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

Trump nominerà il successore della Ginsburg venerdì oppure sabato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-09-23.

2020-09-19__ Suprema Corte 001

«Mitch McConnell says he does plan to vote on Trump’s nominee»

«President Donald Trump is expected to put forth a nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court in the coming days, multiple sources close to the president and with direct knowledge of the situation»

«The sources describe the list of potential nominees as very short and including at least one woman. U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett is seen as a leading contender»

«Sources added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already been in touch with members of the Republican caucus after news of Ginsburg’s passing was announced»

«The Senate needs just a simple majority to confirm a nominee, with Republicans currently holding 53 seats»

«Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year»

* * * * * * *


In queste elezioni presidenziali non è in gioco la nomina del Presidente, bensì quale Weltanschauung dominerà gli Stati Uniti nei prossimi decenni.

Non è questo tempo e luogo per argomentare sulle previsioni di intenzione di voto: si constata soltanto che se Mr Trump riuscisse a far nominare un terzo giudice della Corte Suprema, la maggioranza repubblicana sarebbe blindata per almeno tre decenni. Ed, in ultima analisi, è questo corpo di nove giudici nominati a vita che governa nei fatti l’America.

Sarà uno scontro ai limiti del surreale. Sarà estremamente violento, e nessuno si stupirebbe se si assistesse a molti sanguinosi attentati.

Nota.

Il candidato al momento favorito sarebbe il Giudice Amy Coney Barrett, 48enne, di religione cattolica.

*


Donald Trump to put forth nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in coming days: Sources.

Mitch McConnell says he does plan to vote on Trump’s nominee.

President Donald Trump is expected to put forth a nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court in the coming days, multiple sources close to the president and with direct knowledge of the situation told ABC News.

The sources describe the list of potential nominees as very short and including at least one woman. U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett is seen as a leading contender, two sources tell ABC News.

Trump was asked about Ginsburg’s death after leaving his Friday night campaign rally in Minnesota and said he was not aware of her passing. The 87-year-old justice died Friday after a battle with pancreatic cancer, the court announced.

“Wow. I didn’t know that. I just — you’re telling me now for the first time,” he told reporters. “She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman. Whether you agree or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I’m actually sad to hear that. I am sad to hear that.”

Sources added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already been in touch with members of the Republican caucus after news of Ginsburg’s passing was announced. The Senate needs just a simple majority to confirm a nominee, with Republicans currently holding 53 seats.

McConnell refused to bring then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia in 2016 — Merrick Garland — to the floor for a vote, but said he will not do the same this time.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year,” McConnell said in a statement following Ginsburg’s death.

“By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise,” he continued. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Trump told CNN in March 2016 that he believed the next president — presumably him — should pick the nominee, not Obama.

“I think the next president should make the pick, and I think they shouldn’t go forward,” he told “New Day” on March 16, 2016. “And I believe I’m pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying. I think that the next president should make the pick. We don’t have a very long distance to wait.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., went as far as to say Republicans had officially changed procedures in a speech from the floor in 2016 and to play back the video if a Supreme Court spot came up in 2020.

“If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination, and you can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right,” he said. “We are setting a precedent here today.”

Obama released a statement both extolling the virtues of Ginsburg, while simultaneously reminding Republicans of their decision in 2016.

“Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in,” he said in a statement. “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.”

“The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle,” he continued. “As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard.

Current Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was vice president at the time of Garland’s nomination and told reporters in Delaware late Friday on his return from campaigning in Minnesota that Republicans should stick to what they said in 2016.

“In the coming days, we should focus on the loss of justice, and her enduring legacy. But there is no doubt — let me be clear that the voters should pick the president, and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden said. “This was the position the Republican Senate took in 2016 when there were almost 10 months to go before the election. That’s the position the United States Senate must take today.”

Even if a nominee is put forth, the timeframe would seem tight for confirming a justice before Election Day. The average number of days from SCOTUS nomination to final vote in the Senate is 69.6 days — about 2.3 months — according to the Congressional Research Service.

There is ample precedent for nominations and confirmations to the Supreme Court in presidential election years. It’s happened six times since 1900. The most recent nomination and confirmation in an election year was 1940, after Justice Pierce Butler died in office and Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy in January 1940; he was confirmed 12 days later.

The latest election year confirmation came in 1916 when Charles Evans Hughes resigned in June and President Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke on July 14. Ten days later he was unanimously confirmed. There has never been one filled later than that ahead of an election.

Given all of this, the 2016 GOP blockade of Garland was truly an anomaly, one which McConnell now seems keen to keep that way if given the chance.

Swing Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, have each recently told media they do not believe a vote should be taken. Murkowski told Alaska Public Radio on Friday, prior to Ginsburg’s death, that no votes should be taken, while Collins told The New York Times’ Jonathon Martin earlier this month that it was “too close” to seat a justice in October.

Trump allies have already lined up behind the idea of quickly confirming a replacement. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “I believe the president should next week nominate a successor to the court. I think it’s critical the Senate takes up and confirms the successor before Election Day.”

Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor who previously clerked for Scalia, was confirmed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in October 2017.

Here’s a list of other potential nominees based on ABC News reporting:

Judge Joan Larsen

Larsen was confirmed to the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati in October 2017 and previously served on the Michigan Supreme Court. She is a University of Michigan law professor, and, like Barrett, she also clerked for Scalia.

Judge Amul Thapar

Thapar was confirmed to the 6th Circuit in May 2017 and was previously federal judge in Kentucky before Trump nominated him to the 6th Circuit.

Judge Raymond Kethledge

Kethledge was confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in 2008 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. He is a former clerk for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and a former in-house lawyer at Ford Motor.

Judge Britt Grant

Grant was confirmed last July to the 11th Circuit at Atlanta. She previously was a Georgia Supreme Court justice, a Georgia solicitor general and a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.

Judge Thomas Hardiman

Hardiman, of the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia, was the first person in his family to attend college, and he helped pay for his Georgetown University law degree by driving a taxi.

He was also a top contender for the first two vacancies under President Trump.

Judge Neomi Rao

Rao, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, is a Trump appointee who holds the seat previously occupied by Brett M. Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She recently wrote the opinion ordering the dismissal of the case prosecuting Michael Flynn.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Trump nomina David Russell nel Noaa. Deve sepellire il ‘clima’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-09-22.

Aquila_001__Mangia_Topo__

Il Noaa è una agenzia federale i dipendenti della quale sono tutti sostenitori del così detto ‘clima’ e di quella che definiscono essere la nefasta azione umana su di esso: vivono di quello stipendio.

Con forte vis polemica bollano quanti non condividano la loro opinione con il termine di ‘negazionisti’.

Copernico, nel sostenere la teoria geocentrica, era ai suoi tempi un ‘negazionista’, e come tale fu trattato. Poi, il tempo è galantuomo, i suoi detrattori sono scomparsi tra i cascami della storia, mentre il buon Copernico svetta come figura di massimo rilievo.

Il termine ‘negazionista’ è usato come sommo epiteto ingiurioso.

Quanti nella Russia di Stalin ne avessero messo in dubbio l’operato diventarono ‘negazionisti’ inviati a meditare oltre il circolo polare artico per una cinquantina di anni.

I liberal democratici si limitano invece, per il momento, a decretare la loro morte civile.

Gran brutta cosa quando la politica monopolizza la scienza: si generano brutture. Ci si pensi bene. La teoria della razza poté svilupparsi solo perché fomentata dai politici allora al governo: furono scritte parole indecenti e quel credo fu imposto con la forza.

Stessa cosa adesso con il ‘clima’, grande fonte di sostentamento di largo numero di lib dem.

*

Auguriamo al prof David Russell un proficuo lavoro.

*

«David Russell Legates is an American climatologist and professor of geography at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university and a former Delaware state climatologist. In September 2020, the Trump administration appointed him as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Legates has spent much of his career casting doubt on the severity of climate change and the human causes of warming. He is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a think tank that promotes climate change denial.

Legates’ viewpoint, as stated in a 2015 study that he co-authored, is that the Earth will experience about 1.0 °C (1.8 °F) warming over the 2000 to 2100 period. ….

In September 2020, Legates was appointed as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Trump administration» [Fonte]

*


«The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an American scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce that focuses on the conditions of the oceans, major waterways, and the atmosphere.

NOAA warns of dangerous weather, charts seas, guides the use and protection of ocean and coastal resources and conducts research to provide the understanding and improve stewardship of the environment.» [Fonte]

Il NOAA aveva 11,000 dipendenti ed un budget di 5.6 miliardi di dollari.

Tutta questa organizzazione è sostenitrice del così detto ‘clima’ e di quella che definiscono essere la nefasta azione umana su di esso.

*


Climate science denier appointed to top position at NOAA.

David Legates, a longtime climate change skeptic, has been appointed by the Trump administration to help run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency charged with producing “much of the climate research funded” by the government, The Washington Post reports.

*


Longtime Climate Science Denier Hired At NOAA.

David Legates, a University of Delaware professor of climatology who has spent much of his career questioning basic tenets of climate science, has been hired for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Legates confirmed to NPR that he was recently hired as NOAA’s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction. The position suggests that he reports directly to Neil Jacobs, the acting head of the agency that is in charge of the federal government’s sprawling weather and climate prediction work.

Neither Legates nor NOAA representatives responded to questions about Legates’ specific responsibilities or why he was hired. The White House also declined to comment.

Legates has a long history of using his position as an academic scientist to publicly cast doubt on climate science. His appointment to NOAA comes as Americans face profound threats stoked by climate change, from the vast, deadly wildfires in the West to an unusually active hurricane season in the South and East.

Global temperatures have already risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century as a result of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. Warming is happening the fastest at the Earth’s poles, where sea ice is melting, permafrost is thawing and ocean temperatures are heating up, with devastating effects on animals and humans alike.

In 2007, Legates was one of the authors of a paper that questioned previous findings about the role of climate change in destroying the habitat of polar bears. That research was partially funded by grants from Koch Industries, the American Petroleum Institute lobbying group and ExxonMobil, according to InsideClimate News.

The same year, Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner sent a letter to Legates expressing concern about his opinions on climate change, given that he was the state climatologist at the time. Minner asked him to refrain from casting doubt on climate science when he was acting in his official role. Legates stepped down in 2011.

Legates also appeared in a video pushing the discredited theory that the sun is the cause of global warming. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in 2014, Legates argued that a climate science report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change erroneously stated that humans are causing global warming.

Legates is a professor in the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware. He is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has poured money into convincing Americans that climate change is not happening and that the scientific evidence — including evidence published by the agency that now employs Legates — is uncertain or untrustworthy.

Advocates who reject mainstream climate science, such as those at Heartland, have had a leading role in shaping the Trump administration’s response to global warming, including the decision to exit the Paris climate accord.

