Does It Matter How Many Trump Supporters Came to Washington on Saturday?

Trump-rally-11-14-20-Newscom

Donald Trump began his presidency by asserting, based on “alternative facts,” that he had attracted “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.” He is ending his presidency by averring that Saturday’s pro-Trump rally in Washington, D.C., attracted more than 1 million people. And just as he claimed that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 if it weren’t for “the millions of people who voted illegally,” he is now insisting that the Democrats stole this year’s presidential election by altering “millions of ballots.”

These are fitting bookends for a president who often seems to live in a parallel universe shaped by his ego’s demands. While Trump’s fantasies about massive election fraud may be more consequential than his fictitious crowd numbers, both kinds of misrepresentations reflect his need to twist reality into grotesque but self-flattering shapes. While that tendency is often amusing, it is also more than a little disturbing to anyone who thinks truth should count for something in political debates.

The president’s endorsement of the claim that “more than a MILLION people showed up to support this President” took the form of a retweet. But White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany made the same claim directly. “AMAZING!” she tweeted on Saturday. “More than one MILLION marchers for President @realDonaldTrump descend on the swamp in support.”

It would indeed be amazing, if it were true. Trump himself put the size of the crowd in the “hundreds of thousands” later the same day. But he also said “tens of thousands.” The Washington Post said McEnany was “vastly exaggerating the crowd size.” The Post put the number of participants in the “thousands,” as did The New York Times and Fox News. USA Today went with “tens of thousands.” So did conservative columnist Miranda Devine in a New York Post piece declaring the victory of “Trumpism.” Voice of America reported that “it is not clear how many people turned up in Washington, and the city’s police department does not estimate crowd sizes.”

According to ridership data from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, rail use was slightly higher on the day of the rally than it was the previous Saturday (80,000 vs. 77,000), while bus use was slightly lower (137,000 vs. 142,000). Those numbers would not capture people who drove in for the rally and then drove out without using public transit. But “more than one MILLION” visitors, or even “hundreds of thousands,” should have had a more noticeable impact on transit use, especially since parking was restricted ahead of time.

Although there is a big difference between “tens of thousands” and “more than a MILLION,” Trump has embraced both estimates. But as with his claims about election fraud—the main motivation for Saturday’s rally—many of his supporters seem to think actual numbers are less important than the sentiment underlying them.

“You just had to see the enthusiastic cheer of tens of thousands of pro-Trump protesters who flocked to Washington, DC, over the weekend to understand it doesn’t really matter what the final electoral vote tally is: Trumpism has won,” Devine writes. “Even if, as seems probable, Joe Biden ends up living in the White House, and inviting his son Hunter to dinner with new business prospects from China, the corrupt bipartisan globalist establishment is not back in the ascendancy.”

Doesn’t it sort of matter whether Biden was duly elected president or, as Trump still maintains, stole the election through a massive criminal conspiracy? “Even if there was no skulduggery, the Trump campaign lawsuits come to nothing and the Dominion voting machines and their suspicious-sounding software get a clean bill of health, it’s a service to public trust for the Trump campaign to go through a process that is legal and accounted for within the Constitution,” DeVine says. “If there has been no fraud or miscounting, then public faith will be restored in the integrity of our elections going forward. That is a good thing which Biden should embrace if he really believes in unity and healing.”

Yet the president is hardly serving the cause of “unity and healing” by asserting, over and over again without evidence, that he actually won the election, which according to him was “rigged” by systematic fraud involving “millions of ballots.” Whether or not that’s true is of more than passing interest to Americans concerned about “the integrity of our elections.” And if it’s not true, what does that say about a man who would casually engage in such reckless accusations? Whatever you may think of “the corrupt bipartisan globalist establishment,” the fabulism that is inseparable from Trumpism makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion about that subject, or anything else.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lGuV31
via IFTTT

TSLA Soars On Inclusion In The S&P 500

TSLA Soars On Inclusion In The S&P 500

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/16/2020 – 17:22

Having tumbled in early September after its anticipated inclusion in the S&P 500, TSLA shares have regained around half of their loss ahead of tonight’s news.

