­
The Moderate Voice | The Reporters

No Satire this Time

Except, perhaps, for this cartoon by Dave Granlund courtesy of Cagle Cartoons, Inc.

A few days ago, I tried my hand at satire, using Trump’s ridiculous levying of tariffs on a couple of remote penguin-inhabited islands as background.

It didn’t work too well.

From now on I will leave the art (science?) of satire to others, including the master of American political satire, the one and only Andy Borowitz, a man wo has been crafting political satire for the now-famous satirical column, “the Borowitz Report,” since 2001.

Political satire can be highly effective to “criticize or ridicule aspects of government and public affairs” and can be highly effective in advancing political arguments.

But sometimes, times are so perilous, conditions so desperate, actions so egregious, that neither humor, nor parody, nor satire seem appropriate.

Borowitz understands that.

This weekend, summarizing recent Democratic achievements and celebrating the hundreds of thousands of protesters participating in more than 1,200 rallies nationwide, Borowitz wrote the following short piece containing nothing “satirical,” just the truth.

Thank you, Andy.

To read the numerous comments on the “Hands Off” protests, please click here :

WE WON

The corporate media said that the American people support Trump’s extremist agenda…

…and that Democrats are in disarray…

…and that there is no resistance.

Last week proved the corporate media wrong—about everything.

For 25 hours, Senator Cory Booker eviscerated Trump from the floor of the US Senate, winning worldwide acclaim.

In two special elections in Florida, Republicans wildly underperformed Trump’s 2024 results, while his own poll numbers plummeted to new lows.

In Wisconsin, a fired-up Democratic Party produced historic turnout and a blowout victory, hurtling ketamine freak Elon Musk into political oblivion.

On Wall Street, investors turned on Trump ferociously after his disastrous “Liberation Day” display of economic idiocy.

And on Saturday, people around the world—including many of you—made history by hitting the streets for massive anti-Trump protests.

Thousands of TBR community members joined me for a live chat over the weekend. (We did not discuss Houthi bombing targets.) Here are some of their inspiring comments about the Hands Off! protests they attended.

I couldn’t be prouder to be a part of this community—and this movement—with you.

Love,

Andy

The post No Satire this Time appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

MUSK FLOPS IN WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT RACE: LIBERAL JUDGE ELECTED BY LARGE MARGIN

And they say Disney’s live action remake of Snow White is a flop.

Elon Musk’s full-court press to defeat a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court judge bombed — bigtime — and now it’s the Democrats who are singing “Whistle While You Work.”

The polarizing billionaire turned a vote for a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice into a referendum on him and President Donald Trump. But for once nationalization of a local election wasn’t soley focused on President Donald Trump. Musk spent more than $25 million to try and defeat liberal Susan Crawford and elect Brad Schimel, a former Republican Attorney general and County circuit judge. Musk held a big ra;;u Sunday night. He proclaimed the future of civilization was at stake in the vote. He Musk handed out two $1 million checks to two people connected with Republican causes in a kind of lottery. .

Musk was accused of trying to bribe voters and buy a Supreme Court just as many believe he bought himself the White House and an unprecedented position of power in the Trump administration. Democrats turned his exceedingly high profile and increasing unpopularity into their mantra and the vote became about Musk. Could his money and people he brought in to canvass voters pay off?

It didn’t. NBC News:

Susan Crawford has won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, NBC News projects, allowing liberals to maintain their narrow majority on the battleground state’s highest court — and defying Elon Musk after he spent millions of dollars to oppose her.

Crawford, a Dane County circuit judge who was backed by Democrats, secured a 10-year term on the court over Brad Schimel, a Waukesha County circuit judge and a former Republican attorney general. As the first major battleground state election of President Donald Trump’s second term, the technically nonpartisan contest drew national attention and became the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history.

The outcome is a setback for Trump and his billionaire adviser, Musk. Trump endorsed Schimel in the final stretch of the race, while Musk injected himself into the center of it, spending huge sums of money, visiting Wisconsin days out from Election Day and frequently posting about the race on his X feed. In turn, Democrats and progressive groups made Musk their primary villain, attacking his influence on the race and his efforts to slash federal jobs and the government through the Department of Government Efficiency.

“As a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin,” Crawford told supporters Tuesday night. “And we won.”

In a brief concession speech, Schimel said, “I knew I had to put my all in,” but that “you gotta accept the results.”

And:

Crawford’s victory also means liberals will maintain a 4-3 advantage on the court for at least another year heading into a term when it could decide cases about abortion rights, unions and collective bargaining rights, and congressional maps and redistricting.

Despite the more than $15 million that Musk and groups affiliated with him dropped into the race, Democrats overall held a narrow ad spending advantage, according to AdImpact.

Democratic-aligned groups spent millions of dollars blasting Musk as “trying to buy” Schimel and the election, while Crawford herself repeatedly used Musk as a foil at her campaign events. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin launched a town-hall tour dubbed “People v. Musk,” on which surrogates including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz further bashed Musk and DOGE.

Some also pointed out that Musk’s electric car company, Tesla, sued in Wisconsin this year challenging a state law banning carmakers from owning dealerships. The case could end up before the state Supreme Court.

Democrats also attacked Musk’s offer of $100 to Wisconsin voters to sign a petition to oppose “activist judges.” The Democratic state attorney general, Josh Kaul, also unsuccessfully tried to block Musk from giving $1 million to people to be “spokesmen” for the petition at a rally Sunday.

Conversely, groups on the left largely stayed away from making the race about Trump, who narrowly carried the state in two of the past three presidential elections.

The anti-Musk playbook is one that Democrats could seek to replicate in other elections this year and in the 2026 midterms.

Two key questions:
**Does this mean Trump will begin to reign Musk in and not be joined at the political hip?
**Will such a dramatic failure of Musk’s clout, persuasiveness and money embolden GOP members of Congress who are unhappy with his role?

