Submit your comments to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line, so we post said comments in the appropriate (right or left) column.

Comments on Trump’s Joint-Session Address, from our contributing pundits …

Must Be Stopped

Apparently, DJT will never, ever get over the fact that Joe Biden beat him fair and square in the 2020 election, by more than 8 million popular votes and a huge margin in Electoral College votes. He will never, ever stop berating the Biden administration and Joe Biden personally because Trump is the worst kind of sore loser. And, besides that, the most consistently absurd liar in the history of American politics. It was sickening to watch the smirking faces of (Vice President JD) Vance and (Speaker Mike) Johnson seated behind His Majesty, soon to be up for a Nobel Peace prize for screwing Ukraine. This has to be stopped.

--Jim McCraw

•••

Racial Slur

"Pocahontas?" Did I hear that correctly?

During a speech in front of the world, the president of this United States just called Senator Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."

Who, in their right mind, is okay with that? Who is okay with the Republican laughter that followed that racial slur? Vance actually laughed out loud. 

Those with sense in their head will say this behavior is childish, elementary, unbecoming of a President, but it is far beyond that. We have a real problem, this man is dangerous.

What do we do? Where do we go from here? The only place is down, if we allow this to continue. Congress, the writing is on the wall. 

--Sharon Lintner 

_____
WEDNESDAY 3/5/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Trump seems to think if he says something often enough it is true. And apparently there are a lot of people who are won over by his — I would say “tissue of,” but it is more like a thick tarpaulin of — lies. And even though some of them undoubtedly know better, they clap and nod and cheer.

Until the lies are exposed to a harsh reality. Yes, there is a difference between truth and lies.

But then there is a diversion to something equally outrageous.

So let’s consider parts of his presentation last night and put it into context with something that is going to be felt by all Americans, whether they believe him and voted for him or not.

Trump seems very proud of the 312 votes he won in the Electoral College, as though the number is unprecedented.

• Ronald Reagan (1984):      525
• George HW Bush:   426
• Bill Clinton:           370 and 379

Heck, the man he complained about more than Biden:

• Barack Obama:      365 and 332

Somehow that 312 isn’t especially mandate-like.

More important than Trump’s patting himself on the back was Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s response to the presentation that was like a reality show (which, of course, isn’t particularly real in any sense).

The Michigan Democrat said:

“He’s on the hunt to find trillions of dollars to pass along to the wealthiest in America, and to do that, he’s going to make you pay in every part of your life. Grocery and home prices are going up, not down, and he hasn’t laid out a credible plan to deal with either of those. His tariffs on allies like Canada will raise prices on energy, lumber and cars and start a trade war that will hurt manufacturing and farmers.”

First of all, the hunt for trillions being conducted by DOGE. Trump pointed out several instances where there seems to be what is silly spending. But do we know that the spending was superfluous or just something that makes for good television?

If you’ve ever run a business or even managed people you know that there are invariably some people who aren’t doing what they should be and perhaps once upon a time stole paper (does anyone print at home anymore?). 

But you knew who the good ones are.

Or let’s say you have a budget that pays for various functions. That wasn’t created by throwing darts at a board and then using the numbers.

Knowing what and how much can be cut takes serious forensic accounting.

Yet evidently in the “hunt for trillions” they are not deploying solid practices but hacking away.

We’ve seen them have to hire people back that had been let go. While these people are probably happy they’ve got a job, how committed do you think they’re going to be knowing that they’ve been treated like tissue paper?

“Every day my administration is fighting to deliver the change America needs to bring a future that America deserves, and we’re doing it.”

What are they doing?

To quote him:

• An immediate freeze on all federal hiring.
• A freeze on all new federal regulations.
• A freeze on all foreign aid.

And how does that help? That isn’t creating policy.

He “brought back free speech in America. It’s back.”

Is this why he sues and bans news organizations?

“Grocery and home prices are going up, not down, and he hasn’t laid out a credible plan to deal with either of those.”

He had claimed that he was going to deal with grocery prices on day one.

