More Thursday Male Beauty

 

The Felon's Claim "Affordability" Is a Hoax Falls Flat

The Felon is a malignant narcissist who believes he is smarter and more talented than anyone else.  He was also born to wealth - ill begotten or otherwise - and likely has never grocery shopped for his family or even paid utility bills. In short, he is clueless about the financial struggles most Americans face and the every day stress of trying to pay bills.  During the 2024 election campaign, the Felon depicted the economy under Joe Biden as terrible - it actually wasn't, especially compared to 11 months into the Felon's second regime - and promised voters that he would lower prices "on day one,"   That, of course, has not happened and the Felon's tariffs have only made matters worse by driving up consumer prices and generating so much uncertainty that many businesses are holding off hiring or laying off workers.    A column in the New York Times looks at the reality of tariffs:

For President Trump, the affordability crisis is a “hoax” perpetuated by Democrats. For the customer checking out at Costco or Walmart, it’s a rising grocery bill threatening already fragile household finances. . . . . The reality is that Trump does not want the story properly told.

I originally set out to try to put a dollar figure on how much the median family has lost this year as a result of Trump’s tax and spending policies, his tariffs and immigration restrictions and their effects on growth, inflation, wages, taxes and wealth. . . . . when I put it all together for the median household, I came up with an estimated net loss of $2,250 in 2025 spending power.

The median household income after taxes was $72,330 in 2024, according to the census. The $2,250 amounts to a 3.1 percent loss in spending power, more than enough to persuade quite a few voters that the economy under Trump has gone sour, an assessment confirmed by poll after poll. This disenchantment has begun to spread to Trump’s own voters.

As I dug into the research, something far more important than the specific dollar estimate of an average family’s loss emerged: Trump’s economic policies have put the nation on a long-term path of decline, in terms of gross domestic product, employment, capital investment and wage growth. . . . . . The policy mix of the Trump administration feels similar to Brexit to me. It is likely slowing growth down and lowering living standards relative to what would have been achieved without this policy mix.

Despite this reality, the Felon recently gave himself a "A++++" on his handling of the economy even as more and more blame is being laid at the Felon's feet by voters in general and even a growing percentage of MAGA voters.  The Felon is trying to gaslight Americans to get them to disbelieve what they are in fact experiencing.  Hopefully, voters and consumers do not buy into the Felon's latest lies. At piece at Politico looks at new poll results that disprove the Felon's claims:

Americans are struggling with affordability pressures that are squeezing everything from their everyday necessities to their biggest-ticket expenses.

Nearly half of Americans said they find groceries, utility bills, health care, housing and transportation difficult to afford, according to The POLITICO Poll conducted last month by Public First. The results paint a grim portrait of spending constraints: More than a quarter, 27 percent, said they have skipped a medical check-up because of costs within the last two years, and 23 percent said they have skipped a prescription dose for the same reason.

While President Donald Trump gave himself an “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus” grade on the economy during an exclusive interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns, the poll results underscore that voters’ financial anxieties have become deeply intertwined with their politics, shaping how they evaluate the White House’s response to rising costs.

Trump insists that “prices are all coming down,” as he told Burns, but the results pose a challenge for Trump and the Republican Party ahead of the 2026 midterms, with even some of the president’s own voters showing signs that their patience with high costs is wearing thin.

POLITICO reporters covering a variety of beats have spent the past few weeks poring over the poll results. We asked some of them to unpack the data for us and tell us what stood out most. Here’s what they said:

TARIFFS

The big observation: Trump has struggled to persuade even parts of his base to accept the idea that tariffs will pay off over time. . . . . What really stood out: Staunch supporters of the president were roughly twice as likely as other Republicans to believe tariffs are a net positive already, although large shares of both groups still said they view them as harmful. . . . . it remains a delicate political issue when a lot of voters may be more concerned about their everyday expenses rather than a broader global calculus.

COLLEGE COSTS

The big observation: The tuition is too damn high. Only a quarter of Americans think college is worth the money, regardless of party, The POLITICO Poll found. Overall, 62 percent of Americans said college isn’t worth it because it either costs too much or doesn’t provide enough benefits — a belief supported most by 18- to 24-year-olds and those aged 65 and up.

The income gap between Americans with college degrees and those with high school degrees widened over the last two decades. And recent research from the U.S. Census Bureau found the median income of households headed by someone with a bachelor’s degree or higher last year was more than double the median income of those with householders with a high school degree but no college.

The Trump administration has pressed universities to control their costs — attempting to tie those efforts to the schools’ access to federal funds — but also shed the student loan forgiveness programs Biden championed.

FOOD PRICES

The big observation: Trump attributed his 2024 victory over Biden partly to his pledge to bring down the cost of everyday goods like eggs. But a year later, Americans are more worried about being able to afford groceries than the rising cost of housing or health care, according to The POLITICO Poll.

Half of those surveyed said they find it difficult to pay for food. And a majority, 55 percent, blame the Trump administration for the high prices — even as the White House emphasizes its focus on affordability and the economy ahead of the midterm.

What really stood out: As affordability increasingly becomes a political flashpoint, with Democrats eager to seize on GOP vulnerabilities, a meaningful share of Trump’s own voters — 22 percent — blame the president for the high grocery costs.

HOUSING

The big observation: Concerns about housing costs — which have represented a major share of inflation in recent years — eclipsed those for health care, utilities, commuting expenses and child care, The POLITICO Poll found.

