monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Say what? Where did I say anything about "prosocial" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) psychopaths? Sounds like an oxymoron.

There are over a billion sorry-ass muslims out there who believe that the stupidest **** imaginable is "reality." So what?

Warm Reception for Trump as He ‘Hit Poland’s Most Profound Notes’

WARSAW — The crowd in Krasinski Square was loving it. Cheers. Shouts of joy. American flags of red, white and blue waved with red and white Polish ones across the crowded square...Aging fighters from Poland’s struggle against Communism stood alongside new mothers pushing baby carriages, and the crowd spilled into the narrow side streets on the edge of Old Town.

“This speech was moving, and it was hard to keep emotions under control because the president hit Poland’s most profound notes,” said Pawel Lisicki, the editor in chief of Do Rzecz...“I am here because the most powerful politician in the world is here,” Mr. Kaminski said, and because he agrees fervently with most of Mr. Trump’s views. “Look at him pressuring the NATO members to raise their military spending,” he said. “That’s what we need.”

When President Trump spoke about “our civilization and our way of life,” or how it must urgently be defended “in the face of those who would subvert or destroy it,” his words were familiar to populist audiences across Central Europe.

“For two centuries, Poland suffered constant and brutal attacks,” he said. “But while Poland could be invaded and occupied, and its borders even erased from the map, it could never be erased from history.”

Trump critic Dan Rather deems Trump's speech in Poland 'the best of his presidency'

Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather has a track record of blasting President Trump, but after Trump's speech Thursday in Warsaw, Rather had nothing but praise...Shortly after Trump wrapped up his "pro-NATO speech," Rather deemed it the "best of his presidency."

The kudos are particularly notable coming from a man who has slammed Trump's "willful disregard for the rule of the law" and declared that "history will punish Donald Trump" for his decision to exit the Paris climate accord.

He reaffirmed America's commitment to NATO's Article 5, the pledge of collective defense that he was initially slow to endorse. Trump also used the speech to issue an explicit warning to Russia ahead of his Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran," Trump said.

The US government's top ethics watchdog has announced his intention to resign, after repeatedly clashing with President Donald Trump.
Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), will leave his post on 19 July.
"In working with the current administration, it has become clear to me that we need improvements to the existing ethics programme," he said.
The White House said in a statement that it "appreciates his service".
"The president will be nominating a successor in short order," it added.
Mr Shaub was appointed to a five-year term in 2013, and had six months left.
He will now join the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, which advocates tougher campaign finance laws, as its senior director of ethics.