TSLA shares are surging over 8% higher after hours following a report from S&P that the carmaker will be included in the S&P 500 index…

Tesla Inc. (NASD:TSLA) will be added to the S&P 500 effective prior to the open of trading on Monday, December 21 to coincide with the December quarterly rebalance.

Due to the large size of the addition, S&P Dow Jones Indices is seeking feedback through a consultation to the investment community to determine if Tesla should be added all at once on the rebalance effective date or in two separate tranches ending on the rebalance effective date.

Tesla will replace a S&P 500 company to be named in a separate press release closer to the rebalance effective date.

We do note that TSLA shares are well below their pre-inclusion levels from late-August…

We are sure Elon will be pleased…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ICOzyh Tyler Durden

Classes #25: Equal Protection IV and

Class 25: Equal Protection IV: Sex Discrimination

  • Frontiero v. Richardson (1107-1114)
  • Craig v. Boren (1114-1119)
  • United States v. Virginia (1119-1133)

Class 25: Regulatory Takings: Balancing II

  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: 1068-1088
  • Wisconsin v. Murr: 1088-1102

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2K7e9fu
via IFTTT

Court Blocks Enforcement of Oyster Bay (N.Y.) Ban on “Insolent … Remarks” & “Unacceptable Behavior” in Town Council Hearings

The ordinance:

Speakers [during the public comment period] shall observe the commonly accepted rules of courtesy, decorum, dignity and good taste and shall not use foul language, display unacceptable behavior, or be disruptive of the proceedings….

Any person making offensive, insulting, threatening, insolent, slanderous or obscene remarks or gestures, or who become boisterous, or who makes threats against any person or against public order, and security while in the Board Room, either while speaking at the podium or as a member of the audience, shall be forthwith removed at the direction of the presiding office.

Any person removed from a public meeting at the direction of the presiding officer may be charged with disorderly conduct in accordance with New York State Penal Law Section 240.20.

Judge Gary R. Brown (E.D.N.Y.) concluded that this violated speakers’ rights, largely because many of the terms were unconstitutionally vague. If this were a moot court problem, the judge mentioned, it would be condemned as too easy. (I’m paraphrasing here, based on what I heard at the argument.)

I think a clearer rule might well be constitutional; a public comment period at a meeting is generally viewed as a “limited public forum,” where reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions are permissible. It’s possible that a flat ban on the use of vulgarities, for instance, might be constitutional. (Truly threatening remarks, of course, can also be banned, and can indeed be criminalized in general, not just in a limited public forum.)

But this set of restrictions, the court held, didn’t qualify; the court therefore issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ordinance. If a written order is issued, I’ll add a link.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36JKWif
via IFTTT

Only 46% Of Americans Would Receive COVID Vaccine As Soon As It Is Available

Only 46% Of Americans Would Receive COVID Vaccine As Soon As It Is Available

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/16/2020 – 17:20

With several promising COVID-19 vaccines on the horizon including Moderna and Pfizer, many Americans will soon be faced with the decision of whether or not to get vaccinated.

Harmony Healthcare IT recently surveyed 2,000 Americans from across the country to try and gauge what percentage of Americans would be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.  

Here’s what they found:

  • Only 46% of Americans say they would receive a COVID-19 vaccination as soon as it was made available.

  • 40% said they would get the vaccine, but prefer to see how effective and safe it is before receiving it. 14% said they would not get the vaccine under any circumstances.

  • Top reasons against getting vaccinated: 1. Side effects (67%); 2. Safety and effectiveness (38%); 3. I won’t need a vaccination (21%); 4. Don’t believe in vaccinations (9%); 5. Cost concerns (8%).

  • According to respondents, 27% believe they will be able to be vaccinated within 3-6 months of a vaccine being developed and 26% believe it will take 6 months to one year.

  • Most respondents (50%) agree that the most vulnerable and susceptible populations should be the first to receive a vaccination (unclear if this includes all members of Congress and all career politicians). According to the CDC, adults of any age with underlying medical conditions such as cancer, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), heart disease and severe obesity, among other conditions, are at increased risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19.

  • 55% of Americans believe the government should require everyone to get vaccinated although 70% would not receive a vaccine if it isn’t approved by the FDA first.

