10 new judgeships on the court, allowing President Carter to fill them all. The liberal Carter appointees were followed by judges named by three Republican presidents and two Democrats.

Clinton’s and Obama’s appointees were not uniformly liberal, however, and the 9th Circuit has been growing more moderate. One study, examining the years 2010 to 2015, found that the 9th Circuit was the third most reversed by the Supreme Court, following the Ohio-based 6th and Georgia-based 11th circuits.

Still, with Democratic nominees heavily outnumbering Republicans, there were usually enough votes to overturn conservative decisions by three-judge panels.

Smith predicts the full effect of the Trump appointees won’t be seen until 2021, when they will be carrying full caseloads.

But even now, Democratic appointees are likely to be more reluctant to ask for 11-judge panels to review conservative decisions because the larger en banc panels, chosen randomly, might be dominated by Republicans, judges said.

That happened in July after a panel of three Republican appointees upheld a Trump ruling denying federal family planning funds to clinics that referred women for abortions. A Democratic appointee called for en banc review, and a majority voted in favor. But the randomly selected 11-member panel had a majority of Republican appointees, including two named by Trump.

The 9th Circuit is by far the largest in the federal appeals court in the nation, and its judges are scattered over nine states.

Some judges elect to work alone with their staffs in offices or courthouses near their homes. Most 9th Circuit veterans have yet to have had any experience with the new appointees, and it could take years before they serve on a panel with each of them.

Trump appointed the successors to the late Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Harry Pregerson, two of the most liberal circuit judges in the nation, and filled other slots created by Republicans who opted to take senior status.

The new appointees include Patrick Bumatay, the openly gay former prosecutor, and Daniel A. Bress, a former partner at the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis. The ABA rated both qualified. During a hearing in January on challenges to Trump’s immigration policies, Bress appeared ready to side with Trump.

The others are Kenneth Kiyul Lee, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Jenner & Block LLP, who received a well-qualified rating and VanDyke, a former solicitor general of Nevada and a federal deputy assistant attorney general.

In rating VanDyke unqualified for the job, the ABA wrote: “Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice, including procedural rules.” VanDyke cried during his confirmation hearing when attempting to rebut criticism that he might be unfair to the LGBTQ community.

Trump’s rapid transformation of the circuit courts — three others went from a majority of active judges appointed by Democrats to Republican majorities — was accomplished with the support of Senate Republicans.

Nominations of appellate judges may no longer be blocked by filibuster, and Republican Senate leaders have declined under Trump to follow the practice of allowing an appointee’s home-state senators to veto the president’s choice.

“Trump has set all records for the number of appellate appointees,” said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.

The federal appeals courts are just one rung below the Supreme Court, and federal judges serve for life.

Though some 9th Circuit veterans expressed unease at the inexperience of some of the new judges, 9th Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan said they would grow into the job.

“Both President Obama and President Trump appointed quite a few young people with really exceptional credentials but not necessarily judicial experience,” said Callahan, appointed by President George W. Bush.

Four of Obama’s seven appointees had been judges.

Pubblicato in: Medicina e Biologia, Stati Uniti, Trump

USA. Virus. Senza interventi si prospetterebbe almeno un milione di morti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-03-20.

Washington. White House. 001

Coronavirus, Trump dichiara emergenza nazionale

«Il presidente americano Donald Trump ha dichiarato un’emergenza nazionale di fronte all’emergenza coronavirus. Un passo, ha detto, che permetterà di mobilitare risorse per 50 miliardi. I 50 stati dovranno aprire centri per affrontare la crisi e approntare piani per l’emergenza.

Trump ha inoltre detto di aspettarsi che “già la settimana prossima saranno disponibili mezzo milione in più di test” per il corononavirus. “Ciò porterà probabilmente a 1,4 milioni di test la settimana prossima e cinque milioni in un mese”, ha aggiunto. Il presidente ha spiegato che la proclamazione dell’emergenza nazionale permetterà al segretario alla Salute di sospendere una serie di leggi e regolamenti, in modo da concedere più flessibilità agli operatori sanitari nella lotta contro la diffusione del coronavirus.»

