I'm concerned Georgia is going to run into this with Brian Kemp given how we can't fucking even audit our machines by a paper/non-electronic method.
What demographic does the publisher of Omarosa’s book think is going to purchase it? I really can’t think of any type of person that would care to read that book.
Passerby Calls 911 On Black Lawmaker For Handing Out Anti-Trump Pamphlets A woman called 911 on New York state Sen. Jesse Hamilton (D) for “dividing people” as he was campaigning on a street corner and handing out pamphlets emblazoned with “Fighting Back Trump,” according to a late Thursday New York Post report. Hamilton said the woman grew upset, saying that he’s “dividing people” and “should not be standing here.” Per the Post, she then reportedly called the police and complained that Hamilton was against Trump’s immigration policy. The officers who responded to the scene told her that he wasn’t breaking any laws. “The pattern of targeting Black men and women for being Black and alive in the communities we all share has to stop,” Hamilton wrote on Facebook after the incident. Spokespeople from Hamilton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The woman’s identity was not reported. from TPM
the bund is interesting because they tried to blend nativism, "americanism," and national socialism. their forebears, the Friends of New Germany, had fizzled out quickly because they attempted to advance national socialism in a very blatant manner. kuhn understood that Americans weren't as receptive to pure fascism/national socialism as Europeans had been up to that point. ideologically, there was a lot of overlap with contemporaries like charles coughlin (kind of a proto-rush limbaugh). the "one-hundred percent Americanism" advanced by the bund was largely a front, but it's interesting because it provides us with a really clear example of how american patriotism, nationalism, and nativism can be enmeshed with fascism. as an ideology, fascism is notoriously amorphous so we don't really see two identical examples of it. there are common traits of course, but italian and german fascism for example, contained some notable discrepancies. in america, i think fascism failed to take root largely because the people most receptive to it dismissed it due to its foreign roots (another foreign "ism"). the bund ultimately collapsed because they weren't able to sufficiently disguise their national socialist beliefs under a veneer of patriotism. they advocated americanism, but maintained a paramilitary wing modeled directly after the SA (the Ordnungsdienst or OD) which provided security for their gatherings (including the "mass demonstration of true americanism" mentioned in the tweet above) and frequently clashed violently with protestors. they maintained training camps where they indoctrinated members with the tenets of fascism and national socialism, and provided martial arts training for prospective OD members. and all of this attracted quite a bit of media attention and public scrutiny (the house un-american activities committee was actually created to investigate the bund, though its focus quickly shifted to communism). quite simply, the bund couldn't sell itself as an "american" organization when its members were splitting american skulls on the streets. and it ultimately couldn't sell itself to nativists, because at the time nativist fears were still largely focused on europe (anti-communism, anti-catholicism, and fears of foreign labor agitators were still preeminent), and the bund was advancing an ideology seen as inextricably european. it's interesting to look at this in a modern context because the descendants of these nativist movements-white supremacists, alt-right, etc-have adopted a polar opposite view in which they feel solidarity (white) europeans. the bund, i think, demonstrated many of the reasons fascism struggled and ultimately failed to take root here in the interwar era. but i'm not that applies any longer.
