Connect with us

ANALYSIS

Trump’s Approval Ratings Take A Nose Dive As He Builds A Wall – Around Himself

Published

on

Donald Trump speaking to supporters in Mesa, Arizona

It’s been six days since the government began a partial shutdown under the direction of President Donald J. Trump. Now, a new poll shows what some are saying could possibly be the beginning of the end for Trump – a nose dive in the court of public opinion.

As Mueller continues his Russian election interference probe, the American people are already casting their “border wall” verdicts – guilty. In fact, the Morning Consult National Tracking Poll had some decidedly grim statistics for the troubled Commander-in-Chief and his extremely white base.

The findings show that only 39% of respondents approve of Trump, while 56% don’t. To put it into perspective, he’s about as popular now as he was in August 2017 after the Charlottsville protests.

A majority of Trump supporters polled also believe the president won’t be able to obtain full funding for his border wall – a whopping 52% of them.

Then there’s this: 43% plurality says he is mostly to blame for shutdown; 53% also say he didn’t do enough to stop it from happening.

The poll was conducted between Dec. 21-23, 2018. Registered voters were surveyed two hours before some government agencies shut down amid an impasse over wall funding. 39% of registered voters — including 80% of Republicans — approved of Trump’s job performance. However, 90% of Democrats surveyed did not approve (equating to 56%). As for Independents, that percentage was even higher at 57%.

Approximately 63% of those surveyed said they understood what caused the shutdown. To follow that up, 43% of registered voters said Trump was mostly to blame for the shutdown.

1,992 registered voters took part in the newest national online survey where 78% of voters said they had heard at least “some” about the government shutdown rumblings rotating throughout the current news cycles.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

ANALYSIS

Pro-Insurrection Congressman: ‘America Needs You’ to ‘Fight’ and ‘Sacrifice’ Lives Like Soldiers at Valley Forge

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), who was one of the very first leaders of Donald Trump‘s January 6 insurrection, on Friday urged GOP voters at a conservative conference to fight and die for America, just like George Washington’s soldiers did at Valley Forge, and telegraphing to them their very “survival” is at stake.

Brooks was the first member of Congress to declare he would vote against certifying the results of the Electoral College and vote to overturn the free and fair presidential election. On January 6 he also delivered a speech, telling Trump supporters at the Trump-financed, Trump-produced, and Trump-promoted rally prior to the violent attack on the Capitol, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.”

On Friday Brooks told attendees at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, that the “choice is simple: We can surrender and submit. Or we can fight back, as our ancestors have done.”

The use of the word “ancestors” appears quite intentional, and may have been used in an anti-immigrant whitewashing to make his audience feel even more connected to America’s founders.

“Think for a moment about our ancestors who fought at Valley Forge,” Brooks continued, repeated that key word. “They didn’t fight the British, they fought for survival.”

“12,000 Continental soldiers arrived, five, six months later 2000 had died. Think about what they went through, burying your brothers, your fathers your sons, 10 to 15 a day, every day for six months.”

Again, notice the very intentional choice of the word “your,” not “their.”

“That’s the kind of sacrifice that we have to think about and I ask you, are you willing to fight for America? Are you willing to fight for America? Well, the choice is simple: This is how you fight for America. This is what America needs you to do, and you as members of CPAC being here today, you’re the corps. You’re the ones that have to be the Energizer Bunny.”

Brooks use of the word “corps” can be taken as a military reference, or he could claim he simply meant “core,” but either way his speech is yet another example of his attempt to incite violence, as he has been accused of doing on January 6.

He concluded his address by again urging conservatives to “fight.”

 

Videos via Forbes’ Andrew Solender, his report is here.

Continue Reading

ANALYSIS

Watergate Prosecutor Explains Why It’s Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions Who Are Lying About Trump’s Spying

Published

on

Former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks explained on MSNBC Sunday that there’s no way that Attorneys General Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions didn’t know about the warrants to spy on reporters, Democratic members of Congress, their staff and families, and of his own White House counsel.

Barr, Sessions and former Justice Department deputy Rod Rosenstein have all denied they knew of the subpoenas to spy, but Wine-Banks explained that’s impossible because something like this would go all the way to the top.

“It may be that the person that they were investigating, had a legitimate predication for the search warrants and that they had some reason to do this,” she told MSNBC. “It could have been that he got called by somebody that they were already investigating. It doesn’t mean this is normal. It is not normal, and I think the investigation is absolutely critical, holding someone accountable is important to stop this from ever happening again. We can’t have members of Congress, the press, and the White House counsel subjected to this. And the reason Don McGahn, of course, is of concern is because he was cooperating with Mueller which made him an enemy of Donald Trump. Donald Trump was calling out [Adam] Schiff, he was calling out [Eric] Swalwell, people who were subject to this search warrant, and he certainly must have felt uncomfortable with his own White House counsel who was cooperating and telling the truth to Mueller. So, that’s why it’s of concern.”