ID 73215064 ©
Sebast1an | Dreamstime.com

The post MUSK FLOPS IN WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT RACE: LIBERAL JUDGE ELECTED BY LARGE MARGIN appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

Inside ICE Air: Flight Attendants on Deportation Planes Say Disaster Is “Only a Matter of Time”

Inside ICE Air: Flight Attendants on Deportation Planes Say Disaster Is “Only a Matter of Time”

by McKenzie Funk

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Reporting Highlights

  • Unexpected Role: Flight attendants were told they would fly rock bands, sports teams and sun-seekers. Then Global Crossing Airlines started expanding into federal deportation flights.
  • Human Struggles: Some flight attendants said they ignored orders not to interact with detainees. “I’d say ‘hola’ back,” said one flight attendant. “We’re not jerks.”
  • Safety Concerns: Flight attendants received training in how to evacuate passengers but said they weren’t told how to usher out detainees whose hands and legs were bound by shackles.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

The deportation flight was in the air over Mexico when chaos erupted in the back of the plane, the flight attendant recalled. A little girl had collapsed. She had a high fever and was taking ragged, frantic breaths.

The flight attendant, a young woman who went by the nickname Lala, said she grabbed the plane’s emergency oxygen bottle and rushed past rows of migrants chained at the wrists and ankles to reach the girl and her parents.

By then, Lala was accustomed to the hard realities of working charter flights for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She’d learned to obey instructions not to look the passengers in the eyes, not to greet them or ask about their well-being. But until the girl collapsed, Lala had managed to escape an emergency.

Lala worked for Global Crossing Airlines, the dominant player in the loose network of deportation contractors known as ICE Air. GlobalX, as the charter company is also called, is lately in the news. Two weeks ago, it helped the Trump administration fly hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador despite a federal court order blocking the deportations, triggering a showdown that experts fear could become a full-blown constitutional crisis.

In interviews with ProPublica, Lala and six other current and former GlobalX flight attendants provided a window into a part of the deportation process that is rarely seen and little understood. For migrants who have spent months or years trying to reach this country and live here, it is the last act, the final bit of America they may experience.

All but one of the flight attendants requested anonymity or asked that only a nickname be used, fearing retribution or black marks as they looked for new jobs in an insular industry.

Because ICE, GlobalX and other charter carriers did not respond to questions after being provided with detailed lists of this story’s findings, the flight attendants’ individual accounts are hard to verify. But their stories are consistent with one another. They are also generally consistent with what has been said about ICE Air in legal filings , news accounts , academic research and publicly released copies of the ICE Air Operations Handbook .

That morning over Mexico, Lala said, the girl’s oxygen saturation level was 70% — perilously low compared with a healthy person’s 95% or higher. Her temperature was 102.3 degrees. The flight had a nurse on contract who worked alongside its security guards. But beyond giving the girl Tylenol, the nurse left the situation in Lala’s hands, she recalled.

Lala broke the rule about talking to detainees. The parents told Lala their daughter had a history of asthma. The mom, who Lala said had epilepsy, seemed on the verge of her own medical crisis.

Lala placed the oxygen mask on the girl’s face. The nurse removed her socks to keep her from further overheating. Lala counted down the minutes, praying for the girl to keep breathing.

The stories shared by ICE Air flight attendants paint a different picture of deportations from the one presented to the public, especially under President Donald Trump. On social media, the White House has depicted a military operation carried out with ruthless efficiency, using Air Force C-17s, ICE agents in tactical vests and soldiers in camo.

The reality is that 85% of the administration’s “removal” flights — 254 flights as of March 21, according to the advocacy group Witness at the Border — have been on charter planes. Military flights have now all but ceased . While there are ICE officers and hired security guards on the charters, the crew members on board are civilians, ordinary people swept up in something most didn’t knowingly sign up for.

When the flight attendants joined GlobalX, it was a startup with big plans. It sold investors and new hires alike on a vision of VIP clients, including musicians and sports teams, and luxury destinations, especially in the Caribbean. “You can’t beat the eXperience,” read a company tagline.

But as the airline grew, more and more of its planes were filled with migrants in chains. Some flight attendants were livid about it.

Last year, an anonymous GlobalX employee sent an all-caps, all-staff screed that ricocheted around the startup. “WHERE IS THE COMPANY GOING?” the email asked. “YOU SIGNED A 5 YEAR CONTRACT WITH ICE? … WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS BECOMING A PRESTIGE CHARTER AIRLINE?”

One flight attendant said he kept waiting for the sports teams his new bosses had talked about as he flew deportation routes. “You know, the NFL charters, the NBA charters, whatever the hockey one is …” he said.

A second said his planes’ air conditioning kept breaking — an experience consistent with at least two publicly reported onboard incidents — and their lavatories kept breaking, something another flight attendant reported as well. But the planes kept flying. “They made us flush with water bottles,” he said.

But the flight attendants were most concerned about their inability to treat their passengers humanely — and to keep them safe. (In 2021, an ICE spokesperson told the publication Capital & Main that the agency “follows best practices when it comes to the security, safety and welfare of the individuals returned to their countries of origin.”)

They worried about what would happen in an emergency. Could they really get over a hundred chained passengers off the plane in time?

“They never taught us anything regarding the immigration flights,” one said. “They didn’t tell us these people were going to be shackled, wrists to fucking ankles.”

“We have never gotten a clear answer on what we do in an ICE Air evacuation,” another said. “They will not give us an answer.”

“It’s only a matter of time,” a third said, before a deportation flight ends in disaster.

Lala didn’t think she had a chance at a flight attendant job. She hadn’t, in truth, remembered applying to GlobalX until a recruiter called to say the startup was coming to her city. “But I guess I did apply through LinkedIn?” she said. She’d been working an office job — long hours, little flexibility — and was looking for something new.