Don't tell that to the am talk radio show or wherever this shit is coming from that keeps motivating people to do it
Mystery recess triggers speculation in Manafort trial By Jacqueline Thomsen - 08/10/18 04:08 PM EDT 301 Spoiler Paul Manafort’s criminal trial on bank and tax fraud charges was held up for several hours on Friday as the federal judge presiding over the case repeatedly met with federal prosecutors and Manafort’s defense attorneys. Judge T.S. Ellis III, who has otherwise placed a priority on the trial moving quickly, pushed the start of witness testimony in the trial until Friday afternoon, according to multiple media reports. Ellis began the day by holding a bench conference with attorneys from both sides before the jury was called into the courtroom, and held a second conference before leaving the room “to consider an issue," according to The Washington Post. Multiple news outlets noted that the judge did not exit through the door toward his chambers, but instead through doors in the direction of the jury room. Ellis returned about 45 minutes later, at which point he summoned in the jury for attendance and said they would then take an early lunch break. He reiterated to the jury the importance of not discussing the case with anyone, reminding them that Manafort has “a presumption of innocence” and to “keep an open mind until all the evidence is in," Politico reported. The delay came after special counsel Robert Mueller’s team criticized Ellis in a court filing Friday, urging the judge to tell the jury to ignore one of his previous comments in order to prevent them from misunderstanding the gravity of testimony presented to them. Ellis had interjected Thursday during the questioning of a bank employee by prosecutor Uzo Asonye. The employee was discussing how Manafort attempted but failed to get a $5.5 million construction loan, according to Politico. “You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted,” the judge said. “Your honor, this is a charged count in the indictment,” Asonye responded. “I know that,” Ellis said. That exchange was addressed Friday in a court filing by prosecutors. “The Court’s statement that the government ‘might want to spend time on a loan that was granted’ misrepresents the law regarding bank fraud conspiracy, improperly conveys the Court’s opinion of the facts, and is likely to confuse and mislead the jury,” prosecutors wrote. The filing marked the second time that federal prosecutors have requested Ellis issue a corrective statement during the trial. The judge said Thursday that he was “probably wrong” for criticizing prosecutors for having one of their witnesses, IRS revenue agent Michael Welch, in the courtroom ahead of his testimony. Ellis had previously given prosecutors permission to let Welch observe the trial before he was called to the stand. ...Friday's unexplained delay has sparked speculation among observers that there could be discussions about a potential plea deal. But there have been no other signs that a plea agreements is in the works, and Manafort's lawyer said ahead of the trial that the former Trump campaign chairman would not agree to one. Federal prosecutors were expected to call their final witnesses on Friday, but the delay suggests they could continue presenting their case early next week. Dennis Raico, a former employee at Federal Savings Bank in Chicago, took the stand on Friday afternoon. Bloomberg News reported that Raico testified that the bank's chief executive officer Stephen Calk expedited approval of a loan to Manafort and wanted his assistance in getting a job in the Trump administration.
We Wanted Safer Banks. We Got More Inequality. How regulations after the financial crisis, along with a heavy-handed Fed, have hurt the middle class. an interview posted at Bloomberg Spoiler By Joe Nocera August 6, 2018, 5:00 AM CDT It’s not all fun and games. Photographer: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. He is co-author of “Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA.” A few years ago, one of Karen Petrou’s banking clients gave her an unusual assignment: It wanted her to write a paper laying out “the unintended consequences of the post-financial-crisis capital framework.” Petrou is the co-founder of Federal Financial Analytics Inc., a financial services consulting firm in Washington that focuses on public policy and regulatory issues. She is also, as the American Banker once described her, “the sharpest mind analyzing banking policy today — maybe ever.” Whenever I’m writing about banking issues, she’s the first person I call. Writing that paper caused Petrou to ask a question she’d never really considered before: Did the bank regulations enacted after the 2008 crisis — along with the Federal Reserve’s post-crisis monetary policy — exacerbate income inequality? Her answer, which she laid out in a series of blog posts, as well as a lecture at the New York Federal Reserve in March, was yes. “Post-crisis monetary and regulatory policy had an unintended but nonetheless dramatic impact on the income and wealth divides,” she wrote recently. That particular sentence