Donald Trump
Dispelling the Zombie Myth of White Evangelical Support for Trump
Yesterday’s inaugural Republican primary event gave us our first official glimpse into the 2024 election-year...
Biden vs. Trump: Whose Economic Plan Is Better for You? Trump...
Biden vs. Trump: Whose Economic Plan Is Better for You?
Trump failed to deliver on his number one campaign promise:
President Trump presided over a historic net loss of nearly 3 million American jobs, the worst jobs numbers ever recorded under an American president.
This is no fluke. America’s economy has almost always done worse under Republican presidents. A New York Times analysis found that since 1933, the U.S. economy has grown nearly twice as fast on average under Democrats.
Now Trump’s defenders claim it’s not his fault that the economy collapsed under his watch. It was the pandemic. But there are two big things wrong with this.
First, the pandemic recession was as bad as it was because of Trump. His failure to lead with any national strategy left America in chaos throughout 2020, long after other nations had developed coordinated testing, tracing, and social distancing plans that allowed them to reopen their economies.
But secondly, even before the pandemic, Trump failed to deliver on his economic promises. Job growth slowed under Trump.
America added more jobs in President Obama’s last three years than in Trump’s first three.
Even before the pandemic most middle-class American households saw their incomes go down under Trump.
Trump’s major economic policy was cutting taxes on the rich and big corporations. He promised it would result in $4,000 annual raises for workers. How did that work out? Did you get a $4,000 raise?
Republicans keep claiming that if we just cut enough taxes on the rich, the wealth will “trickle down.” But it never works. Wage growth slowed after Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich and big corporations. And the Bush and Trump tax cuts didn’t trickle down either.
These giveaways to the wealthy came at the expense of investments in infrastructure, education, and health care, making life more expensive and difficult for everyone who isn’t rich.
They also exploded the debt and deficit. Reagan oversaw a 186% increase in the national debt — the biggest percentage increase in over 70 years. The Bush and Trump tax cuts, that mostly benefited corporations and the rich, are the main reasons why America’s debt is growing faster than the economy.
Republican presidents have led us into the three worst economic crises of the last century, and Democrats led us out of them.
Republicans talk about running the country like a business, but they want to run it the way Trump ran his businesses: with massive debts, a string of failures, and payouts for the folks at the top, while workers get shafted again and again. Given Republicans’ track record, why would any hard-working American put their financial security in the hands of a Republican president ever again?
All That Glitters is Monotheism — Ignorance of Paganism Isn’t The Real Problem with David Wolpe’s ‘Atlantic’ Essay
In a recent essay for The Atlantic, David Wolpe, a rabbi and visiting scholar at...
‘The Age of Insurrection: The Radical Right’s Assault on American Democracy’ Explains How We Got Here — And What Comes Next
“As far as I’m concerned, I’m done with this,” investigative reporter David Neiwert told us,...
Kimmel/Rodgers, Ren & Stimpy, Slow Horses & More: BCTV Daily Dispatch
In today's BCTV Daily Dispatch: Jimmy Kimmel/Aaron Rodgers, FOX Business/Green Day, Echo, Doctor Who, CNN/Donald Trump, Ren & Stimpy and more!
Green Day Fallout, Doctor Who Superman & More: BCTV Daily Dispatch
In today's BCTV Daily Dispatch: Superman: Legacy, Cobra Kai, Green Day/Donald Trump, Doctor Who, Twisted Metal, Jeremy Renner, and more!
Green Day/Donald Trump, GOT, What If…? & More: BCTV Daily Dispatch
In today's BCTV Daily Dispatch: New Year's Rockin' Eve, Green Day/Donald Trump, GOT, Night Court, Doctor Who, MacFarlane/Maher, and more!
Registered Israeli foreign agent driving contrived campus antisemitism crisis
Lawsuits accusing top US universities of harboring antisemitism all originate from one source: a corporate law firm that fielded the pro-settler ex-US ambassador to Israel, and which was registered as a foreign agent of an Israeli principal as recently as 2021. The firm now represents professional Israel lobby activists posing as victimized “Jewish students” and seeking to crush the free speech rights of Palestine solidarity activists. The fallout from December 5 House Committe on Antisemitism hearings has already cost University […]
The post Registered Israeli foreign agent driving contrived campus antisemitism crisis first appeared on The Grayzone.