The job interviews were held at a resort hotel. The room was packed with dozens of aspirants when Lala showed up. After the first round, only about 20 were asked to stay. She couldn’t believe she was one of them. After the second round came a job offer: $26 an hour plus a daily expense allowance. Soon Lala got a uniform: a blue cardigan, a white polo shirt and an eye-catching scarf in cyan and light green.

For part of her Federal Aviation Administration-mandated four-week training, her class stayed in a motel with a pool at the edge of Miami International Airport. Just across the street, on the fourth floor of a concrete-clad office building ringed by palm trees, was GlobalX’s headquarters.

“In the beginning, we were told that because it’s a charter, it’s only gonna be elites, celebrities,” Lala said. “Everybody was really excited.”

But flying was not going to be all glitz. The real reason for having flight attendants is safety. GlobalX was certified by the FAA as a Part 121 scheduled air carrier, the same as United or Delta, and it and its crew members were subject to the same strict standards.

“We’re there to evacuate you,” one recruit told ProPublica. “Yes, we make good drinks, but we evacuate you.”

Lala’s class practiced water landings in the pool at the nearby Pan Am Flight Academy. They practiced door drills — yelling out commands, shoving open heavy exit doors — in a replica Airbus A320 cabin. They learned CPR and how to put out fires. They took written and physical tests, and if they didn’t score at least 90%, they had to retake them.

They were reminded, over and over, that their job was a vocation, one with a professional code: No matter who the passengers were, flight attendants were in charge of the cabin, responsible for safety in the air.

Lala’s official “airman” certificate arrived from the FAA a few weeks after training was done. She was cleared to fly, ready to see the world.

But what she would see wasn’t what she signed up for. The company was growing beyond glamorous charters. GlobalX was moving into the deportation business.

Her bosses delivered the news casually, she recalled: “It was like, ‘Oh yeah, we got a government contract.’”

The new graduates were offered a single posting: Harlingen, Texas. Deportation flights were five days a week, sometimes late into the night. Lala went to Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia and, for refueling, Panama.

A standard flight had more than a dozen private security guards — contractors working for the firm Akima — along with a single ICE officer, two nurses, and a hundred or more detainees. (Akima did not respond to a request for comment.) The guards were in charge of delivering food and water to the detainees and taking them to the lavatories. This left the flight attendants, whose presence was required by the FAA, with little to do.

“Arm and disarm doors, that was our duty,” Lala said.

The flights had their own set of rules, which the crew members said they learned from a company policy manual or from chief flight attendants. Don’t talk to the detainees. Don’t feed them. Don’t make eye contact. Don’t walk down the aisles without a guard escorting you. Don’t sit in aisle seats, where detainees could get close to you. Don’t wear your company-issued scarf because of “safety concerns that a detainee might grab it and use it against us,” Lala said.

“You don’t do nothing,” said a member of another GlobalX class. “Just sit down in your seats and be quiet.” If a detainee looked at him, he was supposed to look out the window.

A rare public statement from the company about life aboard ICE Air came in a 2023 earnings call with GlobalX founder and then-CEO Ed Wegel, when he discussed the company’s work for federal agencies like ICE. GlobalX employees “essentially don’t do much on the airplane,” Wegel said. “Our flight attendants are there in case of an emergency. The passengers are monitored by guards that are placed on board the airplane by one of those agencies.”

Fielding a question about how GlobalX ensures passengers are treated humanely, Wegel continued: “There have been threats made to our crew members, and they’re especially trained to deal with those. But we haven’t seen any mistreatment at all.”

Flight attendants said they had little to do but sit in their jumpseats after delivering the preflight safety briefing in English to the mostly Spanish-speaking passengers. Above 10,000 feet, the two in the rear usually moved to passenger rows near the cockpit, then sat again. Some did crosswords. Others took photos out the window. On a deportation to Guatemala, one saw his first erupting volcano.

Lala had been scared before her first deportation flight, worried that violence might break out. But fear soon gave way to discomfort at how detainees were treated. “Not being able to serve them, not being able to look at them, I didn’t think that was right,” she said.

Some flight attendants, drawn to the profession because they liked taking care of people, couldn’t help but break protocol with passengers. “If they said ‘hola’ or something,” one said, “I’d say ‘hola’ back. We’re not jerks.”

Another recalled taking a planeload of children and their escorts on a domestic transfer from the southern border to an airport in New York. He tried to slip snacks to the kids. “Even the chaperones were like, ‘Don’t give them any food,’” he said. “And I’m like, ‘Where is your humanity?’” (A second flight attendant said that children on a New York flight were fed by their escorts.)

While flight attendants were allowed to interact with the guards, the dynamic was uncomfortable. It came down to a question of who was in charge — and which agency, ICE or the FAA, ultimately held sway. (The FAA declined to comment on this story and directed questions to ICE.)

The guards often asked flight attendants to heat up the food they brought from home. They asked for drinks, for ice. “They treated us like we were their maids,” said Akilah Sisk, a former flight attendant from Texas.

“In their eyes, the detainees are not the passengers,” another flight attendant said. “The passengers are the guards. And we’re there for the guards.”

Some guards thumbed their noses at the FAA safety rules that flight attendants were supposed to enforce while airborne, multiple flight attendants recalled. “One reported me because I asked him to sit down in the last 10 minutes,” Sisk said. “But you’re still on a freaking plane. You gotta listen to our words.”

Flight attendants said that if they told guards to fasten seatbelts during takeoff or stow carry-ons under a seat, they risked getting reported to their bosses at GlobalX, who they said wanted to keep ICE happy. The guards would complain to the in-flight supervisor, Sisk said, and eventually it would get back to the flight attendant.

“We’d get an email from somebody in management: ‘Why are you guys causing problems?’” another flight attendant recalled. “They were more worried about losing the contract than about anything else.”

