Steven Waldman’s Post

KEY POINTS: (1) Trump uses lies, smears, fake news and conspiracy theories to sway voters based on their fears, greed, ignorance and bigotries; (2) Trump grossly distorts his opponents’ records and proposals to make them sound unreasonable; (3) He exaggerates and twists the facts to make his record sound better than it is; (4) Trump relies on both well-worn and fresh claims of election rigging to suggest he can lose only if his opponents cheat; (5) He describes the U.S. as a nation “in ruins”; and (6) He makes unverifiable claims about what the world would have been like had he secured a second term.

Do your students know how taxing the rich even more could affect all Americans? David Packman says higher taxes on the rich will leave even those Americans better off. Brian Domitrovic claims higher taxes would bring even more exemptions for the rich. Who's right? Have your students decide with our Both Sides: Should We Tax the Rich More? video pairing and discussion questions: https://lnkd.in/eCAMawcd

Tech earnings impact, consumer confidence and ID protection Tax Tips. Doug Flynn, CFP on NewsNation with Connell McShane. youtu.be/3lf_sGDD3zU?si… via @YouTube #DougFlynn #FinancialPlanning #NewsNationNow #TechEarnings #Microsoft #Alphabet #Google #UPS #ConsumerConfidence #TaxTips #identityprotection #idtheft #IPPin

Democrats love to explain to Republicans how things they wish to do to advance their political agenda are following the law. As if just doing things by the book makes it right. Certainly, we see this kind of rationalization on a daily basis when it comes to their election interference in the lawfare they engage in to prevent Donald Trump from getting re-elected. But, it certainly doesn't stop there. As mentioned in an essay yesterday, Biden's regulatory agencies are also operating in a predatory fashion to hound Elon Musk and his companies with a barrage of investigations. And as we are seeing in the Supreme Court speech case of Murphy v. Missouri, the government is arguing that it ought to be able to dictate what Internet companies can or can't publish under the broad theory of "protecting the public." In today's WSJ, the lead editorial brings fresh evidence of the tyranny of the left in using "legal" power to strip Americans of their rights. You may not be aware of it, but apparently California's Governor, Gavin Newsom, in conjunction with Biden's EPA has carved out an exemption for California from any future efforts to sell gasoline powered vehicles in California after 2035. That is, California can require every car sold in California after 2035 to be an Electric Vehicle and this is exempt from any Federal law or regulation. This is significant, since as the WSJ editors point out, as California goes so goes the nation. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, car companies have have hedged their bets and voluntarily agreed that they will not challenge the California law. In return, Newsom has promised them reduced fines for non-compliance which California will use to promote electrification. If you aren't quite following this, let's just keep in simple. Car manufacturers cannot afford to lose Californians as customers for their cars, so they caved to Newsom's demands. As a result, the WSJ editors write "the biggest losers of this regulatory deal will be Americans across the country who will have fewer gas powered options. California is imposing its EV mandate nationwide by using regulation to take auto makers hostage." And the great part of this folks, is it is all being done LEGALLY." So, I am sure Democrats will assure us that that makes it okay. Your rights are being taken from you, but its all legal. Trump had warned us that the Democrats are coming after him first since he poses an immediate threat to their power. But, with Newsom waiting in the wings, you can just look over at California to see what is in store for you in 2028. It would be the administrative state for everyone, without the weather and the palm trees. The only thing in their way is Donald Trump.

BRUTAL POLL: More than half of Trump's flagship policy proposals are unpopular with voters, according to a recent poll 👇 Abolishing the Department of Education, cutting corporate taxes and giving the president more control over the civil service and independent federal agencies were amongst the least popular elements of Trump's insane agenda if he were to win in November. See the numbers here: https://bit.ly/3WeYUUk #GoogleProject2025

Tech earnings impact, consumer confidence and ID protection Tax Tips. Doug Flynn, CFP on NewsNation with Connell McShane. youtu.be/3lf_sGDD3zU?si… #DougFlynn #FinancialPlanning #NewsNationNow #TechEarnings #Microsoft #Alphabet #Google #UPS #ConsumerConfidence #TaxTips #identityprotection #idtheft #IPPin

Billionaires aren’t just supporting Trump for the tax cuts. As Peter Thiel once admitted: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Make no mistake: The goal of American oligarchy is to tear down democracy itself. Robert Reich is telling you the truth but so is #Project2025! Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies. What is Project 2025 and what does it have to do with a second Trump term? https://lnkd.in/ekr3Hdqx

I see all the articles about rule changes as a pathway to get Democratic support to keep McCarthy as Speaker. The thing is, Democrats are demanding things that no Republican will agree to. But perhaps that's the point. Democrats are basically saying to McCarthy, "You want our support? Fine – but you're going to have to cough up even more power, not just for yourself but also for your entire conference, than you have without us." I could be happy with McCarthy as Speaker and Democrats in charge of a bunch of committees, with power to subpoena witnesses and evidence, and also with power to force bills to the floor for a full vote. After all, when was the last time the minority Party had such power? Certainly not in my lifetime. Of course, there is the minor detail that no Republican would go along with it unless they were so desperate to keep McCarthy in as their titular leader and knew that they were going to lose to the uber-MAGAts without our help. Frankly, I don't think that's the case. I would be very surprised if Gaetz got even 50 Republican votes for his motion to vacate. If Democrats stay out of this mess, either by not voting or by voting "Present," then Gaetz needs 111 to succeed. After the 15-ballot debacle that was the original process to elect a Speaker, and that was when the conference in general had settled on their Speaker, there's no way you're going to find 111 Republicans who want to go through that process – or worse – again. So while all this speculation in the media can be fun to watch, the odds of any of it actually happening approach zero as a limit.

In a surprising and controversial move, Governor Kathy Hochul has unveiled plans to allocate tax dollars for the monitoring of social media platforms. The stated objective is to counter what she deems as "negative" content, but this initiative has ignited a heated debate about the boundaries of government intervention and free speech. Critics argue that this move is akin to Democrats utilizing public funds to censor what they perceive as "wrongthink." The decision to use taxpayer money for social media monitoring has sparked a broader conversation about the delicate balance between protecting public discourse and potentially infringing on democratic values. Governor Hochul, however, remains steadfast in her decision, expressing pride in the effort to combat what she sees as harmful narratives circulating on social media platforms. Supporters of the move contend that monitoring is a necessary step to safeguard public discourse from the perils of misinformation and negativity. As the controversy unfolds, the use of taxpayer dollars to monitor social media raises crucial questions about the ever-shifting landscape between governmental authority and individual freedoms. The ongoing debate reflects the challenges society faces in navigating the complexities of digital communication while upholding the principles of free expression and maintaining a healthy public discourse. This situation serves as a poignant reminder that the intersection of technology, governance, and individual rights requires continuous scrutiny and thoughtful consideration. As citizens grapple with the implications of this decision, the evolving dynamics underscore the need for a nuanced approach to addressing the challenges posed by the digital age. Read more at the link in our bio. #KathyHochul Video credit: Unknown