The post Registered Israeli foreign agent driving contrived campus antisemitism crisis appeared first on The Grayzone.
Congressional Gridlock: The Impact of Trump’s Impeachment on Ukraine’s Military Support
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
In the frontline city of Kherson, South Ukraine, Victoria told Byline Times about her disappointment in the United States' foreign policy. A longtime resident, she survived the Russian occupation, flood, and lives through daily shelling. To the ongoing cannonade of artillery fire, she said, “We are deeply offended. We are dying here daily and did not expect the stab in the back”.
Victoria’s claim is hardly an exaggeration. Kherson has been deeply affected by the ongoing conflict. From 1 to 11 December 2023, the Kherson Region witnessed 836 attacks, averaging 86 per day, with 4,834 shells, including missiles, targeting civilian areas. Nine civilians were killed and 48 injured. The political deadlock in the US Congress has left many, like Victoria, feeling betrayed and disheartened.
Ukrainians see the US Congress blocking of the military aid as the failure of Biden’s foreign policy that undermines US credibility on a global scale. Many worldwide would agree. The geopolitical consequences of the US indecision are dire, and the implications extend far beyond Ukraine. Just hours after the meeting between Zelensky and Biden and the press conference in the White House, Kyiv faced a ballistic missile attack, with 51 civilians injured: a non-verbal response to the US indecision. Kremlin propagandists openly express their gratitude to the US Congress. Other countries like China will take note.
“Ukraine is a border,” says Olga, a small business owner in Kherson. Her grocery store was flooded after the Russian troops blew up the Nova Khakhovka Dam and has been shelled four times during the last nine months. “How can you not protect your border? The Russian Federation will not stop in Ukraine.”
Protecting borders is the very reason the US Republicans use to put a plug in the military aid to Ukraine. A closer look at the situation will reveal it is not so.
BREAKING
Swing seats could be decided by Brits living in Moscow or Iran following changes to election rules
Josiah Mortimer
Emergency Appropriations Bill Blockage
On 6 December 2023, all 49 Republican senators blocked the White House's emergency appropriations bill, including $61 billion aid to Ukraine, $14 billion aid to Israel, $14 billion for southern US border security, appropriations for Taiwan, and US submarine fleet modernization.
The blockage stems from several reasons. Republicans question the effectiveness of additional aid for Ukraine, citing uncertainties in war aims and spending, and doubt the impact of more assistance following a less successful summer offensive. However, the predominant concern among Republicans seemingly centers on US border protection needs. House Speaker Mike Johnson firmly links US aid to Ukraine with immigration reforms, citing national security as the primary motivation.
Republicans condition the bill adoption on immigration law changes. Requirements include a ban on third-country nationals seeking asylum or refugee status after illegally crossing the US-Mexico border; cancellation of the President's right to grant temporary asylum with work rights to foreign citizens (based on this right, the US President Joe Biden approved the programme for accepting 100,000 refugees from Ukraine in the US); tightening conditions for asylum applications and internment of asylum seekers during processing. President Biden accused Republicans of holding Ukraine funding “hostage for a partisan border agenda.”
The Republicans’ goal is limiting immigration to satisfy the party electorate during the election year. Despite studies disproving a link between rising immigration and crime in the US, the isolationist Republican Party persists in associating the two. Republicans aim to limit entry opportunities for immigrants from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, and Venezuela. This long-standing goal also aligns with the former US President Donald Trump's promises.
It’s Really That Bad at the Front, Say Russian POWs
A Russian soldier said that he was told that it’s better to use a grenade to kill himself and any enemies approaching rather than surrender and face “torture”
Kateryna Zakharchenko
Trump Influence and Primaries
The influence of former President Trump looms large over these proceedings. Trump's likely dominance in Republican primaries starting in February 2024 may further hinder support for aid to Ukraine.The Congress, including moderate Republicans, may deter from contradicting the party leader—and border protection is not the deciding factor in this development.
In the dynamic and eventful political landscape of the past five years, it may escape the memory of the US mass media and the public that the blockage of military aid to Ukraine did not originate in 2023. Recall Trump’s impeachment over a Ukraine scandal in 2019.