Il cuore del provvedimento è racchiuso nell’ultima frase:

«la proclamazione dell’emergenza nazionale permetterà al segretario alla Salute di sospendere una serie di leggi e regolamenti, in modo da concedere più flessibilità agli operatori sanitari».

* * * * * * *

A febbraio si è svolta una riunione tra membri dei Cdc (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) ed esperti di tutto il mondo sulla diffusione del virus negli Stati Uniti. Uno degli esperti, Matthew Biggerstaff, ha illustrato 4 scenari possibili basati sulle caratteristiche del virus, sulla rapidità di diffusione e sulla gravità della malattia.

«Tra 160 e 214 milioni di persone potrebbero essere infettate negli Stati Uniti nel corso dell’epidemia, secondo una proiezione. L’epidemia potrebbe durare mesi o anche più di un anno, con contagi concentrati in periodi più breve, scaglionati nel corso del tempo in comunità differenti. Potrebbero morire da 200.000 a 1,7 milioni di persone»

*

«Statistical models meant to project the potential reach of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 disease suggest more than a million Americans could die if the nation does not take swift action to stop its spread as quickly as possible»

«At least three different models built by epidemiology experts suggest that millions of Americans will contract the coronavirus, even in optimistic projections, based on what they know of its spread in China and the United States so far»

«One model from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggested that between 160 million and 210 million Americans could contract the disease over as long as a year. Based on mortality data and current hospital capacity, the number of deaths under the CDC’s scenarios ranged from 200,000 to as many as 1.7 million»

«It found as many as 21 million people might need hospitalization, a daunting figure in a nation with just about 925,000 hospital beds»

«Another model built by experts at Resolve to Save Lives, a global health nonprofit, and the Council on Foreign Relations found the number of potential deaths could range from as few as 163,500, if the virus is no more deadly than seasonal influenza, to more than 1.6 million if the virus carries a mortality rate of just 1 percent»

«Modeling is to inform planning so that the worst-case scenarios are much less likely to occur»

* * * * * * *

Di fronte ad emergenze di questo livello sarebbe sempre opportuno considerare anche le peggiori evenienze, facendo il possibile perché non si concretizzino.

Circa gli Stati Uniti sarebbe però da ricordare come il governo federale abbia molte competenze, ma, essendo un federazione, altrettante spettano ai singoli stati.

*


The New York Times. Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths

Projections based on C.D.C. scenarios show a potentially vast toll. But those numbers don’t account for interventions now underway.

«Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and epidemic experts from universities around the world conferred last month about what might happen if the new coronavirus gained a foothold in the United States. How many people might die? How many would be infected and need hospitalization?»

*


U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Guidance on Evaluating and Testing Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

«The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to closely monitor and respond to the COVID-19 outbreak caused by the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

This CDC Health Alert Network (HAN) Update highlights guidance and recommendations for evaluating and identifying patients who should be tested for COVID-19 that were shared on March 4, 2020, on the CDC COVID-19 website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html. It supersedes the guidance and recommendations provided in CDC’s HAN 428 distributed on February 28, 2020. ….»

*


Worst-case coronavirus models show massive US toll.

Statistical models meant to project the potential reach of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 disease suggest more than a million Americans could die if the nation does not take swift action to stop its spread as quickly as possible.

At least three different models built by epidemiology experts suggest that millions of Americans will contract the coronavirus, even in optimistic projections, based on what they know of its spread in China and the United States so far. 

One model from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggested that between 160 million and 210 million Americans could contract the disease over as long as a year. Based on mortality data and current hospital capacity, the number of deaths under the CDC’s scenarios ranged from 200,000 to as many as 1.7 million. 