  • 53% believe they will be able to be vaccinated within a year.

  • Once vaccinated, a quarter of respondents feel that it will still take between 1-to-2 years before a return to normalcy while 24% believe it will happen sooner (6 months to a year).

The full report can be found here.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36GA7xJ Tyler Durden

Don’t Blame COVID: The Economy Is Imploding From Over-Capacity And Corrupt Cartels

Don’t Blame COVID: The Economy Is Imploding From Over-Capacity And Corrupt Cartels

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/16/2020 – 17:00

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Now that the bubble has burst, the hope is that removing the pin will magically restore the burst bubble. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

Here’s the fantasy: if we stop the shutdowns, the economy will naturally bounce back to its oh-so wunnerful perfection of Q3 2019. This is a double-dose of magical thinking and denial. The U.S. economy was unraveling in 2019 from 11 long years of Fed-induced over-capacity in almost everything (except integrity, competition, transparency and social cohesion) and the bone-crushing burden of corrupt, greedy cartels that have the nation by the throat.

The reality nobody dares mention is that thanks to 20 years of the Federal Reserve’s easy money, there’s rampant over-capacity everywhere you look: there’s too many cafes, bistros, restaurants, fast-food outlets, hotels, resorts, AirBnBs, unprofitable Tech Unicorns, airline flights, Tech startups, office towers, retail space, malls, absurdly overpriced apartments for rent, storage facilities, delivery services, office sublets, colleges, attorneys, unemployed workers with multiple credentials–the list of too much, too many is endless.

Thanks to the Fed, the most profitable venture was borrowing to increase capacity, then borrow some more to extract the phantom value created by the greater capacity. Nobody cared if the office tower remained mostly empty; the money was made in building it and extracting its “value” via debt, not operating a legitimate enterprise.

This Fed-created house of cards was never sustainable, or healthy, as all the incentives to add capacity were perverse. The illusion that every mall, office tower, retail space, college, apartment building, etc. would be filled was only plausible as long as consumers and zombie corporations were borrowing and spending more than they earned.

That was never sustainable, but rather than look at the systemic set-up of an insanely predatory, fragile debt bubble resting precariously on over-capacity, the status quo is blaming Covid and lockdowns. The problem isn’t the pin, it’s the bubble that was begging to be popped by something, anything.

Recall that bubbles pop on their own, even without a pin. Japan’s debt / stock / real estate bubble popped in 1989 without a pin; prices just stopped going up and then started falling, all by themselves.

The other reality no one dares mention is the stranglehold of corrupt cartels that have long outlived their purpose, and now exist solely to enrich insiders and lenders and the wealthy few who own the student loan debt, mortgages, etc.

The entire higher-education cartel was an unaffordable, unsustainable racket eight years ago when I wrote my book The Nearly Free University. Now the racket is finally unraveling, and the insane over-capacity, insanely high costs and lack of value in the credentials are coming home to roost.

The healthcare system is another example of a sprawling system of cartels that’s long overdue for a reckoning / unraveling. The fortunes being minted bought more than enough political power to keep the corrupt, predatory machine well-greased with federal money, but that doesn’t mean the system is actually providing healthcare effectively or efficiently or in a sustainable fashion.

Now we have multiple Big Tech monopolies bleeding the nation dry, and Big Tech is rushing to flood Washington D.C. with lobbyists and campaign contributions so nobody messes with its parasitic, destructive layers of monopoly.

The entire American economy was a gigantic bubble of corrupt Fed-funded skims, scams, rackets, monopolies and cartels, and it was finally bursting in 2019. The Fed, oh-so protective of its ever-greater and more destructive bubbles, rushed to mask the rot by inflating the greatest bubble of all time: Forget GOAT, Look at GBOAT: The Greatest Bubble Of All Time (November 6, 2020).

Now that the bubble has burst, the hope is that removing the pin will magically restore the burst bubble. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. The bubble has already burst and cannot be magically made whole and re-inflated.

It was never sustainable or healthy, and its collapse was inevitable. The way forward is obvious: stop the Fed from blowing ever-larger bubbles and eliminate cartels and monopolies. But that will require ending the absurd farce of pay-to-play “democracy” that enables the debt / asset bubbles and cartels / monopolies.