Nothing bothered flight attendants more than the fact that most of their passengers were in chains. What would happen if a flight had to be evacuated?

Most of the migrants crowding the back seats of ICE Air’s planes have not been, historically , convicted criminals. ICE makes restraints mandatory nonetheless. “Detainees transported by ICE Air aircraft will be fully restrained by the use of handcuffs, waist chains, and leg irons,“ reads an unredacted version of the 2015 ICE Air Operations Handbook, which was obtained by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group.

The handbook allows for other equipment “in special circumstances, i.e., spit masks, mittens, leg braces, cargo straps, humane restraint blanket, etc.” Multiple lawsuits on behalf of African asylum-seekers concern the use of one such item, known as the Wrap , a cross between a straitjacket and a sleeping bag. A flight attendant said detainees restrained in the device are strapped upright in their seats or, if less compliant, lengthwise across a row of seats. Getting “burritoed, I call it,” the person said.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties investigated the asylum-seekers’ complaints and found ICE lacked “sufficient policies” on the Wrap, but how the immigration agency addressed the finding is not publicly known. ICE responded to one lawsuit by saying detainees were not abused; it said another should be dismissed, in part because it was filed in the wrong place. The cases are pending.

Use of the Wrap continues. A video from Seattle’s Boeing Field taken in February shows officers and guards carrying a wrapped migrant into the cabin of a deportation plane.

Neither the ICE Air handbook, nor FAA regulations, nor flight attendant training in Miami explained how to empty a plane full of people whose movements were, by design, so severely hampered. Shackled detainees didn’t even qualify as “able-bodied” enough to sit in exit rows.

To flight attendants, the restraints seemed at odds with the FAA’s “90-second rule,” a decades-old manufacturing standard that says an aircraft must be built for full evacuation in 90 seconds even with half the exits blocked.

Lala and others said no one told them how to evacuate passengers in chains. “Honestly, I don’t know what we would do,” she said.

The flight attendants are not alone in voicing concerns.

In an interview with ProPublica, Bobby Laurie, an airline safety expert and former flight attendant, called the arrangement on ICE Air flights “disturbing.”

“Part of flight attendant training is locating those passengers who can help you in an evacuation,” Laurie told ProPublica. That would have to be the guards. “But if they have to help you,” who is helping the detainees, Laurie wondered.

According to formal ICE Air incident reports reviewed by Capital & Main , the deportation network had at least six accidents requiring evacuations between 2014 and 2019. In at least two cases, both on a carrier called World Atlantic, the evacuations were led not by flight attendants but by untrained guards. Both took longer than 90 seconds, though not by much: two-and-a-half minutes for the first, “less than 2 minutes” for the next. But in a third case, it took seven minutes for 115 shackled detainees to escape a smoke-filled jet.

In one of the World Atlantic incidents, part of the landing gear broke, a wing caught fire and the smell of burning rubber seeped in, according to investigative records obtained by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights. In an email to ICE Air officials, an agency employee aboard the plane later wrote that flight attendants made no emergency announcements for passengers. The flight attendants simply got themselves out.

The ICE officer, guards and nurse were “confused on what to do and in which direction to exit during distress,” the officer wrote. He said that other than the flight crew, “no one has received any training on emergency evacuation situations.”

The University of Washington’s collection does not include findings or recommendations from ICE based on what happened, and ICE did not say what they were when asked by ProPublica. The National Transportation Safety Board said that after the accident, World Atlantic launched a campaign to reinspect landing gear, gave employees and contractors further training, and revised its procedures for inspections. The airline did not respond to questions from ProPublica.

Other reports obtained by the University of Washington mention fuel spills, loss of cabin air pressure and a “large altercation” on ICE Air after 2019 but no more evacuations, at least as of June 2022. More recent incidents that have been mentioned in the press include an engine fire last summer on World Atlantic and a failed GlobalX air conditioning unit that sent 11 detainees to the hospital with “heat-related injuries.”

The rare guidance some flight attendants said they received on carrying out ICE Air evacuations came during briefings from pilots. What they heard, they said, was chilling and went against their training.

“Just get up and leave,” one recalled a GlobalX pilot telling him. “That’s it. … Save your life first.”

He understood the instructions to mean that evacuating detainees was not a priority, or even the flight attendants’ responsibility. The detainees were in other people’s hands, or in no one’s.

When asked if they got similar guidance from pilots, three flight attendants said they did not, and one did not answer. Two more, like the first, said pilots gave them instructions that they took to mean they shouldn’t help detainees after opening the exit doors.

“That was the normal briefing,” said a flight attendant from Lala’s class. “‘If a fire occurs in the cabin, if we land on water, don’t check on the immigrants. Just make sure that you and the guards and the people that work for the government get off.’”

“It was as if the detainees’ lives were worthless,” said the other.

The day the girl collapsed on Lala’s flight, the pilot turned the plane around and they crossed back into the United States.

The flight landed in Arizona. Paramedics rushed on board and connected the girl to their own oxygen bottle. They began shuttling her off the plane. Her parents tried to join. But the guards stopped the father.

Shocked, Lala approached the ICE officer in charge. “This is not OK!” she yelled. The mom had seizures. The family needed to stay together.

But the officer said it was impossible. Only one parent could go to the hospital. The other, as Lala understood it, “was going to get deported.”

Most of the flight attendants who spoke with ProPublica are now gone from GlobalX. Some left because they found other jobs. Some left even though they hadn’t. Some left because the charter company, as it focused more and more on deportations, shut down the hub in their city.

Lala eventually left because of the little girl and her family, because she couldn’t do the deportation flights anymore. Her GlobalX uniform hung in her closet for a time, a reminder of her career as a flight attendant. Recently, she said, she threw it away.

She never learned whether the little girl lived or died. Lala just watched her mom follow her off the plane, then watched the dad return to his seat.

“I cried after that,” she said. She bought her own ticket home.

