15 January 2021 ~ 21 Comentarios

Donald Trump’s second impeachment

By Carlos Alberto Montaner

Donald Trump has received a second impeachment. Will his opponents win? It doesn’t matter. Nathaniel Rakich, a notable statistician, claims that 52% of Americans support Donald Trump leaving power immediately, while 42% believe otherwise. His argument is based on nine surveys that he has dissected. He has done the math and those are the averages that he obtained. I suspect it’s about right.

The problem is that it’s not about statistics, it’s about beliefs, and many people are willing to kill or die for what they believe. They also believe anything–they believe in aliens who visit us often to abduct the unwary. They believe in paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and Ouija. They believe in the unique and real character of their gods, such as the Hindu goddess Durga, who has several arms and rides a lion, or the Holy Spirit of the Christians, represented by a dove that is part of the maximum triad of that religion. They believe in the zodiac, astrology, spiritism and all kinds of outlandish superstition, especially if it has been preached by a “charismatic” person. For example, Donald Trump.

Democrats, in general (except the 18%), and with them a substantial number of independents, are convinced that there was no fraud in the elections of November 3, 2020. But a remarkable percentage of Republicans (62% ) thinks that tens of thousands of dead voted, or that millions of undocumented people went to the polls, or that the machines altered the results, or that the ballots were changed by some evil officials.

Although Trump ultimately accepted Biden’s victory, he has not said (and never will) there was no fraud. I don’t even know if he really believes it. Sometimes I think so, but other times I suppose otherwise. In any case, admitting that he has lied would be like throwing a bucket of cold water to his followers. (Although by now they would say that he did it to avoid a bloodbath, or because he was threatened by African-American Congresswoman Maxine Waters, or because of a version of any conspiracy theory.)

He has not even dared to embrace Tucker Carlson’s (Fox News) thesis, much more intelligent, but highly debatable. Eager to defend Trump, the Fox News anchor alleges that there was “fraud,” but it happened before the elections, and after them, and consisted of the personal attack on Trump from the moment he took office, on any Republican measure, or on all his nominations, without even granting him the 100-days honeymoon period that are supposedly granted to the new tenants of the White House.

In fact, the elections, as is common in the US, were clean and transparent, but passionate. This has been the case since George Washington left power in 1797, the first and only president to whom people from all sides paid homage. From that point on, a great mess was made, and every two years, or every four, the same thing happens.

The big difference is that for the first time the defeated candidate claims to have been the victim of a fraud, and a large number of voters from his party believe it at face value, without wondering why 60 courts, in which there were many Republican judges, had rejected the demands unanimously because of a complete lack of evidence. On the other hand, a large number of deceived people went to the Capitol at the request of President Trump, to rectify the perfidious conduct of the Democrats.

They were the multitudinous version of the individual who went to a pizzeria in Washington D.C., armed with an assault rifle, to “free” some children victims of the perversions and brutality of the Democrats. The hoax had been launched by QAnon, a far-right group that is also credited with creating the conspiracy theory of the “Deep State” that, theoretically, has made presidential life impossible for Donald Trump.

What happened on January 6 at the Capitol will have very serious economic and political repercussions. The economic ones have to do with the internal stability of the country. The US dollar is the currency of 80% of international transactions, among other reasons, thanks to the confidence generated by contemplating the peaceful and organized transmission of authority every four years since the end of the 18th century. That veritable feast of democracy has been replaced by a third world spectacle of armed guards, barbed wire and ferocious dogs.

The political repercussions are of another nature and have to do with the character of “head of the free world” that the country won after World War II and the victory against the USSR in the Cold War. The United States was the only superpower left standing after the fight. That triumph is disputed today by the images of the capture of the Capitol by an aggressive mob of lawbreakers. Can Joe Biden and Kamala Harris restore America’s image? Hopefully, but that remains to be seen.

21 Responses to “Donald Trump’s second impeachment”

  1. Manuel 18 January 2021 at 10:42 am Permalink

    por extension analitica>

    todos los sitios que censuran serán castigados por este lado del Pacífico.
    contentense con los plebeyos del Partido Comunista Chino,
    y veamos como les sale la gracia

    • manuel 21 January 2021 at 11:08 am Permalink

      que bonita es la censura

      que bella

      que valiente

      • manuel 21 January 2021 at 11:09 am Permalink

        que util

      • manuel 21 January 2021 at 11:22 am Permalink

        ‘Milton se adelantó a su tiempo desarrollando argumentos que más tarde serían utilizados por los defensores de la prensa libre. En Areopagítica, Milton advierte que amenazar con censurar algo antes de ser publicado tendría un efecto inquietante sobre la libertad de expresión e interferiría con la búsqueda de la verdad. Argumentó enérgicamente contra una ordenanza que exigía que los autores tuvieran una licencia aprobada por el gobierno antes de publicar sus obras. Y sostuvo que “la libertad de conocer, pronunciarse y discutir libremente según la conciencia, está por sobre todas las libertades”.’

        • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 11:29 am Permalink

          Me imagine que ese Milton Esq Friedman, no John, el de Paraiso Perdido 🙂

          Me sigue resultando incomprensible que fue lo que no gusto de los textos que nos quitaron.

          • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 11:32 am Permalink

            Oh, es John! Se me paso lo de Aeuropagitica. No conocia esa faceta suya.

          • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 11:43 am Permalink

            Si, muy adelantado. Esa obra veo que es de 1644 La toqueza de Las naciones de Adam Smith es de un siglo despues. 1776, el mismo anio de la Declaracion de Independencia, otra de esas casualidades que no lo son tanto, como que Adams y Jefferson de murieran el mismo dia, el 4 de julio en que se cumplian exactamente 50 anios de la declaracion.

            Puede que tambien nos borren estos posts. Quizas ya estemos en una lista negra.

          • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 11:47 am Permalink

            Habra que hablar solamente de intrascendencias y nimiedades. Puedo hacerlo. Se me occurren muchos temas aprobados por el MINASI (ministerio de asuntos sin importancia)

          • manuel 21 January 2021 at 12:00 pm Permalink

            Los representantes Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) y Jim McGovern (D-MA) anunciaron un conjunto de cambios a las reglas de la Cámara “para consagrar lo que ellos llaman lenguaje inclusivo de género”, escribió el Reverendo Graham en Twitter el domingo. “¿Puedes creer que realmente se proponen eliminar el uso de palabras que incluyen padre, madre, hijo, tía, tío y esposa?”
            “Estos cambios propuestos se votarán poco después de que la Cámara entre en la nueva sesión”, continuó el Rev. Graham . “Dios ‘los creó varón y hembra’ (Génesis 1:27). Es solo un hecho “.
            “Si a los que reclaman el nombre de progresistas se les permite salirse con la suya, ni siquiera reconoceremos a esta nación en muy poco tiempo”, concluyó.
            Como informó Breitbart News , el viernes pasado Pelosi y McGovern dieron a conocer las reglas “visionarias”, que contienen propuestas “centradas en el futuro” como la eliminación de términos de género, como “padre, madre, hijo e hija”.
            “Este paquete, que será presentado y votado una vez que se reúna el nuevo Congreso, incluye reformas éticas radicales, aumenta la responsabilidad del pueblo estadounidense y hace que esta Cámara de Representantes sea la más inclusiva de la historia”, dijo el Comité de Reglas de la Cámara en un declaración.
            Las reglas requerirían que el Congreso “honre todas las identidades de género cambiando los pronombres y las relaciones familiares en las reglas de la Cámara para que sean neutrales al género”.
            El representante Tom Cole (R-OK) del Comité de Reglas de la Cámara calificó el paquete como “un asalto descarado y cobarde a las voces y puntos de vista de la minoría republicana”, así como “un día oscuro para la preservación de un debate libre y reflexivo”.
            “De manera alarmante, el paquete incluye eliminar la antigua moción para volver a comprometerse en su forma actual y censurar las ideas opuestas”, dijo el congresista. “Claramente, esto prueba que los demócratas temen las ideas republicanas y no pueden defender eficazmente sus propios puntos de vista”.
            Cole continuó diciendo que tales propuestas confirman que “Pelosi sabe que no puede unirse y liderar efectivamente su propio caucus reducido”.

            “En lugar de unificar a sus propios miembros, su solución es castigar y silenciar a los republicanos volcando precedentes y tradiciones de la Cámara que ahora son inconvenientes”, dijo.

            https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/04/franklin-graham-if-progressives-rule-we-wont-even-recognize-this-nation/

          • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 12:07 pm Permalink

            Si. En vez de “I’m the father of two boys” en el congreso se debe decir “I’m the parent of two children”.

            Es que, aparte de todas las otras cosas que son, no tienen

          • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 12:08 pm Permalink

            No tienen limites en el grado de ridiculez.

          • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 12:10 pm Permalink

            Los ultimos intentos de impeachment son una muestra.

  2. Manuel 20 January 2021 at 11:16 pm Permalink

    Spendid !

    a “roaring Twenties” is coming already!

