Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

He really did say that (above). You can't make this stuff up. Well, you could but you can't top the horror of the reality this monster has us living in. He may have no grip on reality himself but he has a grip on us and it's killing this country.

If you missed the full AXIOS interview by Johnathan Swan on HBO, it's really worth watching. The above statement is just one of the greatest Trump hits in the whole thing. One thing that struck me was that, of course, Trump was oblivious to how bad the interview was going for him. If he hadn't dedicated his entire life and cretinous essence to being the biggest asshole possible, it would almost engender feelings of sympathy and compassion for the man. Whether it's a maximum security prison or a maximum security asylum for the criminally insane, Trump needs to be institutionalized immediately. Of course, that isn't about to happen because, as I always say, Washington takes care of its own.

Light At The End Of The Tunnel? Nobel Laureate Says Yes-- But There's A Big Caveat: Social Distancing

The President Meets Wall Street by Nancy Ohanian

Michael Levitt is a Nobel laureate and Stanford biophysicist and he doesn't think the pandemic is going to be as bad as many others do. And he has reason for optimism. Levitt, reported the L.A. Times, began analyzing the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide in January and correctly calculated that China would get through the worst of its coronavirus outbreak long before many health experts had predicted. "Now he foresees a similar outcome in the United States and the rest of the world. While many epidemiologists are warning of months, or even years, of massive social disruption and millions of deaths, Levitt says the data simply don’t support such a dire scenario-- especially in areas where reasonable social distancing measures are in place."

Ah... "reasonable social distancing measures." We don't have that yet-- not even close. And it would be hard to imagine Trump has the courage or political will to mandate any such thing. Levitt almost sounds like Trump in some ways: "What we need is to control the panic... we’re going to be fine." Mozingo reports that Levitt "also blames the media for causing unnecessary panic by focusing on the relentless increase in the cumulative number of cases and spotlighting celebrities who contract the virus. By contrast, the flu has sickened 36 million Americans since September and killed an estimated 22,000, according to the CDC, but those deaths are largely unreported. He fears the public health measures that have shut down large swaths of the economy could cause their own health catastrophe, as lost jobs lead to poverty and hopelessness. Time and again, researchers have seen that suicide rates go up when the economy spirals down."

Levitt explained that he is seeing "turning points in other nations, even ones that did not instill the draconian isolation measures that China did. He analyzed 78 countries with more than 50 reported cases of COVID-19 every day and sees 'signs of recovery.' He’s not looking at cumulative cases, but the number of new cases every day-- and the percentage growth in that number from one day to the next.

In Iran, for instance, the number of newly confirmed COVID-19 cases remained relatively flat last week, from 1,133 on Monday to 1,148 on Friday.

Of course, recovering from an initial outbreak doesn’t mean the virus won’t come back: China is now fighting to stop new waves of infection coming in from places where the virus is spreading out of control. Other countries are bound to face the same problem as well.

Levitt acknowledges that his figures are messy, and that the official case counts in many areas are too low because testing is spotty. But even with incomplete data, “a consistent decline means there’s some factor at work that is not just noise in the numbers,” he said.

The trajectory of deaths backs up his findings, he said. So do data from outbreaks in confined environments, such as the one on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Out of 3,711 people on board, 712 were infected and eight died. In his view, this unintended experiment in coronavirus spread will help researchers estimate the number of fatalities that would occur in a fully infected population.

Levitt said the social-distancing mandates are critical-- particularly the ban on large gatherings-- because the virus is so new that the population has no immunity to it and a vaccine is still many months away. “This is not the time to go out drinking with your buddies.”

...The virus can grow exponentially only when it is undetected and no one is acting to control it, Levitt said. That’s what happened in South Korea, when it ripped through a closed-off cult that refused to report the illness.

“People need to be considered heroes for announcing they have this virus,” he said.

The goal needs to be better early detection-- not just through testing but perhaps with body temperature surveillance, which China is implementing-- and immediate social isolation.

While the COVID-19 fatality rate appears to be significantly higher than that of the flu, Levitt says it is quite simply put, “not the end of the world.”

Based on the experience of the Diamond Princess, he estimates that being exposed to the new coronavirus doubles a person’s risk of dying in the next two months. However, most people have an extremely low risk of death in a two-month period, and that risk remains extremely low even when doubled.

“The real situation is not as nearly as terrible as they make it out to be,” he said.

OK, now back to social distancing. In the U.S. it is neither widespread, strict nor mandatory. Here in L.A., there are more loopholes than closures. Most people in grocery stores-- let alone workers-- are wearing masks or gloves. Trump's cryptic all-caps tweet yesterday-- "WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END IF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!-- presumably referred to deciding on a national lockdown or not. Remember, even partial lockdowns are largely in blue states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Illinois and purple states like Ohio and Florida. Deep red Trump states are still not taking the pandemic seriously for the most part and social distancing at Corona beer parties in Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Wyoming is something to laugh at.

Jonathan Swan reported that Señor Trumpanzee and his team "are losing patience with the doctors’ orders. Amid dire predictions for jobs and the economy, the White House is beginning to send signals to business that there's light at the end of the tunnel-- that the squeeze from nationwide social distancing won't be endless... [Pence] signaled the change in tone earlier when he said the CDC will issue guidance today allowing people exposed to the coronavirus to return to work sooner by wearing a mask for a certain length of time. Trump’s tweet and Pence's comment supply the strongest public signals we've seen that the administration is looking for ways to get people out in the world again to fire up the economy-- perhaps much sooner than Dr. Fauci would like... [Trumpanzee, Inc has] only limited patience for keeping the economy shut down. They are watching stocks tumble and unemployment skyrocket. At the end of the 15-day period, there will likely be a serious clash between the public health experts-- who will almost certainly favor a longer period of nationwide social distancing and quarantining-- versus the president and his economic and political aides, who are anxious to restart the economy."