was in a blog post devoted to a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis that evaluated income and wealth inequality from 1949 to 2016. The study certainly seems to validate her thesis. It shows that between 1989 and 2007, the top 10 percent increased their share of the nation’s wealth by just 5.8 percent. But in just the next nine years, between 2007 and 2016, the richest Americans captured an additional 8.3 percent of the country’s wealth. Meanwhile, those in the 50 percent to 90 percent wealth bracket saw their share of the nation’s wealth drop by 17 percent, and those in the bottom 50 percent saw a 52 percent drop. The single biggest variable that changed after 2007 was the way banking was conducted and regulated. Petrou has written a book outlining her analysis of the problem — and her proposed solutions — which will be published next spring by Yale University Press. Not wanting to wait that long, I visited her recently to get a sneak preview. JN: Let’s cut to the chase. How does banking accelerate income inequality? KP: First, as the country becomes more unequal, there are fewer middle class customers. That means middle class bank products become unprofitable, and banks follow the money. And banking regulations make it worse because the capital requirements imposed after the banking crisis make it a lot more expensive for banks to do a startup small-business loan than go into wealth management. Startup loans are riskier than wealth management, of course, but the capital costs have become prohibitive, and banks don’t lose money on purpose. JN: Can you really blame the banks for behaving in this fashion? KP: I’m not blaming the banks. I’m blaming the unintended consequences of the rules. I think the rules unduly penalize equality-enhancing financial services. JN: Can you give me an example? KP: Thanks to the new capital requirements, it’s basically impossible for banks to make mortgage loans to anyone but wealthy customers, unless they can send the loan to the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) or taxpayer-backed Ginnie Mae. And the new capital requirements also discourage banks even from sending loans to the GSEs or Ginnie — if the loan to a low, moderate-, or middle-income borrower is kept on the bank’s books, there’s a very large capital charge at the front end; if it’s sold, the bank still has to hold back-end capital in case the loan defaults and comes back to the bank. Nonbank mortgage originators — which have eclipsed bank lending in the last few years — face none of these capital charges, but they also can make no loans they don’t sell on to investors. Their entire focus is on booking loans for an upfront fee and sending them on to these taxpayer-backed entities. Without capital at risk, these nonbanks (companies such as Quicken Loans Inc.) also have a lot less at risk if loans eventually default. As a result, high-risk mortgage lending is making a comeback. Let me be clear — I’m not against post-crisis capital standards designed to prevent lenders from making high-risk loans that put only the borrower or taxpayer at risk. There’s no quicker way to make Americans even less equal than to expose vulnerable homeowners to foreclosure. What I am saying is that now some lenders — banks — are under rules so tough they can’t support equality-enhancing mortgages and other lenders are totally outside the post-crisis “skin in the game” rules designed to end high-risk, predatory lending. This asymmetry redefines the market in ways risky all over again, to both vulnerable borrowers and the taxpayer. JN: Would you have said that this was a problem prior to the financial crisis? KP: If I had known to look for it, I would probably have said it was a problem. It’s common knowledge that income inequality in the U.S. has been getting increasingly worse since 1980. But what I’ve been pointing out in some of my blog posts is that it became hugely worse after the financial crisis. Were there underlying issues pre-2008? Absolutely. But we had more of a middle class even in 2006 than we do now. By a lot. JN: How does the Minneapolis Fed study add to our understanding of the causes of income inequality? KP: There are a lot of things that helped bring about income inequality in the US – crummy education, the decline of middle-class manufacturing jobs, technological innovation and so on. But if you look at the Minneapolis Fed data, as well as many other analyses, it happens gradually prior to 2008. Then it actually flattens out in 2008 because rich people lost money in the crash, which narrowed the inequality gap. But starting in 2010, the gap widens dramatically. The one really big change are the post-crisis rules. And, very importantly, the Fed also changed the way money moved. JN: What do you mean by that? KP: The Fed did two things with huge inequality implications. First, with its massive quantitative easing, it sucked $4.5 trillion of assets out of the banking system. The idea was that it would empty out the bank balance sheets so that they would start to make loans. And that didn’t happen —initially the banks were too weak, and as