Midnight Meme Of The Day!

 

by Noah

Sunday Thoughts:

So, have you been sending your thoughts and prayers to the White House? I have, especially the thoughts part. If only they hadn't tested, then they wouldn't have it. But, they did. It is what it is. It's a sad thing to die from a hoax, but look at it this way: If you die from a hoax, have you really died?

I don't want Trump to die just yet. If it was only up to me, I would have him live a long miserable swill-encrusted life in a gulag of my design. I'd send him Obama postcards every day. I'd also send him giant pictures of AOC and have her speeches piped into his dungeon 24 hours a day. Ilhan Omar and the rest of the squad, too! And, how about having Obama record in a whispering tone and have that piped in as well. Just his voice, recognizable but softly whispering "Barack Hussein Obama" and "Fuck you, Donald." Over and Over again. And Hillary Clinton's laughter. Nothing else, just that cackling laughter of hers. His head would have to be shaved, of course.

But, alas! This is all out of my control. One day, like a miracle Trump will disappear, but let him receive the karmic payback of pain to match all of the pain he has caused. That will take a long, long time. Just let him receive it all in jail. My jail. Meanwhile, he's in Walter Reed getting an experimental antibody drug. How's he gonna feel if those antibodies came from the blood of a Hispanic Black woman. Don't die, Donald.

Amen.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

That President Trump is a very sick man is no longer news, fake or otherwise. His need for constant cheering approval indicates he never got it from his parents, and so, he is still a child, crying for attention. Trump went to a baseball stadium wanting and expecting cheers as if it was one of his insane asylum outpatient rallies. When he didn't get it, he freaked out and quickly, desperately had plans made for him to go to New York's Madison Square Garden for a UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) match. The Republican Party paid out $60,000 for their little boy to attend.

The result of the trip and the foolish Republican investment was that President Crazy Pants got some cheers and a requested endorsement from UFC president/longtime Trump supporter Dana White, but the cheers were vastly outnumbered by boos. Any claims otherwise by the likes of Eric Trump are pathetically desperate. The numerous video clips do not lie. All in all, in Trump's little heart, the results of the trip were unsatisfactory. It seems that if The Donald wants to be told he's the best, he has to pay porn stars and whores, whether they be named Stormy Daniels, Gym Jordan, Lindsey Graham, Matt Gaetz, Vladimir Putin, or Moscow Mitch. We'll leave family members out of it. He'll even invite spymasters from our adversaries into the oval office and hand over classified intelligence in order to ingratiate himself. Would it be any surprise if, someday, we hear that Trump had a set up in the oval office, his bedroom, and his bathroom that automatically played loud cheering every time he entered the room, took a shit, or took off his clothes. "Four More Years! Four More Years! You Da Man! Best Hair Ever!!!"

Can you imagine what staff campaign slogan suggestions Trump rejected before his campaign borrowed "America First" from the KKK? Of course, any of Trump's coterie of like-minded racist sycophants loved that one but I bet the one that was crossed off just before that one was "Trump First."

The parallels between Smithers and Mr. Burns (pictured above) from The Simpsons are kind of uncanny. For those of you who aren't familiar with the long-running cartoon series. Mr. Burns is a wealthy corporate pig who prides himself on stealing from anyone he can, spreading as much human misery as he can, and of course, ravaging the environment as if he was an asteroid speeding towards Earth. Smithers? He's the adoring, cloying, lovesick yes man who longs to do literally anything to please Mr. Burns. He's tortured by his unrequited love for his Mr. Burns. Think Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump. It's as if The Simpsons predicted the inevitability of Graham and Trump decades ago. The only difference is that, in the cartoon, it's funny. In the real world? Not. At. All.

Hoyer Admits Why They're Not Impeaching Trump: Partisan Political Calculations, Despite All The Mounting Evidence-- SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

Wednesday morning Pelosi and Schumer headed over to the White House to discuss an already doomed infrastructure plan (and to be booted out by the always gracious Señor Trumpanzee). A reporter asked her about the closed door Democratic Party caucus she had just left (not even chiefs of staff were allowed in-- just members). She told him-- and his tape recorder: "It was a very positive meeting, a respectful sharing of ideas. And I think a very impressive presentation by our chairs. We do believe it is important to follow the facts, that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. And we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up. A cover-up. And that was the nature of the meeting." I wish I had been there to gage how "positive" and "respectful" it really was. Tensions inside Pelosi's caucus are... intense-- and headed towards brittle.

The Republican wing of the party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- are freaking out as more and more rank-and-file congressional Democrats are demanding Pelosi start formal impeachment procedures. The Hill is keeping a woefully incomplete and non-updated whip list of which members are openly calling for impeachment. Examples: Jamie Raskin (R-MD), a member of the Judiciary Committee told the Washington Post that "the logic of an impeachment inquiry is pretty overwhelming at this point." Other members of the Judiciary Committee left the same way: Ted Lieu (D-CA): "This inquiry could lead to impeachment, or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn’t show, we have to at least start it." And Pramila Jayapal (D-WA): "We are now at the point where we must begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't say that lightly. We've taken every step we can w/subpoenas and witnesses." Joe Neguse (D-CO): "The findings detailed in the Special Counsel’s report, and the Administration’s pattern of wholesale obstruction of Congress since the report’s release, make clear that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry." Freshman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA): "No one is above the law. The time has come to start an impeachment inquiry because the American people deserve to know the truth and to have the opportunity to judge the gravity of the evidence and charges leveled against the president."

But on the right-fringe of the party, particularly among the Blue Dogs and New Dems who the DCCC helped win in red districts, there is panic and anger and little support for impeachment, since these are some real dummies who are sure impeachment would lead to the end of their careers in Congress. Take Staten Island/Brooklyn lunkhead Max Rose, a sniveling Blue Dog, who told Politico that if Democrats decide to begin impeachment hearings, "Then they should warm to the idea of going back to the minority. Right now we’re in this incredibly childish game of impeachment chicken, and everyone has to start acting like adults... let’s go back to actually doing the work of the American people that they sent us here to do." Sounds like something he heard from someone at a Problem Solvers meeting.