Steve Milloy, a Heartland board member and part of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, says he welcomes the Legates appointment. “David Legates is a true climate scientist and will bring a great deal of much-needed science to NOAA,” Milloy writes in an email to NPR.

But climate researchers slammed NOAA’s decision to appoint Legates to a key scientific position.

“He’s not just in left field — he’s not even near the ballpark,” says Jane Lubchenco, a professor of marine biology at Oregon State University and head of NOAA under President Barack Obama.

Contrarians in science are welcome, Lubchenco says, but their claims have to be scientifically defensible. That’s why official groups like the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change review the entire range of scientific research before reaching a conclusion.

Over the last 20 years, in his work and public statements, Legates has rejected the overwhelming peer-reviewed research that shows human activity is the main driver of a dangerously changing climate.

Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, says in an email to NPR that Legates has, throughout his career, “misrepresented the science of climate change, serving as an advocate for polluting interests as he dismisses and downplays the impacts of climate change.”

Mann adds: “At a time when those impacts are playing out before our very eyes in the form of unprecedented wildfires out West and super-storms back East, I cannot imagine a more misguided decision than to appoint someone like Legates to a position of leadership at an agency that is tasked with assessing the risks we face from extreme weather events.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Russia, Stati Uniti

Merkel tra l’incudine del Nord Stream 2 ed il martello del caso Navalny.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-09-12.

Annegare 001

Frau Angela Merkel sembrerebbe essersi cacciata in un vicolo cieco, adescata da quella volpe smaliziata di Mr Putin.

Anche se la Cdu è rimontata bene nelle propensioni al voto, la Germania è tuttora politicamente instabile, e questa sua irrequietezza si ripercuote sulla condotta dell’Unione Europea. Se è vero che in Germania di notano timidi segni di ripresa, sarebbe altrettanto vero il dover ammettere come la situazione socio economica sia ancora sofferente, allontanando la possibilità di una ripresa in tempi rapidi.

I moti di piazza di Berlino sono un segnale preoccupante.

In questo frangente aiuta molto l’individuazione di capri espiatori, addossando loro le colpe di tutto ciò che stia accadendo. AfD e i ‘negazionisti’ all’interno, i ‘nemici esterni’ quali immani cospiratori contro la Germania. La teoria del complotto è sempre stata cara ai tedeschi, ma la sua gestione non è per nulla facile. Anche se non ne ha titolo alcuno, Frau Merkel strilla e strepita contro la attuale situazione in Bielorussia ed adesso si  messa nelle mani la patata bollente del caso Navalny.

Bloomberg riassume nei seguenti articoli la situazione al contorono.

*

Angela Merkel Exasperated by Putin as Navalny Lies in a Coma

Merkel Seeks Action Against Russia After Putin Foe Poisoned

Merkel Rejects Scuppering Nord Stream Project Over Navalny Case

Why the World Frets Over Russian Nord Stream Pipeline: QuickTake

*

Il problema è semplicissimo da esporsi, quasi impossibile da risolvere.

Frau Merkel, la Germania e l’Unione Europea dipendono dalle forniture di gas naturale importato dalla Russia, che potrebbe però sospendere anche all’improvviso le forniture. Poi, fattore non trascurabile, la Germania è disarmata, così come la Unione Europea, e l’America non ha nessuna intenzione di morire per l’Europa. Nel converso, la Russia di Mr Putin è un enorme arsenale di armi di ogni tipo, ed il presidente russo lo ricorda spesso e volentieri.

«Merkel’s Russian pipeline dilemma laid bare by poisoning uproar»

«Chancellor faces resistance at home to dropping Nord Stream 2»

«German leader didn’t repeat demand that pipeline be completed»

«The furor over the poisoning of a top Russian dissident has put Angela Merkel’s controversial backing of a Baltic Sea pipeline in the spotlight, as patience with Vladimir Putin’s government hits its limit in Germany»

«The German military’s finding this week that Alexey Navalny was attacked with a novichok nerve agent has triggered calls for the chancellor to wield her biggest stick: withdraw support for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will ship Russian gas directly to Europe’s largest economy»

«there is still little appetite within Merkel’s coalition to abandon Nord Stream»

«The resistance in her coalition reflects key support for the project from German industry as well as deeper ties with Russia, particularly among the Social Democrats.»

«Merkel, who issued an uncharacteristically sharp rebuke over the novichok finding and pledged a coordinated response among NATO and European Union allies, is keeping her cards close to her chest»

«Merkel didn’t repeat her demand made days earlier that the project should be finished»

«Merkel said, acknowledging the Kremlin’s position that there was no evidence of poisoning»

«Friedrich Merz, a Merkel rival who is campaigning to lead her Christian Democrats, said any construction should be suspended for two years»

«Putin only understands this language, unfortunately»

«On the other side of the divide is President Donald Trump, who has frequently attacked Nord Stream as a conduit for “billions” from Germany to Russia that he says Merkel’s government should be spending on defense»

«Merkel’s government may also have to compensate companies involved in the project.»

«While Russia has claimed Nord Stream 2 is needed because Europe’s own gas production is fast declining, demand on the continent largely remains stable due to the rise of renewables and an influx of liquefied natural gas from producers further afield, including the U.S. One of the main reasons for the link was to bypass Ukraine, a key transit nation, after price disputes in the past left Europeans with gas disruptions in winter»

«Germany is the biggest foreign buyer of Russian gas, which makes up over 40% of its imports»

* * * * * * *

Putin. Mette regolarmente nel sacco Merkel, sodali ed Europa. – Bloomberg.

Germania. Mini Arbeit. Destatis li considera ‘occupati’. Tedeschi brava gente.

Putin ha portato Frau Merkel alla esasperazione. Marktschreier.

BlackRock anticipa l’apertura cinese alla finanza occidentale. 3.4 trilioni in tre anni.

BlackRock anticipa l’apertura cinese alla finanza occidentale. 3.4 trilioni in tre anni.

Oecd (Ocse). Secondo Trimestre pil -9.8%. Ripresa molto lotana.

L’Alleanza per la Rivoluzione Verde in Africa è fallita. Sono alla fame.

Eurozona. Fiducia dei Consumatori -14.7. Più esecrazione che fiducia.

* * * * * * *

Al momento attuale Frau Merkel è davvero nei triboli, e nessuno avrebbe il desiderio di aiutarla.

*


Merkel’s Russian Pipeline Dilemma Laid Bare by Poisoning Uproar.

– Chancellor faces resistance at home to dropping Nord Stream 2

– German leader didn’t repeat demand that pipeline be completed

*

The furor over the poisoning of a top Russian dissident has put Angela Merkel’s controversial backing of a Baltic Sea pipeline in the spotlight, as patience with Vladimir Putin’s government hits its limit in Germany.

The German military’s finding this week that Alexey Navalny was attacked with a novichok nerve agent has triggered calls for the chancellor to wield her biggest stick: withdraw support for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will ship Russian gas directly to Europe’s largest economy. Despite her growing exasperation with the Kremlin, that may not be so easy.

Even with top lawmakers demanding the project be halted and NATO condemning Moscow for the “appalling” attempted assassination of Navalny, there is still little appetite within Merkel’s coalition to abandon Nord Stream. At the moment, neither Merkel’s Christian Democratic-led bloc nor her Social Democratic partner is likely to rally around the demand, according to three Bundestag officials, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

That narrows the options for Merkel to send Putin a stern message, as the Navalny poisoning now tops a list of grievances, including a contract killing in a Berlin park in broad daylight last year and a 2015 cyberattack on the Bundestag.

Russian Response

The resistance in her coalition reflects key support for the project from German industry as well as deeper ties with Russia, particularly among the Social Democrats. The German Eastern Business Association, an industry group that supports trade with Moscow, warned against severing ties with Nord Stream, saying Merkel had “good reason” to separate the Navalny affair from the 764-mile undersea pipeline, led by Russia’s Gazprom PJSC.

Merkel, who issued an uncharacteristically sharp rebuke over the novichok finding and pledged a coordinated response among NATO and European Union allies, is keeping her cards close to her chest. Queried on the project at a news conference on Thursday, Merkel didn’t repeat her demand made days earlier that the project should be finished.

“Much will depend on whatever reaction we have from the Russian side,” Merkel said, acknowledging the Kremlin’s position that there was no evidence of poisoning. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the government was awaiting information from Germany over its findings.

But as Navalny lies in a medically induced coma in a hospital a short drive from Merkel’s chancellery, criticism of the pipeline grew — undermining the official line that it’s mainly a commercial project. Friedrich Merz, a Merkel rival who is campaigning to lead her Christian Democrats, said any construction should be suspended for two years.

“Putin only understands this language, unfortunately,” Merz told Bild newspaper, which in an editorial also called on Merkel to halt the project.

On the other side of the divide is President Donald Trump, who has frequently attacked Nord Stream as a conduit for “billions” from Germany to Russia that he says Merkel’s government should be spending on defense. U.S. congress members are threatening additional sanctions after restrictions imposed in December brought pipe-laying work to a halt.

Potential Compensation

The U.S.’s open hostility to Nord Stream, which has raised complaints in Berlin of violating European sovereignty, is a factor in Berlin’s resolve, according to two Bundestag officials.

Merkel’s government may also have to compensate companies involved in the project. The Nord Stream consortium, which includes BASF SE’s Wintershall DEA unit and Austria’s OMV AG, plans to invest a total of 9.5 billion euros ($11.2 billion) in the pipeline.

In June, before a renewed threat of U.S. sanctions and escalation of tensions between Germany and Russia, state-run Gazprom said it would be able to complete the link this year and start shipments by late 2020 or early 2021.

While Russia has claimed Nord Stream 2 is needed because Europe’s own gas production is fast declining, demand on the continent largely remains stable due to the rise of renewables and an influx of liquefied natural gas from producers further afield, including the U.S. One of the main reasons for the link was to bypass Ukraine, a key transit nation, after price disputes in the past left Europeans with gas disruptions in winter.

Should Nord Stream 2 be scrapped, Russia may have to keep sending gas to Europe via Ukraine, as well as the already operational Nord Stream link.

Germany is the biggest foreign buyer of Russian gas, which makes up over 40% of its imports. That dependence is expected to intensify. Under Merkel’s plans to exit coal and nuclear power, gas is an almost unavoidable stop-gap as the country ramps wind and solar resources.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Elezioni presidenziali. Trump potrebbe vincere. Lo dicono gli stessi dem.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-08-31.

2020-09-01__ Trump Moore 001

Il risultato delle elezioni presidenziali è sempre più in bilico tra i due candidati: Mr Trump e Mr Biden.