Europeans have moved more rapidly than Americans to embrace social distancing and societal lockdowns-- but not as thoroughly as they have in China, Singapore and Taiwan where they have been compulsory and enforced... and successful. European countries are feeling the pushback from spoiled, self-indulgent citizens now. Some, like Spain and Italy, have sent troops to help maintain lockdowns. James McAuley reported that "In a time when Europeans and Americans have been told to practice 'social distancing' and to remain at home, people were still out and about in France and across Europe. They were shopping in proximity at bustling market stalls, running in large numbers down public promenades and, in some cases, scoffing at various government restrictions designed to keep them safe."

Over the past week, a number of European governments have urged their citizens to take coronavirus seriously by imposing strict limits on movement outside the home. The question now is how governments can actually enforce those rules, with so many people seemingly willing to break them.

Different European governments have devised different answers to that question, with no solution proved to be entirely effective.

Italy-- with more deaths caused by covid-19 than anywhere in the world, including at least 793 since Friday-- has been struggling to enforce its lockdown with police checks and has already called in military forces in two regions: Campania and Sicily. On Friday, Italy’s Interior Ministry reported that it still cited a record total of 9,600 people on Thursday for violating the terms of the lockdown.

Spanish police added extra patrols and slapped fines on people ignoring the orders to mostly stay at home. The “time has come to implement fully the state of alert,” said a statement Friday from Spain’s Interior Ministry.

Lockdown rules appeared to mean less in France, where the government relies on fines to enforce its terms. But the threat of a 135 euro ($160) fine did not prevent French police from having to stop 70,000 people and fining 4,095 in the first 24 hours of lockdown, according to a statement by France’s Interior Minister, Christophe Castaner. He called those who ignored the government’s rules “imbeciles.”

As they struggle to enforce their own rules, European governments have mostly turned to imposing stricter measures. But it remains unclear whether citizens will respond to further limitations, either.

In France, where President Emmanuel Macron announced a nationwide lockdown that started Tuesday at noon-- an extendible period of 15 days during which only essential businesses were to remain open-- local authorities have begun to take matters into their own hands.

On Friday, Christian Estrosi, the mayor of Nice on France’s Mediterranean coast, closed the city’s famous Promenade des Anglais, a scenic waterfront walkway and running path where crowds of people were gathering to do their daily exercise in groups that could still facilitate the transmission of the coronavirus. Estrosi also imposed an 8 p.m. curfew on all city residents.

“From 8 p.m., once the shops and pharmacies are closed, no one has any reason to go out,” he told France’s Journal du Dimanche newspaper. “So we don’t go out, except the staff specifically authorized by this decree-- medical staff or those who make home visits to vulnerable people.”

Similar measures were taken in Paris, where Mayor Anne Hidalgo and police chief Didier Lallement expressed their exasperation that people were simply not listening to the government’s orders. “Certain areas of the capital remain overly frequented by walkers and joggers,” they wrote in a joint statement Thursday, noting in particular the banks of the Seine River, the Champ de Mars park by the Eiffel Tower and the Invalides Esplanade.

Police essentially banned running and exercising along the banks of the Seine by Friday, and France’s Ministry of Sports also clarified that once-daily walks or runs “to stretch legs” should be brief and should happen within immediate vicinity of one’s home address. “You have to chose between going shopping and going for a run,” the ministry said.

But there are significant loopholes in enforcing that rule. France requires all those who leave their homes to carry a government-issued “attestation” form certifying the essential nature of their daily visit outside. But the forms have no time-stamp, and police officers who ask to see them have no way of knowing how many times a person has been out, or how far he or she may have wandered.

Germany, meanwhile, has threatened to impose a mandatory curfew if people do not take social distancing seriously after many crowded parks during spring sunshine last week.

Health authorities are now using anonymous cellphone data to track whether measures to stop people gathering are working and have said this weekend will be a key test. A forecast drop in temperatures may also help encourage people to stay home.

With 16 federal states, each of which have their own health authorities, distancing measures have been uneven across the country-- but all have agreed to close bars and nightclubs, nonessential shops, and restaurants are also closed in the evening.

However, some social distancing measures have been harder to enforce than others, with a ban on children’s playgrounds receiving particular pushback.

Red tape around playgrounds in Berlin was torn down last week, and some were filled with families even after the restrictions came into place. On Friday, German media reported that the local authorities in one town in North Rhine-Westphalia, the worst hit German state, had started dismantling swing sets and benches after orders to leave the playgrounds were ignored.

“The playgrounds in the city area were still full,” Dorsten’s Mayor Tobias Stockhoff was quoted as saying by Germany’s Bild newspaper. “We decided today to dismantle what can be dismantled. We are sending a clear signal.”

In Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced Friday the closure of all pubs, restaurants, bars, gyms and nightclubs starting Saturday. During his announcement, he also appealed to those considering going out one last time before the closure came into effect.

“Please don’t,” Johnson said. “You may think you are invincible, but there is no guarantee you will get mild symptoms, and you can still be a carrier of the disease and pass it on to others.”

Many listened to his advice, but many did not. Even after the order to close, pubs across England were filled with drinkers getting in last rounds on Friday night.

The Metropolitan Police in London and constabularies around Britain are on standby, prepared to enforce the close-down order if necessary, officials said.

Pubs in Cornwall and Devon were giving away free beer Friday night after Johnson ordered the establishments shuttered.

Mike Newton, control room supervisor for the local police, told the DevonLive news site: “Tonight was going to go one of two ways. Sadly it’s been stupidly busy.”