One of the few Democrats further to the right than Rose, New Jersey Blue Dog scum Jefferson Van Drew barked "If there really isn’t something significant enough there to impeach-- which I don’t think there is at this point-- then let’s move on and get the work of the people done." Elissa Slotkin (MI), one of the very worst of the freshmen New Dems agreed with that line the Republican wing of the party is pushing: "The thing that I’m concerned about is that we constantly risk losing focus on the legislation that affirmatively helps people’s lives, not going in the right direction right now."

These are not members who give a crap about helping peoples lives. Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin are among the right-of-center minority of Democrats refusing to co-sponsor most of the legislation proposed that does affirmatively help people’s lives-- like Pramila Jayapal's new and improved Medicare For All Act or AOC's Green New Deal Resolution. All three have putrid ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores and each one is rated "F."

• Max Rose- 64.29%
• Elissa Slotkin- 50.0%
• Jefferson Van Drew- 35.71%

Yesterday, Jake Sherman reported that Pelosi "has an uncanny ability to stay unflinchingly focused on a goal, without getting panicked or itchy or changing course... At the moment, Pelosi’s goal is quite clear: to avoid rushing to impeach [Señor Trumpanzee]. If you talk to her allies, her advisers and people close to her, they’ll tell you she believes the impeachment route is an all-around loser right now. Pelosi allies firmly believe that if Democrats impeach Trump, they will lose the presidency and the House in 2020-- period. They also don’t believe Congress or the American public is behind impeachment at the moment. Further, they say that launching an inquiry that isn’t airtight could backfire as they pursue other legal options to extract documents from the White House. House Democratic leaders are keeping a very close eye on who comes out in favor of impeachment, but so far, they see mostly Judiciary Committee members who are living the day-to-day back-and-forth over document production and stonewalling, and progressives who have long been on the path to impeachment. Here is what Pelosi-world is thinking, and the points they are making privately":

• Their Go-Through-The-Courts Play Is Working: House Democrats scored a big victory this week when a federal judge ruled that Mazars Group, Trump’s accounting firm, needed to hand over the president’s financial records. Pelosi and her team believe they will score other victories in court and ultimately get many of the documents they are seeking. Impeachment, many of them argue, is not a magical key to unlock a trove of documents. And there’s a fear, too, that a rush to impeachment could undermine some of these court efforts.
• The Leadership Team Is With Pelosi: yes, Reps David Cicilline (D-RI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) have called for impeachment, but notice who has not: Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Cheri Bustos (D-IL). And that’s important. The cracks at her leadership table are at the bottom, not the top. [Editorial Note: Is Politico hiring morons now? Or do they just assume their readers are morons?]
• Democrats Are Planning to move a package of contempt citations in June. That’s the next punishment they are meting out.
• There Is, At The Moment, A Remarkable sense of unity atop the leadership. They recognize that the angst is rising in the rank and file. No one seems completely convinced Democrats can hold this position for 18 months. Yes, the majority of the caucus opposes impeachment at the moment-- but for how long?
• The Internal Politics Are Complicated. Democrats have been taken aback at how Trump has injected himself personally into the decisions to withhold documents and block testimony, which has corresponded with rising blood pressure among many of the rank and file.
• What To Watch For... Top Dems are absolutely convinced that if Trump defies a court order to fork over documents, then they will be forced to begin impeaching him.

And speaking about Pelosi's leadership team, one of her toadies opposing impeachment is Ben Ray Luján. Watch Luján "change his mind" on impeachment now that his primary opponent, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, has officially announced she's behind the push for impeachment. "Today, I’m calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation," she told New Mexicans. "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report lays out the facts: a hostile foreign government set out to influence our 2016 election in favor of Trump and Trump welcomed their help. Then, as President, Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian interference. Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to defend our democracy and hold Trump accountable. Based on what we know from the Mueller report, we have more than enough evidence to start the impeachment process. I’m speaking out today to demand the House do its job and begin impeachment proceedings. We can both hold this President accountable and push for our progressive priorities-- and don’t let anyone tell you differently. We will continue to fight for bold ideas like Medicare For All and a Green New Deal, expanding voting rights, protecting a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions, and fighting our student debt crisis. We can and we must pursue both impeachment and other policy initiatives. Our democracy exists to protect the people, not the President-- and protecting the people means both learning the truth about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia and continuing to fight for legislation that will make our communities and our country stronger."

I almost feel sorry for Luján. Almost. This is what happens when there are strong, vibrant primaries-- which is exactly why Cheri Bustos, Pelosi and Hoyer and trying to obliterate them.

Well, they might as well start preparing, because that is exactly what Trump is doing. Even Hoyer admitted that 'To say there’s no political calculus would not be honest for any of us in the Congress. The political calculus is: What is the reaction of the American people? What do the American people think we ought to be doing?"

As Hoyer once knew-- he's 80 and increasingly senile now-- the American public opposed the impeachment of Nixon until Congress started the process and exposed all his crimes on TV... and then they backed it. Same with the Senate. Conservative senators were against it until there were televised hearings... and then they told Nixon he had to either resign or be impeached and convicted. He resigned. In Clinton's impeachment, the public opposed it, saw no credible evidence from the GOP leading the effort and the public never stopped opposing it, which is what led a Republican Senate to find him "not guilty" on all impeachment charges.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) is both a New Dem and a member of the Progressive Caucus-- and a 2020 Republican target. She said that Trump is "acting as an authoritarian leader, which I have seen many times in Latin America, and it is very dangerous. I want the people living in South Florida, people living in my community, to understand what is written in that report, and we can’t do that unless we have these hearings." Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we're hearing from the people, like Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin, who follow the advice of Matt Penn and Nancy Jacobson of Problem Solvers.

Anti-impeachment Blue Dog Cheri Bustos recruited some cockamamie conservative Republican to run against Mike Siegel is TX-10. I wonder how the Bustos-DCCC candidate feels about impeachment. When I asked Blue-America-endorsed Mike Siegel how he feels about it, he told me that "We can't enforce our laws only when it is politically convenient. The supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, requires Congress to exercise oversight of the Executive Branch, including use of the impeachment power to prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors. Every day, Trump and his cronies obstruct justice, by ignoring federal subpoenas, tampering with witnesses, paying off co-conspirators and lying to the American people. When the RNC gives $2m to McGahn's law firm just as he refuses to testify before Congress, they make a mockery of our government. This goes beyond tactical considerations for an electoral cycle; American democracy is under assault. We must empower Congress to do their duty, and investigate the President's crimes." Do you agree with Mike's approach? Please consider chipping in at the Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the right. Last year Mike nearly won the district with the DCCC ignoring the race entirely. This year he'll have to fight Trump-enabler Michael McCaul and Cheri Bustos and her corruptly-funded the DCCC!