«Il problema è che non si possono fare analisi politiche senza contesto: il 2020 non è il 2016 (soprattutto per Trump), il presidente ha di fronte la tempesta perfetta: una crisi sanitaria (il coronavirus), il più grande collasso della produzione dal dopoguerra (effetto del lockdown), la rivolta nelle zone suburbane dell’America (questione razziale). Se questi elementi restano in campo con forza, Biden vince, ma se il coronavirus si affievolisce, la ripresa economica va e le rivolte diventano un boomerang tanto da venir percepite come un “problema democratico”, allora Trump può cominciare a mettere la freccia per il sorpasso»

* * * * * * *

Michael Moore warns that Donald Trump is on course to repeat 2016 win.

«Film-maker says enthusiasm for president in swing states is ‘off the charts’ and urges everyone to commit to getting 100 people to vote.

The documentary film-maker Michael Moore has warned that Donald Trump appears to have such momentum in some battleground states that liberals risk a repeat of 2016 when so many wrote off Trump only to see him grab the White House.

“Sorry to have to provide the reality check again,” he said.

Moore, who was one of few political observers to predict Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, said that “enthusiasm for Trump is off the charts” in key areas compared with the Democratic party nominee, Joe Biden.

“Are you ready for a Trump victory? Are you mentally prepared to be outsmarted by Trump again? Do you find comfort in your certainty that there is no way Trump can win? Are you content with the trust you’ve placed in the DNC [Democratic National Committee] to pull this off?” Moore posted on Facebook late on Friday.»

* * * * * * *

La Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta pubblica il presente Report GDP Now:

«The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the third quarter of 2020 is 28.9 percent on August 28, up from 25.6 percent on August 26. After recent data releases from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the nowcasts of third-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth and third-quarter real gross private domestic investment growth increased from 28.1 percent and 15.1 percent, respectively, to 33.8 percent and 22.4 percent»

Se questa previsione della Fed si concretizzasse, Mr Trump vincerebbe le elezioni.

* * * * * * *

«Rasmussen, l’istituto più preciso (o fortunato, se volete) nelle previsioni del voto del 2016, quando si chiede perché anche in questa tornata elettorale continua dare Trump su livelli più alti di tutti, replica: dipende da come si pone la domanda all’intervistato. E naturalmente dipende anche dalla risposta.»

«Bloomberg l’altro ieri ha citato uno studio di Cloudresearch su questo punto delicato e ha scoperto forse l’acqua calda, ma vivendo in un ambiente dove tutti affermano che è fredda nonostante sia bollente, va ricordato l’esito: gli elettori di fronte alle domande dei sondaggisti qualche volta mentono.»

«Lo studio dice in sostanza che esistono “timidi elettori” che non dichiarano il proprio voto per Trump, restano nell’ombra dei sondaggi e poi emergono nel risultato finale.»

«Cloudresearch dà i numeri (nessuna ironia) del suo studio: l’11,7% dei repubblicani afferma di non voler dire la propria vera opinione sul candidato preferito attraverso un sondaggio telefonico. Solo il 5.4% dei democratici invece sarebbe riluttante a dire la verità. Eccole qua, ancora una volta, le due Americhe in rotta di collisione. E le Americhe in questo caso sono addirittura tre, perché anche tra gli elettori indipendenti serpeggia la diffidenza, la riservatezza: il 10.5% non si trova a suo agio e non dichiara il nome del candidato che voterà il 3 novembre. Sono numeri importanti, sono potenzialmente milioni di elettori che possono rendere un sondaggio inattendibile, parziale e dunque fuorviante.»

«il 10.1% dei supporter di Trump ammette di non raccontare la verità quando decide di rispondere, mentre per i sostenitori di Biden questo numero si abbassa al 5.1%»

«Per quale ragione un repubblicano, un potenziale elettore di Trump teme di dichiarare le proprie intenzioni? Cloudresearch cita un paio di risposte ricorrenti che colpiscono, dipingono un quadro istruttivo dell’immaginario americano e in particolare degli elettori conservatori: pensano che l’informazione non resti confidenziale; che la telefonata possa essere registrata e diventare pubblica; che esprimere idee che non coincidono con la visione liberal possa danneggiarli; che le opinioni politiche possano nuocere al lavoro e alla famiglia (e queste risposte sono significative sul clima generale nel paese, di profonda divisione)»

* * * * * * *

La situazione è fluida, ed al momento il risultato elettorale sembrerebbe essere impredicibile.

Significativo è però il clima di odio viscerale introdotto dai liberal democratici in questo quadriennio di continua campagna elettorale.

Larga quota degli intervistati nei sondaggi di propensione al voto mente e si dichiara democratica per evitare a sé ed ai propri familiari le inevitabili persecuzioni che scaturirebbero da questo clima avvelenato.

*


La profezia di Moore, il voto coperto per Trump.

L’andamento delle ultime rilevazioni per Usa 2020 sembra dare ragione al “regista oracolo”, che aveva già predetto la sconfitta di Hillary. S’assottiglia il vantaggio del candidato dem, Joe Biden, su cui pesa anche l’incognita della reticenza tra gli elettori repubblicani: scelgono The Donald ma non lo dicono (o raccontano bugie) ai sondaggisti.

Disse Michael Moore nel 2016: “Donald Trump vincerà”. E The Donald vinse. Dice Michael Moore nel 2020: “Siete pronti a essere battuti di nuovo da Trump?”. E… non lo sappiamo ancora. Quel folletto di Moore è da tenere d’occhio sul monitor non per l’originalità del suo pensiero politico (occupa lo spazio della pop-left-wing americana), ma perché ha una qualità ben più rara: ha il polso della situazione nella working class americana. Cosa  pensa il lattaio del Wisconsin? Cosa alberga nella mente dell’uomo in mietitrebbia che attraversa gli sterminati campi dell’Ohio? Cosa beve la mattina al “diner” della politica il metalmeccanico della Pennsylvania? Cosa agita i pensieri della casalinga delle piccole città del Missouri? È più che sufficiente guardare in filigrana i sondaggi del duello nei “Battleground States” per capire che quello che raccontano i quotidiani con vista “waterfront” sull’oceano (Atlantico e Pacifico) non corrisponde al pensiero di questa America. La mappa del voto dell’America del 2016 non è improvvisamente sparita. 

Cosa dice Michael Moore a due mesi dal voto? “Siete mentalmente preparati ad essere battuti di nuovo con l’astuzia da Trump?”. Cosa è successo questa volta per indurre il regista a dichiarare che Trump sta volando verso un’altra (clamorosa) vittoria? Semplice, Moore fa il suo mestiere, “guarda in camera”, osserva i fatti sul campo e nonostante le sue posizioni radicali, lo fa senza pre-giudizio, detesta Trump come nessun altro al mondo, ma racconta quello che vede la sua cinepresa, quello che è lampante a occhio nudo, basta leggere un po’ di cronaca locale, fare una ricerca delle foto e dei video sui circuiti delle agenzie, per vedere quello che accade ogni volta che Trump fa la trottola e va negli Stati in bilico: “L’entusiasmo per Trump è alle stelle”. È esattamente quello che è successo ieri sera in New Hampshire, folla, bandiere, tutto il “Bric-à-brac” di una campagna elettorale in fase di “skyrocketing”, decollo a razzo, “T-R-U-M-P”.

Moore non è il solo nell’America dello spettacolo, da sempre di rocciosa fede democratica, a vedere svolazzare lo spettro del 2016. Un altro a lanciare l’allarme è Bill Maher Il volto in progress di Hbo, Bill Maher, che intervistato da Joy Reid su Msnbc ha confessato “di essere molto nervoso” per il voto. “Mi sento meno fiducioso. Forse è solo l’onda d’urto della loro convention che mi ha colpito, ma mi sento meno fiducioso di quanto non fossi un mese fa”. Nessun “intoppo” per la convention e Trump che vista la sortita preoccupata di Maher (lo segue sempre e lo commenta in diretta) vede la palla sotto rete e schiaccia: “In testa nel Michigan, nel Minnesota, dappertutto. Scusa!”.

Nessuna tregua. Donald Trump ha chiuso il teatro della Casa Bianca ed è volato in New Hampshire, Manchester, un altro Stato in bilico, perso per un soffio nel 2016. Calato il sipario sullo show del New Hampshire, è volato nelle zone colpite dall’uragano Laura, in Texas e in Louisiana, parla da Lake Charles, è in versione “disaster movie”, il presidente va dove c’è bisogno di lui, un luogo cinematografico che conosciamo tutti, la furia degli elementi e il Commander in Chief: “Sono qui a sostegno del grande popolo della Louisiana. Dobbiamo occuparci anche del Texas”. È il racconto della Casa Bianca in versione “sono Mister Wolf e risolvo problemi” e finché Joe Biden resterà a casa sua nel Delaware sarà efficace.

Altra mossa di Trump: ha annunciato che probabilmente andrà a Kenosha, in Wisconsin, il teatro delle proteste dopo il ferimento da parte della polizia dell’afroamericano Jacob Blake. Sarebbe un altro colpo su Biden che intervistato da Msnbc l’altro ieri ha detto che “stava valutando” una sua visita. Vince chi arriva prima.

Donald in giro e Joe su Zoom

The Donald salta da un luogo all’altro, Joe fa dirette su Zoom. Non occorre frequentare Harvard per capire che così la campagna dem va a sbattere contro il treno di Trump. Per questo Biden ha annunciato che “uscirà dallo scantinato” (Trump dixit) ma tra “dieci giorni” cosa che alza ancora una volta la palla al “Tweeter In Chief” della Casa Bianca: “Ora che i sondaggi di Biden stanno calando rapidamente, ha accettato di uscire dalla sua cantina e di iniziare la campagna elettorale “tra dieci giorni”. Purtroppo, è un tempo di reazione molto lento per un presidente. I nostri amati Stati Uniti hanno bisogno di una risposta molto più veloce, più intelligente e più dura. Esci fuori oggi, Joe!“. Uscirà, non può dissipare il vantaggio che ancora lo vede vincente. Oggi, domani non si sa.