That’s hard to do. And he hasn’t done it.

Who is to blame for high egg prices?

Obama.

“Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control.” Yes, blame it on someone 

else. But wasn’t he hired by the American people to address this?

He continued: “The egg prices, out of control. And we’re working hard to get it back down.”

How are they working to get the price down? Perhaps cutting people at the Food Safety and Inspection Service? 

Trump says he will get the price of eggs down by. . .drilling for oil.

He says “A major focus of our fight to defeat inflation is rapidly reducing the price of energy.”

Yes, energy is an input to food costs.

An input.

And while energy costs rose 1% year over year in January, housing prices in 2024 rose 4.7% and food prices by 1.6%. Seems like addressing those two categories would be beneficial. But it is easier to say “It’s called drill, baby, drill.”

The day of his speech he put 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico. 

So sticking to the grocery aspect of things, consider this, from the US Department of Agriculture (assuming that it is still open):

“Imports play an increasingly important role in ensuring that fresh fruit and vegetables are available year-round in the United States .... In 2023, Mexico and Canada supplied 51% and 2%, respectively, of U.S. fresh fruit imports, and 69% and 20%, respectively, of US fresh vegetable imports in terms of value.”

Oh, who needs that?

“Our new trade policy will also be great for the American farmer — I love the farmer — who will now be selling into our home market, the USA, because nobody is going to be able to compete with you.”

Think about that for a minute. What keeps prices of goods and services in check? Competition. But here is the Republican president saying that he is going to eliminate competition in the market. Whatever happened to free-markets, Republicans?

And those farmers had better hope that they’re able to increase prices by selling domestically because other countries will retaliate. During the first Trump administration, when he put tariffs on China, that country (surprise, surprise) retaliated, such that Trump had to provide aid to US farmers on the order of $61 billion.

As the Council on Foreign Relations put it of that situation:

“payouts to farmers battered by Chinese retaliation have eaten up over 92% of the trade-war tax proceeds.

“The president is therefore right when he says farmers ‘got’ his tariff money. That money came not from China, however, but from taxes he imposed on Americans.”

For someone who is so keen on reducing taxes, the taxes that we’ll be paying directly for tariffs seems counter to what he claims.

And Slotkin noted the prices of housing.

Here’s something from The Wall Street Journal on Monday:

“Lumber futures Monday rose to their highest point since August 2022, when wood prices were plunging from their pandemic peak, in a sign that it could get a lot more expensive to build a house or a deck if the Canadian tariffs stick.”

Slotkin is right: “he’s going to make you pay.”

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
WEDNESDAY 3/5/25

‘Pathetic’

It is now imaginable that the leader of what is still the Free World could act in such a manner in a public meeting toward anyone who is a guest at the White House. Kinda says it all. Two men with way too much money acting like adolescents. Pathetic.

--Kate McLeod

Via Substack

Remove Trump

I watched this happen on live TV and I simply could not believe my eyes and ears. No president has ever, ever behaved like that with another head of state in the 236 years since the Constitution has been in force. No president has ever betrayed the trust of the American people the way Donald Trump did Friday. If he can’t be removed via the 25^th Amendment, then he needs to be impeached, tried, convicted and removed so that his lapdog can take over. At least Vance has an education.

--Jim McCraw

‘Definition of Arrogance’

Friday, I was filled with rage, but held myself back from writing so as not to regret my choice of words.

Trump and Vance are the definition of arrogance. Their performance in the oval office yesterday took our country to the lowest point that I could have ever thought possible. They have no respect for the office they hold. 

Those who voted for this pathetic pair will continue to support them and see this as take-charge, tough talk. They will refuse to see it for what it is, demeaning to our country and disrespecting a world leader who was an invited guest to the White House. I fear those voters as much as I fear Trump and Vance. 

How does the United States recover from such an asinine act? 

Trump told President Zelensky that he was 'Gambling with World War III,' when in reality Trump is doing just that. I never thought I'd live to see World War III, but now I fear what the coming days may bring. 