It found as many as 21 million people might need hospitalization, a daunting figure in a nation with just about 925,000 hospital beds.

The CDC’s model was described to The Hill by an expert who watched the presentation. The New York Times first reported its existence.

“CDC is working with federal partners on modeling efforts to estimate how many COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths might occur under various hypothetical scenarios and what the economic impact of COVID-19 might be on the United States. This type of modeling work is commonly used as a planning tool during outbreaks and can help inform the public health response, as well as other policies (e.g. economic policies) to mitigate the potential impact on the United States,” a CDC spokesman said in a statement.

The spokesman said the modeling can help health systems plan for a surge in patients and help the CDC plan to distribute medical experts and equipment. It also helps show local governments when mitigation steps like school closures are wise.

Another model built by experts at Resolve to Save Lives, a global health nonprofit, and the Council on Foreign Relations found the number of potential deaths could range from as few as 163,500, if the virus is no more deadly than seasonal influenza, to more than 1.6 million if the virus carries a mortality rate of just 1 percent.

Those figures are based on estimates that half of Americans will contract the virus.

Globally, the numbers are even more staggering. Five researchers at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health estimated that between 20 percent and 60 percent of everyone on earth — or between 1.4 billion and 4.2 billion people — could eventually contract the disease.

If the virus only kills 1 percent of those who contract it, somewhere between 14 million and 42 million people are at risk. In countries like Iran and Italy, where health systems are overrun, the mortality rate can be much higher. 

The models are meant to project how a virus spreads around the world, including assumptions for both best- and worst-case scenarios. Those worst-case scenarios assume societies take no action against the virus — and in some cases the eye-popping numbers can spur a community to action, said Tom Frieden, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who now runs Resolve to Save Lives.

“Modeling is to inform planning so that the worst-case scenarios are much less likely to occur,” he said in an email. “The range of estimates is huge. We need much more information, fast, to understand how to limit the harms.”

The CDC warned that new data was still coming in, and that assumptions about the virus — how readily it spreads, how deadly it might be — continue to evolve.

“This is a rapidly evolving situation and information is changing quickly. Estimates based on data from other countries might not be applicable to the United States and it is unclear how the COVID-19 situation will play out in this country,” the agency spokesman said.

Governments across the world have taken a range of actions meant to hew closer to best-case outcomes, ranging from China’s harsh crackdowns and enforced quarantines to South Korea’s vast army of testers who screen motorists at drive-through stations. 

In the United States, where the federal government has been slower to act, state governments have moved to squelch outbreaks in their backyards. Mobile testing stations have opened in Minnesota and Colorado. Large gatherings have been prohibited in Washington, New York, Oregon and elsewhere. Several states have won approval from the Food and Drug Administration to begin testing patients for the virus, and New York has even rolled out its own plan to make tens of thousands of gallons of hand sanitizer every day.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. I democratici iniziano una revisione critica di quanto hanno fatto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-03-07.

2020-02-05__Trump 001

La critica è la facoltà intellettuale che rende capaci di esaminare e valutare i risultati delle attività svolte, per scegliere, selezionare, distinguere il vero dal falso, il certo dal probabile: il suo massimo obiettivo consta nella ricerca di contraddizioni e, quindi, di errori.

Fare errori è insito nella natura umana, ma individuarli e, possibilmente, cercare di correggerli è opera difficile, che richiede di essere il più obiettivi il possibile, dote questa difficilmente riscontrabile.

Di questi tempi taluni ambienti liberal democratici hanno avviato un processo di revisione critica di quanto il partito ha fatto negli ultimi tre anni di presidenza Trump. È un inizio, ma potrebbe essere proficuo per impostare una campagna elettorale veramente efficace.

Le elezioni di novembre sono della massima importanza, sia per Mr Trump sia per i liberal democratici, ovviamente per motivi opposti. Al di là delle questioni di prestigio politico, nel prossimo quadriennio il presidente ed il senato dovranno rinnovare circa quattrocento giudici di nomina presidenziale approvata dal senato. Una vittoria di Mr Trump condizionerebbe per decenni il sistema giudiziario americano.