Il gioco degli opposti è quello della campagna responsabile di Biden che si specchia nel suo contrario, l’avventurismo di Trump. Il candidato dem replica via Twitter: “Abbiamo un presidente molto più interessato a battere la gente a golf che a sconfiggere il Covid-19”. Siamo sempre là, alle tenebre che hanno sovrastato come una cappa di piombo la convention dei dem e all’epidemia usata come un’arma politica. Tutto regolare, è la campagna presidenziale americana. Ieri, oggi e domani. Può funzionare? A giudicare da quello che sta accadendo sul campo da gioco, negli Stati chiave, sembra una formula in via di esaurimento, è valida solo se il coronavirus riprende a marciare, ma il trend dei nuovi casi per ora è in calo. L’altro termometro che misura la temperatura dell’America si chiama Wall Street e le notizie anche qui non sono tenebrose come dicono i dem: l’indice S&P 500 sta per chiudere il miglior agosto dal 1986, con un rialzo del 6,8%. Sappiamo che c’è una divergenza tra quello che fanno i trader e il mondo della produzione, l’incrocio della domanda con l’offerta, ma i mercati alla fine hanno sempre ragione e la Borsa dà la cifra della fiducia nella ripresa, dal picco negativo di marzo toccato con il lockdown, Wall Street ha guadagnato il 56%, i due indici principali, S&P 500 e Nasdaq, viaggiano al massimo storico. Sono tutti segnali di una campagna presidenziale dove il contesto è mutato e Biden si ritrova in una specie di loop del passato dal quale deve uscire. Biden è in “Edge of Tomorrow”, dove il protagonista del film (2014, interpretato da Tom Cruise e Emily Blunt) combatte contro gli alieni (i Mimics) e ogni giorno è sempre lo stesso giorno. “Live. Die. Repeat”, vivi, muori, ripeti. In politica non è possibile. Nelle elezioni presidenziali è… fantascienza. Potrebbe anche tornare la schermata della versione dark del videogame, la sceneggiatura della pandemia, ma per ora il livello del gioco è quella della caccia di Trump alla “remuntada”. Per questo i dem hanno annunciato il cambio di strategia.

Trump tira dritto sulla sua linea heavy-metal, quella che aggancia i dem alla protesta violenta: “Biden è un politico di carriera “che metterà in pericolo la sicurezza degli americani” e, naturalmente, i manifestanti “passeranno dalle rivolte per le strade alla gestione del governo”. Missione? “Salvare la democrazia dalla folla. Nessuno sarà al sicuro nell’America di Biden”

Le immagini sono quelle di una campagna alla quale la convention sembra aver impresso una svolta. È ancora presto per trarre conclusioni, ma il dinamismo della campagna repubblicana è visibile e per i democratici si sono accese tutte le spie nella sala comando del sommergibile di Joe Biden. Gli ascolti tv delle convention sono leggermente migliori per il candidato dem che nella serata finale ha totalizzato 24,6 milioni di telespettatori, contro i 23,8 della serata finale di Trump. Ma quello che appare diverso è il clima, il sentimento degli elettori, della base dei due partiti. I repubblicani sembrano entrati in una fase in cui credono nell’aggancio e nel sorpasso finale. Attendiamo i fatti sulla riva del Potomac con il taccuino squadernato.

Biden continua a guidare la corsa con 6.9 punti (è di nuovo sotto i 7 punti) di vantaggio nella media nazionale di Real Clear Politics, ma i segnali di un suo cedimento si moltiplicano. L’ultimo sondaggio di Reuters/Ipsos (svolto tra il 19 e il 25 agosto) mostra una flessione in alcuni strati dell’elettorato e un effetto zero della convention democratica sui consensi. Cosa succede negli Stati in bilico?

Biden è sceso sotto i 3 punti (è quota + 2.7), praticamente niente, perché sono dentro l’errore statistico. Non solo, nei “Battleground States” Trump fa meglio nel 2020 rispetto al 2016, Trump nel confronto con se stesso 4 anni fa è a +2%, dal 10 agosto Biden è sott’acqua rispetto alla navigazione dem del 2016. Ha ancora un vantaggio negli Stati i bilico di 2.7 punti, ma con un trend preoccupante.

Fari sul Michigan

Altro Stato sul monitor, il Michigan: Biden è a 47.3 contro il 44.7 di Trump. Tutto bene per Joe? No, perché il 26 luglio era a 49.6 contro e Trump era a 41.2. Trump ha conquistato 3.5 punti e Biden ne ha persi 2.3. Fari puntati sempre sul Michigan, ultimo sondaggio di Trafalgar: Trump è in testa, il sondaggio è stato condotto dal 14 al 23 agosto, incorpora dunque l’effetto (quasi zero) della convention democratica e c’è ancora quella dei repubblicani.

La Rust Belt nel 2016 aveva votato per Trump e naturalmente si potrebbe dire che Biden dunque fa tornare i dem competitivi dove il “muro blu” di Hillary Clinton crollò. Ma questa narrazione va in rotta di collisione quando si guardano i numeri di Trump nello stesso periodo, oggi sono migliori e per Biden è un gong. Il problema è che non si possono fare analisi politiche senza contesto: il 2020 non è il 2016 (soprattutto per Trump), il presidente ha di fronte la tempesta perfetta: una crisi sanitaria (il coronavirus), il più grande collasso della produzione dal dopoguerra (effetto del lockdown), la rivolta nelle zone suburbane dell’America (questione razziale). Se questi elementi restano in campo con forza, Biden vince, ma se il coronavirus si affievolisce, la ripresa economica va e le rivolte diventano un boomerang tanto da venir percepite come un “problema democratico”, allora Trump può cominciare a mettere la freccia per il sorpasso. Ci sono molti “se” per tutti i candidati, ecco perché la corsa resta aperta. Biden ora è il favorito, lo resterà probabilmente fino all’ultimo giro di pista, ma la vittoria non è assegnata a tavolino, deve correre, tanto.

Quanto ai sondaggi, vanno letti con grande attenzione, ma bisogna anche ricordare che andarono a vuoto su Trump nel 2016 e ieri come oggi hanno sempre un problema. Quale? La domanda è la risposta. Rasmussen, l’istituto più preciso (o fortunato, se volete) nelle previsioni del voto del 2016, quando si chiede perché anche in questa tornata elettorale continua dare Trump su livelli più alti di tutti, replica: dipende da come si pone la domanda all’intervistato. E naturalmente dipende anche dalla risposta. Bloomberg l’altro ieri ha citato uno studio di Cloudresearch su questo punto delicato e ha scoperto forse l’acqua calda, ma vivendo in un ambiente dove tutti affermano che è fredda nonostante sia bollente, va ricordato l’esito: gli elettori di fronte alle domande dei sondaggisti qualche volta mentono. Non tutti e non sempre, ma il fatto è sotto gli occhi di vuol vederlo e considerarlo come un elemento di ponderazione nell’analisi politica sulla corsa alla Casa Bianca. Lo studio dice in sostanza che esistono “timidi elettori” che non dichiarano il proprio voto per Trump, restano nell’ombra dei sondaggi e poi emergono nel risultato finale. Insomma, il Trump che insegue nei sondaggi potrebbe vincere o addirittura già essere in testa perché ampiamente sottostimato. Forse è troppo, ma di certo il tema è sul tavolo degli strateghi delle campagne. Trump afferma sempre che i sondaggi sono “inaccurati” e fatta la tara anche sullo spinning della propaganda di The Donald, visto cosa accadde nel 2016 – si tratta di una prova empirica – resta il dubbio che qualcosa possa non tornare anche in questo giro di giostra elettorale.

Elezioni 2020: uno “special one” della politica

Cloudresearch dà i numeri (nessuna ironia) del suo studio: l’11,7% dei repubblicani afferma di non voler dire la propria vera opinione sul candidato preferito attraverso un sondaggio telefonico. Solo il 5.4% dei democratici invece sarebbe riluttante a dire la verità. Eccole qua, ancora una volta, le due Americhe in rotta di collisione. E le Americhe in questo caso sono addirittura tre, perché anche tra gli elettori indipendenti serpeggia la diffidenza, la riservatezza: il 10.5% non si trova a suo agio e non dichiara il nome del candidato che voterà il 3 novembre. Sono numeri importanti, sono potenzialmente milioni di elettori che possono rendere un sondaggio inattendibile, parziale e dunque fuorviante. Ma andiamo avanti, perché si apre una faglia enorme quando il 10.1% dei supporter di Trump ammette di non raccontare la verità quando decide di rispondere, mentre per i sostenitori di Biden questo numero si abbassa al 5.1%. Per quale ragione un repubblicano, un potenziale elettore di Trump teme di dichiarare le proprie intenzioni? Cloudresearch cita un paio di risposte ricorrenti che colpiscono, dipingono un quadro istruttivo dell’immaginario americano e in particolare degli elettori conservatori: pensano che l’informazione non resti confidenziale; che la telefonata possa essere registrata e diventare pubblica; che esprimere idee che non coincidono con la visione liberal possa danneggiarli; che le opinioni politiche possano nuocere al lavoro e alla famiglia (e queste risposte sono significative sul clima generale nel paese, di profonda divisione); che i sondaggi fanno parte della propaganda politica di un partito o dell’altro; che non vogliono essere interrotti continuamente al telefono, bombardati da chiamate e messaggi email. 

Conseguenze? Sono facili da immaginare e Cloudresearch avvisa i naviganti: dati i risicati margini negli Stati in bilico, tale polarizzazione degli elettori può avere conseguenze importanti, per questo annunciano un ulteriore studio sul comportamento degli elettori nei sondaggi in stati come Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania e Wisconsin nelle prossime settimane. Tutti Battleground States, dove si decide chi sarà il prossimo presidente degli Stati Uniti. 

Le elezioni del 2020 sono uno “special one” della politica perché i fattori di incertezza si stanno moltiplicando: c’è il coronavirus, un problema sanitario, ci sono gli elettori anziani più vulnerabili e tanti che hanno il timore delle code ai seggi, così molti voteranno per posta. Abbiamo avuto un saggio di quel che è accaduto nelle primarie dei dem a New York, spoglio lungo, conteggio lumaca, contestazioni, risultato di due sfide per il Congresso comunicato e certificato dalla commissione elettorale dopo 6 settimane. In tanti voteranno in anticipo (early vote), per posta, con l’absentee ballot, e lo scenario è a dir poco intricato, tutti hanno il diritto di votare per posta, ma le regole non sono uguali per tutti, le regole d’accesso e svolgimento del voto cambiano a seconda dello Stato e addirittura della contea, il caos è probabile per ragioni di spoglio, ma prima ancora logistiche, come abbiamo già ampiamente raccontato su questa serie di America 2020, i ballots (le schede) sono un elemento fisico della campagna, sono in movimento, vanno prima consegnate (all’elettore) e poi spedite (ai locali centri elettorali), vanno compilate (dall’elettore), raccolte dal Postal Service, e poi lette e certificate (dagli scrutatori). Anche qui, i sondaggisti danno i numeri (sì, qui c’è un po’ di ironia) e dicono che circa il 30% degli americani voterà per posta, un numero enorme, e che i democratici sono più propensi a farlo rispetto ai repubblicani.

Fatte queste premesse, lo svolgimento della storia è un ingresso nella giungla con il machete: i voti espressi dall’elettore nei seggi vengono scrutinati subito, ma quelli per posta sono un lavoro lungo, arrivano dopo, perfino giorni dopo. I dem potrebbero perdere la notte del voto e vincere dopo. Oppure gli stessi repubblicani potrebbero vincere a sorpresa e sul filo di lana del loro voto per corrispondenza. Se fossero confermate le stime sul voto per posta, viste le procedure e i precedenti, il 3 novembre avremo un’altra storia da raccontare: gli americani (non) avranno eletto il presidente degli Stati Uniti.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Usa. Elezioni Presidenziali. I democratici temono una sconfitta.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-08-27.