--Sharon Lintner

_____
MONDAY 3/3/25

Commentary By Stephen Macaulay

“And as you know, we’re in for, probably, $350 billion and Europe is in for $100 billion. And that’s a big difference. So, we’re in for, probably, three times as much. And yet, it’s very important to everybody, but Europe is very close. We have a big ocean separating us. So, it’s very important for Europe. And they, hopefully, will step up and do maybe more than they’re doing and maybe a lot more.” — Donald Trump, February 26, 2025, prior to the first meeting of his Cabinet

Let’s break this down.

“As you know, we’re in for, probably, $350 billion and Europe is in for $100 billion.”

Although we are supposed to know (“As you know”), Trump is admitting that he doesn’t know (“probably”).

Isn’t this a bit concerning that the President of the United States, speaking to his freshly minted Cabinet, doesn’t know whether or not the United States is “in for” $350 billion?

“In for”? Sounds like a term that would be heard at a gambling table at a casino, not a Cabinet meeting.

Here’s something about Trump that doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

While it is not a truism but true that in the gaming industry “the house always wins,” seems that Trump is the exception that proves the rule.

He owned three casinos in Atlantic City.

• Trump Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy in 1991
• Trump Plaza filed in 1992
• Trump Hotels & Casino in 2004

Perhaps, as you know, he thought he had $350 billion in the bank.

But there is that number, $350 billion.

You would think there would be someone on his staff who would tell him the actual number so that he wouldn’t have to have a number that may or may not be true.

I had Google tell me that if I went to a page on the US Department of State website I would find a "fact sheet" titled “U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine.”

And there I would find this passage:

“To date, we have provided $65.9 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $27.688 billion from DoD stockpiles.”

Even though that goes back to 2014, adding up all those numbers comes nowhere close to $350 billion: Rather, it is $162.788 billion — less than half of $350 billion. And again, this is accounting for aide prior to 2022, so if we were looking at the provisions after that date, it would be less.

(And Cabinet member Marco Rubio might want to edit that “premediated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion” before his boss finds out.)

While Trump says the difference between $350 billion and $100 billion (another number that seems to have come from nowhere), is “a big difference,” so is the difference between $350 billion and his own State Department’s $162.788 billion.

And this is the Administration that has empowered Elon Musk to cut costs?

As for the $100 billion from Europe, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy:

“Europe has allocated EUR 70 billion in financial and humanitarian aid as well as EUR 62 billion in military aid. This compares to EUR 64 billion in military aid from the US as well as EUR 50 billion in financial and humanitarian allocations.”

While some might sniff at those figures because Kiel is based in Germany, the organization is critical of European support. As in pointing out:

“Even small domestic policy priorities are many times more expensive than what is being done for Ukraine. For example, Germany’s tax subsidies for diesel fuel (‘diesel privilege’) cost taxpayers three times more per year than Germany’s military aid for Ukraine.”

Clearly, Kiel isn’t all that happy with diesel subsidies.

Still, the numbers that organization calculates is probably more accurate than Trump’s ballparking, which goes to:

“So, we’re in for, probably, three times as much.”

Again, the “probably.”

But how has it gone from $350 billion to $300 billion in three sentences?

Let’s put his math skills aside and move to this:

“… but Europe is very close.  We have a big ocean separating us.  So, it’s very important for Europe.”

Yes, Europe is very close to Ukraine. Because Ukraine is in Europe.

And then there’s 

“We have a big ocean separating us.”

This beggars belief. Does he think that if the US was to be attacked from Europe the troops would come over on a cruise ship traveling 20 knots, thereby allowing our troops to set up countermeasures?

An ICBM travels at about 15,000 mph. The distance between Washington D.C. and Continental Europe is about 4,400 miles. And the distance between a nuclear-powered attack submarine in the Atlantic is even closer.

That “big ocean” isn’t so big.

Probably.