*

«Democrats need to stop pretending they live in a dictatorship»

«the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump gained little viewership, while the President’s approval ratings hit a personal record high»

«Even more troubling is the turnout in last week’s Iowa caucuses. …. the turnout was lower than expected»

«It’s becoming clear that the fault lies neither in the White House nor in the American public, but in a troubling undercurrent at the heart of the Democrat-led resistance to the Trump administration»

«Democratic resistance leaders have often accommodated Trump while simultaneously casting themselves as martyrs in primetime passion plays, appropriating historic tragedies and pretending they live in a dictatorship»

«In 2018, after Trump held a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, lawmakers and commentators compared the meeting to the Japanese slaughter of two thousand Americans at Pearl Harbor»

«Others went further, likening the Trump-Putin meeting to the Nazi pogrom of Jews on Kristallnacht»

«Last year, California Rep. Eric Swalwell invoked the Holocaust after the Trump campaign issued a memo telling television producers Swalwell and other members of Congress weren’t trustworthy»

«The need to explain why a powerful member of Congress in the greatest democracy in the world has nothing in common with Holocaust victims is one of the more depressingly unnecessary exercises of the past three years.»

«Last month, during Trump’s impeachment trial, New York Rep. Jerry Nadler publicly called the President “a dictator” from the Senate floor»

«But perhaps the most telling encapsulation of these theatrics is the video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump’s State of the Union address»

«Over the past three years, the US courts, human rights groups, media organizations and countless ordinary Americans have stood up to the White House’s attempts to circumvent our democracy»

«And if words matter, and gestures matter, and actions matter, the answer to Trump requires a sober commitment to avoid meaningless words, gestures and actions.»

«If tearing up pieces of paper is the best that powerful American Democrats can do, is it any surprise to see low voter turnout?»

«If tearing up pieces of paper is the best we can do, we’re in for a depressing November. »

* * * * * * *

In estrema sintesi, sarebbero stati individuati alcuni errori.

– L’impeachment ha esitato facendo di Mr Trump un martire accusato ingiustamente, fatto di cui il presidente ha tratto grande vantaggio nella campagna per la rielezione.

– I liberal dovrebbero smettere di fingere in un regime dittatoriale.

– I toni dovrebbero essere abbassati, abbandonando l’uso delle iperboli, quali assimilare Mr Trump al nazionalsocialismo, considerarlo un dittatore oppure un soppressore delle libertà democratiche.

«And if words matter, and gestures matter, and actions matter, the answer to Trump requires a sober commitment to avoid meaningless words, gestures and actions.»

– Le risposte a Mr Trump dovrebbero essere sobrie, ed evitare parole, gesti ed azioni senza senso.

Queste considerazioni sembrerebbero aver grande peso, specie tenendo conto che i liberal democratici dovranno non solo convincere gli Elettori, ma soprattutto evitare una disassuefazione alla politica, che esiterebbe in un astensionismo degli Elettori democratici.

*


Democrats need to stop pretending they live in a dictatorship

So far, 2020 has brought a dose of sobriety for the Democratic Party: the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump gained little viewership, while the President’s approval ratings hit a personal record high. Even more troubling is the turnout in last week’s Iowa caucuses. One would expect the prospect of voting out Trump to bring record-shattering numbers of energized Democrats to the polls. Instead, the turnout was lower than expected, an ominous sign for what’s to come.

This shouldn’t be surprising. It’s becoming clear that the fault lies neither in the White House nor in the American public, but in a troubling undercurrent at the heart of the Democrat-led resistance to the Trump administration. Unless we acknowledge and address this, we’re looking at a repeat of 2016.