The post Inside ICE Air: Flight Attendants on Deportation Planes Say Disaster Is “Only a Matter of Time” appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs — with the US hit hardest

Getty Images

Niven Winchester , Auckland University of Technology

We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations , including the United States itself.

The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).

The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.

Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study .

GDP impacts with retaliation

Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.



The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).

Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

GDP impacts without retaliation

In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.



Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.The Conversation

Niven Winchester , Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

The post New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs — with the US hit hardest appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

‘Find Your Fight:’ Activist’s Manual for Changemaking is a Rallying Cry and Wake-Up Call

By Michael R. Mantell, Ph.D.

Find Your Fight by Jay Ruderman isn’t just a book—I found it to be a rallying cry. A deeply personal, straight-to-the-heart call to action for anyone who feels that pull to create real, lasting change in the world. Ruderman, a lifelong champion of social justice and inclusion, doesn’t deal in vague ideals or abstract encouragement—he hands you the blueprint. This is about turning conviction into movement, passion into impact. It speaks clearly and is highly motivating.

What makes this newly released book stand out isn’t just its message—it’s the way Ruderman delivers it. He doesn’t just talk about the fight; he lives it. We need more of this. He brings the reader into his own journey, sharing both his victories and the roadblocks along the way. And that’s what makes it land so powerfully—his honesty, his experience, his unwavering belief that change isn’t reserved for the powerful or the well-connected. It’s for anyone willing to step up and claim their fight.

But this book isn’t just about his journey. Ruderman shines a light on other changemakers, proving that activism takes many shapes and forms. Whether your passion is disability rights, mental health, or any other social justice cause, this book doesn’t just inspire—it equips. It moves you from *caring* to *doing,” so essential today when many are on the sidelines of life. It’s time to do, not simply “stand with,” and Ruderman makes this case as clearly as can be.

Find Your Fight isn’t here to coddle you. It’s here to wake you up. To shake you out of waiting for the “perfect moment” and remind you that the time to act is now. If you’ve ever felt the urge to stand up for something bigger than yourself but didn’t know where to begin, this book hands you the map.

And Ruderman doesn’t stop at motivation—he offers a playbook. Some standout takeaways:

1. Choosing Your Cause with Heart: Passion is the fuel of activism. Ruderman drives home the point that when you fight for something you genuinely believe in, your conviction becomes contagious. Others feel it. Others join in.

2. The Power of Relentless Persistence: Ruderman echoes President Calvin Coolidge’s wisdom: “Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” Change doesn’t happen overnight—it happens because people refuse to quit.

3. Becoming an Expert:
If you’re going to advocate for something, *know your stuff*. Ruderman stresses that deep knowledge isn’t just an asset—it’s a necessity. Expertise earns credibility, influence, and, ultimately, results.

4. Finding Your People: No one fights alone. Ruderman highlights the power of collaboration—of bringing together people whose strengths complement your own, amplifying your impact through collective effort.

5. Not Being Afraid to Stir the Pot:
Change is disruptive by nature. Ruderman reminds us that controversy isn’t something to fear—it’s often a sign you’re pushing society forward. The discomfort is part of the process.

Through personal passion and strategic action, Find Your Fight offers more than inspiration—it provides the tools to turn conviction into real-world change.

At its core, this book is part memoir, part manual—an unfiltered, hard-earned guide to activism straight from someone who’s been in the trenches. Ruderman lays it all out—the struggles, the wins, the lessons learned—so that you don’t just walk away thinking about change. You walk away creating it.

Michael R. Mantell, Ph.D. is a San Diego-based retired psychologist, best-selling author, international speaker, and a highly sought after cognitive behavioral coach whose actionable, valuable, and practical work has been featured on Fox News, ABC-TV, NBC-TV, CBS-TV, The New York Times, and The Huffington Post.

The post ‘Find Your Fight:’ Activist’s Manual for Changemaking is a Rallying Cry and Wake-Up Call appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

CHEESEHEAD (CARTOON AND COLUMN)

I never thought Democrats had a chance in Florida.

Two special elections for Congress were held in Florida, both being strong Republican seats. One was the seat vacated by Michael Waltz who left to join the Trump administration where he could leak classified information on Signal group chats with other morons.

Democrats thought the seat was competitive, but Republican Randy Fines won last night by 14 points.

In the other district, vacated by Matt Giggity Gaetz, Democrats outspent Republican Jimmy Patronis yet still lost by 14.6 points. What were they thinking running a candidate named Gay in Florida, in Matt Gaetz’s old district, nonetheless?

This gives Republicans and Trump a House advantage of 220 to 213.

As I said, I didn’t believe Democrats had a shot in Florida. One indicator was that Elon Musk didn’t campaign and drop millions of dollars into those races…like he did in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, so it’s not Democrats versus Republicans. It’s Liberal versus Conservative. The court had a 4-3 Liberal majority last night, and today, it’s still a 4-3 liberal majority.

This race was the most expensive judicial contest in US history, with $90 million invested in the race, with $25 million of that coming from Elon Musk alone. That’s probably just claw machine money for him, but he still didn’t get to snatch a state supreme court seat and probably spent $25 million to catch a plushie saying, “Keep on truckin’.”

Liberal Susan Crawford defeated Conservative Brad Schimel by ten points last night. It wasn’t even close. How did Elon in a cheesy cheesehead not work?

Why is the Democratic win in Wisconsin significant and the GOP win in Florida not?

The two districts in Florida were already Republican, and one of them is the most conservative fucknut district in the nation. How are Democrats supposed to win where voters are racist and stupid enough to send Matt Gaetz to Congress five times? They might be more racist and stupid than Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert’s voters. If anything, Democrats can take comfort in that the Republicans’ margins of victories were 15 percent lower in those districts than last November.

This is bad news for Republicans in the midterms because when Trump isn’t on the ballot, fewer MAGAts vote. Republicans should enjoy that 220-213 House majority while it lasts because it won’t. We’re not going to talk about the Senate today.