_____
MONDAY 3/3/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

From “Remarks by President Trump Before Cabinet Meeting” February 26, 2025:

• “The previous administration put us in a very bad position, but we’ve been able to make a deal where we’re going to get our money back and we’re going to get a lot of money in the future.” [On Ukraine]
• “And I think that, very importantly, we’re going to be able to make a deal.” [On Ukraine and Russia]
• “Most importantly, by far, we’re going to make a deal with Russia and Ukraine to stop killing people.”
• “So, the deal we’re making gets us — it brings us great wealth.” [On an agreement with Ukraine]
• “And we’ll be able to make a deal.  And again, President Zelenskyy is coming to sign the deal.  And it’s a great thing.  It’s a great deal for Ukraine, too, because they get us over there, and we’re going to be working over there.”
• “Now, when COVID came in, that was a different deal.” [On China]
• “When I got elected, we spoke, and I think we’re going to have a deal.  I can’t guarantee you that.  You know, a deal is a deal.  Lots of crazy things happen in deals, right?  But I think we’re going to have a deal.” [On Putin]
• “It’s making the deal that’s very tough.” [His assessment of what is more difficult: peacekeeping in Ukraine or that.]
• “No, I want to see if we make a deal first.” [On whether there might be sanctions on Russia regarding Ukraine.]
• “We’re going to do the best we can to make the best deal we can for both sides.  But for Ukraine, we’re going to try very hard to make a good deal so that they can get as much back as possible.”

On the cover of The Art of the Deal, originally published in 1989, there is a picture of a 43-year-old Donald Trump. The credit line reads: “Donald J. Trump with Tony Schwartz.” Schwartz has claimed he is the person who put the words down on paper. 

That, of course, is disputed by Trump.

But that doesn’t much matter because Trump “owns” the word “deal.”

Back in that period of time there was a commercial for a vocabulary-building instructional program, Verbal Advantage, that included the phrase, “People judge you by the words you use.”

Which makes me wonder about Trump’s use of the word “deal.”

Historically we would hear government officials talk about “agreements,” “understandings,” “accords,” “pacts” or the like.

But not Trump. For him it is about “deals.”

As he fancies himself the preeminent dealmaker — after all, he wrote the book on it, didn’t he? — implicit in his use of the word is that the other guy is going to get the raw deal.

This is in no way something that is in any way mutually beneficial. Screwing the other guy is just fine: clearly the other person isn’t as good a dealmaker.

While some might argue that this is just a case of not using euphemisms, that no matter what you call it, a deal is a deal, it seems as though there’s a lot of fast talk and little substance. 

You can imagine Vladimir Putin breaking just the slightest of smiles when he hears Trump talk about making deals while he is playing four-dimensional chess. Sure the deal may be made by Trump, but it is what happens afterwards that matters.

Consider Trump’s talk about putting tariffs on our allies unless they make a deal with him about trade. As there are not conditions that would call for a deal, for them it is probably not about making a deal but of deflecting, to the extent they can, the negative effects on their economies. But in the long term, what is the position of these countries vis-à-vis the US?

Most recently, Trump told Volodymyr Zelensky that he needs to make a deal with Russia. 

When a reporter asked Trump what would happen if the Russians broke the ceasefire agreement — a.k.a., “the deal” — Trump blustered a response that included everything from the possibility of a bomb falling on the reporter’s head to Hunter Biden’s laptop, even including Hillary Clinton. He had no answer.

Yes, Trump holds, as he put it “the cards” as the US has sent money and resources in the defense of Ukraine.

Clearly, helping keep a democracy free is not a good deal so far as Trump is concerned.

And if it is all and only about dealmaking, then the world is going to be a sadder place for everyone. 

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings, self-identifying as a Never-Trumper conservative, who mostly writes for the right column. His comments here appear opposite our pro-MAGA conservative right contributor.

_____
SATURDAY-SUNDAY 3/1-2/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

On Friday, the Oval Office hosted a fiery showdown that laid bare the stakes of America’s role in the Ukraine-Russia war. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and what unfolded was a blunt, no-nonsense exchange that reaffirmed a core truth: the United States must prioritize its own interests and demand accountability from those it supports. The discussion, which erupted into a shouting match, showcased Trump and Vance’s resolve to steer US foreign policy toward pragmatism over endless handouts — a stance that’s long overdue.