In nearly every other use of “the resistance” — from World War II to “Star Wars” films — the term refers to individuals battling actual tyranny while actually risking their lives. People saving Jews in Nazi-occupied France didn’t advertise their bravery. Harriet Tubman didn’t walk around the South soliciting accolades. For them, being discovered meant being literally slain. For them, there were consequences.

Conversely, Democratic resistance leaders have often accommodated Trump while simultaneously casting themselves as martyrs in primetime passion plays, appropriating historic tragedies and pretending they live in a dictatorship.

In 2018, after Trump held a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, lawmakers and commentators compared the meeting to the Japanese slaughter of two thousand Americans at Pearl Harbor. Others went further, likening the Trump-Putin meeting to the Nazi pogrom of Jews on Kristallnacht.

Last year, California Rep. Eric Swalwell invoked the Holocaust after the Trump campaign issued a memo telling television producers Swalwell and other members of Congress weren’t trustworthy. It was pure trolling, malicious yet toothless. But that didn’t stop Swalwell from comparing himself to Holocaust victims by referencing Pastor Martin Niemöller’s “First they came for the…” poem about vulnerable groups targeted by the Third Reich. The need to explain why a powerful member of Congress in the greatest democracy in the world has nothing in common with Holocaust victims is one of the more depressingly unnecessary exercises of the past three years.

The Niemöller poem resurfaced this week, when prominent Resistance member Benjamin Wittes tweeted “First they came for Comey, and I said nothing.” Anne Frank huddled in an attic, then died in a Nazi concentration camp. James Comey was fired from the FBI and is currently raking in millions from book sales and speeches.

Apparently to some people, those two situations are comparable.

The performances aren’t limited to Twitter. Last month, during Trump’s impeachment trial, New York Rep. Jerry Nadler publicly called the President “a dictator” from the Senate floor. Again, it’s hard to explain just how absurd and insulting this is, especially for someone like me, who came to the US as a refugee from an actual dictatorship.

But perhaps the most telling encapsulation of these theatrics is the video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump’s State of the Union address. The problem with Pelosi’s gesture is that last June, she and the rest of the House leadership bankrolled Trump’s dark vision for America by approving the Senate’s emergency funding border bill. Other than curtailing the amount toward building Trump’s wall, the bill had nearly everything the president wanted.

The House Democrats couldn’t stop ICE’s predations on vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers. They couldn’t negotiate delivering basic sanitation supplies to the camps. They couldn’t even bring themselves to censure Iowa Rep. Steve King, who has a track record of spewing the same talking points as white supremacist terrorists.

But they sure could preen during the State of the Union.

Over the past three years, the US courts, human rights groups, media organizations and countless ordinary Americans have stood up to the White House’s attempts to circumvent our democracy. But those actions stand in stark contrast to the cynical choreography of prominent resistance champions. And if words matter, and gestures matter, and actions matter, the answer to Trump requires a sober commitment to avoid meaningless words, gestures and actions.

I remember the awful helplessness of living in refugee camps and praying for America to grant asylum to me and my family. Our living conditions were nothing like the horror today’s asylum seekers are going through, but still, they gave me an appreciation of true versus empty acts. And it didn’t take long to realize that the people who helped us the most, bragged the least while the ones who did little, bragged the most.

Comparing America to a dictatorship didn’t aid a single child in the camps. Ripping up the State of the Union speech didn’t help the families huddled in terror of ICE raids, or millions of individuals deprived of food stamps by the Trump administration, or Jews and Muslims fearful of getting gunned down by terrorists. If tearing up pieces of paper is the best that powerful American Democrats can do, is it any surprise to see low voter turnout?

If tearing up pieces of paper is the best we can do, we’re in for a depressing November

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump

Elezioni Americane. Primi sondaggi per il Senato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-24.

2020-02-24__Elezioni Americane Senato 001

Durante le elezioni presidenziali di novembre si voterà anche per il rinnovo di 35 seggi senatoriali.