Wisconsin is significantly different. Trump won the state last November…barely. The friends I made last July in Milwaukee told me they were afraid he’d win the state, and he did by less than one percent.

Special elections usually have lower voter turnout, and last night’s in Wisconsin was predicted to be tight. That was another failed prediction because the Liberal won 55-45. That’s a 10-point Democratic win in a state that has been decided by less than one point in each of the past three presidential races.

When I heard Elon was spending big money in Wisconsin on a state supreme court race, I knew Republicans were scared. And when I heard Elon was going to personally campaign in Wisconsin for a state supreme court race, I knew Republicans were stupid. Has no one shown Elon his polls?

A new Harvard/Harris poll shows that 49 percent hate Elon while 39 like him. But maybe Elon didn’t see the poll and only listened to Trump, who posted to Shit Social after the poll results were released, “Wow!!! People are loving Elon, a GREAT PATRIOT. Nice to see!!! DJT.”

If that’s what convinced Elon to go to Wisconsin to take a giant dump, thank you, DJT, you shit-fire smoldering dumbass. Speaking of the walking orange turd, his polls are down too. In fact, the only newly elected president to have polls worse than Trump’s is Donald Trump.

The only president worse than Trump is Trump. We didn’t need a second Trump administration to remind us how fucking horrible and rancid the first one was. Seriously, America, what’s wrong with you?

The good news here is that none of this bodes well for Trump winning a third term if he’s somehow able to destroy the Constitution first. The other good news is, he’s going to lose the House in 2026. The bad news for us is that he’s still going to “legislate” through executive orders for the next four years.

I can’t make predictions about the 2028 presidential election because I’m not confident we’ll have an election or at least a fair one in 2028. Do you think Trump is going to serve his term without engaging in fuckery with the elections? He has already issued an illegal executive order changing rules on national elections. Since when can a president single-handedly change election laws?

Our future elections will have the same integrity as the elections in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. By the way, I predict that over the next four years, some government structure or land will be named after Donald Trump. He may do it himself with an EO. They may create a monument identical to the Washington Monument and name it the Trump Monument, except it’ll have to be a lot smaller.

GO HERE TO READ THE REST.
Visit Clay Jones’ website and email him at clayjonz@gmail.com.

The post CHEESEHEAD (CARTOON AND COLUMN) appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

Even Penguins Are Plundering America

(It is very challenging to satirize a monumental political blunder – a trade war that is rapidly escalating and could devastate the world’s economy – but here it goes.)

Among the countries and territories affected by President Trump’s Liberation Day-announced expansive new tariffs are the Antarctic Heard Island and McDonald Islands, located more than 2,000 miles southwest of Perth, Western Australia, some of the most remote places on the planet.

Trump slapped a baseline 10% tariff on imports from those islands.

The mainstream media is having a field day mocking the tariffs solely because the islands are uninhabited, except for large populations of penguins, seals, albatrosses and other marine birds.

In 1987, the islands were designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site and are described in the CIA World Factbook as “80% ice-covered” and “bleak.”

And, indeed, Trump’s announcement of tariffs on these islands received an icy reception.

However, it is a well-known fact that — paraphrasing the President — “for decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by penguins near and far.”

He specifically pointed to the 10% tariff imposed by the self-anointed Emperor Penguin on krill, squid and fish generously flown to the islands daily from U.S. waters, in addition to other shady “currency manipulation and trade barriers” perpetrated by the Penguin regime to rip off American taxpayers.

The president had no other choice but to impose a 10% reciprocal tariff on all penguin-crafted, decorative ice cubes imported from the islands, as the lack of reciprocity constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.

The president warned, “Should the Heard Island and McDonald Islands penguins retaliate against the United States in response to this action, I will fly all the penguins to an undisclosed, tropical location for intensive re-education.” And, he added, “they can forget about any swimming, walking or toboggan activities.”

They could soon be joined there by other tariff-abusing creatures from Svalbard and Jan Mayen, from Norfolk Island, from the Christmas and Cocos Keeling islands and, let us not forget, from the collection of islands making up the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

Hopefully, US military personnel at the Diego Garcia base would be exempted from such relocation.

Also curiously exempted is Russia.

The post Even Penguins Are Plundering America appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

Don’t give me your “traditional values” crap.

If your so-called “traditional values” benefit your own ethnic group while harming others, then you are one the baddies even if you don’t realize it. After all, the expression “traditional values” isn’t a synonym for godly values or good values.

The “Are we the baddies?” question comes from the British sketch-comedy TV series That Mitchell and Webb Look . One of the show’s episodes features a sketch depicting a scene from World War II. In the scene, two German Schutzstaffel (SS) officers are talking to each other, when one asks the other, “Are we the baddies?”

That sketch gains new relevance with the way that some of Donald Trump’s current supporters act.

One such supporter is USA Today columnist Nicole Russell.

In an opinion column published by USA Today, Russell complains about being hated, mocked and scorned because of her so-called “conservative” beliefs.

Here is an excerpt from her column :

“As a conservative woman living in Texas, I often feel like I’m living a dual reality. I’m a mom and a writer, but that’s not all. I go to church, laugh with friends and wave at my neighbors while we are walking our dogs. . . But online, in the legacy news media and in my increasingly ugly inbox, I live in a different world. In that world, I’m portrayed – and viewed – through a singular lens: my conservative beliefs. As such, I am easy to hate, mock and scorn.

I am far from the only woman who experiences this abuse. Progressives claim to value women, but they routinely demonize conservative women who refuse to conform to the molds that the left tries to force us into. That’s not only bad for women like me and for our society, but it’s also a poor reflection of reality. Tens of millions of American women embrace traditional values and conservative ideas.”

In that last sentence, Russell does not make a good argument because she fails to define what she means by “traditional values and conservative ideas.”