Shakespeare Might Have To Change A Few Words Of Macbeth If He Was Writing It Today-- Just A Few

Allen Weisselberg is supposed to know everything there is to know about Trump's business dealings, which are-- and you know it-- the very definition of a swamp. He seems to have abandoned his liege last week, although Trump hasn't tweeted anything about him being a rat yet. The way he has answered questions from New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood seems to demonstrate that he's not trying-- not even a little-- to protect Trump at all. Last week, writing for The Atlantic, Eliot Cohen, compared Trump to Macbeth who became king of Scotland after killing King Duncan. It's worth mentioning that Shakespeare's play about the historical figure is classically paranoid, disabled by fear and a perfect example of how seeking power illegitimately will bring on intense suffering, in this case one driven into the arms of tyranny. Cohen's point, though is that sooner or later all tyrants are abandoned by their followers, a fate probably awaiting Trump, now that the rats are deserting the sinking ship.

"To really get the feel for the Trump administration’s end," wrote Cohen, "we must turn to the finest political psychologist of them all, William Shakespeare. The text is in the final act of what superstitious actors only refer to as the 'Scottish play.' One of the nobles who has turned on their murderous usurper king describes Macbeth’s predicament:

Those he commands move only in command,
Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title
Hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe
Upon a dwarfish thief.

Cohen asks us to imagine this as Trump's fate, although he acknowledges-- with some glee-- that Trump was in some ways very different from Macbeth. He explained that "Macbeth is an utterly absorbing, troubling, tragic, and compelling figure. Unlike America’s germaphobic president, who copped five draft deferments and has yet to visit the thousands of American soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan or Iraq, he is physically brave. In fact, the first thing we hear about him is that in the heat of battle with a rebel against King Duncan (whom he later murders) Macbeth 'unseamed him from the nave to th’ chops.' He is apparently faithful to his wife, has a conscience (that he overcomes), knows guilt and remorse, and has self-knowledge. He also has a pretty good command of the English language. In all these respects he is as unlike Trump as one can be."

But in the moment of losing power, the two will be alike. A tyrant is unloved, and although the laws and institutions of the United States have proven a brake on Trump, his spirit remains tyrannical-- that is, utterly self-absorbed and self-concerned, indifferent to the suffering of others, knowing no moral restraint. He expects fealty and gives none. Such people can exert power for a long time, by playing on the fear and cupidity, the gullibility and the hatreds of those around them. Ideological fervor can substitute for personal affection and attachment for a time, and so too can blind terror and sheer stupidity, but in the end, these fall away as well.

And thus their courtiers abandon even monumental tyrants like Mussolini-- who at least had his mistress, Claretta Petacci, with him at his ignominious end. (Melania’s affections are considerably less certain.) The normal course of events is sudden, epic desertion, in which an all-powerful political figure who loomed over everything is suddenly left shrunken and pitiful, a wretched little figure in gaudy robes absurdly too big for him, a figure of ridicule as much as, and even more than, hatred.

This is going to happen to Trump at some point. Of the Republicans in Congress it may be said of most of them: Those he commands move only in command, nothing in love. For now, admittedly, there are those who still court his favor-- Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, once the trusty vassal of Senator John McCain, the bravest of warriors and noblest of dukes, seems to have switched his allegiance from his dying lord to the swaggering upstart aged prince. But that is about ambition, not affection.

For the moment, the Republicans will not turn on Trump. They fear a peasant revolt, many of them; they still crave favors; they may think his castle impregnable, although less so if they believe what the polls tell them about some of its tottering walls. But if they suffer a medieval-style slaughter on Election Day, the remnants of the knights of the GOP will know a greater fear than that of being primaried. And at the moment when they no longer fear being swept away in 2020, when the economy may be in recession and Robert Mueller’s probe is complete with revelations whose ghastliness would delight the three witches of the Scottish play, they will suddenly turn on Trump. Act V of this play will also have a nonlinear finish.

And what of Trump himself? In this respect he will be like Macbeth. Where Nixon, who was a statesman, saw the inevitable and resigned, this president is more likely to go down spitting defiance. As for the rest of us, Macduff says to the cornered king just before their final death grapple:

Live to be the show and gaze o’ th’ time.
We’ll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,
Painted upon a pole, and underwrit
“Here may you see the tyrant”

And so it will likely be, as Americans gaze back and wonder how on earth this rare monster, now deposed, ended up as their president.

Let's just hope he brings the GOP down with him-- and not the rest of us, not America.

Now That Randy Bryce Knocked Ryan Out Of The Race, Creepy Crawly Peter Barca Wants To Run

Paul Ryan knows why he retired from Congress-- audit's not about teaching his sons, Charlie and Sam, to shoot bows and arrows. Randy Bryce is why Ryan is retiring from Congress. I've been trying for a decade to find a credible candidate to run against Ryan. The local Democratic elected officials in the district were all afraid... every one of them. Political cowards who were afraid to give up their jobs to run against Paul Ryan. In 1993, when Bill Clinton appointed 22-year incumbent Les Aspin to be Secretary of Defense, Assemblyman Peter Barca ran for the open seat to serve out the rest of Aspin's term. He beat Mark Neumann by 675 votes and in 1994 Neumann was back and beat Barca-- part of the Newt Gingrich wave-- 83,937 to 82,817. Barca had been a disappointment for Democrats, particularly for unions who had to pull teeth to get him to oppose NAFTA. Neumann decided to run for the Senate in 1998-- giving up his House seat (and losing the Senate race to Russ Feingold. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan won the GOP nomination to replace Neumann and he ran against a weak Democrat, Lydia Sottswood and beat her 57-43%. Obama won the district in 2008 but the Republican legislature gerrymandered it-- removing union stronghold Beloit and adding on a piece of blood red Waukesha, one of Wisconsin's most backward right-wing counties [When Obama beat Romney 53-46% statewide, Waukesha went for Romney 161,567 (67%) to 77,617 (32%).]