You think joggers at the Invalides Esplanade and folks in North Rhine-Westphalia, Cornwall and Devon are a problem? Stop for a moment. How do you think these fine folks in Mississippi are going to react when someone tries telling them about social distancing and how they have to start practicing it? And Wyoming!

Inside Bloomberg's Very Republican Campaign

I had a great afternoon on Sunday. I heard two inspiring congressional candidates speak at a fundraiser on Bunker Hill, Mike Siegel (TX-10) and Cenk Uygur (CA-25), one of Mike's supporters and a co-host of the event. Both were uplifting and inspiring, as were the other speakers. When I got home the phone was ringing. When I picked it up, it was a very calm, professional voice-- too calm and too professional-- attached to someone who wanted to ask me a few questions about the primary. I quickly realized it was a Bloomberg push poll. Those are very expensive and no other candidates would really be able to afford one on a national (Super Tuesday, presumably) scale. Once I realized it was a push poll, I asked the pollster how much Bloomberg was paying him for his soul and asked him if he is a whore and always ready to sell out his country. I also asked him if he would do the same job for Trump if Trump was paying him. It didn't end well.

Jonathan Swan, over at Axios was also noticing how corporate and buttoned up the Bloomberg campaign is-- a campaign right out of the pre-Trump-anarchy Republican Party playbook, just right for an oligarch. Swan, who spent a week on the campaign jet, explained why he got a corporate feeling about the whole operation, top to bottom, including his events. "It's calm, orderly and punctual. His audiences clap politely, and you can't walk two steps without running into a paid staffer with talking points. Nobody whoops or yells. Nothing is left to chance. No expense is spared. The candidate is self-consciously low-key. He compared the Mini-Mike rallies with the raucous, fascistic Trumpanzee rallies:

• The supporters I met didn't profess their love for Bloomberg like regular fans at Trump rallies, who come across as football fans cheering for their quarterback (though some wore printed T-shirts saying "I Like Mike").
• Bloomberg promises to govern quietly. "What about no tweeting from the Oval Office ever again?" he said to applause in Fresno.
• Even the protesters are well-behaved. During Bloomberg's speech in Compton on Monday, a young man, standing in silence, held up a sign saying, "Billionaires should not buy elections." At a Trump rally, the president would have told security to "get him the hell out!” At the Bloomberg event, a staffer politely asked him to move to the back.

The Bloomberg supporters Swan spoke with told him they "admired his wealth and accomplishments [and] expressed anxiety about the state of the Democratic field and were looking for a safe bet to beat Trump. One supporter said that you need a very rich man to beat Trump."

The words the Bloomie campaign is trying to pound into the skulls of the low-IQ morons who parrot whatever they're told are "pragmatic," "practical," "decency" (which is ironic and laughable), "sanity" and "commonsense plans that are workable." I guarantee you that eventually you will see mushy-brained Democratic voters (as well as low-end legislative endorsers who Bloomberg bought, like Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI), Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL), Bobby Rush (IL), Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ), Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT) being interviewed on MSNBC repeating those exact words to explain why they are backing a Republican oligarch in a Democratic Party primary. Today we hear that mediocre California Assemblyman Ian Calderon, for example, is endorsing Mini-Mike, citing his "practical progressive plans."

After Bloomberg's speech in the grassy courtyard at Fresno City College, Swan asked his state director, Dan Kanninen, about how different the sedate Bloomberg events are from Trump's raucous and profane hate-rallies. Kanninen spoke the way political operatives talk-- in terms of how to manipulate voters, saying that he thinks "there's a big element that wants a cooling rod in this boiling teapot."

Michael Bloomberg: American Oligarch by Nancy Ohanian

Later Swan sat down for a chat with Mini-Mike and asked him what he thinks of "the 'cooling rod' metaphor and whether he's self-consciously trying to lower the temperature of national politics." Bloomie responded that he isn't and that he's "just not a person that yells and screams. That's just not me. Never has been and probably won't be. I got elected three times without being rah-rah yelling and screaming, but being more rational and explaining. At my age, I'm not going to change. I'm just not going to get in a yelling and screaming match with him... He can yell and scream all he wants and I'll just sit there and say, 'Thank you, Mr. Trump, Mr. President,' and say my own thing in my own style, my own way."

Swan added that "on the other hand, while Bloomberg talks about returning to 'human decency,' his campaign mocked Trump for his 'obesity' just the day before our interview. I pointed out the comment to Bloomberg." Bloomberg acknowledged the ugly personal attack Trump-- it was a retort to Trump calling him Mini-Mike. But, Mini assured Swan that someone else in the campaign did it without asking him. I asked my internal contact inside Team Mini-Mike who laughed and said that that just "would not be possible. No one says anything to the press without explicit approval from Mike. He is the mice of mice-est managers and no one can use a piece of toilet paper without him approving first... I think Swan knows that and it's funny he let him off the hook so easily. Billionaires have that effect on everyone."

Asked whether it was the wrong thing for his campaign to put out a statement saying Trump was lying about his "fake hair, his obesity, and his spray-on tan," Bloomberg laughed.

"I don't know why he'd find that objectionable," he said, finally.

Swan didn't ask him if he is trying to accomplish anything for the American people other than dispatching Trump-- or at least didn't include anything about that in his post. Nor did he remind his readers that Mini-Mike is responsible for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In 2016 it looked like Democrat Katie McGinty was about to take the Pennsylvania Senate seat of reactionary Republican Pat Toomey, the kind of dedicated Wall Street whore Bloomberg loves. So Bloomberg funneled 12 million dollars into the Toomey campaign and Toomey won-- beating McGinty 48.9% to 47.2%, with the Bloomberg money stealing Chester, Bucks and Erie counties from McGinty. Toomey, happily reelected, went on to cast, with Susan Collins, the 2 deciding votes in the confirmation of the most far right member of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. Every horrible decision he votes on should be hung around Mini-Mike's neck.