For example, in the mid-19th Century, plenty of white Southerners attended churches every Sunday. They also wanted to conserve the white Southern traditional value of keeping Black Americans enslaved. So, they supported the formation of the Confederacy, which was formed for the purpose of conserving the right of Southern states to enslave Black Americans.

In Nazi Germany of the 20th Century, plenty of Germans wanted to conserve the German traditional value of anti-semitism. So, they supported Adolph Hitler becoming Germany’s chancellor.

Does Nicole Russell believe that “traditional values” require one to support Donald Trump? If she believes that, then how would she respond to the group Christians Against Trump ?

Here is how that group describes itself:

“We are Christians from diverse theological and political backgrounds, united in our commitment to love, justice, and the teachings of Christ. We recognize that Christians may disagree on certain political issues, but we are united in our belief that the words and actions of the criminal and felon Donald Trump not only fail to espouse Christian values, but are in direct opposition to many of them. These actions undermine compassion, integrity, and respect for all individuals—values that lie at the heart of our faith.”

In short, the members of Christians Against Trump are opposed to Donald Trump because his words and actions contradict their Christian values.

Nicole Russell ends hers opinion column with this sentence: “I’m done with seeing progressives in politics and journalism spew hate at women for embracing conservative political and social values.”

Again, just what are those “conservative social values” that Russell is referring to?

She doesn’t identify such values as being godly or as being good for all who live in the USA.

So, to Nicole Russell and like-minded people, I say, “Don’t give me your traditional values crap. Neither the word conservative nor the word traditional is a synonym for godly or good. Sure, your particular values may be mocked, but the values of Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are also mocked. If people are mocking your values, then perhaps the problem is with your values, not with them.”

The post Don’t give me your “traditional values” crap. appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

Stop Comparing Trump’s Lawbreaking to Caesar Crossing the Rubicon

The Roman General Broke One Law and Was Met With War. The U.S. President Is Breaking Laws Left and Right—Without Major Resistance

By Michele Renee Salzman

Commentators love to compare Donald Trump’s norm-breaking ways to Julius Caesar’s momentous decision to “cross the Rubicon” in 49 B.C.E. By leading his troops over the Rubicon River and into Italy to stand for election in Rome, Caesar defied Roman law. The outrage that followed set the stage for the civil wars that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the birth of the Roman Empire. The Rubicon comparison appeals to pundits because it recognizes the destructive impact of a populist leader who willingly breaks the law to gain power.

But the analogy ultimately falls short because Trump’s actions are more far-reaching than Caesar’s—and because they have met less resistance.

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, his goal was specific and limited. Caesar had no desire to remake the republic nor to destroy the way Roman politics worked. He simply wanted to bring his army with him to run for election for consul, the highest executive position in the state—a position voted on yearly, and one he had served before, in 59 B.C.E. Since then, Caesar’s military feats, daring exploits, and unparalleled leadership of his legions in Gaul (now modern France), which he advertised in his Commentaries, had made him tremendously popular in Rome and very wealthy. Now, he was ready to return to Rome, triumphantly.

According to the law, he had to give up his command and disband his troops before entering Rome. This requirement was a legacy of earlier civil wars that had unfolded in the 80s B.C.E., when the popular generals Marius and Sulla marched on Rome to force the senate to grant them military commands. But Caesar’s troops, who worshipped him, were a crucial source of his strength. Without them at his side, the senate was likely to bring him up on charges for his misuse of funds and for his undertaking military actions in Gaul without senatorial permission. In such a scenario, he could have been exiled for his success.

So, Caesar found supporters in Rome: the 10 elected representatives of the people known as Tribunes of the Plebs. They put forth a law to allow him to run for office without giving up his command. Most senators opposed this request, believing such a compromise would undermine the state and greatly empower Caesar.

They were right. After Caesar learned that the Tribunes had failed, he tried once more to negotiate, offering to put down his arms if the senate took away command from the current consul, Pompey. The senate refused and declared Caesar a public enemy. They asked Pompey—a former commander himself—to raise an army to defend the state. Only then did Caesar cross the Rubicon River, entering Italy near Ravenna on January 10, 49 B.C.E. Caesar’s men followed their general, even if it meant civil war against their fellow citizens. Some may have believed Caesar’s claim that he was defending not just his honor, as the Roman biographer Suetonius tells us, but that of the tribunes and people of Rome, freeing the republic from the tyranny of the senate. But he also knew what was coming: “The die is cast,” he is alleged to have said, as he crossed the Rubicon.

The battles that embroiled the Mediterranean world for the next five years pitted Caesar and his troops against the remnants of Roman republican forces in Greece, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and Italy.

But when he returned to Rome, first in 48 B.C.E., he had the senate name him dictator, a position that traditionally endowed temporary emergency powers. He initiated a stunning number of rapid reforms designed to “fix” the state. (Some were needed, like setting a calendar of 365 days, the same one we use today.) Ultimately, Caesar achieved victory. The senate—or at least those who survived and were granted clemency or who were newly appointed—honored Caesar in February 44 B.C.E. with a new title, dictator perpetuus or “dictator forever,” an unprecedented power. A month later, 60 senators joined in a plot to kill Caesar, stabbing him to death on the Ides of March.

Once Caesar was dead, the senate reconvened. They believed they could simply return the republic to what it had been before, but a new round of civil wars followed, ending with the emergence of Rome’s first emperor, Caesar’s great-nephew Octavian, who took the name Augustus, “Revered One.” With Augustus’ ascendance, the republic died, even as Augustus claimed to have restored it. But for historians, Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, more than 20 years earlier, was the critical turning point.

Both Caesar and Trump were populists who spoke and behaved brashly, upending established norms and steering their followers in radically new directions. Politicians and citizens alike viewed both men as acting illegally to bring their respective, powerful republics to crisis. Caesar’s actions launched 500 years of imperial rule in the west. Trump’s actions, many argue, will herald an end to the post-World War II international order, and threaten American futures at home.