Ricordiamo come il controllo del senato sia della massima importanza, perché questo è chiamato a ratificare le nomine federali presidenziali, quali per esempio quelle dei giudici, 400 dei quali dovranno essere nominati nel corso del prossimo quadriennio.

*

2020 Senate Election Interactive Map.

«35 U.S. Senate seats to be contested in 2020.

The U.S. Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats (including two independents). There are 35 seats up in 2020 – including special elections in Arizona and Georgia – of which 23 are held by the GOP. Democrats will need to gain 3 or 4 seats to take control.

This 3-part Senate map lets you view the current Senate, make a forecast for the 2020 Senate elections, and see the composition of the 2021 Senate based on those predictions. Use the buttons below the map to share it on social media or embed it into a web page.»

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti, Trump

Lo scenario di Trump rieletto visto dai liberal democratici. – Cnn

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-02-21.

Snoopy__001

«Attacking Trump has become something of a hobby at this annual Bavarian gathering»

«Few Westlessness believers doubt he will win a second term.»

*

Le elezioni presidenziali americane di novembre hanno la concreta possibilità di riconfermare Mr Trump alla presidenza. Per essere cauti, avrebbe un buon 50% di probabilità di riuscirci.

È nella logica delle cose che i repubblicani esulterebbero, mentre il liberal democratici vedrebbero ciò come una terrificante iattura.

Un solo dato a giustificazione della angoscia dei liberal: nel prossimo quadriennio dovranno essere rinnovati quasi quattrocento giudici federali: in tal caso la composizione delle corti sarebbe per due terzi repubblicana. Una simile composizione delle corti federali durerebbe decine di anni.

Ma una eventuale rielezione avrebbe anche ripercussioni in tutto il mondo.

I più paventano una “Westlessness”: se il significato letterale dovrebbe essere la designazione della scomparsa dell’occidente, in realtà designa la scomparsa della sua componente liberal democratica negli Stati Uniti e, di conseguenza, della sparizione dei liberal socialisti in Europa. È del tutto sequenziale che i liberal democratici e socialisti aborriscano una tale evenienza.

* * * * * * *

«What will a second Donald Trump presidential term look like — if it happens? That was the thought in many delegates’ minds as they gathered over the weekend in the southern German city of Munich for a security conference»

«Defense Secretary Mark Esper was a key speaker in Munich. …. “China, China, China, Russia, China.”»

«Attacking Trump has become something of a hobby at this annual Bavarian gathering»

«Germany in particular has drawn Trump’s ire»

«Since his presidency began, the MSC has become a diplomatic skirmish and precursor to tougher battles to come.»

«Only last year, host Chancellor Angela Merkel clashed with US Vice President Mike Pence over NATO, Iran and gas from Russia»

«The working assumption here is that Trump is to blame for the loss of core values» [Nota. Per “core values” l’articolista intende l’ideologia liberal socialista]

«Few Westlessness believers doubt he will win a second term.»

«But the reality is, despite the Westlessness MSC rhetoric, most in Munich believe Trump is the future»

«The MSC foreshadows a world split into either pro-USA, or pro-China camps.»

«But to be part of the universe of everything America, with Trump at the door, can be a formidable gate keeper.»

«The thought in European capitals now, is how he will respond with recalcitrant allies if he is handed a second term. It could be a case study in retribution»

«America’s friends are facing tough choices they haven’t had to make in generations»

«It’s almost 30 years since the Cold War ended: for a few decades the world felt less divided. A second round of Trump could change all that.»

«But for anyone thinking a Democrat may be different, Bremmer cautions America’s isolation is not a Trumpian thing; he said it had begun under Obama, the last President’s policies in the Middle East being an example of that»

«Europe may find America has grown out of love with its Western roots and moved on» [Nota. Per “Western roots” l’articolista intende l’ideologia liberal socialista]

* * * * * * *

Ricordiamo come quanto esposto sia il punto di vista di un liberal democratico che scrive dalla roccaforte dei liberal.