Washington. White House. 001

Al momento attuale, i sondaggi delle propensioni al voto darebbero:

– Presidenziali. Democratici 278 grandi elettori, repubblicani 169.

– Congresso. Democratici 222. Repubblicani 188. Indecisi 25.

– Senato. Democratici 47. Repubblicani 47. Indecisi 6.

* * * * * * *

Usualmente 270towin è ritenuta essere abbastanza obiettiva.

Occorrerebbe notare come i sondaggi che riportano le percentuali di propensione al voto in sede federale non siano indicatori ottimali, come hanno insegnato le elezioni del 2016.

Di qui alle elezioni ci sono ancora due mesi e mezzo, e molte cose possono succedere.

FBI. Kevin Clinesmit si dichiara colpevole. Rassegna stampa.

Avvocato dell’FBI si dichiara colpevole di aver alterato documenti contro Mr Trump.

Trump ha generato a giugno 5.89 mln posti di lavoro. Bloomberg lo ammette a denti stretti.

Usa. Sussidi. Richieste iniziali 963mila, continua 15.486 milioni.

Stati Uniti. Giugno. Nuovi Lavori Jolts 5.889 milioni. A maggio erano 5.397 mln.

* * * * * * *

Sintetizzando: se la vittoria dei democratici sembrerebbe essere probabile, nessuno potrebbe escludere che Mr Trump potesse fare una ripresa che potrebbe portarlo alla vittoria.

La candidatura di Mrs Kamala Harris alla vice presidenza conferma nei fatti un elettorato già convinto, ma potrebbe non essere gradita a molti degli indecisi che percentualmente sono una massa di non poco conto.

Questo è l’attuale incubo dei liberal democratici.

* * *

«With less than 80 days to go before the U.S. presidential election, it looks like Joe Biden’s race to lose»

«The former vice president and his allies have every reason to feel bullish. Polls show Biden has built an expansive lead in nearly every battleground state that Trump won narrowly in 2016, as the Republican’s approval numbers tumble amid the coronavirus pandemic. For the first time in a decade, retaking the Senate – and full control of Congress – is within sight.»

«Yet interviews with more than a dozen Democratic officials, activists and voters reveal deep anxieties that Trump will make voting as difficult as possible during the pandemic, and should he lose the vote, he won’t accept its outcome»

«And eight of 10 Democrats are concerned about voter suppression»

«Trump has railed against voting by mail for months, proclaiming without evidence that it will lead to fraud, and on Thursday all but acknowledged he was blocking Democratic demands for additional funding for the post office because of his opposition to mail-in voting»

«Some say Biden’s commanding edge in the polls only makes them more nervous. They worry that increasing cases of COVID-19 could keep voters away from polling places, particularly if Biden is perceived as coasting to an easy win»

«At about this time in 2016, then Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had around a five-point lead in various polls and still lost the election three months later, partly due to the first decline in African-American turnout in 20 years.»

«Democrats fret that the race has become overly focused on Trump’s handling of the pandemic»

«Because the president generally polls better in the states that are most likely to decide the election than he does nationally, he doesn’t necessarily have to recover that much to improve his chances of winning in the Electoral College»

«The Trump campaign, by contrast, says it is knocking on one million doors a week»

«But Biden allies are keenly aware that a 10-point edge in August does not guarantee a win in November»

* * * * * * *

Di qui a novembre corrono due mesi e mezzo.

Sarebbe suggeribile leggere le prospezioni elettorali con notevole cautela.

*


As Democrats prepare to nominate Joe Biden, widespread fears about unfair election.

(Reuters) – With less than 80 days to go before the U.S. presidential election, it looks like Joe Biden’s race to lose.

Yet, as Democrats nationwide gather online this week to nominate him as their party’s choice to challenge President Donald Trump on Nov. 3, many fear Biden may just do that – for factors almost entirely out of his control.

The former vice president and his allies have every reason to feel bullish. Polls show Biden has built an expansive lead in nearly every battleground state that Trump won narrowly in 2016, as the Republican’s approval numbers tumble amid the coronavirus pandemic. For the first time in a decade, retaking the Senate – and full control of Congress – is within sight.

Yet interviews with more than a dozen Democratic officials, activists and voters reveal deep anxieties that Trump will make voting as difficult as possible during the pandemic, and should he lose the vote, he won’t accept its outcome.

Biden himself has called it his biggest fear. Former President Barack Obama sounded the alarm on Friday, saying on Twitter the Trump administration is “more concerned with suppressing the vote than suppressing a virus.” And eight of 10 Democrats are concerned about voter suppression, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll in late July.

Trump has railed against voting by mail for months, proclaiming without evidence that it will lead to fraud, and on Thursday all but acknowledged he was blocking Democratic demands for additional funding for the post office because of his opposition to mail-in voting.

“We can’t predict what’s going to happen other than the closer we get to the election, the more desperate Trump and his campaign will become,” said Rodell Mollineau, an adviser to Unite the Country, a political action committee that backs Biden.

Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said the president wants a “free and fair” election, adding that it is Democrats who are inviting “chaos and the very real possibility of fraud” by trying to expand voting by mail.

Democrats and voting rights groups say mail-in voting can help protect voters from the coronavirus, and that a failure to guarantee that option during the pandemic will disenfranchise millions of Americans, especially the poor and African-Americans who tend to vote Democratic.

Some say Biden’s commanding edge in the polls only makes them more nervous. They worry that increasing cases of COVID-19 could keep voters away from polling places, particularly if Biden is perceived as coasting to an easy win.

“If Biden is up by 10 points, how likely are you to risk your life to pull that lever,” Stefan Smith, who was a top digital strategist for Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign.

At about this time in 2016, then Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had around a five-point lead in various polls and still lost the election three months later, partly due to the first decline in African-American turnout in 20 years.

Michigan Democrat Patty Leitzel, who lives in politically divided Macomb County, said she is still traumatized by the win Trump squeaked out in her state four years ago and worries he could do so again – as do the voters she talks to on a regular basis.

Leitzel, who was county chairman for the Clinton campaign, has been phone-banking and organizing virtual house parties on Biden’s behalf. “If I had Biden’s ear, I would tell him this: Don’t follow the polls,” she said.

WHAT AUGUST LEAD WILL MEAN

Like most Democrats, Leitzel’s biggest concern is voter suppression. But she said she also would like to see Biden make a greater effort to get his message out so that the election hinges less on Trump’s performance in office.

Democrats fret that the race has become overly focused on Trump’s handling of the pandemic. That has so far worked in Biden’s favor, but has also left him vulnerable to a sudden shift in the country’s fortunes, such as the economy improving greatly in the run-up to the election or a coronavirus vaccine becoming available, they say.

“These changes could narrow the race,” said Geoffrey Skelley, an elections analyst for FiveThirtyEight, a website that analyzes polling data. “Because the president generally polls better in the states that are most likely to decide the election than he does nationally, he doesn’t necessarily have to recover that much to improve his chances of winning in the Electoral College.”

Murtaugh said Democrats wanted the country to remain in desperate shape through the election. “President Trump looks forward to our continued recovery, but Joe Biden fears it,” he said.

Biden has taken a far more cautious stance than Trump on reopening the economy and repeatedly emphasized the need to follow public health guidelines.

He will accept his presidential nomination virtually from his home state of Delaware, while Trump plans visits this week to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona and Pennsylvania, all politically competitive states.

The Biden campaign’s on-the-ground efforts have also gone largely digital. The Trump campaign, by contrast, says it is knocking on one million doors a week.

The wisdom of each side’s approach won’t be known until election day. But Biden allies are keenly aware that a 10-point edge in August does not guarantee a win in November.

At a July 30 fundraiser, Representative Cedric Richmond, a co-chair of Biden’s campaign, raised the specter of the Atlanta Falcons, the National Football League team that in 2017 squandered a 25-point lead to lose the championship game.

“We’re not going to be up 28 to 3 at halftime at the Super Bowl and watch our lead whittle away,” Richmond said. “We’re going to keep pressing, and we’re going to keep working.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Istruzione e Ricerca, Stati Uniti

USA. Il Dipartimento di Giustizia accusa la Yale University di discriminare ‘Asian-American and white applicants’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-08-18.

2020-08-16__Dipartimento Giustizia 001


Il Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, ha formalmente accusato la Yale University di discriminare ‘Asian-American and white applicants’ nei test di ammissione a quella università, da molti ritenuta essere prestigiosa. Ma, una volta abbandonata la ammissione meritocratica, la Yale vive di glorie passate.

*


Justice Department Finds Yale Illegally Discriminates Against Asians and Whites in Undergraduate Admissions in Violation of Federal Civil-Rights Laws.

«The Department of Justice today notified Yale University of its findings that Yale illegally discriminates against Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions process in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The findings are the result of a two-year investigation in response to a complaint by Asian American groups concerning Yale’s conduct.»

«“There is no such thing as a nice form of race discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “Unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes, bitterness, and division. It is past time for American institutions to recognize that all people should be treated with decency and respect and without unlawful regard to the color of their skin. In 1890, Frederick Douglass explained that the ‘business of government is to hold its broad shield over all and to see that every American citizen is alike and equally protected in his civil and personal rights.’ The Department of Justice agrees and will continue to fight for the civil rights of all people throughout our nation.”»

«As a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, Yale expressly agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone civil-rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance»

«The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year. For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit.»

* * * * * * *

La Yale University è il più famoso tempio intellettuale dei liberal democratici, ossia di quel partito che a parole affermerebbe di voler tutelare gli ‘human-right’, condannando razzismo e tutti gli altri credi ideologici da loro professati, per poi comportarsi come quelle esecrande realtà politiche del secolo scorso.

Alla fine però il Dipartimento di Giustizia si è trovato costretto ad intervenire.

Il punto centrale è questo:

«Yale illegally discriminates against Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions process in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act»

«For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials»

«Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit»


Questo è razzismo della peggior specie, mimetizzato come se fosse stato un atto di giustizia.

Alleghiamo due ampi articoli tratti dal The New York Times, che cercano disperatamente di difendere posizioni indifendibili: contorsionismi logici fatti da professionisti del campo.

*


Justice Dept. Accuses Yale of Discrimination in Application Process.

The Trump administration said the university discriminated against Asian-American and white applicants. Yale defended its practices and vowed to maintain them.

The Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of violating federal civil rights law by discriminating against Asian-American and white applicants, an escalation of the Trump administration’s moves against race-based admissions policies at elite universities.

The charge, coming after a two-year investigation, is the administration’s second confrontation with an Ivy League school; two years ago, it publicly backed Asian-American students who accused Harvard in a lawsuit of systematically discriminating against them.