The crux of America’s position came through loud and clear: After pouring billions into Ukraine’s fight against Russia, the US has every right to expect gratitude and cooperation. Trump, raising his voice, drove this home, telling Zelenskyy, “You’re not really in a good position right now,” and urging him to “make a deal or we’re out.” Vance echoed this, calling out Zelenskyy’s public pushback as “disrespectful” in the Oval Office, especially given America’s sacrifices. They’re not wrong. Since Russia’s invasion in 2022, the US has funneled over $174 billion in aid to Ukraine — more than any other nation — while American taxpayers foot the bill. A simple “thank you” isn’t too much to ask.

Zelenskyy’s response — questioning Vance’s diplomatic vision and pointing to Russia’s broken promises — missed the point. Trump and Vance aren’t here to relitigate Putin’s track record; they’re focused on ending a war that’s drained US resources and risked broader escalation. Trump’s insistence that Zelenskyy is “gambling with World War III” reflects a sobering reality: Ukraine’s stubbornness could drag America into a conflict it doesn’t want. The president’s push for a negotiated peace isn’t weakness — it’s strength, a refusal to let Ukraine dictate terms while leaning on US support. Vance nailed it when he said diplomacy, not chest-thumping, is the path to peace — a sharp break from the Biden era’s posturing that got us nowhere.

From the US perspective, this isn’t about abandoning an ally; it’s about results. Trump made it clear: “If we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it will be pretty.” That’s not a threat — it’s a fact. Ukraine’s manpower shortages and battlefield losses show it can’t win without America, yet Zelenskyy balked at the idea of compromise. The US has leverage — military aid, economic support, and global clout — and it’s time to use it. Trump’s vision of a minerals deal with Ukraine, tying aid to tangible returns like rare-earth resources, is a smart play. Why should America keep giving without getting something back?

The Oval Office clash laid bare Zelenskyy’s miscalculation. He walked into America’s house, challenged its leaders in front of cameras, and expected unwavering support to continue. Trump and Vance rightly pushed back, reminding him that our generosity isn’t a blank check. “Have you said, ‘thank you’ once?” Vance asked — a fair question after years of American blood and treasure spent on Ukraine’s behalf. This isn’t about ego; it’s about respect for the nation that’s kept Ukraine afloat.

America’s stance today is a return to putting its own interests first. Trump and Vance aren’t caving to Putin — they’re forcing Zelenskyy to face reality and negotiate from a position of strength backed by US might. The United States has carried the load long enough; it’s time for Ukraine to step up or step aside. As Trump said, “We’re trying to solve a problem.” That’s leadership — unapologetic, practical, and American to the core.

Corbett is writer and publisher of My Desultory Blog.

_____
SATURDAY-SUNDAY 3/1-2/25

Commentary by Ken Zino

It’s not surprising that tech companies have endorsed Trump since it is in their direct interest to cozy up to power. They are pursuing an anti-regulatory strategy because monitoring and correcting the blatant lies – or let’s call it the myriad unrealities that festoon their money-making platforms is an extremely difficult, perilous and expensive task. 

It’s one thing to rate which college coeds are hot; it’s quite another to be the platform fronting propaganda, lies and disruptive ploys from hostile foreign powers who are actively subverting democracies so that they can rule the world without interference from the country that was founded by forcefully rejecting the Divine Right of Kings to rule by whim their subjects. This includes our allies in peace loving countries that Trump is trashing while siding with and promulgating Russian propaganda right down to a UN resolution that Putin could have written because it is in his interest to thwart democracies. 

However, lost in the electronic forest inhabited by these new age Robber Barons is the reality that Americans hate chaos. Americans right down to FDR’s dog Falla used to hate war. We stood for winning and maintain peace. Republicans embracing warring nations? Republicans pardoning violent criminals who attacked, hurt and killed law enforcement officers?