Meanwhile, this cycle Randy Bryce a plainspoken union and veteran activist, has been steadily climbing in the polls and putting the fear of God into Ryan, who has come to realize he had virtually no path to victory in a district with a third independents... independents who had no interest in even hearing Ryan's messaging any longer. As soon as Ryan announced his retirement, Barca started putting out feelers that he would like to run and whispering-- like the reptile he's always been-- that a centrist like himself was a better fit for the district than a progressive like Bryce. He's been running around Kenosha saying Bryce isn't college educated and won't win. He's a really horrible person who was forced out of his job as Assembly minority leader after he worked with Scott Walker on the unpopular Foxconn deal.

Over the weekend, Ross Douthat, opined in the NY Times about Ryan's unsuitability for a national leadership position. And Douthat is not Paul Krugman; he's a Republican. "The mistake about Paul Ryan," he wrote, "the one that both friends and foes made over the years between his Obama-era ascent and his just-announced departure from the House speakership, was to imagine him as a potential protagonist for our politics, a lead actor in the drama of conservatism, a visionary or a villain poised to put his stamp upon the era."

This Ryan-of-the-imagination existed among conservatives who portrayed his budgetary blueprints as the G.O.P.’s answer to the New Deal, among centrist deficit hawks who looked to him to hash out their pined-for grand bargain, and among liberals for whom Ryan was the most sinister of far-right operators, part fanatic and part huckster-- a Lyle Lanley with Atlas Shrugged in his back pocket, playing everyone for suckers while he marched the country into a libertarian dystopia.



It existed among the donors who wanted him to run for president, the pundits who encouraged Mitt Romney to choose him as a running mate, the big names who pressured him into the speakership. And it existed among anti-Trump conservatives, finally, who looked to Ryan to be the Republican of principle standing athwart Trumpism yelling stop.

But the real Ryan was never suited for these roles. He was miscast as a visionary when he was fundamentally a party man-- a diligent and policy-oriented champion for whatever the institutional G.O.P. appeared to want, a pilot who ultimately let the party choose the vessel’s course. And because the institutional G.O.P. during his years was like a bayou airboat with a fire in its propeller and several alligators wrestling midship, an unhappy end for his career was all-but-foreordained.

This is not to say that he lacked principles. The frequent descriptions of Ryan as a Jack Kemp acolyte-- a supply-side tax cutter and entitlement reformer and free trader who imagined a more immigrant-welcoming and minority-friendly G.O.P.-- were accurate enough; there was no question that the more a policy reflected Ryan’s deepest preferences, the more Kempist it would be.

But even there, he came to those principles at a time when they were ascendant within the party-- in the period between the supply-side ’80s and the late-1990s window when centrist liberals seemed open to entitlement reform. And then as Republicans moved away from them, tacking now more compassionate-conservative, now more libertarian, now more Trumpist, his resistance to the drift was always gentle, eclipsed by his willingness to turn.

Thus the Ryan of the George W. Bush era cast votes for the pillars of compassionate conservatism, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. Then the Ryan of the Tea Party era championed austerity, talking about “makers and takers” and tossing out the Ayn Rand references that persuaded many liberals that he was an ideological fanatic. But that Ryan gave way to Ryan the dutiful running mate, which gave way in turn to the more moderate Ryan of Obama’s second term, who negotiated a budget deal with Democrats and moved toward so-called “reform conservatism” in his policy proposals at a time when that seemed like that might be the party’s future.



Then came the 2016 election, in which Ryan temporarily resisted Trump and then surrendered lest he break the party (which a party man could never do), and after that the Trump administration, in which Ryan has obviously steered Trump toward standard Republican policies-- but has just as obviously been steered as well. Most of Ryan’s past big-picture goals (entitlement reform, free trade, minority outreach) are compromised or gone, and while he attempted Obamacare repeal and achieved a butchered version of corporate tax reform, he’s accepted spending policies that make a mockery of any sort of libertarian or limited-government goal.

If you look at all this and see an obsessive ideologue working tirelessly for Randian ends, I think you’re being daft. But it’s equally daft to see this as the story of a great visionary brought low by Trump. The truth is that Ryan probably could have thrived as a legislator in a variety of dispensations: As a Reaganite if he’d been born early enough; as a Kempian or compassionate conservative if the late-1990s boom had continued; as a bipartisan dealmaker in a world where his base supported compromises (the blueprints he drew up with Democrats like Ron Wyden were usually interesting); as some sort of reform-conservative-inflected figure under a President Rubio or Kasich.

But in a dispensation where the G.O.P. was leaderless, rudderless, yawing between libertarian and populist extremes, he was never the kind of figure who could impose a vision on the party-- nor would he would break with the party when it seemed to go insane.

Instead, he only knew how to work within the system, which because the system had turned into a madhouse meant that his career could only end where it ended this past week: in a record of failure on policy and principle that he chose for himself, believing-- as party men always do-- that there wasn’t any choice.

Randy Bryce has shown himself smart enough to oppose Ryan's bullshit and drive him out of Congress... while Peter Barca championed Ryan's and Walker's Foxxconn con. Sure, Bryce didn't go to college and Barca did... but Barca's a moron and a traitor to working families.

Midnight Meme, Special Edition: The 12 Days Of Christimemes #10

-by Noah

I would never make the mistake the Simpsons made and let a Republican into my house. If they weren't a threat to bust up all my furniture due to a lifetime of gluttony, I'd still worry about them leaving their slime all over, not to mention the smell that you'd never be able to get out of the seat cushions. What if Trump came to my house and left orange powdery stuff everywhere he went?

What's more, you just can't watch Repugs 100% of the time. They might break my radio so it's stuck on the station that gets Rush Limbaugh and then I'd have to take it out back for target practice. And, what would they steal? Would they start throwing all my books into the fireplace? I bet they'd key all my vintage John Coltrane and Muddy Waters records, too.

Yep. Best to not let them in. Although... If Paul Ryan showed up at my door, I could do a real service to the world. You see, I have a spacious crawl space down in the basement, and, I'm good with a shovel.

DC Rumor Mill: Trumpanzee Plans To Fire Mueller December 22

The Simpsons come through... bigly. Less hilarious is the Newsweek suggestion that Señor Trumpanzee may fire Mueller next week while Congress is away for holiday vacation. That's what Jackie Speier (D-CA) says she's hearing in the Capitol-- specifically that he'll fire Mueller on Dec. 22. Democrats will want to impeach him if he does-- but so what? Republicans control both houses of Congress and there aren't many who would go along either. Adam Schiff, who has been drumming up Trump fear-monger so he can raise immense sums of money for an eventual Senate run-- with no 2016 opponent, Schiff goes from his Rachel Maddow appearances directly to fundraisers and had already brought in $1,667,276 by October 1.