But in crucial ways, the situations are not the same—and it has as much to do with Trump as it does with his opponents in Congress and the courts. Trump has crossed the Rubicon without any attempts to negotiate with the U.S. legislature—and we don’t yet see any sustained, effective opposition to his illegal actions in the Senate or House of Representatives. In 44 B.C.E, the Roman Senate acted to uphold the law—and as a result, the senate continued to play a key role in reshaping the government of Rome in future centuries. Emperors worked with senators, relying on them to govern provinces and administer the state.

Trump’s use of executive orders is aimed at undermining the role of the Congress in government. And Congressional opposition is disorganized, internally divided, and virtually leaderless. A closer analog to the Roman Senate might be the U.S. courts, though it is not yet clear that Trump will abide by judicial decisions, nor that the courts will uphold pre-existing limits on presidential power.

Unlike Caesar’s limited goals in 49 B.C.E, Trump desires to bring widespread change to our republic—overturning everything from decades of foreign policy and lawfully constituted federal agencies to medical research, education, and the law.

To effectively preserve our republic, collective action and protest must be louder and more organized. It may not be too late for the U.S. Congress—and all of us—to stand up for the fundamentals of our democracy, the rights of federal workers and migrants, and the health of people at home and abroad. Roman senators—Pompey, Cato, Brutus, and Cassius—were willing to stand up to Caesar’s autocracy. But only future historians looking back will be able to determine if elected officials and people who actively oppose Trump today will be more successful in preserving our republic.

Michele Renee Salzman is a historian at the University of California, Riverside, and the author, most recently, of The ‘Falls’ of Rome: Crises, Resilience and Resurgence in Late Antiquity. This was written for Zócalo Public Square.

The post Stop Comparing Trump’s Lawbreaking to Caesar Crossing the Rubicon appeared first on The Moderate Voice .

Trump vowed to wreck the economy. He won anyway. Now he’s doing it.

One month from today I’m flying to France to join a World War II tour, and I suspect that some curious European will ask me to explain or defend you know what. I’ll simply say, “J’ai honte de mons pays,” which means “I am ashamed of my country.”

The reasons are too numerous to mention, but three numbers top the list: 63 million (the voters who flocked to Trump in 2016), 74 million (his tally in 2020, albeit in a losing cause), and 77 million in 2024. Only in America can an evil imbecile fail upwards, propelled by an ascending tally of balloters, despite repeated promises to destroy this nation from within and sabotage its global standing.

Some people – like CNBC’s Jim Cramer (“I feel like a sucker”) – seem to be stunned by Trump’s newly-announced tariffs on all imports. By the inevitably instant stock market plummet and the immediate deleterious impact on our savings, nest eggs, 401(k)s, and rainy-day cookie jars. By the imminent prospect of price hikes on everything from cars to clothes to coffee, courtesy of retaliating countries that once were our allies.

It’s safe to bet that even some MAGA voters will dimly recall Trump vowed during the 2024 race to reduce inflation, not stoke it with wanton abandon.

But here’s my response to anyone who’s inexplicably shocked: What did you expect?

Trump openly campaigned on a promise to destroy our leadership position in the world, both militarily (by weakening NATO) and economically (by launching a global trade war). As far back as 2018, during his first term, he fought with Canada and reportedly told his aides, “I want tariffs! Bring me tariffs!” He road-tested his plan by slapping hefty levies on Canadian steel and aluminum, prompting denunciations from commie organizations like the National Retail Federation and The Wall Street Journal.

He doubled down on his obsession during the 2024 campaign when he said publicly that “to me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff. It’s my favorite word.” At another event he said, “Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented.” He dreamed of implementing tariffs in the range of “100, 200, 2000 percent.” When The Journal and the nonpartisan Peterson Institute of International Economics warned that he was nuts – a Peterson report said that his “package of policies does more damage to the U.S. economy than to any other in the world” – he attacked the people with credentials, claiming that “I’ve always been very good at mathematics.”

J. V. Last, a political analyst at The Bulwark (an anti-Trump outlet founded by Republicans), said only three reasons can explain why a fatal share of American voters elected this guy despite his open vows of economic destruction: (1) “They wanted what he promised,” and/or (2) “They didn’t believe what he promised” and/or (3) “They didn’t understand what he promised.”

I’ll add a fourth possible reason: They didn’t bother to listen to what he promised. His mouth moved, that was good enough.

As Trump himself declared in 2016, “I love the poorly educated.” He bonds with his peeps because he’s one of them. In a column last fall I wondered, “Are there enough poorly-educated voters to once again coronate the sultan of stupid?”

Now we know.

I kinda liked the economy Joe Biden bequeathed us, the one that senior Moody’s analyst Mark Zandi called “rip-roaring…among the best economies in my 35-plus years as an economist.” But hey, that’s just me. I can’t fathom being stupid enough to entrust the economy to a guy who went bankrupt running cash-cow casinos.

The question, going forward, is whether we’re irrevocably doomed. Fortunately, there are some signs of life – green shoots, as it were. The Bernie Sanders-AOC road show is drawing sizable crowds. Chris Murphy, the Connecticut senator, is relentlessly vocal. House Republican toadies are under attack at their own town halls. Furious citizens are in the streets. And this week Cory Booker put his body on the line for 25 hours, hoping to light what he called “thousands of ignition points” for rightly pissed-off Americans.

“How much more will we take of this?” Booker asked.

If there is sufficient will to thwart the authoritarians and restore a semblance of sanity, perhaps the words of Frederick Douglass (as quoted by Booker) can inspire the energized:

“The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Copyright 2025 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com

The post Trump vowed to wreck the economy. He won anyway. Now he’s doing it. appeared first on The Moderate Voice .