As you probably know by now, Bloomberg announced his immigration plan. He stuck with Democratic orthodoxy he couldn't oppose, like protecting DREAMERs, ending family separations and ending construction of Trump's wall and supporting a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants already living in the country. But what makes it different is a visa program based on different regions of the U.S. with their own economic and social needs, as well as creating a special visa for students who want to stay in the U.S. after they graduate with certain degrees and for entrepreneurs who generate jobs.

Flagstaff progressive candidate for Arizona's first congressional district, Eva Putzova, doesn't trust Bloomberg to do what's right. "We need," she said, "to normalize the status of the 11 million undocumented people in the U.S, inclusive of DACA recipients, and the parents of DACA recipients (DAPA). We  need to reunite families who have been unjustly separated, and expand the Refugee Act to cover people fleeing climate disasters and domestic and other violence. We need to abolish ICE and put the immigration agencies back under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice as it was before 2003. We need an entire Immigrant Bill of Rights that includes the above points and many others as well. Michael Bloomberg has no intent to truly overhaul our broken and cruel immigration beyond simplistic, liberal-sounding, but totally inadequate proposals. More importantly, the presidency should not be for sale and it's disturbing that the Democratic Party is so quick to legitimize his undemocratic candidacy through such a widespread and concerted effort as we are seeing throughout our communities."

Gang's all here

MSNBC's ConservaDem Approach To Bernie: "But At What Cost? Oh God, At What Cost!!!"

When I say "MSNBC," I don't mean Chris Hayes and Ali Velshi. I mean talking empty heads, like the blond lady, in the video above. They asked Jonathan Swan what the biggest story of the day is and he started answering that it was a story about "Bernie Sanders' sweeping vision to transform nearly every aspect of American life" in a way that hasn't been done since FDR. When Swan started sounding even slightly pro-Bernie ("I don't think he gets nearly enough credit for that"), the talking empty head-- sorry I don't know her name, nor is there any need to-- freaked out with every ounce of emotion she could muster: "But to what cost? How many trillions of dollars..."

Comcast broadcasting isn't as bad as Fox News. But Bernie as president? That is a step too far for Comcast-- and its on-air employees don't even have to be explicitly told what the boss' boss wants. She moved Swan into the "How You Gonna Pay For It?" lane. "The energy plan alone is $16 trillion," without mentioning the cost of not implementing it. And without mentioning what the transformation of life will be like if the Climate Crisis is just allowed to go its merry way like all of our geriatric leaders-- from Trump and McConnell to Biden, Pelosi and Schumer-- are perfectly content to see happen.

Comcast broadcasting wants to emphasize high taxes if Bernie's plans are implemented and Swan obliges, although with a caveat: "certainly on the wealthy," something that is supported overwhelmingly by the American people, particularly the Democratic Party American people. Half a year ago a poll from Morning Consult in Politico showed how prevalent is that support: "Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll, which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more. Americans also have a preference as to what a tax increase should look like, according to the Politico/Morning Consult survey. Politico found that 61% of Americans are in favor of a “wealth tax”proposed by Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, which would increase taxes on those with a net worth of $50 million or more... Politico notes that a recent poll from Fox News shows 70% of Americans supporting increased taxes for those earning more than $10 million-- a proposition that gained support among 54% of Republicans as well. While Republicans are generally less in favor of tax increases on the wealthy, some of the wealthiest Americans are warming up to the idea. Just last week JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said, 'I believe that individuals earning the most can afford to pay more. And I have no problem paying higher taxes to address some of the fundamental challenges and inequities in our society.'" From CNBC in early June:

The Politico piece by Jim VandeHei that Swan was discussing on MSNBC referred to the new Quinnipiac poll showing that if he gets the nomination, Bernie would beat Trump by a landslide: 53% to 39% (14 points). When's the last time a president's elected with a 14 point general election margin?

• 2016- Trump over Hillary with MINUS 2.1 points
• 2012- Obama over Romney with 3.9 points
• 2008- Obama over McCain with 7.2 points
• 2004- Bush over Kerry with 2.4 points
• 2000- Bush over Gore with MINUS 0.5 points
• 1996- Clinton over Dole with 8.5 points
• 1992- Clinton over Bush with 5.6 points
• 1988- Bush over Dukakis with 7.8 points
• 1984- Reagan over Mondale with 18.2 points

Three and a half decades ago! And what gives Bernie that kind of lead over Trump (aside from Trump's own toxicity among voters)? Back to VanderHei's Politico piece: "A Sanders government," he writes in a scare tactic manner, "would take control of...

• Your energy choices: His Green New Deal would spend $16 trillion to force you to stop using the energy mostly used today-- oil, gas and nuclear. He promises cleaner power and air in return.
• Your house and car: The Sanders government would pay to weatherize homes and small businesses, and to upgrade gas-powered cars for electric ones. He would mandate the end of conventional gas car manufacturing in a decade.
• Your health insurance: He would eliminate private insurance and put you on a government plan more generous than Medicare. No more copays, deductibles or premiums, too.
• Your current student debt: He would eliminate it for everyone.
• Your kids' college: Everyone gets free tuition at public universities, community colleges, trade schools and apprenticeship programs, too.
• Your teachers: He will hire more teachers, pay them more, and fund better school supplies.
• Your job: He promises full employment.
• Your wage: He would guarantee you at least $15 per hour.
• Your rich friends: They'll be paying for much of this with a fat tax increase.
• Your own taxes: Sanders has been vague on this one. But the total cost of just the programs listed above are $20 trillion-plus at the lowest possible end over a decade, excluding Medicare for All, which experts say could at least double the total.

