Latest StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 8/24/2019
E.g., 8/24/2019
Gamers play video games during the Gamescom 2014 fair in Cologne on Aug. 13, 2014. (Photo by Ina Fassbender/Reuters)

The laziest refrain: GOP blames mass shootings on video games

08/05/19 08:40AM

After one of last year's mass shootings, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) presented one of his ideas intended to save lives: if schools had fewer doors, the Republican said, there might be fewer school shootings.

Yesterday, Patrick brought this level of wisdom to Fox News, where he responded to the latest mass shootings by pointing at a less architectural culprit for the latest mass shootings.

"I say, how long are we going to let, for example, and ignore at the federal level particularly, where they can do something about the video-game industry? ... I see a video-game industry that teaches young people to kill."

This followed a different Fox News interview in which House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pointed in the same direction.

"The idea that these video games that dehumanize individuals to have a game of shooting individuals," continued McCarthy, "I've always felt that it's a problem for future generations and others. We've watched studies show what it does to individuals, and you look at these photos of how it took place, you can see the actions within video games and others."

NBC News' Benjy Sarlin noted that the House's top GOP lawmaker inadvertently raised a subject worth considering in more detail: "What things 'dehumanize' people? What language 'dehumanizes' groups of people? Referring to them as animals? Likening them to infestations? Saying people are invaders, secret radicals, or part of a global conspiracy to hurt you?"

There's also, of course, the laziness surrounding Republicans' reflexive efforts to shift the post-massacre conversations away from guns and toward gun violence.

If this line of argument sounds familiar, there's a good reason for that. As regular readers may recall, a couple of months after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) argued on MSNBC, "I think video games is [sic] a bigger problem than guns, because video games affect people."

That was certainly an odd thing to hear on national television, but it was part of a larger pattern: for much of the right, it's better to focus on pixelated guns than actual guns.

read more


Why Trump's response to the latest mass shootings came up short

08/05/19 08:00AM

Donald Trump's 2017 inaugural address included some memorable rhetoric, but it was the new president's references to violence that stood out. The Republican lamented the crimes "that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential."

Trump added, "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now."

As the public once again tries to process the death toll from the latest American mass shootings, it's painfully obvious that the "carnage" did not, in fact, "stop." Complicating matters, in too many instances, the perpetrators of violence have justified their brutal crimes by echoing political rhetoric they heard from their president.

As a Washington Post piece put it yesterday afternoon, "After yet another mass slaying, the question surrounding the president is no longer whether he will respond as other presidents once did, but whether his words contributed to the carnage."

It was against this backdrop that Trump briefly spoke to reporters yesterday afternoon, saying, "Hate has no place in our country and we're going to take care of it."

Likely aware of the critics who've tied his rhetoric to some of the shooters' motivations, the president added, "This has been going on for years -- for years and years -- in our country."

It was at this point that Trump thought it'd be a good idea to start bragging.

"We're talking to a lot of people, and a lot of things are in the works, and a lot of good things. And we have done much more than most administrations. And it does -- it's not -- really not talked about very much, but we've done, actually, a lot. But perhaps more has to be done.

"But this is also a mental illness problem. If you look at both of these cases, this is mental illness. These are people -- really, people that are very, very seriously mentally ill. So a lot of things are happening."

As the president spoke about doing "a lot" to address gun violence, while also emphasizing mental health, it was hard not to think of one of the first bills Trump signed into law.

read more

Friday's Mini-Report, 8.2.19

08/02/19 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* In case you missed this on last night's show: "State prosecutors in Manhattan subpoenaed President Trump's family business on Thursday, reviving an investigation into the company's role in hush-money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to people briefed on the matter."

* Afghanistan: "The Trump administration is preparing to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan in exchange for concessions from the Taliban, including a cease-fire and a renunciation of al-Qaeda, as part of an initial deal to end the nearly 18-year-old war, U.S. officials say."

* Another big story from yesterday: "A federal judge in Washington presiding over a case involving President Donald Trump's state tax returns said today that he will hear a bid to move the case to New York. District Court Judge Carl Nichols said he agreed to a proposal by New York state to allow it to challenge his court's jurisdiction over the issue."

* The end of the INF: "The United States plans to test a new missile in coming weeks that would have been prohibited under a landmark, 32-year-old arms control treaty that the U.S. and Russia ripped up on Friday."