Meanwhile Florida dimwit, Matt Gaetz, one of only 5 millennials in the House, has been running around trying-- successfully-- to sound even stupider than Louie Gohmert, demanding Mueller be fired for corruption. Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics, noted that "the coordinated effort by President Trump and his surrogates to discredit the Mueller investigation raises serious alarms. Rather than making themselves complicit in this assault on the rule of law, Members of Congress should send a clear message to the President that firing Mueller is a red line he must not cross," no doubt a jab at the hyperbolic Gaetz.

And Gaetz is hardly the only dim bulb in Florida schreiking for Mueller's head. The most corrupt Attorney General in America, Pam Bondi, was on Fox with Hannity last week, along with neo-Nazi nutcase Sebastian Gorka, making an idiot out of herself. Speaking on Mueller's sterling team, the imbecilic Bondi babbled That "They need to be dissolved, and they need to be investigated. This team needs to be wiped out." When Hannity said that the level of corruption inside Mueller’s team is "worse than Watergate," Bondi butted in to slobber her agreement. But Hannity was on a tear and continued, "By the time we entangle this massive web of corruption, it will be worse than Watergate... Watergate on human growth hormone and steroids combined at massive levels."



Ready to blow him-- in her barely controllable excitement-- Bondi said, "And you’re the one who had to untangle it, Sean, not the federal government. That’s the shame of it."

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

-by Noah

Poor little cloying, Trump-worshiping, kiss-ass snowflake Pence. Playing the Simpson's Smithers to Donald Trump's evil corporate pig Mr. Burns, Mike Pence was so offended by people kneeling to protest racial inequality, injustice, and police brutality that he did his master's bidding and walked out of a NFL game on Sunday. His enduring love for his boss made it so easy. Being Señor Trumpanzee's number 2, he gladly staged his boss's requested publicity stunt by going to an Indianapolis Colts game intending to walk out in a huff as soon as someone dared to exercise a right that good Americans died for; and that's exactly what he did, accompanied by his handler/fake wife chaperone, and carrying his pre-written press release with him.

I don't know what species Pence is but I suspect his latin genus-species name would be something like Pencis Douchebagis. The very idea of Americans being against the white supremacy attitudes of his boss and his party scares the shit out of Mike Pence. It makes him soooo mad. Republicans whine on and on about people who kneel against racism, speak against racism, and march against racism. They are affronted. Racism has been their brand for the last 50 years. How dare anyone call them out on it, especially (in their eyes) those "uppity blacks. They call the kneelers ingrates and much, much worse, just as slave owners once called slaves ingrates for not appreciating the gifts of Christianity, housing, and food.

It never occurs to intellectual dimwits that the best way to stop players from kneeling would be to address the evils of racism rather than continue to institutionalize it and expand it, but, why would they when they can play racism for all its worth to drive Republican voters to the polls. Some call Pence's despicable action yet another distraction devised by the Trump administration to pull our attention away from their acts of mayhem, fascism, and corruption. However, calling Pence's action a distraction makes light of this administration's promotion of attitudes and policies that promote racism and injustice.

Trump, Pence and their supporters would have you think that this kneeling thing is about disrespect for the American flag, the military, the national anthem itself, and who knows what else; apple pie and motherhood, perhaps? They childishly bitch and moan about all this while seemingly two-thirds of their own party marches in the streets worshiping the flag of the traitors of the Confederacy and the flag of a man who killed 6,000,000 people in death camps. The rest endorse this behavior with their silent approval. This, folks, is the republican party of 2017. This is what they voted for, march for, and scream about on FOX and in their blogs. If you google their memes about players kneeling, you will be shown an overwhelmingly pervasive tone of Republican racism, right down to pictures of kneeling gorillas in football uniforms. That's one meme you won't be seeing here on DWT.

It's not at all surprising that Pence would do what he did on Sunday. He was once the Indiana governor, a state that, back in the 1920s, was fully controlled by the KKK from the Governor's office and its legislature on down. KKK attitudes have mellowed somewhat in Indiana, but they are still very prevalent, as KKK operatives have recently demonstrated and actively supported Republican candidates in the state. It's safe to say that those attitudes helped Pence get elected in the first place, and, it's no stretch at all to point to that as one of the reasons he was chosen by Trump to be VP. Pence's act on Sunday was a throwing down of the pro-racism gauntlet. The Trump administration was making its stand and calling on its followers to do the same. Pence might as well have burned a cross in the parking lot. But, that's for another day, a day that seems to be approaching.

Addendum: "World Take A Knee Day," an idea whose time has come.

Suppose there was a million kneeling "march" on Washington on January 20th. Why not throw some humiliation back? You know more people would show up than showed up for nutboy's inauguration. If a few players is all it takes to get one walking cancer shaped like a man to leave a stadium, shouldn't we consider a few million American citizens taking a Sunday off to go kneel on the mall in front of the Capitol Building and the White House to purge Congress and the White House of the disease of republicanism? Short of that, perhaps even more Americans could take a knee at noon on November 8th, the one year anniversary of Trump's "election?" At noon on that day, people across the country and the world, Americans and other world citizens, could take a knee, maybe even while "This Land Is Your Land" plays on everyone's iPod or phone.

The Extremists In The Freedom Caucus Have A Secret Weapon Undermining Healthcare: Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)

A headline at Axios yesterday: GOP health care plan has momentum. This is the new plan where, aside from kicking 24 million people off health insurance, the Republicans gut protections for the sick (by eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions)-- and all to allow a tax cut for the super-rich. The far right extremists at the Freedom Caucus think it does enough damage to have earned their support. Whats known as the Meadows-MacArthur amendment allows states to waive a set of "essential health benefits" and a ban on charging sick people higher premiums in limited circumstances and if the state has established a high-risk pool. Radical anti-health care extremists like Dave Brat (R-VA), Raul Labrador (R-ID) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) are urging other extremists to vote for it-- and that may come as soon as Friday.