Josh Orton, Bernie's policy director: "Bernie will continue to fight for proposals that save American families money and hold giant corporations accountable... [T]he cost of doing nothing is significantly more expensive for average Americans."

How Will We Know When Trump Is Officially Out Of His Mind?

Axios' Jonathan Swan reported what he called a "scoop" late Sunday night: Trump suggested nuking hurricanes to stop them from hitting U.S. and he's done so numerous times. He's whined to "senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States, according to sources who have heard the president's private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments."

During a hurricane briefing, the stable genius told his team that hurricanes "start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?" One first hand source told Swan that "You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. People were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, 'What the fuck? What do we do with this?' The staffers said they'd look into it to pacify him.

About 3 weeks after Trump's 2016 election, National Geographic published an article titled, Nuking Hurricanes: The Surprising History of a Really Bad Idea. It found, among other problems, that:

Dropping a nuclear bomb into a hurricane would be banned under the terms of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. So that could stave off any experiments, as long as the U.S. observes the terms of the treaty.

Three Monday morning dueling tweets:

The NY Daily News published this OpEd about Trump's crackup by GOP strategist Rick Wilson before Trump's hurricane brouhaha:

“Our great American companies are hereby ordered...”

The subtle meter in Americans’ brains that tracks the degree to which the universe seems off its axis has been in a state of constant flux since Donald Trump’s election in 2016, but this week the needle slammed hard into the peg on the right side of the gauge. Red warning lights are flashing across Washington as even the now-typical levels of uncertainty and political chaos reach epic proportions.

It’s almost as if we need a recalibration of the insanity of the Trump era, a new set of definitions about what comprises normal presidential behavior.

Because what’s happening now left normal five towns back, stopped for smokes and brown liquor, and tossed the GPS out the window. This week wasn’t normal, and no amount of whistling past the graveyard will make it any different.

Donald Trump’s affect, speech patterns and overall delivery this week have been alternately horrifying and hilarious. A combination of waking hallucinations, verbal tics, lies surpassing even his usual fabulist standard, aphasias and lunatic blurtings, each public utterance was a moment where the eye of his aides either popped or rolled, depending on their level of cynicism.

His, um, creative pronunciations of common words, mayfly attention to the most ephemeral ideas and high-tempo tweeting left people wondering if a heapin’ helpin’ of large-animal tranquilizer might be in order with the next round of KFC.

This week wasn’t just the usual Trump performance art; it was a new, strange and somewhat frightening level of antic. Even his allies whispered to reporters that perhaps the stress brought on by the prospect of an economic downturn was getting to him. With no adult supervision in the White House left-- and no, Ivanka doesn’t count-- this is a man on the edge, and there is absolutely nothing and no one to stop him.

When I pressed a senior congressional Republican this week on Trump’s behavior, asking him to tell me anyone who could influence the man, he whispered, “Hannity?”

It was a question, not an answer, and because the answer is absolutely terrifying, no elected Republican wants to admit the truth. What we’re seeing is the real Trump, the unfiltered maniac, not the man who is occasionally chained to a teleprompter and forced to read Kellyanne Conway’s work product aloud.

His sweaty, heavy-breathing press sprays on the White House lawn left reporters in a state of stunned silence, the spittle-flecked rantings of a man determined to machine-gun out a hundred ideas in the time a rational person would discuss two.

We started off with Jewish disloyalty-- which, of course, functional agnostic Donald Trump knows only because he “wants them counting his money”-- and jumped to the grand plan to conquer Greenland and seize America North from the hands of the perfidious Danes.

The Greenland story would be an SNL skit if it wasn’t so utterly real. Denmark, a close ally for decades, was having none of Trump’s crazy on this one, which of course, set off another round of presidential rage. Calling millions of Jews disloyal to their county because of their political preference sounds...familiar, and not in a good way.

His manic anger at Jews, Denmark, the media (naturally) and the Federal Reserve was a bizarre prelude to the G7 conference this weekend, but remarkably, those didn’t even represent the top of the spectrum of nuttiness.

Speaking of the G-7, Trump has of course divided the allies again, freshly demanding his bestie Vladimir Putin’s Russia be re-admitted to the world body after it was expelled for the illegal invasion of Crimea.

He did it because, of course he did.

Here’s a pointer I can tell you from 30 years now in politics: When an elected official declares himself to be “The Chosen One” or agrees that he’s the “King of Israel” and “the second coming of God," it’s not time for a re-election campaign; it’s time for an extended, quiet stay with the nice men in white coats.

If you wanted an example of pure, uncut fiscal insanity, take a quick look at the U.S. budget deficit and our skyrocketing national debt.

Trump, the self-proclaimed “King of Debt,” is eager for Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell to unleash another tidal wave of “free” money into the economy by loosening the reins of the money supply. Trump desires this not because he gives a damn about the economy or the American people, but because he certainly gives a damn about his re-election chances.

The weird week ended on the most bizarre note of all. In a moment when Trump’s absurd and failed trade war with China collided with his absurd and failed war with Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell, Trump issued two tweets that left Washington and the world scratching their collective heads.

Trump asked in a tweet whether the bigger enemy of America was Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi or Powell. Of the Fed. He really did.

Spoiler alert, Mr. President: If the person in question is ordering the savage beatings and arrests of peaceful demonstrators in Hong Kong and holding a million Uighurs in concentration camps, the bigger enemy is always that guy.

Not satisfied in clowning himself with that one, Trump then lowered the bar again and proceeded to jump under it when he said “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China...”