Sicuramente un secondo mandato a Mr Trump toglierebbe un gran numero di centri di potere ai liberal democratici, e con essi una cospicua fonte di guadagni.

L’Unione Europea si troverebbe al bivio, se scomparire oppure adattarsi.

In modo significativo, e verosimilmente non certo casuale, tra ottobre e novembre dovrebbe anche decidersi il Merkeldämmerung.

*


The world is bracing for what another four years of Trump could look like

What will a second Donald Trump presidential term look like — if it happens? That was the thought in many delegates’ minds as they gathered over the weekend in the southern German city of Munich for a security conference.

The official theme at the conference was “Westlessness,” an intentional gripe at the impact of Trump’s isolationist, America First policies. But what emerged at the event, attended by hundreds of world leaders and their top officials, was a soft-focus vision of the next four years if Trump wins reelection.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper was a key speaker in Munich. Leaving Washington for Europe at the beginning of the week, one of his senior officials framed his mission to the MSC as, “China, China, China, Russia, China.”

He wasn’t the only American official bringing that message.

Attacking Trump has become something of a hobby at this annual Bavarian gathering. It is symptomatic of how many in Europe feel that America, and Trump in particular, is withdrawing from the post-World War II world order it built, leaving more than half a billion people this side of the Atlantic, and countless more around the planet without the deep pockets and security backing they have come to rely on.

Germany in particular has drawn Trump’s ire. Since his presidency began, the MSC has become a diplomatic skirmish and precursor to tougher battles to come.

Only last year, host Chancellor Angela Merkel clashed with US Vice President Mike Pence over NATO, Iran and gas from Russia.

This year’s premise — the West is weakening — is an extension of those festering transatlantic differences. The working assumption here is that Trump is to blame for the loss of core values. Not for the first time in his two-year tenure as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo defended his boss.

During his speech, which came shortly before Esper’s on Saturday morning, Pompeo told the MSC audience of ministers and policy experts, “those statements don’t reflect reality,” he said. “I’m happy to report that the death of the transatlantic alliance is grossly exaggerated. The West is winning, and we’re winning together.”

Doing it together emerged as another one of America’s messages in Munich, but what has needed little communicating and where there was almost no argument is that Trump’s world vision has traction and will continue.

Few Westlessness believers doubt he will win a second term.

Most see Trump as the future

Another four years of Trump felt baked in to pretty much every conversation — except perhaps those in the orbit of House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the other US Democrats who crossed the pond with her on their annual MSC pilgrimage to meet with like-minded souls.

But the reality is, despite the Westlessness MSC rhetoric, most in Munich believe Trump is the future.

Ian Bremmer, a regular at the MSC and a global affairs expert from geopolitical risk firm Eurasia, believes Trump is getting some things right, namely being tough on Iran, along with standing up to China on trade and intellectual property theft. Many Europeans in Munich would agree even if, like Bremmer, they question the wisdom of how Trump sets about delivering his goals.

Several Middle East government ministers — from his enemies to overseas allies — who declined to be named, all think Trump’s win is a forgone conclusion, and appear to be calibrating their actions accordingly.

In the Middle East that means uncertainty because no one believes Trump has a plan to de-escalate tensions with Iran, but it is in confrontation with China that Trump’s second-term legacy would likely to lie.

A choice of pro-USA or pro-China

The MSC foreshadows a world split into either pro-USA, or pro-China camps.

At the podium, Esper, as promised, focused on China. “I continue to stress to my friends in Europe — and just this past week again at the NATO Defense Ministerial in Brussels — that America’s concerns about Beijing’s commercial and military expansion should be their concerns as well,” the US Defense Secretary said.

The catalyst of this round of anti-China opprobrium is not trade, as it has been the past few years, but Huawei’s 5G networks. Specifically the company’s compulsory allegiance to the Chinese state, and that state’s corrupt and illegal practices. Buy their 5G equipment and forever be vulnerable to their spying and intellectual property thievery.

