Whatever you think of President Trump, you have to admit that he’s an astute reader of politics. So he was right when he told Bloomberg News reporters Thursday that, although he was insisting on total capitulation from Canada in the negotiations over a new North American Free Trade Agreement, he couldn’t say so publicly. Doing so would be “so insulting” to the Canadians, Trump reportedly said, “they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”
Unfortunately for Trump, those remarks — which were supposed to be kept off the record — showed up Friday in one of Canada’s largest newspapers, the Toronto Star. Which splashed them across the top of its website under the headline, “Bombshell leak to Toronto Star upends NAFTA talks: In secret ‘so insulting’ remarks, Trump says he isn’t compromising at all with Canada.”
We should not be surprised, then, that negotiators for the United States and Canada were unable to reach a deal on NAFTA by Trump’s self-imposed deadline of Friday. For now at least, Canada appears to be, umm, not totally capitulating. Although negotiations will continue, it’s not clear whether there will be a new deal signed by the end of the year, or whether NAFTA will be replaced with just a bilateral agreement between the United States and Mexico.
In less than two years — on April 1, 2020 — the federal government will for the first time rely on the internet to conduct the decennial census used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives, set legislative and congressional district boundary lines, and determine how much federal funding goes where.
But it looks like the Census Bureau has a long way to go to be ready on time. A Government Accountability Office report released Thursday said that “as of June 2018, the Bureau had identified nearly 3,100 security weaknesses that will need to be addressed in the coming months.” But it has fallen behind on its testing schedule and has failed to fill 33 of 58 positions overseeing the contractor hired to manage the technology, which “adds risk that the office may not be able to provide adequate oversight of contractor cost, schedule, and performance.”
Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party... it’s time to #BoycottInNOut - let Trump and his cronies support these creeps... perhaps animal style!https://t.co/9zkdFaG5CJ
Apparently not, thanks to a tweet by California Democratic Party Chairman Eric C. Bauman calling on Democrats to boycott Southern California’s own In-N-Out Burger because the company dropped a wad of cash on the state Republican Party.
That seems nakedly political on its face. But before you swear off the In-N-Out drive-through, here’s some food for thought: The fast food chain is hardly the only big business to donate to the California Republican Party. So have other companies that you may have heard of: Facebook, Microsoft and the parent company of Disneyland. Oh, and Verizon, Target and Southern California Edison, which supplies electricity to much of the greater Los Angeles area. And that’s just a small sample.
Beto O'Rourke didn't need anyone's help to look cool.
He's the young Democrat challenging incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) this fall. Yes, the same Cruz who is so legendarily unlikable that former Vice President Joe Biden once joked that he told President Obama to nominate him to the Supreme Court — because then "you'll have eight vacancies."
Voters aren't huge fans either. In polls measuring both job approval (how well voters think he's doing at his job) and favorability (how much they like him in general), the majority of respondents fell into the "yeah, that guy’s terrible" camp.
At a lovefest with his evangelical supporters on Monday night at the White House, President Trump boasted about having gotten “rid of” a provision in tax law that prevents churches from endorsing political candidates.
“They really have silenced you,” Trump told the evangelical ministers, according to a recording quoted by the New York Times. “But now you’re not silenced anymore.”
Not for the first time, Trump had his facts wrong.
Doesn’t the U.S. Department of Justice have better things to do than threaten cities trying to save people from overdosing on opioids?
California is among a handful of states and cities exploring whether to open safe drug injection sites, clean clinic-like facilities where addicts can use their illicitly obtained drugs under medical supervision so they don’t accidentally give themselves a lethal dose like some 64,000 Americans did in 2016, the most recent year with good data.
President Trump weighed in again Tuesday on the alleged social media conspiracy against conservatives, this time singling out Alphabet subsidiary Google. You and I might think that news and views from the right (or any ideological vantage point) are surpassingly easy to find online. But Trump argues that Google is doing its part to change that:
....results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!
Trump evidently based his tweets on reporting by PJ Media’s Paula Bolyard, who compared the results of a Google News search for Trump against a “media bias” chart developed by right-of-center investigative journalist (and vaccine skeptic) Sharyl Attkisson. Even if you don’t accept the findings of the chart, you have to concede one of Bolyard’s points: that Google’s results heavily favor popular mass-market media outlets.
But here’s the thing. If you compare the search results for “President Trump” on Google against the results from any other search engine — Bing, say, or DuckDuckGo — you’ll get very similar links. So, too, if you search Google for any other topic. Big outlets dominate. (One of which, by the way, is Fox News, which is the most effective pro-Trump outlet on the planet.)
Let’s stipulate, as the lawyers say, that an Italian archbishop had an ideological ax to grind when he claimed that Pope Francis lifted the restrictions his predecessor had placed on a cardinal accused of sexual misconduct. Go ahead and assume for the sake of argument that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano — a former Vatican ambassador in Washington, D.C., — was disgruntled and out for revenge.
That doesn’t mean the pope can continue to refuse to comment on it.
Vigano accused Francis of reversing a decision by Pope Benedict XVI to impose limitations on the activities of then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, D.C., who according to news reports had a a 50-year history of sexual relations with male seminarians and young priests. (After a church investigation found credible an accusation that McCarrick also had abused a minor, Francis accepted his resignation from the College of Cardinals.)