Sessions said that he was never briefed on this seizure of records. Barr played fast and loose with the language, saying that he never discussed the leak cases with Trump. That was similar language to Barr’s refusal to answer when then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) questioned him about Trump or anybody else who “asked or suggested” that he open an investigation into his political foes. Barr pretended not to know what the word “suggested” meant and refused to answer.

Host Alicia Menendez asked Wine-Banks if it was possible they didn’t have any idea what was going on.

“In my opinion, no, and let me tell you why,” said Wine-Banks. “First of all, we had [Osmar] Benvenuto, who was brought in at the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney from New Jersey, who was put in by Barr to replace the New York attorney who he was pushing out. He recommended Benvenuto who came in, and Benvenuto has said — in a recording, that he briefed Barr at least every other week. So, it is not credible. And if Barr didn’t know about this, then Barr is the worst manager, the worst Attorney General ever, because that is his job. The Department of Justice policy requires that there be notice and approval from a higher source. So, it’s not something that you can just subpoena a member of Congress’ records or a reporter’s records without something much more. So, it doesn’t pass what I call the ‘red face test.’ It’s like, could I stand up before a jury and say this in front of them without blushing or giggling? The answer is, no, I couldn’t.”

Apple said in a statement that the DOJ request provided “no information on the nature of the investigation and it would have been virtually impossible for Apple to understand the intent of the desired information without digging through users’ accounts.”

Presumably, the court documents would have detailed who appeared in court for the warrant and there should be enough of a paper trail that some of the Justice Department officials involved were named. Barr hasn’t actually denied that he played any role in renewing the requests or that he didn’t know of the investigation. He’s only said he didn’t discuss it with Trump. It’s unclear why he would have discussed it given he wasn’t there when the investigation was launched. The gag order against Apple was renewed over and over again, which would have also required a lot of paperwork.

See the video below:

 

Continue Reading

ANALYSIS

Critics Blast Manchin Over Two Facts That Decimate Why He Says He Opposes the ‘For the People’ Voting Rights Bill

Published

on

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) is working hard to make sure everyone know he opposes the “For the People Act,” a large piece of legislation that protects the rights of voters, makes it easier to vote, reduces the influence of dark money in political campaigns, limits partisan gerrymandering, and installs rules of ethics for elected officials. But two critical data points make his arguments useless.

“I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act,” Manchin said in a now-infamous op-ed in a West Virginia newspaper.

He offered zero criticisms of the legislation itself, just that no Republican supports it. And that it is 800 pages, if that is even a criticism.

That’s it.

But as Business Insider reports, “Joe Manchin cosponsored the voting-rights bill in 2019 that he’s now blocking on the grounds that the GOP doesn’t like it.”

That’s one problem. Here’s the second, or, as MSNBC Opinion Columnist Hayes Brown writes, “the real kicker“:

“Unless the senator’s office has some private polling that they’d like to share, Manchin’s assumptions about what West Virginians want are wrong. According to a poll released last month — commissioned by End Citizens United and Let America Vote Action Fund and conducted by Global Strategy Group and ALG Research — the For the People Act is wildly popular among likely voters in West Virginia. Like ’76 percent of Republicans are in favor’ levels of popularity, to say nothing of the 79 percent of independents and 81 percent of Democrats.”

Here’s MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Monday night explaining this second critical fact. She says the “For the People Act” legislation “is more popular than the infrastructure bill, it is more popular than COVID relief.”

So why is Senator Manchin really against legislation that he supported two years ago and that eight in 10 of his constituents support?

Judd Legum, the ThinkProgress co-founder and the founder of Popular Information calls Manchin’s publicly-stated reasons for opposing the For the People Act “very strange.”

“On an entirely partisan basis, Republicans in the states are taking steps that Manchin himself acknowledges ‘needlessly restrict voting.’ But Manchin says he will only agree to stop this partisan power grab if Republicans agree to join him.”

“This is the exact same argument the Chamber used in talking points it sent to Senators in April opposing the legislation,” Legum writes, offering up the Chamber of Commerce’s own words (bolding his):

The Chamber believes the ability of Americans to exercise their right to vote in accessible and secure elections and to be able to trust in a free and fair outcome is fundamental to who we are as a nation. The Chamber is deeply troubled by efforts at the state and federal level to enact election law changes on a partisan basis. Changes enacted on a partisan basis are the most likely to erode access and security and undermine public confidence and the willingness of the American people to trust and accept future election outcomes.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.