Mark Esper delivers a speech at the 2020 Munich Security Conference on February 15.

It’s a US message that’s been gathering momentum for the past few months, especially since both the British, French and German governments, along with the European Union, have recently said they’ll continue using controlled amounts of Huawei equipment, in nonsensitive locations.

Other US government officials at the conference sowed the same seeds of perceived wisdom.

The messaging was softer than Esper’s, from banking boardrooms to bars and other MSC venues, senior officials from the State Department, the Department of Justice and the White House seemed to dial back earlier language that implied intelligence sharing with key partners like the United Kingdom was at stake.

Trump’s special representative on telecommunication’s policy Robert Blair said, “we never meant this as a threat,” emphasizing core intelligence sharing between the UK and US will continue.

The bottom line is, the US doesn’t believe the UK or anyone else can insulate themselves from China’s 5G malfeasance if they use Huawei gear, specifically from software updates that open back doors. These will allow the Chinese state to harvest sensitive, valuable proprietary data and even shut down future tech like AI-driven automated cars and telemedicine that will depend on 5G.

Trump’s plain choice for Europe

It’s not lost on Europe that the US is effectively saying it’s our data highway. Even if the message is soft for now everyone knows Trump wants this his way and he’ll use pressure to achieve it.

Blair arguments thrown up by some in Munich — that the US can open data back doors in their IT systems, too — as specious: he points out Europe’s shared values with the US while China harnesses face recognition and other AI tech to violate its citizens’ human rights, including locking up to 2 million Muslim Uyghurs for “re-education.”

Trump was said to have been furious recently when, despite heavy US pressure, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson still allowed Huawei to bid on part of the UK’s new 5G network. But the American President may yet have Johnson in a tight spot, as the Brexit-busy leader needs a good trade deal with the US.

During Brexit campaigning, increasing UK trade with China was touted as a benefit of breaking free from Brussels. But now, Johnson shutting the door in Huawei’s face could have unforeseen consequences for business opportunities in the other direction. But this is the choice the United States appears to want its friends to make.

Writ large, this risks polarizing the world. But to be part of the universe of everything America, with Trump at the door, can be a formidable gate keeper.

Trump survived his impeachment trial emboldened, lashing out at his enemies. The thought in European capitals now, is how he will respond with recalcitrant allies if he is handed a second term. It could be a case study in retribution.

America’s friends are facing tough choices they haven’t had to make in generations. Take a leap of faith that China will change course, that its Communist Party will shed autocracy and its high-tech grip on its billion-plus citizens and reform — or go with what they know and can almost trust by backing the US.

A return to the days or us-or-them

The fear is, like the very fragments of data the decision hinges on, the choice could be binary. If the US blocks anyone from its AI world that uses Chinese high-tech, in the same way it threatens secondary sanctions against businesses who trade, however remotely, with Iran — then the world could be thrown back to the us-or-them days of the Soviet Union, when its Communist Party locked the rest of the world out of their sphere of influence.

A time when tiny islands like Cuba took on outsized significance.

It’s almost 30 years since the Cold War ended: for a few decades the world felt less divided. A second round of Trump could change all that.

But for anyone thinking a Democrat may be different, Bremmer cautions America’s isolation is not a Trumpian thing; he said it had begun under Obama, the last President’s policies in the Middle East being an example of that.

Pelosi echoed the current administration’s message that Huawei 5G is a danger no US politician will ignore, saying in Munich Sunday that “national security, economy, values all come together on the Huawei issue.”

So even in a world with a Democrat in the White House, if not this time then next time which MSC organizers might imagine to be less Westlessness, Europe may find America has grown out of love with its Western roots and moved on. The “Old World” still wants the old bond, but they’ll be beholden to America’s whims, 5G and whatever else comes after it.