The bill's impacts will be so bad for consumers that congressional Republicans exempted themselves and their staffers from the worst of the provisions, something that didn't go unnoticed by Democrats. Madison-based Democrat Mark Pocan called then right out on it: "House Republicans showed their hand when they exempted themselves from their own plan. If this latest version of Trumpcare isn’t good enough for Members of Congress, it’s not good enough for the American people. The reason Trumpcare failed, was that the American people took a long hard look at what the President and Speaker Ryan put on the table and flatly rejected it. Now, House Republicans are trying to introduce a worse version of Trumpcare that will likely cause more people to lose health insurance, make it harder for people with preexisting conditions to get coverage, and leaves people at the mercy of insurance companies."

Meanwhile the Regime has some healthcare sabotage up its sleeve-- just in case. Mick Mulvaney spoke with Nancy Pelosi Tuesday night and threatened to cut off crucial ObamaCare payments as soon as next month.

Canceling the payments to insurers, known as cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), would cause chaos in the insurance market. The payments are the subject of ongoing litigation, with a judge ruling them unconstitutional last year because Congress had not appropriated the money.

"Mulvaney indicated that while the Trump administration had continued the CSR payments, they had not yet decided whether they would make the May payment," the aide said. "Mulvaney made clear that, absent Congressional action, the judge's order would stand and the administration would cease making payments."

Pelosi is pushing for the payments to be funded in the spending bill Congress is negotiating this week.

If Mulvaney follows through on his comments, then that would raise the pressure on Congress to appropriate the payments so that they are not canceled, as the administration is threatening.

Top congressional Republicans, though, are resisting funding ObamaCare payments in the spending bill, leading to a standoff.

That could be awkward for mainstreamish conservatives in swingy districts. Politico and the rest of the Beltway media refers to them as "moderates," which they're not, but Politico's Kyle Cheney and Rachel Bade were correct in pointing out that much of this resuscitation mess is the fault of fake-moderate Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). "MacArthur," they wrote, "has singlehandedly kept the embers of the failed repeal-and-replace effort burning, huddling with the hard-line conservative Freedom Caucus to try to forge a deal. The negotiations have allowed the White House and GOP congressional leaders to insist that despite their embarrassing failure to pass health care legislation last month, they're still making progress. But the MacArthur-as-Republican health care savior narrative has bothered some GOP moderates, who say the New Jersey lawmaker is flying solo in negotiations with the Freedom Caucus. Though he's one of three co-chairs of the Tuesday Group-- a 50-member bloc of House Republican moderates-- MacArthur has negotiated without the group's blessing in his quest to keep the health care talks alive, other Tuesday Group members say."

Some in the group “are pretty hot about this thing right now,” said a Tuesday Group member. “MacArthur is kind of on his own.”

MacArthur acknowledged as much in an interview with The Hill, suggesting his effort to find compromise was not on behalf of the Tuesday Group.

As a result, it's not clear that any deal MacArthur strikes can actually deliver the votes of moderates that President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan need to get their legislation, dubbed the American Health Care Act, across the finish line. That's a dangerous dynamic that could sink the revived health care discussion just as Freedom Caucus members are warming to the bill.

So far, House moderates have remained quiet about reports of progress between MacArthur and the Freedom Caucus, chaired by North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows. The two were seen huddling daily in the back of the House chamber before lawmakers departed for their two-week Easter recess. But other Tuesday Group members have been wary of working with the Freedom Caucus, which came under fire from Trump and mainstream Republicans last month for rejecting the first iteration of the GOP health care plan.

At the time, Rep. Chris Collins, a Tuesday Group member and Trump ally, accused the Freedom Caucus of proposing negotiations simply to deflect blame for scuttling the first bill.

“The Tuesday Group will never meet with the Freedom Caucus. Capital N-E-V-E-R,” Collins said in late March.

As reports of a deal surfaced during the recess, moderates remained silent. Even MacArthur's Tuesday Group co-chairs-- Reps. Charlie Dent and Elise Stefanik of New York-- said they weren’t yet sold on the negotiations.

...[I]t's unclear whether MacArthur's efforts have moved any moderates closer to "yes" on the stalled health care bill. Politico reached out to the offices of more than two dozen moderate Republicans who had either signaled their opposition to the AHCA or hadn’t yet taken a position. Though many declined to respond, none said they had been swayed by the negotiations.

"The amendment doesn't address the things that I had concerns about-- the things I think are detrimental to the people I represent," said Rep. Dan Donovan, a centrist, who added that he learned about the proposal when details leaked to the press Friday.

...At the heart of the negotiations is a trade-off. Conservatives are seeking a proposal that would let states opt out of Obamacare's regulatory framework, including provisions intended to keep costs down for people with pre-existing conditions. In exchange, MacArthur negotiated to reinstate Obamacare's minimum coverage requirements and to require that any state choosing to opt out of the Obamacare regulations must set up a high-risk pool intended to help cover sick patients whose premiums might surge.

Freedom Caucus sources indicated these changes could win over at least some of their holdouts, putting the AHCA tantalizingly close to passage. House leaders are hopeful they can nudge just enough moderates to back the bill to send it to the Senate. With no Democrats expected to support the bill, Republicans must secure support from 216 members of the 238-member caucus to pass it.

Since talks collapsed last month, House leaders and President Donald Trump have indicated they were heartened by continued negotiations among lawmakers. Vice President Mike Pence and White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney continued shuttling to and from Capitol Hill in search of votes. Then, as Trump's 100-day mark in office approached, the White House began indicated it expected a vote on an amended health care package as soon as this week.

The Meadows-MacArthur talks were at the heart of it.

For MacArthur, the impromptu talks aren't just risky for the Republican agenda, they could imperil his own political future. He represents one of a few dozen swing districts. Though his district narrowly voted for Trump in November, it backed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. MacArthur's role in salvaging a health care plan that energized protesters on the left and drew poor marks across the political spectrum has only enhanced the target on his back for Democrats.

MacArthur's efforts have also put him on the president’s radar. Trump personally thanked MacArthur, a former insurance executive, the day before leaders pulled the legislation for lack of support.

But during the presidential campaign, MacArthur, 56, kept his distance from Trump, endorsing the GOP standard-bearer after his primary rivals quit the race. MacArthur survived his reelection campaign despite relentless efforts by Democrats to tie him to Trump.

In recent weeks, conservative and liberal activists squeezed MacArthur with attack ads in his district for his role in AHCA talks. But the conservative Club for Growth may help provide him some cover.