The department’s finding could have far-reaching consequences for the ongoing legal challenges to affirmative action, which are expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Some conservative groups have long opposed affirmative action, a tool born in the civil rights era, and a handful of states have banned such policies at public universities.

“There is no such thing as a nice form of race discrimination,” Eric S. Dreiband, the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, said in a statement announcing the Justice Department’s move against Yale. “Unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes, bitterness and division.”

The Justice Department said that Yale had violated Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action by using race not as one of many factors in deciding which applicants to invite to the freshman class, but as a predominant or determining factor in admissions — an effect that was multiplied for competitive applicants.

It directed Yale to suspend the consideration of race or national origin in admissions for one year, at which time the university would need to seek clearance from the government to begin using race as a factor again, the department said.

Yale pledged to fight the order, saying Thursday that it would hold fast to its admissions process. In a statement, the university said that it looks at the “whole person” when deciding whether to admit a student — not just academic achievement, but interests, leadership and “the likelihood that they will contribute to the Yale community and the world.”

“The department’s allegation is baseless,” said Peter Salovey, Yale’s president. “At this unique moment in our history, when so much attention properly is being paid to issues of race, Yale will not waver in its commitment to educating a student body whose diversity is a mark of its excellence.”

The Justice Department’s action comes about a month before arguments are set to be heard in the appeal of the case challenging Harvard’s admissions practices. The timing is so close that the department’s finding is likely to color the debate both inside and outside of the courtroom.

Initially filed in 2014, the Harvard case rests on many of the same complaints that the Justice Department leveled against Yale. It argued that Harvard’s admissions process amounted to an illegal quota system, that classes were racially balanced, and that Harvard favored Black and Hispanic applicants at the expense of Asian-Americans, who were held to a higher standard.

Harvard won the case in district court, with a judge finding that the university had not intentionally discriminated against Asian-Americans. A Justice Department effort to enforce its order against a defiant Yale might result in something of a rerun of the Harvard lawsuit.

Mr. Dreiband, the assistant attorney general, said the evidence in the civil rights division’s investigation indicated that Yale was racially balancing its classes by admitting similar proportions of each major racial group year after year, and that it had not made a serious effort since at least the 1970s to find another way of building a diverse student body.

“Our investigation indicates that Yale’s diversity goals appear to be vague, elusory and amorphous,” he said in a four-page letter explaining the department’s finding.

While some applicants — mainly African-American and Hispanic students — were favored by Yale because of their race and ethnicity, others were disfavored, Mr. Dreiband said, and it was mainly Asian-American and white applicants who were “unduly bearing the brunt of the preferences.”

Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions and the architect of the lawsuit challenging admissions practices at Harvard, portrayed the Justice Department’s finding as a first step in unraveling affirmative action across the world of selective colleges.

“All of the Ivy League and other competitive universities admit to using racial classifications and preferences in their admissions policies,” Mr. Blum said in an email. “This investigation reinforces the need for all universities to end race-based admissions policies.”

Rachel Kleinman, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which will be arguing in support of Harvard’s admissions policies before the appeals court next month, said she was “shocked but not surprised” by the Justice Department’s finding.

“This particular Department of Justice has been laser-focused on ending affirmative action,” she said, adding that she believed the department’s finding was “a foregone conclusion before they started their investigation.”

Despite the district court judge’s rejection of similar arguments in the Harvard case, she said, “They’re sticking with the analysis that any use of race is racism and insidious.”

The Ivy League schools are unapologetic about their use of race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions. On the contrary, the system the Trump administration is attacking is one that Yale, Harvard and others point to with pride, and that has become a national model.

Harvard has argued in a district court brief that while it sets no quotas, if it wants to achieve true diversity, it must pay some attention to the numbers of students it admits of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. The university has also said that abandoning race-conscious admissions would diminish the “excellence” of a Harvard education.

Likewise, Yale officials say that there is nothing mechanical about the school’s admissions process. They read 35,000 applications a year in their entirety, and race is one of hundreds of data points, they said. The university noted that of the students who enrolled last fall, 26 percent were Asian-American.

The Supreme Court over the years has generally upheld the principle behind affirmative action, within limits, including as recently as 2016. In a 1978 decision, Justice Lewis F. Powell articulated the rationale for efforts to improve academic diversity, writing, “A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.”

The Justice Department’s finding against Yale specifically accuses the university of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the school is required to comply with as a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding.

Legal experts said it would be extraordinarily rare, if not unheard-of, for the government to cut off federal funding to a university, and they noted that the Justice Department did not explicitly propose doing so in its finding against Yale. Instead, it would attempt to enforce its directive via a lawsuit if Yale does not voluntarily agree by Aug. 27 to suspend the use of race in undergraduate admissions.

The Trump administration began its investigation of Yale after a group called the Asian American Coalition for Education filed a complaint accusing the university of discriminatory practices.

On Thursday, Swan Lee, a co-founder of the group, called the Justice Department’s decision “a breath of fresh air for a lot of Asian-American parents” who see their children being held to a higher standard than some other groups in the college admissions process.

“It feels great to finally have our existence be recognized by the government,” she said.

*


Justice Dept. Says Yale Discriminates. Here’s What Students Think.

The Trump administration’s charge that the university discriminates against Asian-American applicants was disputed by many Asian-American students and others.

When Siddarth Shankar applied to Yale in 2017, he did not hesitate to identify himself as Asian-American, and wrote about how visiting family members in conflict-ridden Kashmir had shaped his worldview.

He did not expect to get in, because he knew he had tough competition as a student at a public high school in the affluent Washington suburb of McLean, Va., where most students were either white or, like him, Asian-American, and many apply to the Ivy League. But he was admitted.

Now he sees the Trump administration’s accusation that Yale discriminated against Asian-American and white applicants, leveled against the university by the Justice Department’s civil rights division on Thursday, as unfathomable and divisive.

“I think this is the oldest tactic in the book, to pit minority groups against each other,” Mr. Shankar, 20, now a junior majoring in economics, said on Friday.

Yale students widely criticized the administration’s finding, which came two years after a complaint was filed against the university by a group called the Asian American Coalition for Education. Most said the administration had lost credibility on racial matters long ago, undermining any analysis it might produce on the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions.

“When I talk to my Asian-American friends, this is not what we wanted,” said Alec Dai, a Yale senior from New York City whose parents immigrated from Guangzhou, China. “It’s not like people on campus were asking for this kind of justice that doesn’t exist.”

The Justice Department accused Yale of violating federal civil rights law by using race and ethnicity as a determining factor when sifting through the roughly 35,000 applications it reviews each year to admit about 2,300 students. About half of the students in last year’s freshman class identified themselves as white and a quarter as Asian-American, with African-American students making up 12 percent and Latino students 15 percent.

“For the great majority of applicants, Asian-American and white applicants have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African-American applicants with comparable academic credentials,” the department said.

The government demanded that Yale stop using race and national origin as factors in admission. Yale has refused, saying its admissions process adheres to both federal law and Supreme Court rulings that have generally supported affirmative action — triggering a possible lawsuit by the Justice Department, which lacks the authority to enforce the demand on its own.

Legal experts saw the finding as an extension of conservative legal efforts to end race-based college admissions policies, a battle that is expected to eventually reach a Supreme Court that leans more conservative after two appointments by President Trump.

Several challenges to admissions practices, including at Harvard, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a newly filed case against the University of Texas at Austin, have been orchestrated by Students for Fair Admissions, a group that opposes affirmative action, and are making their way through the federal courts. A federal judge ruled in Harvard’s favor last year, but an appeal in the case will be heard next month, with the federal government supporting the plaintiffs.

Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, suggested that the Yale finding was motivated by “the almost certain fear by Trump administration officials that there’s at least a substantial likelihood that come January, they won’t be here. So they want to put facts on the ground, to try them in a potential Biden administration.”

Mr. Bagenstos was a career attorney in the civil rights division in the 1990s and deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Obama administration. He said that Thursday’s finding, which was only four pages long, seemed rushed — unlike the pages and pages of extensive discussions of the facts that usually characterize such letters.

“It’s a very thin demand letter,” he said, “which suggests they’re really rushing in order to get in ahead of the election.”

Three Asian-American students who were involved in the legal actions against Ivy League schools — one who was rejected by Harvard and two others by Harvard and Yale, despite strong academics — were reluctant to speak on Friday. They said they agreed with the Justice Department ruling but were afraid of being savaged on social media for their views.

Zuri Goodman, 20, a Yale junior, said he had misgivings about whether the university’s admissions process was fair to everyone.

“Race shouldn’t necessarily be discarded, it should just be perhaps weighted less,” said Mr. Goodman, who is biracial, the child of an Indian-born mother and a white father. “And I think what should be weighted in its place is class and wealth and the access that they allow.”

Kahlil Greene, a senior who last year was the first Black student elected as Yale’s student body president, said he had considered his race “part of my identity, not a plus or a minus.” To ignore it, he said, would be “strange.”

“It’s like taking a plot point or character out of a story, like a weird omission,” he said.

He was hurt by beliefs expressed on social media over the last day that “Black students have a much easier time getting in” to Yale because of their race. The Justice Department finding has inflamed those resentments, he said.

As a beneficiary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Cinthia Zavala Ramos, a Yale senior who was born in Honduras but whose family moved to the United States when she was 6, has been dealing with the Trump administration for four years, she said, as the president has threatened to end the program that allows her to stay. The tension between the administration and the university feels familiar to her.

The experience for her white classmates seems very different, she said. Some have parents or grandparents who also attended the university.

“For them, Yale was a rite of passage,” Ms. Zavala Ramos said. “There’s always these sentiments of, like, this institution wasn’t meant for us, and there’s people who have been here for generations that feel the same way when they see us.”

Mary Chen, 20, a junior, said she had experienced discrimination against Asian-Americans. She recalled being taunted by classmates in the seventh grade in her hometown, Columbus, Ga. But she did not believe Yale was discriminating against Asian applicants, and regardless, she said, the racism she had experienced did not compare to anti-Black racism in America.

“Anti-Blackness and systematic racism and oppression, especially for Black Americans, is the more pervasive and the most important thing that we need to focus on right now,” she said.

She noted that the Justice Department had ignored Yale’s tradition of legacy and athletic admissions, which favor wealthier white students.

“That’s not something that is considered in discussions about affirmative action,” she said. “It’s always continuing the demonization of Black and Latinx students, as taking a spot from a deserving white or Asian student.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump ha generato a giugno 5.89 mln posti di lavoro. Bloomberg lo ammette a denti stretti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-08-14.

Gufo

Bloomberg è una testata liberal che appoggia il partito democratico.

Tuttavia, di fronte alla evidenza dei fatti, ne piglia atto con un articolo posto tra i necrologi.

Così è.