Three minutes of Trump - decoded line by line

There's an old saying in Washington that politics should "stop at the water's edge".
It reflects the tradition that, while a president is overseas, domestic bickering should be put on hold, as partisan grievances are best kept within the family.
Those norms, which used to be considered iron-clad, have frayed considerably in recent decades. Leave it to Donald Trump, however, to throw kerosene on whatever remains and dance around the ashes.
In a three-minute exchange with reporters in Warsaw, Mr Trump aired a wide range of his usual grievances - against the US media, his presidential predecessor and the US intelligence community.
Here's a closer look:
Trump: "I've said it very simply, I think it could very well have been Russia but I think it could well have been other countries and I won't be specific, but a lot of people interfere."
Anthony: The question that set Mr Trump off, from MSNBC reporter Hallie Jackson, was direct. "Will you once and for all yes or no definitively say that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?"
His answer was far from a definitive "yes". Instead he engaged in several paragraphs worth of water-muddying along the lines of past remarks, where he has suggested the Chinese or some "400-pound person sitting in bed" could be the true culprit behind the email hacks of top Democratic officials in 2016.
Trump: "Barack Obama, when he found out about this in terms of if it was Russia, found out about it in August. Now the election was in November. That's a lot of time he did nothing about it."
Anthony: According to the Washington Post article that detailed the extent of the information available to Mr Obama at the time - including that Russian President Vladimir Putin had directly ordered election meddling - the then-president took several steps.
In September, he directly warned Mr Putin face-to-face to stop Russian cyber-activities in the US. He directed his intelligence officials to reach out to congressional leadership, although the Republicans were reluctant to participate in any bipartisan call for action.
He also informed state governments to ensure that their electoral systems were secure.
Trump: "They say he choked. Well, I don't think he choked."
Anthony: Mr Obama's response didn't go over well with everyone in his administration. Mr Trump is referencing a line in that same Washington Post article, from a senior Obama official who felt the US government didn't do enough to punish Russia for what appeared to be a brazen attempt to destabilise the US election.
There's a certain amount of irony that Mr Trump would highlight this anonymous remark, given how frequently he and his aides have condemned reliance on anonymous sources in news stories critical of his own administration.
Trump: "He thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the election and he said let's not do anything about it. Had he thought the other way he would have done something about it."
Anthony: The Washington Post article reported that Mr Obama decided not to go public with the evidence of Russian involvement because of concerns that it might provoke further Russian action, reveal US intelligence-gathering resources or be cited by Mr Trump as evidence that Democrats were "rigging" the US election against him, an accusation he was regularly making in the closing days of the presidential campaign
Mr Trump has apparently concluded that if the situation for Mrs Clinton had appeared more dire, he would have been more aggressive in his response. It's a charge that is impossible to prove, of course - but it allows Mr Trump once again to bask in the unexpected nature of his presidential triumph.
Trump: "I heard it was 17 agencies. Boy, that's a lot. Do we even have that many intelligence agencies?"
Anthony: Yes, the US does. The CIA and the FBI are the big ones, but there are also intelligence divisions within the State, Defence, Homeland Security, Treasury and Energy departments, as well as multiple military intelligence offices.
It's not something most Americans would be expected to know. Whether those at the top of the US government should have a basic familiarity with the nation's national security establishment is another question.
Mr Trump brings this up because of New York Times and Associated press reports that all 17 agencies had signed off on the conclusion that Russia had meddled in the 2016 US election.
Trump: "We did some very heavy research, and it turned out to be three or four. It wasn't 17 and many of your compatriots had to change their reporting, and they had to apologise and they had to correct."
Anthony: It seems like it wouldn't take too much "heavy research" for the administration to discover the findings of its own intelligence apparatus, but the president is correct that the New York Times and Associated Press have corrected their initial reports.
The assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election was the result of efforts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, and published in a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all US intelligence agencies. Other intelligence divisions, like Coast Guard Intelligence, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Drug Enforcement Administration's Office of National Security Intelligence would have had nothing relevant to add to the report.
Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence James Clapper pointed this out multiple times during testimony before Congress on 8 May, but the media outlets only recently modified their original articles.
Neither the Associated Press or the New York Times "apologised", however.
Trump: "I remember that I was sitting back listening about Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction. How everybody was 100% sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Guess what, that led to one big mess. They were wrong."
Anthony: During the Republican primary campaign Mr Trump frequently criticised George W Bush and members of his administration for launching the Iraq War based on the faulty conclusion that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programme.
At the time it was considered remarkable that a Republican candidate would break with party orthodoxy on the merits of the military operation.
Making those charges on a debate stage is one thing, however. Highlighting the shortcomings of US intelligence on foreign soil, in front of the world media, while standing next to a fellow head of state, however, is astounding.
Trump: "I think what CNN did was unfortunate for them, as you know now, they have some pretty serious problems. They have been fake news for a long time, they've been covering me in a very dishonest way. Do you have that also, Mr President?"
Anthony: It was probably inevitable that Mr Trump would be asked to comment about Sunday's CNN-wrestling tweet, and he took the opportunity to take another swipe at the US cable news network.
What makes this time a different, of course, was the president's aside to the Polish leader, who has been accused of cracking down on his own nation's free press. He recently blocked adversarial reporters from covering parliament and in January 2016 fired the executives of the nation's public radio and television networks, replacing them with individuals more friendly to the government.
Such an action is well outside of the power of a US president, but the New York Times did note that Mr Trump isn't without his own "leverage" over CNN, as his administration is currently reviewing whether to let the network's parent company, Time Warner, merge with telecommunications giant AT&T.
"Mr Trump's Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president's animus toward CNN remains a wild card," the paper reports.
Trump: "NBC equally is bad, despite the fact that I made them a fortune with The Apprentice, but they forgot that."
Anthony: NBC News officials will likely howl at the insinuation that their coverage could ever be influenced by commercial considerations of their network - even if the Apprentice, at least early in its 14-season run, was a ratings success.
Donald Trump didn't make out too badly from his involvement with his reality television show, either. According to campaign disclosures, he earned more than $213m from the programme.
And the visibility he received from being portrayed as a take-charge executive once a week on prime-time commercial television?
That, as they say, was priceless.

If the halting, messy debate over legislation to overhaul health care has taught us anything so far, it’s that when it comes to health care, Republicans don’t know what they want, much less how to get it.

After years of campaigning on the promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act, when it finally came time to act, Republicans put together a plan that looks like a stingier, skimpier version of Obamacare in the individual market, plus a rollback of the law’s Medicaid expansion (delayed until after the next presidential election — long enough that it might not happen).

When asked about the status of the health care bill this week, Senator Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, responded, “I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win, I think most of my colleagues didn’t, so we didn’t expect to be in this situation.” In short, Republicans didn’t plan on having to follow through on their promises.

Democrats, on the other hand, share a distinct vision of robust universal coverage guaranteed by the government and paid for by a combination of delivery-system efficiencies and higher taxes.

What Republicans need, then, is a set of guiding principles — a health care vision that should work from the ground up, that imagines a more affordable and more effective system, one that’s fairer and more focused.

For starters, it would mean giving up on comprehensive universal coverage. Otherwise, Republicans will just end up bargaining on the terms set by Democrats, as they are now.

One might reasonably object that Republicans have already given up on that goal, based on their own plans, which would disrupt coverage for millions in the first year alone and result in far fewer people insured in the long run.