they recovered, the rules created significant impediments. If you look at who is getting loans it is large corporations, not small businesses. Second, the Fed’s low-interest policy gave rise to yield-chasing. And what has the stock market done since 2010? Everybody who has money has seen their financial assets appreciate dramatically. Everybody who doesn’t have money, which is the bottom 90 percent, what is their principal source of wealth? Houses? House-price appreciation for expensive houses is way up since 2012. But overall, real U.S. house prices are down 10 percent. JN: Isn’t the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take up the slack and make it possible for people to buy homes? KP: Yes. But they’re not. If you look at the credit scores of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie are buying, they are way up — the average is something like 740, of a possible 850. JN: What does the Federal Reserve say about your criticism? KP: I should stress, first of all, that the Fed certainly didn’t set about to make income inequality worse. It is an unintended consequence of its efforts to stimulate the economy while tightening bank regulations — two goals that are fundamentally incompatible. Essentially, though, the Fed denies that it played a role in income inequality. The Fed is always saying, “Look what we did — record low unemployment!” But that is partly because it takes two or three wage earners in a household to make ends meet now. So, yes, you see more employment, but people are really struggling. The whole Fed view of monetary policy is based on the view that if you stimulate the economy, wealthier people will buy a lot of stuff, and companies will have more money to invest in plants and hire more people. And that is totally not happening. JN: If you were in charge, how would you solve this? KP: I have two ideas, and they are both hard. On monetary policy, I really think the Fed needs to step back. It has been essentially running the market, and allocating credit, since 2008. And they don’t mean to be. They really don’t. But they are. JN: What does it mean to step back? KP: I think it would mean to taper their portfolio far more quickly than they are. If the economy is in a real recovery, why does the Fed still need to hold $4.5 trillion of the funds that should be out working in the economy and keep interest rates below zero in real terms? JN: How would it help income inequality? KP: It would normalize markets. People would hold a lot more money in lower-risk assets as opposed to stock equities, which would start to generate more productive economic activity over time instead of just fueling more speculative betting. JN: And your second idea? KP: The Fed needs to let interest rates normalize. Right now, what the Fed calls the neutral rate — the rate that drives their thinking — is about 2 percent. The previous neutral rate had been 5 percent. Think about that on an inflation-adjusted return. Back in the day when Treasury bills were 5 percent or higher, if I had my savings in that, I could make money in low-risk assets. If you have monetary policy where the rate is 2, that combined with the 2 percent inflation, and you will have a permanently impoverished middle class. My main call in my book is that the Fed needs to think about that. JN: Anything else? KP: There is one other thing. When the Fed looks at their data, they think everything is great. Unemployment is low, profits are up, and so on. But the median net worth today is $97,000. In 2004, it was $102,000 — which is actually $140,000 in purchasing power today. Look at the difference! I would argue for an inclusive monetary policy that factors in the real world of higher income people not buying stuff, lower income people with huge debt burden, no middle class, and so on. And with 60 percent of American financial assets outside the banking system, a monetary policy system predicated on banks being the means through which the economy is stimulated, well, it just doesn’t work anymore. So that is what I think. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at [email protected] To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stacey Shick at [email protected] cliffs: “Post-crisis monetary and regulatory policy had an unintended but nonetheless dramatic impact on the income and wealth divides,” she wrote recently. That particular sentence was in a blog post devoted to a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis that evaluated income and wealth inequality from 1949 to 2016. The study certainly seems to validate her thesis. It shows that between 1989 and 2007, the top 10 percent increased their share of the nation’s wealth by just 5.8 percent. But in just the next nine years, between 2007 and 2016, the richest Americans captured an additional 8.3 percent of the country’s wealth. Meanwhile, those in the 50 percent to 90 percent wealth bracket saw their share of the nation’s wealth drop by 17 percent, and those in the bottom 50 percent saw a 52 percent drop. The single biggest variable that changed after 2007 was the way banking was conducted and regulated.