    Just as the pessimism of the 2010s was overdone—the decade saw many advances, such as in cancer treatment—so predictions of technological Utopia are overblown. But there is a realistic possibility of a new era of innovation that could lift living standards, especially if governments help new technologies to flourish.
    econusa210116_article_008_01_01
    In the history of capitalism rapid technological advance has been the norm. The 18th century brought the Industrial Revolution and mechanised factories; the 19th century railways and electricity; the 20th century cars, planes, modern medicine and domestic liberation thanks to washing machines. In the 1970s, though, progress—measured by overall productivity growth—slowed. The economic impact was masked for a while by women piling into the workforce, and a burst of efficiency gains followed the adoption of personal computers in the 1990s. After 2000, though, growth flagged again.
    There are three reasons to think this “great stagnation” might be ending. First is the flurry of recent discoveries with transformative potential. The success of the “messenger RNA” technique behind the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and of bespoke antibody treatments, shows how science continues to empower medicine. Humans are increasingly able to bend biology to their will, whether that is to treat disease, edit genes or to grow meat in a lab. Artificial intelligence is at last displaying impressive progress in a range of contexts. A program created by Deep-Mind, part of Alphabet, has shown a remarkable ability to predict the shapes of proteins; last summer OpenAI unveiled GPT-3, the best natural-language algorithm to date; and since October driverless taxis have ferried the public around Phoenix, Arizona. Spectacular falls in the price of renewable energy are giving governments confidence that their green investments will pay off. Even China now promises carbon neutrality by 2060.
    The second reason for optimism is booming investment in technology. In the second and third quarters of 2020 America’s non-residential private sector spent more on computers, software and research and development (R&D) than on buildings and industrial gear for the first time in over a decade. Governments are keen to give more cash to scientists (see Briefing). Having shrunk for years, public R&D spending across 24 OECD countries began to grow again in real terms in 2017. Investors’ enthusiasm for technology now extends to medical diagnostics, logistics, biotechnology and semiconductors. Such is the market’s optimism about electric vehicles that Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, who also runs a rocket firm, is the world’s richest man.
    The third source of cheer is the rapid adoption of new technologies. It is not just that workers have taken to videoconferencing and consumers to e-commerce—significant as those advances are, for example to easing the constraints on jobseeking posed by housing shortages. The pandemic has also accelerated the adoptions of digital payments, telemedicine and industrial automation (see Business section). It has been a reminder that adversity often forces societies to advance. The fight against climate change and the great-power competition between America and China could spur further bold steps.
    Alas, innovation will not allow economies to shrug off the structural drags on growth. As societies get richer they spend a greater share of their income on labour-intensive services, such as restaurant meals, in which productivity growth is meagre because automation is hard. The ageing of populations will continue to suck workers into low-productivity at-home care. Decarbonising economies will not boost long-term growth unless green energy realises its potential to become cheaper than fossil fuels.
    Yet it is reasonable to hope that a fresh wave of innovation might soon reverse the fall in economic dynamism which is responsible for perhaps a fifth of the 21st century’s growth slowdown. Over time that would compound into a big rise in living standards. Perhaps still more is achievable because many service industries, including health care and education, would benefit greatly from more innovation. Eventually, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence and robotics could up-end how almost everything is done.
    It’s not rocket science

    Although the private sector will ultimately determine which innovations succeed or fail, governments also have an important role to play. They should shoulder the risks in more “moonshot” projects (see Books & arts). The state can usefully offer more and better subsidies for R&D, such as prizes for solving clearly defined problems. The state also has a big influence over how fast innovations diffuse through the economy. Governments need to make sure that regulation and lobbying do not slow down disruption, in part by providing an adequate safety-net for those whose livelihoods are upended by it. Innovation is concentrated among too few firms (see Free exchange). Ensuring that the whole economy harnesses new technologies will require robust antitrust enforcement and looser intellectual-property regimes. If governments rise to the challenge, then faster growth and higher living standards will be within their reach, allowing them to defy the pessimists. The 2020s began with a cry of pain but, with the right policies, the decade could yet roar. ■

  3. manuel 21 January 2021 at 10:54 am Permalink

    Julian, son ideas mias o nos acaban de eliminar todos nuestros comentarios de hoy? 🙂
    buen comienzo de primeros 100 dias 🙂

    • manuel 21 January 2021 at 10:58 am Permalink

      yo habia puesto fragmentos de la publicacion de hoy en la Joven Cuba, y tu comentaste con magnificos aportes y un poema de Padilla

      vaya vaya

      los fascistas con los colmillitos afiladitos en estos 100 dias,

      nada nuevo veremos entonces

      mas de la misma porqueria

      • manuel 21 January 2021 at 10:59 am Permalink

        miedo y cagalera por dotas partes

      • manuel 21 January 2021 at 11:00 am Permalink

        miedo y cagalera por todas partes

    • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 10:58 am Permalink

      Así es. Nuestros comentarios al respecto se cruzaron. ¡Del cará!

      • Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 11:01 am Permalink

        Veo que los fragmentos no eran de Norberto. Menos mal. Las loas a Barbapapá eran vomitivas.

  4. Julian Perez 21 January 2021 at 10:58 am Permalink

    Me parece que se acaban de cargar un montón de comentarios de Manuel y míos pese a que no criticaban a His Fraudulency ni a Kamala Umbridge.

    No los encuentro…

    Manuel había puesto unos textos aparentemente de Norberto Fuentes sobre las relaciones URSS-Cuba y yo los había comentando, agregando un link con el poema de Padilla pues el divorcio con los intelectuales también se mencionaba en el texto de Norberto.

    https://blogs.20minutos.es/poesia/2009/10/14/en-tiempos-difaaciles-heberto-padilla-1932-2000/

    Espero estar equivocado y que los posts estén en otro hilo y yo esté despistado. De no ser así, esto ya se va poniendo al nivel de FB o de Twitter (en consonancia con el nuevo orden) y estaría como para venderle el barco definitivanente.


Leave a Reply