Really, comrade? Is that part of the Five-Year Plan? How's the beet harvest looking this year? Will the Stakhanovite efforts of the peoples’ vanguard at Comrade Newton Leroy Gingrich Heavy Machinery Plant 14 in the Wisconsin Oblast meet the tractor quota?

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when I was told reliably that picking winners and losers in the economy and the president trying to decide what companies should and shouldn’t produce was very, very wrong.

A Republican or two may-- just may-- have said that about Barack Obama. Now? Trump’s tweet was greeted with a silent grimace from the dying band of free-market conservatives but a loud shout from the Trumpentariat.

What used to be the party of free markets and free trade now gives raucous cheers for Chairman Trump’s trade wars and for state control of capitalist enterprises. Sure, Richard Nixon flirted with wage and price controls. He never blurted out orders on where American companies could build their factories.

Although he’s eager to frame the coming recession as either fake news or the fault of the hated liberal media, the growing risk of an economic slowdown seems to be bothering Trump enormously.

He can’t face that his own behavior is a meaningful contributor to the next slump. At no point have we had a president who combines both the blazing ignorance of fundamental economic principles-- not just conservative economic principles but any economic principles-- with an inclination toward authoritarianism and statism and a dash of madness.

Nothing about the week we just lived through is comforting. Nothing about it can be excused or ignored. Donald Trump is not a well man. Here in the dog days of August, Washington should be its usual sleepy self, the political class having wisely fled the humidity and misery of D.C. Instead, Trump’s performance left people both inside and out of the political class wondering about the president’s sanity and fitness for office.

Most states have some form of involuntary commitment law for people who are a danger to themselves and others. In my home state of Florida, it’s called the Baker Act, and I’ve seen it applied to run of the mill folks up to state legislators. It only takes a competent family member and one other adult to get the ball rolling on Baker Acting someone. So I’m thinking about Trump’s next visit to Mar-A-Lago.

Melania, call me.

She can't. She's too busy fighting back against her husband's insane claims that she's gotten to know and like murderous North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, who she's never met.

It's Good If We Have A President Who Is Grounded In The Current Century... Unlike You-Know-Who

John Oliver: "The truth is, from employers' point of view, a big selling point for automation is that it increases productivity and it maximizes profits. And, for displaced workers, that has caused immense main throughout history-- and not just in factories. For instance, in the 90s, as voice recognition technology improved, phone company operators were rightly worried for their jobs... A job automated is not necessarily a job lost. Frequently, machines don;'t replace jobs so much as tasks... Fear of [ATM-related] job losses turned out to be completely overblown; bankteller employment actually increased over the next 30 years. What happened was, ATMs took over the job of dispensing cash and tellers were then freed up to do sales or other work. Jobs didn't go; they changed. And when automation does lead to job loss in certain sectors, historically, it also actually created jobs... Fifty years from now, people will be doing jobs that we can't imagine right now..."

But he also warns that "it might not be easy for displaced workers to transition into them. For instance, right now our economy is creating lots of jobs in the tech sector. At the same time, we have 3 and a half million truckers possibly facing unemployment due to driverless technology... So the big question is, how do you harness what is good about automation while minimizing the damage to those hurt by it? Well, the best thing would be, if America were in the hands of someone nimble and forward-thinking."

That, of course brings us back to Trump, who is neither nimble nor forward thinking. Oliver goes on to discuss what a luddite Trump is and how he's doing none of the things he could and should be doing to help displaced workers. He obviously doesn't understand what's going on around him, nor, more fundamentally, does he or the people around him understand the role of government in these kinds of upheavals.

Just yesterday, Jonathan Swan wrote for Axios that Trump hates "crazy" driverless cars. In his view, "self-driving cars are a menace to society. A skeptic of cutting-edge technology-- as his tweets about Boeing's 'complex' planes emphasized-- Trump has privately said he thinks the autonomous vehicle (AV) revolution is 'crazy' and that he'd never let a computer drive him around.

Why it matters: Most Americans share Trump's view: 71% of U.S. drivers would be afraid to ride in a self-driving vehicle, per AAA. Yet his own administration is encouraging AV development by removing barriers and issuing voluntary guidance instead of regulations. And we see no evidence Trump has imposed his personal views on the policy process... In conversations on Air Force One and in the White House, Trump has acted out scenes of self-driving cars veering out of control and crashing into walls. He's said he doesn't think autonomous vehicles make sense, according to four sources who've heard him discuss the subject. 'You know when he's telling a story, and he does the hand motions,' said a source who has heard Trump talk about hypothetical accidents involving self-driving cars. 'He says, Can you imagine, you're sitting in the back seat and all of a sudden this car is zig-zagging around the corner and you can't stop the f---ing thing? He's definitely an automated car skeptic,' the source said. Another source said Trump told him self-driving cars 'will never work.'"

In one of the early 2017 meetings with CEOs in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Elon Musk and Trump shared a lighthearted exchange about Tesla's "Autopilot" technology. Trump told Musk he preferred traditional cars, according to a source who was in the room.

And in the summer of 2017, at his Bedminster golf club, Trump was chatting with club members when one raised the subject of AV technology. The club member was "excited" about a new Tesla he bought, recalled a source who was part of the conversation. "And [Trump] was like, 'Yeah that's cool but I would never get in a self-driving car. ... I don't trust some computer to drive me around.'"

The world is moving forward, even if Trump isn't. Relatively saner elements inside his administration are trying to keep up, even if Trump is gumming top the works wherever he can. Swan wrote that "A source who has discussed autonomous vehicles with Trump says he thinks it wouldn't take much for the president to rapidly reverse his administration's hands-off approach to hands-free vehicles. Trump already calls self-driving cars out-of-control death traps, so any news fueling that fear could jolt him into action."