*

«Job openings in U.S. unexpectedly rose in June, hiring solid»

«U.S. job openings unexpectedly increased in June and hiring maintained a solid pace as state economies continued with reopening efforts»

«The number of available positions climbed to 5.89 million during the month from a revised 5.37 million in May»

«Openings that involve workers recalled from layoffs or positions that are only offered internally are not counted in the figure»

«Hiring eased to 6.7 million in June from a record 7.2 million a month earlier»

«Separations, which include layoffs and quits, increased by 522,000 in June, reflecting a jump in the number of people voluntarily leaving their jobs»

«The rate of layoffs and discharges held at 1.4% in June, near a pre-pandemic rate of 1.2%.»

«The increase in job openings, which occurred in all U.S. regions, reflected a 198,000 gain in vacancies within accommodation and food services. Openings also rose 71,000 in the health care and social assistance industry.»

«Employers continued to add to payrolls at a steady pace in July»

* * * * * * *

In sintesi.

– The number of available positions climbed to 5.89 million during the month

– The rate of layoffs and discharges held at 1.4% in June, near a pre-pandemic rate of 1.2%

– a 198,000 gain in vacancies within accommodation and food services

– Employers continued to add to payrolls at a steady pace in July.

* * * * * * *

Dopo aver letto questi dati, sarebbe da chiedersi quanti nuovi posti di lavoro abbiano generato Mr Conte, Mr Macron, Frau Merkel e gli altri governanti europei.

*


Job Openings in U.S. Unexpectedly Rose in June, Hiring Solid. – Bloomberg.

U.S. job openings unexpectedly increased in June and hiring maintained a solid pace as state economies continued with reopening efforts.

The number of available positions climbed to 5.89 million during the month from a revised 5.37 million in May, according to the Labor Department’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS, released Monday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for 5.3 million openings. Openings that involve workers recalled from layoffs or positions that are only offered internally are not counted in the figure.

Hiring eased to 6.7 million in June from a record 7.2 million a month earlier. While hires edged down, they were still the second-largest on record. The number of hires, which does include rehired employees, decreased 503,000 million. The hires rate decreased to 4.9% from an unprecedented 5.4%.

Separations, which include layoffs and quits, increased by 522,000 in June, reflecting a jump in the number of people voluntarily leaving their jobs. The number of quits advanced to 2.6 million in June from 2.1 million, with the rate climbing to 1.9%, the highest since February. The rate of layoffs and discharges held at 1.4% in June, near a pre-pandemic rate of 1.2%.

Even so, the quits rate remains well below where it was at the start of the year, when the jobs market was at its best in decades, illustrating lingering slack in the job market.

Competition among those looking for work remains elevated with nearly 18 million Americans were jobless during the month, leaving three unemployed workers vying for every job opening. That stands in stark contrast to a two-year trend in which job vacancies exceeded the number of unemployed.

The increase in job openings, which occurred in all U.S. regions, reflected a 198,000 gain in vacancies within accommodation and food services. Openings also rose 71,000 in the health care and social assistance industry. Vacancies declined in construction and state and local government education.

Employers continued to add to payrolls at a steady pace in July, according to the agency’s latest monthly jobs data issued Friday. Yet further outsize job gains could be in question as companies are well along in their efforts of getting headcounts in line with demand.

The JOLTS data lag behind the monthly employment report by a month, but it offers a level of detail not available in the jobs report. However, the two are not directly comparable across all categories. For employment, the reference period is the pay period that includes the 12th of the month — the same as the payroll survey in the jobs report — but for job openings it’s the last business day of the month and for hires and separations, it’s the entire calendar month.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump ha firmato quattro nuovi Executive Order contro la crisi da Covid-19.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-08-13.

Washington. White House. 001

Il Presidente Trump ha firmato quattro nuovi Executive Order in materia di aiuti federali per la crisi da Covid-19.

Memorandum on Authorizing the Other Needs Assistance Program for Major Disaster Declarations Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019

Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster

Executive Order on Fighting the Spread of COVID-19 by Providing Assistance to Renters and Homeowners

Memorandum on Continued Student Loan Payment Relief During the COVID-19 Pandemic

* * * * * * *

«US President Donald Trump has taken executive action to provide economic aid to millions of Americans hit by the pandemic»

«he was forced to do so after talks at Congress broke down»

«The directives include measures to support the unemployed, suspend payroll tax and extend student loans.»

«It is not known whether the move will mean the end of talks between senior government officials and top Democrats for a stimulus package»

«Mr Trump said the measures would provide up to $400 (£306) per week in supplemental unemployment benefits to tens of millions of jobless Americans»

«This is less than the $600 people had been receiving until 31 July, when the benefit expired.»

«The president also said states would cover 25% of the new payments – the previous benefit was fully funded by the federal government. He is seeking to divert money from a previously approved disaster aid to states»

«This is the money they need, this is the money they want, this gives them an incentive to go back to work»

«The measures also included a suspension of the collection of payroll taxes – which pay for Social Security and other federal programmes – through to the end of this year, a suspension of federal student loan payments, and efforts to minimise evictions but not a moratorium»

«The US unemployment rate continued to fall in July»

«Congress has already allocated some $3tn for pandemic relief so far»

* * * * * * *

Sono quattro anni che i liberal democratici, se non lo avessero già fatto, sgozzerebbero la propria madre pur di danneggiare e denigrare il Presidente Trump.

Stanno pagando a caro prezzo l’aver accondisceso alla candidatura Clinton nel 2016.

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

Se poi si considerano anche i due giudici della Suprema Corte, si constaterebbe come Mr Trump abbia dato una svolta consistente ad un sistema giudiziario che prima era in mano ai liberal. E questi  giudici sono nominati a vita.

Adesso i liberal possono dire e fare ciò che voglio, che Mr Trump potrà sempre dire che lui gli Executive Order li aveva fatti e che se la gente soffre la penuria è colpa dell’ostruzionismo dei liberal.

*


Nessun accordo con i dem sugli stimoli. Trump va avanti da solo

«L’ala rigorista del Gop fa naufragare le trattative con i Democratici sulla proroga degli aiuti a imprese e disoccupati. Il presidente degli Stati Uniti ne estende così alcuni firmando quattro ordini esecutivi. Nel frattempo, il numero di contagiati in Usa sfiora quota 5 milioni»

*


Trump aggira il Congresso e firma nuovi aiuti per l’economia

Con quattro ordini esecutivi il presidente supera lo stallo dovuto al mancato accordo con i democratici in Parlamento. Tra le misure disposte dal capo della Casa Bianca, l’estensione dei sussidi di disoccupazione federali per 400 dollari a settimana (con un taglio di 200 dollari dall’attuale importo). È un punto controverso, perchè il 25% delle somme è a carico degli Stati e dunque occorre l’intesa con i governatori.

Il presidente americano, Donald Trump, ha firmato quattro ordini esecutivi per ulteriori aiuti economici, destinati ad affrontare le conseguenze della pandemia di coronavirus, in polemica coi democratici dopo che la Casa Bianca non è riuscita a raggiungere un accordo al Congresso sul pacchetto di stimoli.

Parlando in una conferenza stampa del suo golf club privato a Bedminster, in New Jersey, ieri il presidente ha annunciato che saranno estesi i sussidi di disoccupazione federali per 400 dollari a settimana (con un taglio di 200 dollari dall’attuale importo), verrà rinviata l’imposta sui salari fino alla fine del 2020 (“molto probabilmente” retroattiva al 1 luglio) per chi guadagna meno di 100.000 dollari, saranno posticipati i pagamenti dei prestiti universitari azzerando gli interessi almeno fino alla fine dell’anno e si prorogherà la moratoria federale sugli sfratti. 

Trump ha firmato gli ordini esecutivi davanti alla stampa riunita per l’occasione e a diverse decine di membri del club, che hanno guardato dal retro della sala da ballo e hanno applaudito entusiasticamente in alcuni punti. 

Il memorandum sui sussidi di disoccupazione appare il punto più complesso della mossa unilaterale fatta da Trump e destinata a rinfocolare le tensioni con i democratici. Per ottenere qualsiasi sussidio addizionale, uno Stato deve dare il suo consenso ad entrare in un accordo finanziario con il governo federale, che chiede ai singoli Stati americani di farsi carico del 25% dei 400 dollari settimanali previsti per chi ne ha diritto. Non è scontato che tutti i governatori accettino.

Uno Stato del Nord-Est guidato da un democratico, scrive la Cnn, ha commentato l’ordine esecutivo di Trump ridendo e dicendo “non abbiamo questi soldi”. Gli Stati hanno già chiesto al Congresso ulteriori 500 miliardi di dollari per puntellare i propri bilanci, spossati dalle mancate entrate fiscali in seguito alla pandemia. Si tratta di uno dei principali oggetti del contendere tra i democratici, che vogliono stanziare aiuti addizionali, e i repubblicani, contrari al bail out di Stati che – a loro dire – sono solo mal amministrati.

Visto che il Congresso non ha autorizzato un’estensione dei sussidi extra di disoccupazione federali, lo Stato che vorrà entrare nel programma dovrà mettere in piedi tutto un nuovo sistema per fornire gli aiuti previsti, cosa che potrebbe richiedere mesi, come hanno spiegato alcuni esperti.  L’amministrazione Trump e i repubblicani non hanno voluto proseguire con i sussidi da 600 dollari – terminati il 31 luglio e che facevano parte dello storico ampliamento del programma di sussidi varato dal Congresso a fine marzo – perché convonti disincentivassero il ritorno al lavoro. I democratici, invece, sostengono che l’encomia è ancora debole e che chi è rimasto senza impiego ha bisogno ancora dei 600 dollari. 

“Siamo delusi dal fatto che invece che mettersi a lavoro per risolvere i problemi degli americani, il presidente abbia scelto di stare nel suo lussuoso golf club per annunciare una politica debole e di strette vedute, che taglia i sussidi di disoccupazione di cui milioni di americani hanno bisogno”, hanno commentato la speaker della Camera, la democratica Nancy Pelosi, e il leader dei dem al Senato, Chuck Schumer.

*


Coronavirus: Trump signs relief order after talks at Congress collapse.

US President Donald Trump has taken executive action to provide economic aid to millions of Americans hit by the pandemic, saying he was forced to do so after talks at Congress broke down.

The directives include measures to support the unemployed, suspend payroll tax and extend student loans.

Some of them are likely to face legal challenges given that Congress controls federal spending, not the president.

Democratic rival Joe Biden said they were “a series of half-baked measures”.

It is not known whether the move will mean the end of talks between senior government officials and top Democrats for a stimulus package. Negotiations broke down on Friday after two weeks.

Mr Trump said the measures would provide up to $400 (£306) per week in supplemental unemployment benefits to tens of millions of jobless Americans. This is less than the $600 people had been receiving until 31 July, when the benefit expired.