The former US President blocked a $400 million military aid package to Ukraine, attempting to secure quid pro quo cooperation by seeking damaging narratives on the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and misinformation about Russian interference from Ukraine. Trump conditioned official acts on Ukraine's announcement of investigations, withholding a White House meeting with Zelensky and military assistance to Ukraine. Trump’s surrogates, including Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, pressured Ukraine into the deal.
After Trump's actions were revealed by a whistleblower complaint, the aid to Ukraine was released. An impeachment inquiry prompted by concerns about foreign interference followed in September 2019. Formal charges included abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House Intelligence Committee report detailed Trump's solicitation of Ukraine's interference for personal gain. House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment, but Trump was acquitted by the Senate. In January 2020, the Government Accountability Office concluded that the White House violated federal law by withholding Congress-approved military aid to Ukraine.
Mark Temnycky
Zelensky’s Visit
Seeking a compromise on the bill, Zelensky made a personal appeal to Biden and lawmakers on Capitol Hill during his 11-12 December visit to the US. Meetings with senators and Speaker Johnson were held to seek support. The results of the meetings are unclear. Speaker Johnson, post-meeting, urged the White House to offer "clarity and detail" on Ukraine's strategy against Russia before endorsing additional funding. Given that the US Congress is going on holiday until 2-3 January 2024, the resolution of the conflict is unlikely.
Positive developments followed the visit, including Biden’s approval of allocating $200 million in support, with the aid package including “very important equipment, ammunition, artillery.” During his visit, Zelensky discussed creating a European defense hub with US defense companies, considered by some analysts a critical step. He also noted Ukraine's decreasing dependency on aid.
The unblocking of the military aid bill remains a burning priority. “If there’s anyone inspired by unresolved issues on Capitol Hill, it’s just Putin and his sick clique,” Zelenskyy told the audience at National Defense University. “They see their dreams come true when they see the delays and scandals. They see freedom falling when the support of freedom fighters goes down. People like Putin shouldn’t even hope to conquer freedom.”
The Future of Geography: How Power and Politics in Space Will Change Our World – review
In The Future of Geography: How Power and Politics in Space Will Change Our World, Tim Marshall analyses the geopolitical dynamics and consequences of space exploration. According to Gary Wilson, the book is an illuminating insight into the political geography of space and the dynamics between world powers as they continue to expand the space frontier.
The Future of Geography: How Power and Politics in Space Will Change Our World. Tim Marshall. Elliott & Thompson. 2023.
Find this book: 
While Tim Marshall’s previous works have firmly established him as a prominent authority on the politics of geography, in this new book he enters uncharted territory: an appraisal of the geopolitical dynamics and consequences of space exploration. In a series of earlier books Marshall considered the impact of geography on the possibilities and limitations of the projection of national power in some of the world’s political hotspots. The Future of Geography breaks new ground by probing how major world powers’ activities in space may come to shape the future of world politics in (until recently) ways which could not have been envisaged.
The Future of Geography begins with the premise that space is rapidly becoming an extension of earth, representing the latest arena for intense human competition. Although the book explores the space activities and objectives of a wide spectrum of states and other actors, Marshall makes clear from the outset that there are three main players to be aware of: China, the US and Russia.
Space is rapidly becoming an extension of earth, representing the latest arena for intense human competition.
The book is structured into three parts. The first of these is relatively brief and consists of two chapters which serve to provide useful context for the more substantive treatment of space activity found in part two. In chapter one Marshall traces interest in space back to the earliest recorded historical periods, noting that there is a long history of “studying stars,” stone circles and similar (phenomena perceived as otherworldly or mysterious). Beginning with the Babylonians, he charts astronomical advances through Greek and Roman times into the twentieth century, referencing the scientific contributions of the likes of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton along the way. In the second chapter, Marshall identifies the origins of modern space exploration in Germany’s wartime rocket development programme, before proceeding to explain the importance of the Cold War in generating further advances in space as part of the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. A string of Soviet “firsts” in the 1950s and early 1960s, culminated in Yuri Gagarin being the first man in space, which lead to huge surges in American space budgets as they raced to put the first man on the moon.
A string of Soviet “firsts” in the 1950s and early 1960s, culminated in Yuri Gagarin being the first man in space, which lead to huge surges in American space budgets as they raced to put the first man on the moon.