Then there are the businesses that will get clobbered by the impending tariffs. This includes auto companies and suppliers, who will pass on the highly inflationary costs – particularly companies that operate in Mexico and Canada. Trump – ever disconnected from reality and arguably the foremost perpetrator of the Big Lie theory employed by totalitarian governments – says the agreement he negotiated and signed, the USMCA from his first term, is a bad deal. It’s not the art of deal in play here. It’s the art of the steal. The American people own the post office that is now under a hostile Trump takeover.

Looking at the dropping popularity ratings of Trump and his minions, and the growing numbers of protests at elected representatives’ offices, we are reaching a Tipping Point. Actually, let’s calling it the Tip O’Neill point. All politics is local. It’s not the worldwide web. It’s the growing realization – buyer’s remorse? – that a reflexive anti-government posture is a diversion from what the man behind the screen of outrageous postures is doing. The mid-term elections loom.

Zino is publisher of AutoInformed.

_____
WEDNESDAY 2/26/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

For President Trump, having tech and media companies less combative with him in 2025 gives his administration a smoother path to push the MAGA agenda, quite unlike 2017. Both Meta and Google are leaning on Trump to fend off the European Union; Elon Musk has the president's ear and Jeff Bezos is hopeful for deregulation. Having these powerhouses amplifying rather than obstructing GOP priorities gives Trump 2.0 a strategic edge to deliver on promises and gives Republicans leverage in both policy and public perception.

Do cooperative postures by tech and media companies help Trump 2.0? The relationship between tech and media companies and the Trump administration has evolved significantly from 2017 to 2025. In 2017, the tech sector, including giants like Apple, Google and Microsoft was largely oppositional to Trump’s policies, particularly criticizing initiatives like the travel ban due to its impact on workforce diversity and global operations. However, by 2025, there’s been a notable realignment:

•Meta’s Strategic Shift: Meta has actively sought President Trump’s assistance to counter EU regulatory measures, highlighting a strategic alignment with the administration to protect its international interests.

•Elon Musk’s Influence: Musk has taken on a role as a senior advisor to Trump, influencing policy from within, albeit without a formal government title, raising discussions on the extent of his influence.

•Content Moderation Policy: An executive order from Trump titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” has pushed companies to adjust their content moderation practices, reflecting a move away from previous regulatory approaches.

•FCC’s DEI Scrutiny: The FCC, led by Chairman Brendan Carr, is investigating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, leading media companies to rethink or scale back these initiatives to align with the administration’s stance.

•Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post: Jeff Bezos, owner of both Amazon and The Washington Post, has publicly expressed optimism about Trump’s second term, particularly regarding deregulation. The Washington Post, under Bezos’s ownership, faced backlash for not endorsing a presidential candidate in 2024, which some interpreted as an attempt to curry favor with Trump. This decision, alongside Bezos’s comments on supporting Trump’s regulatory agenda, marks a significant departure from the media’s previously adversarial stance, showcasing a more collaborative approach to navigate the political landscape.

This evolution from opposition to a more cooperative posture by 2025 reflects tech and media companies’ pragmatic adaptation to the prevailing regulatory environment, aiming to safeguard their interests under Trump’s administration.

Corbett writes and publishes My Desultory Blog.

_____
WEDNESDAY 2/26/25

Contributing Pundit Comments on ‘The Rhetoric of Ridiculousness’:

Let us not forget that Obama was criticized for wearing a beige suit. Try to write absurdism these days? Hard to go beyond ‘condoms for Hamas.’

--Kate McLeod

Via Substack

_____________________________________________

Comments from Both Sides ... are welcome. In fact, that’s what The Hustings is about: Reporting/analyzing and putting into context the facts in the center column (with no false equivalencies) and surrounding this with civil pundit and reader comments in this column and that one on the other side of the news/news aggregate. 

We need you to help fill these left and right columns. 

Email editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line. Please note: We do not expect you to follow right/left or red/blue party lines with your comments, which is why we ask you to indicate whether you are left or right in the subject line. 