The president also said states would cover 25% of the new payments – the previous benefit was fully funded by the federal government. He is seeking to divert money from a previously approved disaster aid to states.

Mr Trump said it would be up to the states, which already face huge budget shortfalls due to the pandemic, to determine how much to be used from that fund to pay for the benefit. This means that the extra payment may end up amounting only to $300 a week.

“This is the money they need, this is the money they want, this gives them an incentive to go back to work,” President Trump said of the lower payments during a news conference on Saturday from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

The measures also included a suspension of the collection of payroll taxes – which pay for Social Security and other federal programmes – through to the end of this year, a suspension of federal student loan payments, and efforts to minimise evictions but not a moratorium.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives had approved a $3.5 trillion package which was rejected by the Republican-held Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful elected Democrat, said they lowered the figure in talks to $2tn but Republicans had proposed a $1tn plan.

Mrs Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dismissed the president’s actions as “meagre”, saying they were “unworkable, weak and narrow policy announcements” in the face of the economic and health crises.

Mr Biden, President Trump’s rival in the November election, accused him of putting Social Security “at grave risk” by delaying the collection of payroll taxes, and called the measures “another cynical ploy designed to deflect responsibility”.

But Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he supported the president “exploring his options to get unemployment benefits and other relief to the people who need them the most.”

The US unemployment rate continued to fall in July, but it was a much lower decrease than in May and June, denting hopes of an economic revival.

The country’s death toll from the coronavirus pandemic has surpassed 160,000. The US has far more Covid-19 cases by volume than any other country – nearly five million – and its rate of infection has risen steadily throughout the summer.

Congress has already allocated some $3tn for pandemic relief so far. Some Republicans in Congress do not wish to spend any more, and nearly half of Republican senators say they would oppose any new relief bill at all.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Ha nominato 53 giudici di appello federale, 143 giudici distrettuali, due nella Suprema Corte.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-07-05.

Donald Trump photographed at Trump Tower in NYC

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.

Vi sono inoltre 677 giudici distrettuali permanenti.

«With the confirmation of Judge Cory Wilson to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump has successfully appointed 53 appeals court judges, 143 district court judges, two US Court of International Trade judges and two Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office»

Mr Trump 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.

* * * * * * *

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

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

«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»

Trump e le nomine dei giudici. I mal di pancia di Mr Soros.

Trump, giudici, impeachment e Davos. La lunga ombra di Mr George Soros.

Trump. Prosegue la lotta per i giudici e per il 9th Circuit.

America. Corte di Appello del 9th Circuito. La Corte del disonore.

Trump. Correggere l’anomalia del Nono Circuito.

I giudici che avevano bloccato Mr Trump avevano pagato i dem per la nomina.

Trump. Il Senato approva altre due nomine di conferma di giudici

Trump. Senato. Nomine dei Giudici.

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

* * * * * * *

«Senate confirms Trump’s 200th judicial nominee»

«President Donald Trump’s 200th judicial nominee was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday, marking a significant milestone in a presidency that has tilted the federal judiciary in a conservative direction for decades to come»

«With the confirmation of Judge Cory Wilson to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump has successfully appointed 53 appeals court judges, 143 district court judges, two US Court of International Trade judges and two Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office»

«Trump, with the help of a determined McConnell and Senate GOP majority, has significantly reshaped the judiciary during his first term, and the 200th appointment milestone illustrates how lasting his legacy will be, as federal judges serve lifetime appointments and many of Trump’s picks have been young judges who can serve for many years»

«Judicial confirmations may be President Trump’s most important legacy»

«They will shape the nation’s laws on abortion, LGBT rights, voting rights and many other issues long after Trump leaves office.»

«Once we confirm Judge Wilson today, this Senate will have confirmed 200 of President Trump’s nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal bench»

«And following number 200, when we depart this chamber today, there will not be a single circuit-court vacancy anywhere in the nation for the first time in at least 40 years»

* * * * * * *

L’articolista citato è affranto e sconsolato. I liberal democratici hanno pagato, e stanno tuttora pagando, un elevato scotto ad aver accondisceso alla nomination di Mrs Clinton, sicura garanzia di confitta.

Con una diversa candidatura, adesso sarebbero stati i liberal democratici ad aver nominato 53 / 179 giudici federali di appello e 143 / 677 giudici distrettuali: avrebbero avuto in pugno la magistratura per quaranta anni.

Né si sia così sicuri che i democratici possano vincere le elezioni presidenziali.

Secondo l’ultimo sondaggio di 270towin, che alle scorse elezioni aveva centrato pienamente le previsioni, per il senato vi sarebbero 46 seggi democratici sicuri, 50 repubblicani sicuri, e 4 candidature incerte. Ne basterebbe uno solo ed i repubblicani manterrebbero la maggioranza in senato, che è la camera che approva le nomine.

Come dice il proverbio, il diavolo fa le pentole, ma non i coperchi.

*


Senate confirms Trump’s 200th judicial nominee.

President Donald Trump’s 200th judicial nominee was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday, marking a significant milestone in a presidency that has tilted the federal judiciary in a conservative direction for decades to come.

With the confirmation of Judge Cory Wilson to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump has successfully appointed 53 appeals court judges, 143 district court judges, two US Court of International Trade judges and two Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office.

By comparison, former President Barack Obama successfully appointed 334 federal judges during his two terms, according to the US Courts. Former President George W. Bush successfully appointed 340 judges during his eight years in office, while former President Bill Clinton put 387 judges on the bench during his two terms.

Trump, with the help of a determined McConnell and Senate GOP majority, has significantly reshaped the judiciary during his first term, and the 200th appointment milestone illustrates how lasting his legacy will be, as federal judges serve lifetime appointments and many of Trump’s picks have been young judges who can serve for many years.

“Judicial confirmations may be President Trump’s most important legacy,” said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. “They will shape the nation’s laws on abortion, LGBT rights, voting rights and many other issues long after Trump leaves office.”

The 200 confirmations will also be a permanent part of McConnell’s legacy. The Kentucky Republican, who is up for re-election this year, played a key role in changing Senate rules to both speed up the process of confirming judicial nominees eliminating the 60-vote threshold for minority filibusters.

In a 52-48 vote on Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Wilson and filled the last currently available appeals court post. Democrats complained about Wilson’s views on voting rights and other issues, but could not stop his confirmation since a simple majority vote is all that’s required for approval.

McConnell gloated about the accomplishment before the vote, saying: “Once we confirm Judge Wilson today, this Senate will have confirmed 200 of President Trump’s nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal bench.”

“And following number 200, when we depart this chamber today, there will not be a single circuit-court vacancy anywhere in the nation for the first time in at least 40 years,” McConnell said.

Earlier this month, the Senate also voted to confirm Justin Walker, a young judge close to McConnell, to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, enraging Democrats who said he’s not qualified. The DC appeals court is considered a breeding ground for future Supreme Court justices, and was the court Kavanaugh served on before Trump appointed him to the Supreme Court.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Regno Unito, Stati Uniti

Trump e Johnson. O far morire la economia od accettare più morti da Covid-19.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-04-23.

Trump Johnson 001

Quando un generale sotto attacco nemico si rende conto di non poter più a lungo resistere ordina la ritirata, lasciando un velo di truppe con l’ingrata funzione di cercare di contenere al meglio l’avanzata nemica.

In altri termini, sacrifica la vita di alcune unità al fine di salvare quella del grosso del suo esercito.

*

L’analogia dovrebbe essere chiara.

I danni sociali ed economici che derivano dalla stretta osservanza del cordone sanitario, con chiusura delle attività produttive, esorbitanti costi economici ed innalzamento vorticoso del tasso di disoccupazione valgono ben la pena di sopportare un maggior numero di decessi da epidemia da coronavirus.

La vita di pochi può salvare quella di molti.

* * * * * * *

«U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed on the need for a coordinated international response to the coronavirus pandemic»

«Trump and Johnson “reaffirmed their close cooperation through the G7 and G20 to reopen global economies and ensure medical care and supplies reach all those in need,”»

«The leaders committed to continue working together to strengthen our bilateral relationship, including by signing a free trade agreement as soon as possible»

* * * * * * *


‘Should have happened yesterday’: Republicans press Trump to restart economy

«GOP lawmakers are pushing Trump to move more quickly, even as health officials warn of ongoing danger from the pandemic.

Sen. Pat Toomey argued the country’s current economic paralysis is “a completely unsustainable place.”

President Donald Trump is itching to reopen the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. And congressional Republicans are mostly giving him the green light — and in some cases, leaning on him to speed up.

As Trump alternately agonizes over when to push states to reopen and browbeats governors with questionable claims of his superior authority, GOP lawmakers are urging federal guidance that quickly restarts some industries and begins to roll back unprecedented closures of vast swaths of the United States.»

*


GOP senator calls on Trump to reopen parts of the coronavirus-stricken economy because ‘death is an unavoidable part of life’

«-  Sen. Ron Johnson called on President Donald Trump to reopen segments of the US economy, saying in a USA Today op-ed article that “death is an unavoidable part of life.”

–  The Wisconsin senator mentioned last year’s “exceptionally bad” flu season and said Americans shouldn’t overreact.

–  Trump on Sunday extended the social-distancing guidelines that have shut down sectors of the American economy until April 30.»

*


Boris Johnson tells Donald Trump he is ‘on the road to recovery’ from coronavirus

«Boris Johnson has told US President Donald Trump he is “on the road to recovery” as he recovers from coronavirus at his Chequers country retreat.

In a sign the PM was making a gradual return to work, Downing Street said they discussed the need for an international response to the pandemic and a post-Brexit trade deal.

The White House said Mr Johnson “shared that he is feeling better” during the call.

The two leaders also discussed the need for co-operation to “reopen global economies”, the White House said.»

* * * * * * *

Il problema è semplice.

La clausura prolungata significa la distruzione del tessuto produttivo, senza il quale tutta la nazione si condanna di conseguenza alla miseria ed alla fame.

Lo ripetiamo per maggiore chiarezza.

La vita di pochi può salvare quella di molti.

*


Boris Johnson, feeling better, agrees with Trump on need to reopen economies – statements.

LONDON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed on the need for a coordinated international response to the coronavirus pandemic, Downing Street and the White House said in separate statements on Tuesday.

Johnson, who had been hospitalized after contracting COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, also told Trump he “is feeling better and on the road to recovery,” according to the White House statement on a telephone exchange between the two leaders.

Trump and Johnson “reaffirmed their close cooperation through the G7 and G20 to reopen global economies and ensure medical care and supplies reach all those in need,” the White House added.

The pair also discussed trade during the conversation.

“The leaders committed to continue working together to strengthen our bilateral relationship, including by signing a free trade agreement as soon as possible,” a Downing Street spokeswoman said.

Britain left the European Union earlier this year and a deal with the United States is a key priority for Johnson’s administration.