Keep in mind that the DCCC has already signaled that they will not be trying to unseat either Meadows or MacArthur in 2018. Yesterday the AP reported that Charlie Dent doesn't like what he's seeing of the MacArthur/Meadows "compromise," since it ignores his concerns that TrumpCare will "cut too deeply into the Medicaid program for the poor and leave many people unable to afford coverage."

Trump and the GOP's threats against the Affordable Care Act have created the kind of uncertainty for the insurance market that is forcing premiums up for millions of Americans.

Many experts have already warned that if Trump refuses to enforce the Affordable Care Act’s, or ACA’s, individual mandate or fund subsidies for low-income enrollees, consumers will see premiums skyrocket. But even without taking direct action, the Trump administration is still pushing insurers to raise premiums. Trump’s rhetoric creates a climate of uncertainty for health insurers that puts upward pressure on rates and discourages them from future participation in the exchanges.

We expect this generalized market uncertainty will itself raise premiums for 2018. If insurers raise rates by an additional 8.5 to 17 percent to account for a 25 to 50 percent risk that the Administration will undermine ACA subsidies and mandate enforcement, the average annual premium would rise by an extra $480 to $960 in 2018. While ACA subsidies will protect most enrollees from these uncertainty rate hikes, millions will see their premiums rise and taxpayers will foot the bill for increased subsidy costs.

The administration has already taken steps that will hurt the market and increase premiums, including halting outreach efforts at the end of the 2017 open enrollment period and drastically shortening the enrollment period for next year. The administration can prevent even larger premium hikes, but, given the widespread uncertainty that the president and congressional Republicans have already created, they need to act now. Trump and Congress must take concrete steps in the coming weeks to make clear that subsidy payments will be made on a permanent basis, that the individual mandate will be fully enforced, that the administration will conduct similar outreach and operational efforts as in past years to drive enrollment, and that they will stop their damaging efforts to repeal the ACA.

...Trump is already attempting to use millions of Americans’ health insurance as a bargaining chip for his own political gain. In an effort to force Democrats to negotiate with him on repealing the ACA, Trump threatened to hold hostage subsidies for low-income enrollees.

...A study by The Commonwealth Fund suggests that eliminating cost-sharing reductions payments could increase premiums by 14 percent, in addition to causing a large number of insurers to leave the exchanges. Other studies have suggested an even higher increase if the compensating premium increase occurs among silver plans alone, from 19 to 29 percent. Similar estimates have been put forward by insurers, actuaries, and insurance commissioners, as well as by hospitals, doctors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

To remove this uncertainty, President Trump and Congress must make clear that they will not play political games with people’s lives, that they will fulfill their obligations under the ACA, and they will fully fund cost-sharing reduction payments on a permanent basis.

The size of the uncertainty rate hike would vary by state, as shown in Table 2. If we assume an uncertainty rate hike of 8.5 percent above the normal increase, equivalent to insurers hedging against a 25 percent chance of loss of the mandate and cost-sharing reductions, the extra annual premium increase would range from $300 on average in Massachusetts to an average of $1,060 in Alaska. If insurers build in a 50 percent chance the administration takes both these major actions to undermine the exchanges, the average rate hike would be more than $1,000 in close to half the states.

UPDATE: Doctors Write To Congress

This is the letter that went to Congress Wednesday:

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi:

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Our organizations, which represent over 560,000 physicians and medical students, remain concerned with ongoing efforts that in our view could destabilize our nation’s health care system. We believe that pending legislation proposals would dramatically increase costs for older individuals, result in millions of people losing their health care coverage, and return to a system that allows for discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. We are especially concerned about the changes to Medicaid and Medicaid financing contained within AHCA.

Our members are the frontline physicians who provide physical and mental health care services to millions of men, women, and children each day. They provide care to children, the aged, those with chronic conditions, people battling substance use disorders, and the many individuals who are seeking prevention and wellness services in an attempt to be healthier. Our members see firsthand the important role that health care coverage and access to affordable, high quality care plays in people’s lives and their pursuit of better health and well-being. They also recall those days when patients faced discrimination based on their age, gender, or health conditions, and remember when those with mental and behavioral health needs were denied coverage.

This experience with the health care system is why our organizations strongly oppose the compromises that have been recently reported. These compromises are built on the flawed foundation of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which would result in millions of Americans and, according to the CBO, over 7 million with employer-sponsored insurance, losing their coverage.

Further, these compromises would allow individual states to obtain waivers to opt-out of important benefit and patient protection provisions in current law. Under the proposed “Limited Waiver” authority, insurers in such states would once again be allowed to charge unaffordable premiums to people with pre-existing conditions based on their individual health risks, and decline to cover ten categories of essential services including prescription drugs, physician and hospital visits, preventive services, and mental and behavioral health benefits. We are especially concerned that these changes would:

• Allow insures to deny millions of people facing addiction access to treatment and therapy, when such services are needed more than ever to address the opioid epidemic in the United States.

• Make health care even more expensive and further reduce access to care for millions, especially those over the age of 50;

• Force individuals with multiple chronic conditions into underfunded state-sponsored high risk pools, which have been proven ineffective numerous times;
• Allow for gender rating by enabling states to opt out of maternity care coverage.

We urge Congress to reject these “compromises” and instead focus on enacting policies that improve upon current law, thus ensuring that more people have access to affordable health care coverage. Our organizations have provided several recommendations on how current law could be improved to accomplish these goals. A few of those recommendations are:

• Ensure that coverage remains affordable by maintaining premium and cost-sharing subsidies available under current law.

• Stabilize the individual market.
• Take immediate action to provide long-term, adequate funding for the CHIP program.
• Identify and implement policies that make primary, preventive, and mental health more 
readily available to all Americans.

• Identify and implement policies that lower costs for individuals and families, especially 
the costs of pharmaceutical treatments.

•Reform our medical liability laws.
• Reduce the administrative and regulatory burdens that add costs and inefficiencies to 
our delivery and insurance systems, and take away valuable time for us to care for our patients.


We recognize that our health care system is not perfect and reforms are needed. Our organizations and our members stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration to improve our health care system. However, we urge Congress to reject the AHCA and instead focus on the implementation of policies that aim to improve our health care system versus those that seek to destabilize it and would make quality health care less available to millions of Americans.