So which candidates are way, way, way more forward-thinking and nimble than Trump? The obvious ones are Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Beto, Tulsi, Kamala, Cory Booker, Mayor Pete, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro, Marianne Williamson, Jay Inslee... In fact, most anyone other than Status Quo Joe-- who might be a little less of a luddite than Trump... but not enough to qualify as a 21st Century president.

Trump And Colbert-- Thinking Of Snakes

Trump confers with advisor Roger Stone by Nancy Ohanian

Do Snakes seeth? Trump sure does, and is. On Thursday morning, Jonathan Swan and Mike Allen were all over the seething. Señor T is "deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees-- from the hordes of folks inside agencies, right up to some of the senior-most political appointees and even some handpicked aides inside his own White House," according to their sources. And they're almost sympathetic. "He should be paranoid." That NY Times anonymous OpEd was devastating. They wrote that "In the hours after the New York Times published the anonymous Op-Ed from "a senior official in the Trump administration" trashing the president ('I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration'), two senior administration officials reached out to Axios to say the author stole the words right out of their mouths. 'A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows-- maybe he does?-- that there are dozens and dozens of us.' Several senior White House officials have described their roles to us as saving America and the world from this president. A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow. But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies-- and particularly in the foreign policy arena.

For some time last year, Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.

• "He would basically be like, 'We’ve gotta get rid of them. The snakes are everywhere but we’re getting rid of them,'" said a source close to Trump.
• Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted. He often asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left not knowing who to believe.

Officials describe an increasingly conspiracy-minded president:

• "When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in the White House," said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the president.
• "Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings, he would sit down at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind him."
• "One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to leak. I don’t know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."

"People talk about the loyalists leaving," the source close to Trump tells us. "What it really means is [that there'll be] fewer and fewer people who Trump knows who they really are. So imagine how paranoid you must be if that is your view of the world.

At the same time, Politico's headline was Trump Alone. Their top excerpts from the Anonymous OpEd: "The dilemma-- which he does not fully grasp-- is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations… The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making. Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright… Successes have come despite-- not because of-- the president's leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

"Trump," they wrote, "couldn't be blamed for thinking all of official Washington is closing in on him. The Justice Department is investigating him, and it refuses to take what he sees as obvious action against his political enemies. The nation's most prominent newspaper took the rare step of granting an aide anonymity to deliver a broadside about him. Administration officials have granted hundreds of hours of interviews to Woodward-- the most prominent non-fiction writer in the nation-- to blast him. Senate committee chairmen like Bob Corker of Tennessee say they agree with the outlines of the criticism of the president... The Washington Post's Phil Rucker, Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey said the combination of the Woodward book and the Times op-ed 'landed like a thunder clap, portraying Trump as a danger to the country that elected him and feeding the president’s paranoia about whom around him he can trust... According to one Trump friend, he fretted after Wednesday’s op-ed that he could trust only his children.'"

But not everyone was as sympathetic to Trump's plight as Politico Gabriel Sherman at Vanity Fair pointed out something that can't be overlooked in this dysfunctional , chaotic mess of his own making Everybody on the inside knows it's true: Woodward's reality bomb is blowing up the West Wing. "Pandemonium, he wrote, "reigns as Trump cancels meetings." He may have given up on closing down the government but he's certainly closed down the West Wing. Nothing's going on there-- Sherman called it a "virtual standstill"-- but a hunt for Judas... He literally isn’t talking to anyone. He’s canceled meetings and is on the phone calling up his friends,” one source said. Current and former staffers, meanwhile, pointed fingers in all directions as they sought to deflect blame for the damaging leaks."

What Would Freud Do? by Nancy Ohanian

The traumatic triggers for him were all the stuff that hit too close to hime: John Kelly calling him "an idiot," Jim Mattis comparing him to a "fifth-or-sixth grader," and John Dowd calling him a "fucking liar" and predicting he would end up in "an orange jumpsuit" if he testified under oath.

Trump is also outraged that the book portrays aides as believing they are the grown-ups protecting the country from his dangerous impulses. Two sources said Trump is particularly angry with former economic adviser Gary Cohn, who is revealed in the book to have snatched a letter off Trump’s desk to protect “national security.” “He hates that people are leaking. They think they can take things off the Resolute desk because of this idea they’re ‘saving’ the country,” one senior West Wing official said. “I mean, who does that?” One source said Cohn called up his former colleagues to ask them how he came off in the book. “Gary wanted to make sure he didn’t compromise himself that much,” a source who spoke with Cohn said.

Former CIA director, John Brennan was on Today saying that "the depth of concern within the administration… about what is happening and the extraordinary steps that individuals are willing to take… to prevent disasters... is active insubordination… born out of loyalty to the country, not to Donald Trump. This is not sustainable to have an executive branch, where individuals are not following the orders of the chief executive. [He said he thinks] things will get worse before they get better. I don’t know how Donald Trump is going to react to this. A wounded lion is a very dangerous animal and I think Donald Trump is wounded."

Russ Douthat wrote that Trump has lost control of his White House and that he’s an exceptionally weak president. Sounds about right-- and something sane people had figured out long, long ago.

The Most Hated President Ever? Also The Most Loved

Chances are, if you're a DWT reader, you're a Trump hater through and through. Unless you're a Republican. Rank-and file Republicans love Trump-- they really do. A recent poll shows that if Romney runs against Trump in 2020, the Republican primary would yield Trump 75% of the vote... and Romney just 1%. Sit down and take a deep breath. Señor T "commands the second highest 'own party' approval rating of any president at the 500 day mark since World War II, behind only President George W. Bush, after 9/11." He makes it "respectable" to be a racist, which-- let's face it-- has a lot more to do with why anyone, pre-Trump, ever wanted to admit about joining the GOP. Feh... right?