* Ongoing NRA drama: "Three National Rifle Association board members who have raised concerns about reports of reckless spending and mismanagement by the group's leadership resigned Thursday, another sign of mounting dissent within the nation's most powerful gun-rights group."

* A Trump appointee wants to get rid of these folks: "They're members of a prestigious academic panel with top-secret clearances who've advised the Pentagon on some of America's most vexing national security issues since the Cold War. Over 60 years, they've won 11 Nobel prizes and conducted hundreds of government studies."

read more

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas., asks questions to former special counsel Robert Mueller, as he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019.

Trump's choice for National Intelligence director ends in fiasco

08/02/19 03:23PM

On Sunday afternoon, Donald Trump announced via Twitter that Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) was his choice to serve as the new director of National Intelligence. The president described him at the time as a "highly respected congressman," who'll "inspire greatness." As recently as yesterday, Trump told reporters, "I'm sure that he'll be able to do very well."

Not quite 24 hours later, the whole fiasco came to an abrupt and ignominious end.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, President Donald Trump's pick to be the new director of national intelligence, will remain in Congress and not be nominated for the post, the commander-in-chief announced Friday.

"Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people," Trump tweeted Friday afternoon.

The president's announcement, which also came via Twitter, predictably blamed journalists for the developments, arguing that the far-right congressman has been "treated very unfairly by the LameStream Media."

Trump didn't specify how, exactly, Ratcliffe had been treated "very unfairly," which is a shame because I'd love to hear more about this. Was it unfair for news organizations to note that Ratcliffe was caught repeatedly lying about his professional background? Was it unfair for media outlets to note that Ratcliffe didn't even meet the statutory guidelines for the position?

Was it unfair to note that Senate Republicans didn't want Trump to nominate this guy? Was it unfair to alert the public to the fact that Ratcliffe is one of Congress' most far-right members who's dabbled in silly conspiracy theories? Was it unfair to note that the Texan, during his brief congressional career, has been a disengaged lawmaker who's made no meaningful connections with the intelligence agencies the president wanted him to oversee?

What actually seems unfair about all of this was Trump's insistence that a rabid partisan lacking in qualifications or credibility had any business serving as the nation's chief intelligence official.

read more

File photo taken in November 2017 shows U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

Donald Trump flunks Trade Policy 101 (again)

08/02/19 12:49PM

All things considered, I think the biggest problem with Donald Trump's trade agenda is that he has no idea how little he understands about trade.

The president recently boasted, for example, in reference to trade policy, "I understand that issue better than anybody." He added soon after, "I know every ingredient. I know every stat. I know it better than anybody knows it."

And if that were true, it'd be quite reassuring, but it's not. In fact, what the Republican sees as one of his signature issues is actually one of the areas in which he's most confused.

Trump claimed yesterday afternoon that the United States would begin imposing an additional 10 percent tariff on $300 billion in Chinese imports starting next month. (I use the word "claimed," because it's often difficult to know whether the administration will actually do what the president says it will do.) Beijing, naturally, is threatening retaliatory measures.

But as part of the same announcement, Trump tweeted that the series of concessions he thought he'd received from China -- developments the White House has bragged about for months -- never actually materialized. It was intended as a criticism of Beijing, but it didn't do the president's credibility any favors.

Soon after, he presented reporters with familiar falsehoods regarding China and trade.

"They're paying for these tariffs; we're not. [...]

"It's been proven that our people are not paying for those tariffs."

Even Trump should be able to understand that the opposite has been proven. Here's a study someone can go over with the president on the effects of his agenda. Here's another. And another. All of the evidence is consistent with common sense: Americans end up paying more as a result of Trump's tariffs. They are, for all intents and purposes, a Trump tax hike on consumers in his own country.

Even Larry Kudlow, the top voice on economic policy in Trump's White House, recently acknowledged during a nationally televised interview that the president's claims about tariffs are wrong.

But that's just the start of the problem. Trump added yesterday, referring to Chinese officials, "If they don't want to trade with us anymore, that would be fine with me. We'd save a lot of money."

read more

Friday's Campaign Round-Up, 8.2.19

08/02/19 12:00PM

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In the most important congressional retirement announcement of the year to date, Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) said last night that he won't seek re-election. The Texas Republican -- the only African American in the House GOP conference -- is the 10th member this year to announce his intended retirement, and the sixth to make this announcement over the last nine days.