Sincerely,

American Academy of Family Physicians

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Physicians

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists American Osteopathic Association

American Psychiatric Association

And the AARP added this to the debate this morning:

40% of older adults ages 50-64-- or about 25 million people in this age group-- could be denied health coverage because of a preexisting condition if they sought to buy an individual plan.

Would You Trust Trump With National Security Secrets? Should Obama?

There are a lot of Americans nervous about the prospect of the Trumpanzee getting national security briefings. Harry Reid even suggested that the intelligence services prepare "fake" briefings for him so that if he sells them to the Russians or whomever else, it doesn't endanger the country's security. Carl Bildt, the former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, a country Trump used to routinely-- and falsely-- claim as part of his ancestry, tweeted last week that he "never thought a serious candidate for US President could be a serious threat against the security of the West. But that’s where we are." He wasn't referring to Hillary.

David Cicilline (D-RI), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote President Obama a letter urging him to deny the briefings to Trump, who, he wrote "urged Russian intelligence services to conduct cyber espionage operations into the correspondence of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... [a] call for hostile foreign action represents a step beyond mere partisan politics and represents a threat to the Republic itself... With this in mind, I respectfully ask that you withhold the intelligence briefing to Mr. Trump in the interests of national security."



Trump is due to start receiving briefings as soon as today. His campaign manager-- or whatever title Paul Manafort holds-- was a longtime political operative for Ukraine's bandit-preseident (and Putin puppet) Victor Yanukovych, and several close Trump associates, as well as his own Trump Organization, are heavily in financial hock to Putin.

Is it feasible to prevent Trump from getting the briefings from James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence? Technically, yes. It's just a courtesy and a tradition started by Harry Truman, not a law or rule. It would, however, be exceedingly awkward for Obama and there's no reason to think Obama has the stomach for a fight with the Trumpanzee over this. Reid's idea of "fake" briefings are patently absurd but there's no reason Clapper couldn't give intelligence-lite briefings that don't compromise national security or give Trump access to any sensitive national secrets. Remember, we're talking about this guy:



A newly released Pew survey from May of 10 European countries, Canada and 4 Asia-Pacific powers, shows Obama and Clinton with high ratings and Trump with extremely low ratings across the board.

European attitudes toward President Barack Obama remain very positive. Across the 10 EU nations polled, a median of 77% have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, including more than eight-in-ten in Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and France.

Europeans are somewhat less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, although her ratings are still mostly positive: A median of 59% have confidence in her. In contrast, ratings for Donald Trump are overwhelmingly negative. A median of just 9% trust the wealthy real estate developer to do the right thing in world affairs; 85% lack confidence in him.

In the four Asia-Pacific nations surveyed-- Australia, China, India and Japan-- Obama also receives relatively positive marks. Most Australians and Japanese give Clinton a positive rating and Trump a negative one. The major party nominees are less well-known in China and India.

...People surveyed in Europe and Asia generally have a negative opinion of Russian President Vladimir Putin. This includes more than eight-in-ten in Spain (88%), Sweden (87%), Poland (86%) and the Netherlands (84%), which have little or no confidence in the Russian leader’s handling of international affairs. Likewise, Putin is mistrusted by most in Australia (70% no confidence), Japan and Canada (both 65%).

Only in Greece and China (both 53%) do more than half have a positive impression of Putin’s role on the world stage.

...Having served as secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013, U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton receives positive support in most of the countries surveyed in Europe and Asia. This includes 83% in Sweden who have confidence in her ability to deal with world affairs and 79% who say this in Germany. Overall, half or more in seven of the 10 EU countries surveyed have confidence in Clinton, although many in Hungary and Poland express no opinion. Clinton receives her worst marks from Greece, where 78% have little or no confidence in her ability to handle world affairs.

Clinton also gets positive marks from Canadians (60% confidence) and Australians (70%), as well as from the Japanese (70%). Views of her among the Chinese are mixed, with 37% saying they have confidence in her, 35% saying they do not have confidence and 28% with no opinion. And in India, a majority (56%) has no opinion of the former secretary of state.

...Less than a quarter of people across all 15 countries surveyed express confidence in Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for U.S. president. In fact, overwhelming majorities in most of the countries surveyed have little or no confidence in his ability to handle international affairs. This includes 92% of Swedes, 89% of Germans, 88% of Dutch and 85% of both the French and British. This distaste is especially strong in Sweden, where 82% have no confidence at all in him.

Among people in Poland and Hungary, views of Trump also tend to be negative, although many people do not offer an opinion in these countries.

Most Australians (87%), Canadians (80%) and Japanese (82%) also lack confidence in Trump. In China, there is a split between those who have no confidence in Trump (40%) and those who do not offer an opinion (39%). And in India, 67% do not offer an opinion.

In Europe, positive opinions about Trump vary by political party support in many nations. For example, in Italy, supporters of Forza Italia, a center-right party founded by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who, like Trump, is independently wealthy), show more confidence in Trump (31% confidence) than do followers of the country’s Democratic Party (15%). Trump also receives greater support among those Italians who have a favorable view of the anti-immigrant and Euroskeptic Lega Nord party.

And in the UK, followers of the Euroskeptic, anti-immigrant party UKIP are also much more likely to voice confidence in Trump (30%) than those who follow the Conservative (13%) or Labour (8%) parties. However, it should be noted that while confidence for Trump is higher among these groups, it still represents very low levels of confidence in the presumptive GOP candidate.

Higher levels of confidence in Trump among Euroskeptic and anti-immigrant parties extend to other countries as well. In Germany, for example, people who have a favorable view of Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing and increasingly anti-immigrant party, are more likely to have confidence in Trump (19%), compared with those Germans with an unfavorable view of AfD (3%). And in Hungary, people who have a favorable view of Jobbik, a far-right nationalist party, are more likely to have confidence in Trump (28%) compared with those who have an unfavorable opinion of Jobbik (17%).

Additionally, positive views of Trump are tied to confidence in another international leader tested: Russian President Vladimir Putin. In all the countries surveyed with a large enough sample size to permit analysis, people who have confidence in Putin are more likely to express confidence in Trump. For instance, among those in Italy who have confidence in Putin to handle world affairs, 44% express confidence in Donald Trump. Meanwhile, among Italians who express little or no confidence in Putin, only 12% have confidence in Trump.