*  *  *

My recent books:

A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook coming soon) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World
(Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF).

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

*  *  *

Become a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3kJlwqk Tyler Durden

Classes #25: Equal Protection IV and

Class 25: Equal Protection IV: Sex Discrimination

  • Frontiero v. Richardson (1107-1114)
  • Craig v. Boren (1114-1119)
  • United States v. Virginia (1119-1133)

Class 25: Regulatory Takings: Balancing II

  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: 1068-1088
  • Wisconsin v. Murr: 1088-1102

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2K7e9fu
via IFTTT

Is There Hope for Libertarianism Within a Post-Election GOP?

TomCotton

So voters repudiate President Donald Trump yet refuse to embrace the Democratic Party, while also passing some freedom-friendly ballot initiatives. Meanwhile, the noisy center of American politics these past five years characteristically refuses to concede, and concocts increasingly implausible conspiracy theories attempting to explain away his loss. Where does that leave the modern GOP, and whatever vaguely libertarian muscle memory it may have buried somewhere?

That discussion takes up the second half of this week’s Reason Roundtable. The front end is devoted to exploring the difference between Trump’s and Joe Biden’s COVID-19 policies, the wonderful news of another vaccine, and the less salutary news of widespread infection and hospitalization increases all around the country. The phrase “Gadsden Flag mankini” is invoked.

Speaking of which: Got questions for Roundtable podcasters Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman, Matt Welch, and Katherine Mangu-Ward? Please email them to podcasts@reason.com before December 1, and we will try to get to each and every one of them during our annual Webathon, which begins at the end of this month. You’ll be glad you did!

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “Day Bird” by Broke for Free

Relevant links from the show:

Moderna’s Preliminary Results Indicate That Its COVID-19 Vaccine Is 94.5% Effective,” by Ronald Bailey

Masks Are a Tool, Not a Panacea,” by Ronald Bailey

Trump Touts Operation Warp Speed’s COVID-19 Successes,” by Ronald Bailey

Biden Has a Plan for a New National ‘Supply Commander,’” by Max Gulker

New York, Shamefully, on the Verge of Shuttering Public Schools,” by Matt Welch

Joe Biden’s COVID-19 Death Forecast Looks Less Plausible Every Day,” by Jacob Sullum

Here Come the New Lockdowns,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s New COVID-19 Restrictions on Private Home Gatherings Violate Personal Liberty,” by Robby Soave

Will Biden Use the Broad Pandemic-Fighting Powers Originally Claimed by Trump?” by Christian Britschgi

Don’t Buy the Debunked Dominion Voting Machine Conspiracy Theory,” by Eric Boehm

The Supreme Court Won’t Save Trump,” by Damon Root

‘I Won the Election,’ Tweets Trump as Legal Losses Stack Up,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

No, Trump Did Not Concede the Election (Even Briefly),” by Jacob Sullum

California Voters Rebuked Their Governor, Legislators at the Ballot Box,” by Steven Greenhut

Trump Lost in Part Because 2016 Third-Party Voters Heavily Preferred Biden,” by Matt Welch

Mike Pompeo Jokes, Hopefully, About ‘a Smooth Transition To a Second Trump Administration,’” by Christian Britschgi

Would a Less-Nativist Republican Have Won in 2020?” by Shikha Dalmia

Before Drug Prohibition, There Was the War on Calico,” by Virginia Postrel

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pzWttd
via IFTTT

Court Blocks Enforcement of Oyster Bay (N.Y.) Ban on “Insolent … Remarks” & “Unacceptable Behavior” in Town Council Hearings

The ordinance:

Speakers [during the public comment period] shall observe the commonly accepted rules of courtesy, decorum, dignity and good taste and shall not use foul language, display unacceptable behavior, or be disruptive of the proceedings….

Any person making offensive, insulting, threatening, insolent, slanderous or obscene remarks or gestures, or who become boisterous, or who makes threats against any person or against public order, and security while in the Board Room, either while speaking at the podium or as a member of the audience, shall be forthwith removed at the direction of the presiding office.

Any person removed from a public meeting at the direction of the presiding officer may be charged with disorderly conduct in accordance with New York State Penal Law Section 240.20.