Part Two of the book represents its substantive core. In its six chapters, Marshall first explores some of the general difficulties and tensions generated by modern space exploration, before appraising the space policies of the world’s major players in this arena. The geography of space cannot be understood in earthly terms and scales, but in chapter three Marshall presents a series of numerical markers which permit the reader to gain some sense of the enormity of distances in space. Although NASA regards space as beginning at 80 km, the International Space Station is located 400km into space, while medium and higher earth orbit extend the area for potential exploration yet further. Noting that over 80 countries have satellites in space, Marshall posits that “the idea that space is a global common is disappearing.”
Most existing international space treaties are regarded as outdated, products of the Cold War that fail to account for technological advances and the expansion of states with space-related aspirations.
This leads into chapter four’s consideration of efforts to regulate space by legal mechanisms. Most existing international space treaties are regarded as outdated, products of the Cold War that fail to account for technological advances and the expansion of states with space-related aspirations. At best, current space activity is governed by a series of non-binding, ad hoc agreements. Marshall lays out the various sources of potential scope for conflict or disagreement, including questions raised by the activities of private bodies in space and increased space debris from the deployment and destruction of satellites. While the need for new legal regimes to regulate and foster cooperation in space activity is accepted, such developments are hindered by the fact that the major three space powers agree on little.
China’s space programme is more militarised than the others and, despite being a slower starter in space exploration, now seeks to rival the International Space Station.
The following three chapters consider in turn the space policies of the three big space powers. China’s space programme is more militarised than the others and, despite being a slower starter in space exploration, now seeks to rival the International Space Station. It is the only country operating its own space station and is working with Russia on the creation of moon base. China established various “firsts” in space during the first decades of the twenty-first century, is home to over a hundred private space companies and has developed plans for the years ahead, including launching over 1,000 satellites within a decade. Within the US, space investment has fluctuated over time in accordance with its relative popularity. However, in 2019 the US launched a 16,000 strong Space Force and has invested heavily in early-warning satellites and laser weapons. While planning a lunar gateway space station, the US has collaborated increasingly with private firms such as Space X, the first company into space and which was contracted to build a lunar landing module. In contrast to initiatives taking place in China and the US, Marshall suggests that Russia’s “best days in cosmology look to be behind it.” However, Putin has sought to reinvigorate Russia’s space programme as tensions have increased between Russia and the West in recent years. Its efforts depend heavily on its cooperation with China, with Russia regarded as the junior partner in the alliance to undermine US superiority.
Putin has sought to reinvigorate Russia’s space programme as tensions have increased between Russia and the West in recent years. Its efforts depend heavily on its cooperation with China.
The emphasis on the big three powers should not overlook the fact that an increasing number of states have invested to some extent in space activity. A brief survey of some of these takes place in chapter eight, which considers the move towards regional space blocs, such as the US allied European Space Agency, within which Italy, Germany and France have all been major players. While states as varied as Japan and India, Israel and the UAE are all referenced in this overview, Marshall notes that nobody comes close to challenging the big three.
In the book’s final part Marshall ponders some of the possibilities for the future of space exploration. The penultimate chapter sees him present some hypothetical scenarios, which illustrate some of the potential sources of future conflict. He highlights the danger of pre-emptive strikes in space and potential for escalation of conflict in such a scenario, while the biggest threat is considered most likely to arise from competition between the US and China. The book concludes by acknowledging the commercial opportunities which exist in space, while observing the various practical difficulties which may limit the extent to which they represent realistic propositions.
The Future of Geography makes an important contribution to understanding the political geography of space exploration and its impact on relationships between the world’s major powers.
The Future of Geography makes an important contribution to understanding the political geography of space exploration and its impact on relationships between the world’s major powers. It is not always easy to engage with some of the space jargon deployed, which presumes a certain amount of knowledge of space terminology and factual knowledge. There is also scope for the impact of space activity on international relations to be drawn out in more specific terms on occasion, to more effectively illustrate the possible real-world effects it may come to have. However, in a challenging and problematic arena of international political activity, the book offers insights which further the appreciation of the political geography of space exploration and provide illuminating food for thought as to what the future of space may hold.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: Artsiom P on Shutterstock.