Contributors for our right column include Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay, a never-Trumper conservative, and Rich Corbett, a pro-MAGA conservative. Macaulay’s comments may align much more often with left-column contributors like Sharon Lintner and Hugh Hansen, but that’s what The Hustings is all about and it is why we ask you to list your political leanings in the subject line for comments via email. We want to post your comments in the column with which you regularly identify; not necessarily the column that aligns with your comments on a single, particular subject. So help us grow into a news & commentary site that exposes readers to a variety of political thoughts and ideas. 

For more civil political news and discussion, please be sure to visit our Substack page.

_____
MONDAY 2/24/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

In a presentation to a bipartisan group of governors at the White House last Friday, February 21, Donald Trump said so many absurd things that it is hard to fathom that anyone anywhere can take him at all seriously.

He opened his remarks by saying, “Well, we’re in a very good mood. We just had the highest poll numbers I’ve ever had, ever. And actually, a record for a Republican.”

So here are poll numbers available on that day: 

• FiveThirtyEight average: 48.7% approval, 46.2% disapproval
• CNN poll: 46% approval, 52% disapproval
• Quinnipiac University poll: 46% approval, 43% disapproval
• YouGov poll (February 10-13): 49% favorable, 48% unfavorable
• Morning Consult poll (February 9-11): 46% favorable, 53% unfavorable
• Ipsos poll (February 9-11): 46% favorable, 52% unfavorable
• Economist/YouGov poll (February 7-9): 47% favorable, 50% unfavorable

He must have some other numbers or he feels good about numbers that anyone else would consider to be mediocre-to-horrible.

Then he rolled into things including his feeling of victimization.

In late 2024 Tropical Storm Helene devastated large areas of North Carolina. FEMA has provided an array of assistance, including distributing millions of dollars to families for housing, inspecting housing, coordinating the removal of debris, and more.

Trump: “FEMA was a disaster. FEMA wasn’t there. They didn’t do the job.”

Guess he didn’t check the numbers before the presentation.

But here he goes:

“And then they actually, when they did get there, a very small group, they chose anybody with an American flag or the name Trump on the front of the house, they would sort of skip that house very nicely and it was just a disaster.”

Of course. Trump voters — and he carried the state with more than 50% of the vote — were bypassed.

His alternative to addressing a national disaster?

“It’s called ‘you fix it.’ You take care of it yourselves. You don’t have to call some faraway state and have people planed in from areas they have no idea. They come from Alaska to help you in Florida. They say, ‘boy, this is hot here.’ But the time they figure it out, everything would have been fixed.”

Things have been laid waste and somehow the people who are existing in debris are going to pick themselves by their bootstraps and fix it?

Isn’t one of the benefits of living in a country like the US that there are people from other parts of the country who can help?

What is his real beef?

“It’s very expensive You spend at least twice as much. They don’t negotiate.”

Let’s see: There is a natural disaster. Devastation. People looking for a place to go for food and shelter. The infrastructure demolished. Power lines down. Water systems contaminated by debris. Grocery stores wrecked.

What should people do?

Negotiate. Get a better deal. Who cares if the kids are tired and hungry? Make the deal!

Then, of course, he came to energy, including his beloved coal. “Clean, beautiful coal that we’re going to be using like Germany does now.”

Yes, Germany uses coal for electricity generation. But the country is reducing its reliance on it, with legislation on the books to eliminate its use by 2038. The German government is increasing its investments in renewables, including wind electricity generation.

Trump was big in his support of coal during his victorious run for the presidency in 2016.

How did that work out?

According to the Energy Information Agency:

“By the end of 2020, the number of producing coal mines in the United States fell to 551 mines, the lowest number since US coal production peaked in 2008. In 2020, 40 coal mines were opened or reactivated, and 151 mines were idled or closed. This overall decrease resulted in an 18% annual decline in the total number of producing coal mines from 2019 and a 62% decline since 2008.”

Wind, of course, is something Trump can’t abide.

