Rich Americans still have it pretty good. I don't mean everything's perfect: business regulations can be burdensome; Manhattan zoning can prevent the addition of a town-house floor; estate taxes kick in at over $5 million. But life is acceptable. Barack Obama has not imposed much hardship, and neither will Hillary Clinton.
And what about Donald Trump? Will rich people suffer if he is elected president? Well, yes. Yes, they will. Because we all will. But that's a pat answer, because Trump and Trumpism are different things. Trump is an erratic candidate who brings chaos to everything. Trumpism, on the other hand, is the doctrine of a different Republican Party, one that would cater not to the donor class, but rather to the white working class. Rich people do not like that idea. read more
Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods.
One wishes to calm these publications: You can stop this now. Haven't you heard that the great Kong is no more? Nevertheless, they've persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases, the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats. read more
As millions of North Koreans celebrate the Day of the Sun today, marking the birth of their cruel dynasty's founding dictator, Kim Il-sung, his grandson's nuclear ambitions have put the nation's fate on a knife-edge and threatens peace throughout East Asia.
The chubby young tyrant, Kim Jong-un, has enjoyed playing the unpredictable despot ever since he inherited power in 2011. Now he is playing with fire.
This is a leader who would willingly take his small, poverty-stricken country to the brink of war with the world's only superpower.
He knows he can't win, but he also knows that a second Korean War will be a bloodbath because he has a vast arsenal everything from primitive nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles and nerve gas to 150,000 cannon with which he can hit South Korean cities and the US bases there. read more
Russia-watchers have spent a lot a time wondering: Just what would Vladimir Putin do if he were directly challenged on Syria? Well, now it's happened. Last night, the United States launched a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian airfield.
This is not one of those situations where Putin had no options. He was warned of the strikes in advance -- a good and smart move, given that Russian personnel are stationed at the targeted airbase. With that information in hand, Russia could have tried to intercept America's missiles. It did not. Here's what Putin might be thinking.
First Lady Melania Trump has received unspecified damages and an apology from England's Daily Mail tabloid over a story it published last year that spread allegations she worked as an escort early in her modeling career. The Daily Mail retracted the story and said there was no evidence to support the claim that she "provided services beyond simply modeling." Melania Trump filed suit in the U.S. for $150 million. The amount she received in the settlement is reported to be under $3 million and includes legal costs.
All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trumpism scares away, the broader and more powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something in return. It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive.Truthhurts, donnit.
In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both.
The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions, but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics. That's one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights, sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes may be worthy -- and they attract sincere advocates -- but politically they're also useful. They don't bother rich people.
It's weird how correct he was:
Yesterday's primary handed victories to Trump and Clinton, and, if Michael Lind is right, Trumpism and Clintonism are America's future. Lind's point, which he made last Sunday in The New York Times, is that Trumpism -- friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration -- will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism -- friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism -- will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class. Which might be fair enough, but Lind didn't mention rich people. Where will they go? Look familiar?
The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations, generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized labor. It's been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential business leaders.
Trumpism changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much more appealing.
But wait, there's more:
What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton -- tweets, interviews, books -- is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping.Quick, hide the sharp objects!
The crude conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton craved adoration and Hillary Clinton craved power. But Chelsea Clinton seems to have a more crippling want: fashionability -- of the sort embraced by philanthropic high society.
To find fault with the former First Daughter is to invite the wrath of thousands. Love of Chelsea correlates closely with love of Hillary, toward whom her fans have long felt an odd protectiveness, as if she were a stroke survivor regaining the power of speech rather than one of the most influential people in the world. That goes even more for Chelsea, who is often treated less like an independent 37-year-old multi-millionaire and more like the 12-year-old who still deserves to be left alone.
But let's have a reality check. No one bothers George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara Bush, who quietly works on her nonprofit, Global Health Corps. On the other hand, . . .if you've openly entertained the possibility of running for office if "it was something I felt called to do," then assurances to the contrary aren't quite good enough. You're a public hazard.
Quick, someone put Corky/Doc/Danforth/Zed on suicide watch:
How did Chelsea become such a threat?Lovely.
Perhaps the best way to start is by revisiting some of Chelsea's major post-2008 forays into the public eye. The results were all friendly in aim, and yet the picture that kept emerging from the growing pile of Chelsea quotations was that of a person accustomed to courtiers nodding their heads raptly. Here are Chelsea's thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: "I'm a big believer in listening to my body's cravings." On her time in the "fiercely meritocratic" workplace of Wall Street: "I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn't." On her precocity: "They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper." Take that, Click, Clack, Moo.
Chelsea, people were quietly starting to observe, had a tendency to talk a lot, and at length, not least about Chelsea. But you couldn't interrupt, not even if you're on TV at NBC, where she was earning $600,000 a year at the time. "When you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish," Jay Kernis, one of Clinton's segment producers at NBC, told Vogue. "She's not used to being interrupted that way."
Sounds perfect for a dating profile: I speak at length, and you really need to let me finish. I'm not used to interruptions.
Well, historically, neither Xi and Trump are totally wrong-
Han Dynasty ~200 BCE - ~200 CE - The Chinese maintained military/official presence in the north, but not so much in the South. The commanderies set up to govern Korea lasted to some extent for the whole of the Han dynasty, about 400 years.
Yuan Dynasty - The Khans really wanted Korea, and Japan and invaded both. The war with Korea lasted around 70 years (dwarfing the two invasions of Japan in scope and consequence). By about 1280, the Koreans capitulated and became a vassal state of China, a relationship that lasted through the end of the Yuan period in the 1360's.
If you have ever been to Seoul, Independence Gate was built to commemorate Korea's independence from China, so while the South Koreans are still debating that they were never "part" of China, they do recognize they they were once ruled by China.
So twice in the last 2000 years Korea has been a vassal state of China, how you want to look at that depends on how much you hate Trump.