Judge Gary R. Brown (E.D.N.Y.) concluded that this violated speakers’ rights, largely because many of the terms were unconstitutionally vague. If this were a moot court problem, the judge mentioned, it would be condemned as too easy. (I’m paraphrasing here, based on what I heard at the argument.)

I think a clearer rule might well be constitutional; a public comment period at a meeting is generally viewed as a “limited public forum,” where reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions are permissible. It’s possible that a flat ban on the use of vulgarities, for instance, might be constitutional. (Truly threatening remarks, of course, can also be banned, and can indeed be criminalized in general, not just in a limited public forum.)

But this set of restrictions, the court held, didn’t qualify; the court therefore issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ordinance. If a written order is issued, I’ll add a link.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36JKWif
via IFTTT

Pelosi Grapples With Slim Majority And Socialist Factions As House Dems Seek Path Forward

Pelosi Grapples With Slim Majority And Socialist Factions As House Dems Seek Path Forward

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/16/2020 – 16:40

As Senate Democrats regroup after failing to regain control, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is now faced with the challenge of uniting the House amid heated internal debates over the role of socialism and left-wing priorities amid a slimmer majority after losing as many as 10 House seats in the election.

According to Bloomberg, internal turmoil is now boiling into the public sphere, spilling out in interviews, tweets, and leaked details from caucus conference calls.

Pelosi’s cat-herding comes as she mounts a bid to be reelected Speaker, which is all but expected.

Pelosi’s first test comes later this week. House Democrats will hold leadership elections that appear to offer a reprise of the existing team at the top, led by Pelosi, 80, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, 81, and majority whip James Clyburn, 80. The elections are to be held virtually, with nominating speeches and candidate presentations conducted by video call. Members will use a special phone app to vote, encrypted to keep their choices secret. -Bloomberg

That said, Bloomberg notes that Democratic infighting may intensify due to Pelosi’s commitment to step aside as Speaker after the 2022 midterms, “as various factions begin to make side agreements and collect chits to grab footholds for future leadership rungs.”

“At least two House Democratic centrists have privately solicited feedback from colleagues on backing a challenger to Pelosi as top Democrat and speaker nominee, according to Democratic aides. But so far that has gained little traction and no serious challenger has emerged. One lawmaker often cited as a potential successor to Pelosi, New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries, 50, has said he is running again for caucus chairman. -Bloomberg

Meanwhile, the New York Times illustrated the fierce battle raging behind the scenes between two factions; one blaming the “socialist” label for costing Democrats the Hispanic and immigrant vote, and another which claims that embracing far-left policies such as the Green New Deal is good for business, and drove higher voter turnout for “moderate” Joe Biden. Via Breitbart:

While Mr. Biden rebuilt the Democrats’ Blue Wall — reclaiming the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — he carried them by a fraction of the margins former President Barack Obama achieved in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. As long as Republicans manage to amass enormous leads with working-class white voters, those states may not be safely Democratic anytime soon.

Just as troubling to the party, Democrats sagged with voters of color, particularly in Hispanic and Asian-American communities where Republicans’ attacks on Democrats as a left-wing party appear to have resonated, denying Mr. Biden a victory in Florida and costing the Democrats congressional seats in that state as well as Texas and California. Indeed, the only House seats Republicans picked up that were not in districts Mr. Trump also carried were in heavily Hispanic or Asian regions.

Defund police, open borders, socialism — it’s killing us,” said Representative Vicente Gonzalez, a Democrat from South Texas who won just over 50 percent of the vote, two years after he nearly captured 60 percent. “I had to fight to explain all that.”

The “average white person,” Mr. Gonzalez added, may associate socialism with Nordic countries, but to Asian and Hispanic migrants it recalls despotic “left-wing regimes.”NYT

In many large cities, President Trump did far better than expected, while Biden did worse than expected, notes Politico. Biden’s margins appear to have come primarily from suburban areas (and fraud, according to Trump and his supporters).

Interesting, as MSNBC notes, “One of the most surprising trends in the exit polls was that Trump seems to have gained traction with every single demographic of voters, with the exception of white men.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2IFPWMU Tyler Durden