During a diversion into the build-out of data centers that will have adjoining power generation facilities due to their massive electricity needs, he said:

“None will use wind because wind doesn't work. It's just terrible how an environmental person can like wind. It kills the birds. It's very expensive. It's seven, eight times more expensive than other forms of energy. Every wind turbine in the country that goes up needs massive subsidies.

“It's really the only energy that needs subsidy, essentially. The solar is doing OK. So it's the only one. But to combat inflation, I declared that national energy emergency and we're going to unleash the liquid gold under our feet to bring the prices way down. That's going to happen. And again, we're going to have a big part of that is going to be natural gas, which is very, very clean and clean coal.”

According to his very own Department of Energy:

• Wind power creates good-paying jobs. There are nearly 150,000 people working in the U.S. wind industry across all 50 states, and that number continues to grow. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, wind turbine service technicians are the fastest growing U.S. job of the decade. Offering career opportunities ranging from blade fabricator to asset manager, the wind industry has the potential to support hundreds of thousands of more jobs by 2050.
• Wind power is a domestic resource that enables U.S. economic growth. In 2022, wind turbines operating in all 50 states generated more than 10% of the net total of the country’s energy. That same year, investments in new wind projects added $20 billion to the U.S. economy.
• Wind power is a clean and renewable energy source. Wind turbines harness energy from the wind using mechanical power to spin a generator and create electricity. Not only is wind an abundant and inexhaustible resource, but it also provides electricity without burning any fuel or polluting the air. Wind energy in the United States helps avoid 336 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually — equivalent to the emissions from 73 million cars.
• Wind power benefits local communities. Wind projects deliver an estimated $2 billion in state and local tax payments and land-lease payments each year. Communities that develop wind energy can use the extra revenue to put towards school budgets, reduce the tax burden on homeowners, and address local infrastructure projects.
• Wind turbines work in different settings. Wind energy generation fits well in agricultural and multi-use working landscapes. Wind energy is easily integrated in rural or remote areas, such as farms and ranches or coastal and island communities, where high-quality wind resources are often found.

And, yes:

• Wind power is cost-effective. Land-based, utility-scale wind turbines provide one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today. Furthermore, wind energy’s cost competitiveness continues to improve with advances in the science and technology of wind energy.

This sounds like it is the absolute MAGA energy miracle.

How long do you think that web page is going to stay up?

While rhapsodizing about the wonders of DOGE, he said this:

“$50 million for condoms for Hamas. They [meaning the U.S. government] gave $50 million; it worked out so well they gave another $50 million a little bit later. Condoms, $100 million for Hamas.”

This has been debunked for weeks, but Trump keeps saying it, lack of evidence notwithstanding.

Then there’s Social Security.

“We have 4.7 million Social Security numbers, people from the age of 100 to 109. So, if you're 100 to 109, we have 4.7 million people on our Social Security rolls, right?”

And while this is a bit hard to understand:

“From 110 to 119, you have 3.6 -- these are the people on the rolls. Now we're looking to see whether or not they've been paid, because if they've been paid, then you're just using those numbers to take out the money, all the money that's paid to those people. 3.47 million people from the age of 120 to 129. 3.9 million people aged 130 to 139. 3.5 million people aged 140 years old to 149 years old.”

That’s more than 19 million people who are rather old.

The implication is that these people are (a) probably dead and (b) getting Social Security benefits.

If Elon and his minions can save the spend on that, it is even better than not providing Hamas with condoms.

And it is equally fanciful.

According to the Social Security Administration, the number of people who received Social Security benefits in December 2024 who are age 99 and over is 89,106.

There is much, much more in Trump’s presentation to the governors.

Why is it that he can say such nonsense and not get questioned?

It used to be that even if it required a grain of salt, what our leaders told us was generally true.  But Trump’s riffs are often readily identified as being otherwise. Were Obama to have said these things he would have been called a liar. Were Biden to have, he would have been described as senile.

But Trump?

_____
MONDAY 2/24/25