The problem for Republicans is that they have not yet backed away from universal coverage rhetorically. Senior Republicans still criticize Obamacare for covering too few people. This disconnect between what Republicans say and what they are willing to do has kept the party from moving in more productive directions.

Which brings us to a second principle: unification, not fragmentation.

For decades, the health care system has been broken into several distinct layers: Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided coverage. The first two are paid for directly by the government. The third is subsidized implicitly through the tax code, which does not tax health benefits provided by employers as income.

This tax break is the original sin of the United States health care system. Worth more than $250 billion annually, it has enormously distorted the market, creating an incentive for employers to provide ever-more-generous insurance while insulating individuals from the true cost of care. It discourages job switching and entrepreneurship, and offers an unfair advantage to the comfortably employed.

Medicare, meanwhile, offers a huge system of federal benefits to older Americans that typically run far beyond what most have paid in. Its introduction was associated with explosive growth in hospital-costs inflation during the 1970s.

Rather than overhauling this fragmented system, both Obamacare and the Senate bill leave its distortions largely in place. Obamacare nibbled at its edges by paring back Medicare to finance new coverage and by applying a tax to high-cost health insurance plans provided by employers. But President Barack Obama delayed that tax until 2020; the Senate legislation would delay it until 2026, suggesting it may never take effect at all.

The result is an unequal system in which health insurance is understood more as a way of prepaying for medical care than as a protection from financial risk.

That’s where the third principle comes in: Health coverage is not the same as health care. Instead, it is a financial product, a backstop against financial ruin. Health care policy should treat it as one. There is some question about how much programs like Medicaid contribute to measurable physical health outcomes, but there is no arguing that it effectively insulates beneficiaries from financial shocks.

Health care policy that treated insurance as a hedge against financial shock could relieve one of the most salient worries of the middle class — that chance might curse them with unaffordably high medical expenses.

For noncatastrophic, nonemergency medical expenses, Republicans ought to promote affordability rather than subsidies. All layers of the nation’s health care system are subsidized either directly or implicitly, and the subsidies shield individuals from the costs of their decisions and create incentives for providers to deliver more care rather than better care. Republicans should look for ways to limit cost increases directly.

One way to do this is to encourage supply-side innovations in addition to demand-side reforms. The tangle of regulations governing health care can make it difficult for providers to respond to market signals and innovate. Doctor-owned hospitals are restricted by law, for example, and certificate-of-need requirements force medical providers to obtain licenses in a process that effectively requires them to ask permission from competitors to expand.

Finally, Republicans should always focus government assistance on the poorest and sickest: This should be obvious, and yet it is not. Our system subsidizes workers with six-figure salaries and wealthy retirees while sidelining the poor and the sick in Medicaid, a system that many doctors won’t participate in because of low reimbursement rates.

No one starting from scratch would design a system that looks like this. And while starting from scratch is not possible, that is, in essence, what a Republican vision should seek to do.

This might mean reforming Medicaid, or creating a program with a similar goal of aiding the poor and the sick, but also seeking to make it more effective for those it covers. It might mean widely expanding health savings accounts or a broader system of catastrophic health insurance. It might mean seeking to limit the price-distorting power of hospital monopolies. It would almost certainly mean substantial reforms to both Medicare and the tax treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance. Hopefully, it would mean pursuing ideas that no one has thought of yet.

Republicans should have no illusions: Selling this vision would take a significant investment of time, creativity and study, policy entrepreneurship and some difficult political and legislative choices. It would require patience and political salesmanship. And it would not result in an immediately popular bill that could easily pass in the Senate with 51 Republican votes this summer. In the short term, it would mean retreat.

But over time it would distinguish Republicans from their Democratic rivals and give them a positive, productive policy pitch to run on, while giving voters better choices for health care.

It would also, not incidentally, have the advantage of improving the nation’s health care system.

McConnell says GOP must shore up ACA insurance markets if Senate bill dies

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that if his party fails to muster 50 votes for its plan to rewrite the Affordable Care Act, it will have no choice but to draft a more modest bill with Democrats to support the law’s existing insurance markets.

The remarks, made at a Rotary Club lunch in Glasgow, Ky., represent a significant shift for the veteran legislator. While he had raised the idea last week that Republicans may have to turn to Democrats if they cannot pass their own bill, his words mark the first time he has explicitly raised the prospect of shoring up the ACA.

@johnpodesta
2/ Pulled in for a pit stop in E. Fairmont W. Va. to see that our whack job POTUS @realDonaldTrump is tweeting about me at the G20.

Quote:

@johnpodesta
2/ Pulled in for a pit stop in E. Fairmont W. Va. to see that our whack job POTUS @realDonaldTrump is tweeting about me at the G20.

twitter

I think you are being a bit too judgmental.

The statement Rather made was both accurate and noticeable because of the absolute silence of other liberal reporters on the subject. His motives for making the statement are his own, but the statement itself was both true and very timely.