I guess they never really liked anything the GOP stood for anyway-- except the racism and bigotry-- and now Trump is throwing it all way... except the racism and bigotry. Jonathan Swan: "Trump’s hijacking of the formerly conservative GOP is complete-- an astonishing accomplishment. The majority party in America is fully defined by his policies, his popularity with the base, his facts-be-damned mentality, his ability to control and quiet virtually all Republican elected officials.

Everything changed:

• Trump has wiped out a large portion of Obama’s legacy. He’s exited the Paris climate deal; signed major tax cuts, especially for corporations; confirmed an ultra-conservative Supreme Court justice and record numbers of circuit court judges; deregulated like crazy; exited the Iran deal; exited the TPP trade deal; repealed the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate; and moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing it as Israel’s capital.
• New hardline immigration enforcement is in place, including separating children from parents of illegal immigrants. An extraordinary percentage of Trump’s senior staff has quit or been fired.
• Only one campaign original remains on Trump’s staff: social media director Dan Scavino.
• A national security adviser who began with bombastic high hopes of enforcing a new hard line against radical Islam-- Mike Flynn-- is now at personal peril in the Mueller investigation.
• Trump no longer talks about wiping out the national debt by ending “waste, fraud and abuse.”
• Trump no longer talks about shutting down federal agencies.

Nothing changed:

• Family survives despite many premature obituaries about Jared and Ivanka (Javanka).
• Trump still watches a ton of TV, views everything through a media lens, and obsesses over negative coverage.
• Trump still views foreign negotiations as zero-sum games with a clear winner and loser. The scorecard is the bilateral trade deficit; Trump’s hardline instincts on trade and immigration are unchanged from the campaign trail.
• There’s no trillion-dollar infrastructure package.
• Mexico hasn’t paid for the wall-- and Congress has only given Trump a pittance so far.
• The national debt has climbed ever higher under Trump’s stewardship.
• Trump still lies, exaggerates, distorts and responds to paper cuts by butchering his enemies.
• Vice President Pence remains-- and nobody I’ve spoken to has ever seen him criticize or debate the president in any meaningful way.
• Trump has the same media diet: heavy on Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity and Fox & Friends (with a sprinkling of hate-watch channel-surfing to CNN and MSNBC), and the same core diet of print newspapers, led by his hometown New York Times and New York Post.

So... is it actually possible the GOP will retain control of Congress after November? I don't think so, but everyone I know is worried about it. Something called the CBS News Battleground Tracker claims the House is a toss-up. Forget the 40-some-odd seats in state legislatures that have flipped since Trump occupied the Oval Office... they have polls. The tracker predicts 219 Democrats to 216 Republicans-- a one seat majority if the election were held today. But the margin of error is 9 seats, so... way too close to call. It still predicts a twenty-odd gain for the Dems, less than half of what I've been predicting.

The pointless Democratic Party that stands for mostly nothing at all-- a tent too big to be meaningful-- is lucky people don't like Trump and the GOP, because barely half of Democratic Party supporters in swing districts say they are voting for the Democrats because they are for the Democrats. 49% of them are just against Trump and the Republicans. The Democrats are exactly what they've been trying try to be for over a decade-- the lesser of two evils. And identity politics voters prefer Democrats, of course (like the gender gap)

Republican supporters actually like what the GOP stands for-- shhhhh... that racism and bigotry we talked about above.

While Democrats may be poised to make gains, more than half of voters don't think either party in Congress has been trying to address the things they care about. Partisans think their own party is trying at least some to address their concerns, but few partisans think they are doing a lot on that. Right now, the GOP has a slight edge with independents, some of whom like the president's policies-- but not the way he handles himself personally. About a quarter of them aren't sure who'll they vote for.

Overall, voters in these competitive districts want to hear a lot from congressional candidates on health care, jobs and wages, and immigration.

Democrats and Republicans have different priorities. Most Republicans want to hear a lot about immigration, followed by jobs and wages, and health care. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans say the arrival of new immigrants has changed the area where they live, and most say it's for the worse.

For Democrats, they want candidates to focus on health care a lot, as well as income inequality, education and teacher salaries, and jobs. They are more likely than Republicans to say unemployment and the availability of good jobs is a problem where they live.

Alan Grayson made a good point: "Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does politics. When you don’t say much of anything about what you will do if you are elected, then the other side does it for you. That’s why the GOP is telling everyone who will listen that the only thing that the Democrats will do if they win the election is to raise taxes 'on you, on me, and on that fellow behind the tree.'" We need this guy back in Congress... badly.

Levi Tillemann, the progressive candidate running against Trump rubber stamp Mike Coffman in the Denver suburbs, has to get through a DCCC conservaDem, Jason Crow, before he can get to Coffman. Crow is a typical nothing candidate, a New Dem who would go to Washington and be a careerist waste of a seat. Tillemann is looking for real reform-- and that means reform of the Democratic Party. This morning he put it like this: "Today Democrats in Washington seem to lack all conviction while Trump’s cronies are full of passionate intensity. Democrats need to fight for something-- we need to fight for justice and opportunity. We can’t sell out workers, families, and marginalized communities to corporate donors and Wall Street. I say enough is enough. It’s time for change."

Professional Republican operatives are still very worried, of course. Charlie Black, a veteran GOP consultant told the NY Times yesterday that Trumpanzee "is like a suicide bomber: He could still blow himself up the day before the election and ruin everything." Let's hope. since there's more of a chance of that happening than there is of Pelosi and her leadership team supporting popular and effective congressional candidates or even putting forward and propagating a meaningful platform for Democratic candidates to run on.