Through words and deeds, Trump and his allies demean Americans By Maria Cardona, opinion contributor — 08/10/18 05:00 PM EDT 0 The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill © Greg Nash Last week, I wrote that President Trump’s critics were not suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” that we were justifiably enraged. I made the case that this administration and its allies, led by Trump, not only spew vile, disgusting rhetoric that stems from an ugly but very real strain of bigotry, but that they have sought to legislate — by law or by presidential decree — their hatred and discrimination. This week, Trump and his supporters have proven me right several times over. They have proven that Trump’s America is, sadly, an aberration where people feel free not only to wear their racism, discrimination and bigotry on their sleeves but to act on it. They have made the executive branch one that pushes changes to our laws and regulations that will keep people of color out of the country, take away their rights or delegitimize their voices.. Spoiler Let’s start with the recent jaw-dropping (but, in a way, refreshingly honest) diatribe that Fox News host Laura Ingraham engaged in on her show, in which she admitted that she and others of her ilk are upset about the demographic changes that have been a reality of this great country for decades. "It does seem like the America we know and love doesn't exist anymore," Ingraham declared. "Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people. And they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don't like. "From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically, in some ways, the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and legal immigration, that of course progressives love," she said Wow. She went full white-supremacist with that one. But at least we see with clarity where she, others on Fox News, many (not all) Trump supporters, this president and this administration are coming from. Ingraham’s rant lent Americans a truthful glimpse into the dark heart of those who are seeking to malign, further marginalize, divide and even criminalize America’s minority communities simply because of the color of their skin, their heritage, their language, their culture or their socioeconomic status. What Ingraham and her cohorts do not seem to grasp is that America was built upon the blood, sweat and tears of those who came from foreign shores. Ingraham’s own adopted children are foreign born, and part-and-parcel of the changes she is so passionately against. So, unless you are of Native American descent, you have no more righteous a claim on this country than those who came here, perhaps more recently, seeking a better life. But it doesn’t end with Ingraham’s ugly words. It extends to the administration’s actions. Stephen Miller, President Trump’s close advisor, has proposed to deny U.S. citizenship to legal permanent residents if any of their family members used any government or pubic programs. Miller also is the author of the administration’s Muslim travel ban and its proposals on immigration, which include ending “chain migration” and changing our system to only allow “merit-based” immigration. All of this is designed to slow or stop the exact demographic changes that Ingraham’s tirade vilifies. And it is not just Miller. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice seeks to achieve these radical ends by various means, both small and large. He directed the department to use the phrase “illegal alien” when talking about those here without papers. Make no mistake: Words matter, and these words are meant to demean and dehumanize those coming here in desperation, seeking a better, safer world for their families. I have been called an “illegal” countless times, and I am a decades-long naturalized citizen. But simply because of the color of my skin, my last name, my first language (Spanish) and my country of origin, I am painted with a denigrating broad brush handed to those with anti-immigrant bents, including our own president. But, again, it goes beyond just words. Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice just deported a mother and her daughter in the midst of their asylum hearing, in which a judge was deciding whether their claim was valid or not. This goes beyond hurtful rhetoric; this tramples upon justice, our Constitution and the rule of law — the very thing to which Trump and his anti-immigration supporters profess to adhere so sacredly. This act was so egregious that the judge in the case erupted and ordered the Justice Department to immediately return the mother and daughter back to the U.S. This does not normally happen in the United States of America. But it is happening in the United States of Trump. As we head into a weekend that marks the painful one-year anniversary of the white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Va., when so many Americans started to realize that their president, many in his administration and some of their supporters were indeed racists, we need to remind ourselves that their vile remarks, hateful rhetoric, demeaning words and ugly deeds do not represent the majority of Americans. Indeed, they do not represent America. Most Americans believe our diversity is our strength. Most Americans believe immigration has been good for this country. So it is up to most Americans to fix this. It is up to us to continue making our voices heard; the most powerful tool at our disposal is the ballot box. Yes, America, we deserve better. Let’s start by throwing out of office all those who have cowardly stood by this president as he demeans Americans and belittles America. Let’s fix this aberration and get on with the business of continuing to make America great! Maria Cardona is a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a Democratic strategist and a CNN/CNN Español political commentator. Follow her on Twitter @MariaTCardona.
i don't think it's strange because he apparently decides what the office of the president of the united states does on any given day based on what he saw on fox and friends
Hate to sound curmudgeonly and cliche, but when you become a dad seeing that is upsetting. Poor kid needs a non piece of shit white-trash parent.
hell yeah, fuck over the troops, republicans! Lookin' out for those much more deserving payday lenders!
twitter finally started banning some nazis now that we're heading in to the "unite the right 2" rally
These people are going to fight tooth and nail before letting anybody who doesn't support ice and droning children get the nom