* The next round of Democratic presidential primary debates will have far tougher participation standards, and as of yesterday, only seven candidates had met the minimum thresholds. Today, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) became the eighth.

* Donald Trump seemed to lose interest in Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for a while, but he started talking about her ethnicity again yesterday, with "Pocahontas" references before and during his campaign rally in Cincinnati.

* On a related note, Trump's followers in Ohio repeated the "lock her up" chant for a while. In case anyone's curious, Election Day 2016 was 997 days ago.

* As hard as this may seem to believe, Corey Lewandowski, the first of three people who led Trump's 2016 campaign operation, is eyeing a U.S. Senate race against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) in New Hampshire next year. It would be his first attempt at elected office.

* Speaking of 2020 Senate races, Sen. John Cornyn's (R) re-election campaign in Texas started airing an attack ad this week targeting state Sen. Royce West (D). It was a curious move: several Dems, including MJ Hegar, are already competing in Texas' Senate primary, but West hasn't officially announced his 2020 plans.

read more

Image: Trump during meeting in Oval Office

On Kashmir negotiations, India makes Trump look bad (again)

08/02/19 11:20AM

Last week, Donald Trump welcomed Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan to the Oval Office, and the American president was asked about possibly playing a diplomatic role in Kashmir. Trump told a curious story about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally inviting him to help oversee negotiations.

"I was with Prime Minister Modi two weeks ago, and we talked about this subject," the Republican asserted. "And he actually said, 'Would you like to be a mediator or arbitrator?' I said, 'Where?' He said, 'Kashmir.'"

Trump went on to say that Modi "asked" him to help resolve the conflict, adding, "I've heard so much about Kashmir. Such a beautiful name."

The story was impossible to accept at face value. As we discussed last week, India has never wanted outside involvement on Kashmir, and the idea that its prime minister would reach out directly to this American president -- an easily confused amateur who knows nothing about the dispute -- and ask him to serve as a mediator, seemed bizarre.

So, whatever happened to the Indian prime minister's alleged invitation? The Associated Press reported this morning that it was Trump who made himself available, and it's India that isn't interested.

India on Friday again rejected President Donald Trump's offer to mediate its dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir.

India's foreign minister said he told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that any discussion of the disputed Himalayan region would be between India and Pakistan only. The two men met on Friday on the sidelines of an Asian security forum in Bangkok. India has long refused outside attempts to resolve the conflict while Pakistan has sought international help.

During a brief Q&A with the White House's Larry Kudlow last week, a reporter asked, "The president said that he'd been asked by Indian Prime Minister Modi to alleviate between India and Pakistan. India says that's not even close to true. Did the president just make that up, sir?"

Kudlow replied, "No, the president doesn't make anything up."

There's a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

read more

A laboratory technician at the AIDS Research Center of the Treichville hospital in Abidjan works on blood samples of people living with HIV on Sept. 13, 2013. (Photo by Sia Kambou/AFP/Getty)

Why Trump's rhetoric about curing cancer and AIDS is unbelievable

08/02/19 10:43AM

One of the potential problems with Donald Trump's re-election campaign is that he doesn't have a policy agenda, per se. It's difficult, even for the president's most loyal followers, to point to specific proposals the Republican is prepared to run on ahead of Election Day 2020.

But once in a while, Trump will say something about the near future that stands out.

President Donald Trump made few new promises during his campaign speech Thursday night in Cincinnati. But two promises resonated with people, judging by interest on the internet: curing pediatric cancer and curing AIDS.

During the rally at U.S. Bank Arena, he said: "The things we're doing in our country today, there's never been anything like it. We will be ending the AIDS epidemic shortly in America, and curing childhood cancer very shortly."

I especially liked the use of the word "shortly," as if these historic medical breakthroughs are imminent, and AIDS and childhood cancer will soon be things of the past.

To be sure, that would be extraordinarily great news for millions of people, but let's keep a couple of things in mind. First, there's a difference between a president having a substantive policy agenda and a president having fanciful ideas about amazing things he'd like to see happen. Trump doesn't have a plan for the United States to reach these aspirational goals; he has a desire to simply see them happen.

If the president is prepared to focus real energies on this -- as Joe Biden, among other political leaders, has done as part of the Obama administration's "Cancer Moonshot" endeavor -- that'd be great. But hollow declarations at rallies do not a policy agenda make.

read more