Only grocery costs bested the issue across more than a dozen expenses when respondents were asked to identify the items they find “the most challenging” to afford. The high cost of housing is also coming through in other metrics: The median age of first-time homebuyers climbed to a record high of 40 this year, according to the National Association of Realtors.

What really stood out: The POLITICO Poll found that homebuying and rental costs were of particular concern for young and Hispanic adults, two constituencies whose support for Trump last year helped Republicans regain control of Washington.

Those surveyed spread the blame for high housing costs across the Trump and Biden administrations, state and local governments and private landlords. But it’s Republicans who have to protect their hold on Washington heading into the midterms while the president generally dismissed affordability this week as “a hoax that was started by Democrats.”

HEALTH CARE COSTS

The big observation: Nearly half of American adults find it difficult to afford health care, according to The POLITICO Poll. Health care ranked as the No. 3 cost concern for respondents.

Democrats are pushing to extend pandemic-era enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year. If they end, prices will skyrocket for many Americans who buy insurance through the Obamacare marketplace. Democrats, who have struggled since Trump’s victory to coalesce around a campaign message, are banking on health care costs and other affordability concerns being a winning issue for them in the midterms.

While poll respondents overall said they were more likely to trust Democrats to bring down health care costs, the overall split may not be concerning to Republicans running for reelection: 42 percent favored Democrats on the issue, compared with 33 percent favoring Republicans. The question becomes whether the non-MAGA Republicans can be persuaded to break ranks, or undecided voters are wooed.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Wednesday Male Beauty

 

Trump 2.0: Mistaking Cruelty and Brutality for Strength

One of the hallmarks of the Felon's second regime is the zeal with which gratuitous cruelty is visited on those disliked by the Felon and/or his principal henchmen and henchwomen. Be it the horrible treatment of mostly brown-skinned undocumented immigrants, the use of the National Guard to intimidate citizens and immigrants alike, or most gruesomely the murder of those on alleged "drug boats" when no documented proof of guilt or actual drug running has yet to be provided.  Part of this cavalcade of cruelty may stem from the Felon's desire to be a strongman/dictator like Vladimir Putin and others while part seemingly stems from the racial hatred of the all too visible white supremacists within the regime. Yet more of this embrace of cruelty, in my view, arises from the Christofascists within the regime and the MAGA base who thrill at seeing their perceived enemies suffer harm like some of the brutality found in the Old Testament (these people are anything but true followers of Christ).  The problem for the Felon and his regime is that a majority of Americans have not walked away from basic morality and view the regime's cruelty and brutality with revulsion. Hence the Felon and his regime's resistance to releasing the unedited video of the second strike against two hapless men struggling in the water and clinging to wreckage after their boat was destroyed by a drone strike.  As a piece in The Atlantic lays out, this confusion of cruelty and brutality for strength has American allies ceasing intelligence sharing and much of the public even less supportive of the Felon's regime:

In the late 19th century, the British explorer Henry Morton Stanley set out on what he believed would be his greatest achievement: the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition. He imagined himself crossing Africa, rescuing an isolated provincial governor, and returning home to the applause of a grateful empire.

The expedition he led, however, was anything but noble. Stanley’s caravan pillaged some villages for food, burned others that resisted, and killed many Africans who resisted his advance. Disease and starvation claimed many of his own porters. What he saw as necessary resolve looked, even to some of his contemporaries, like something far more troubling.

When Stanley published In Darkest Africa, in 1890, he recounted these episodes with a confidence that now seems astonishing. He assumed the British public, which had initially welcomed him home to great acclaim, would admire his firmness. Instead, they recoiled at his brutality.

Those who had once celebrated imperial adventure now saw needless killing and a man who appeared unmoved by the suffering he caused. Stanley had mistaken brutality for strength, and the public recognition of his error marked the beginning of his fall from national hero to cautionary tale.

I thought about this history as new information emerged about the Trump administration’s campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Under this program, small vessels suspected of carrying drugs were hit with military-grade munitions, often without any attempt to detain or even warn those aboard. In at least one case, the strikes didn’t end when the boat was destroyed. Survivors adrift on the wreckage in open water were killed in a second attack, a “double tap” designed to finish the job.

During my 18 years in the House and Senate, I sat through countless briefings on when and how lethal force could be used. Later, as ambassador to Turkey, I saw how closely the world watches when we choose to honor those limits—or choose not to do so. That perspective makes these boat strikes impossible to wave off as routine. They reflect choices that fall well outside the standards we have long claimed to uphold.

The administration has resisted releasing full video of these incidents, citing national security. But the more plausible concern is political and moral. It knows what the public reaction would be. Americans have strong feelings about drug trafficking, but few believe that killing people as they attempt to stay alive in the ocean fits within the bounds of justifiable force. Once confronted with the footage, most Americans would question not only the legality of the operation but the instinct behind it.

This is the thread that links President Donald Trump to Stanley. Both believed their missions were righteous enough to justify whatever means were employed. Both assumed that the public, deep down, would admire their toughness. But democracies have never fully embraced that logic. Citizens can support firm action while still holding on to their humanity. Death inflicted on the helpless is never an act of strength; it is what remains when strength forgets its purpose.

That recognition seems to exist even among some in the administration. The reluctance to release the footage suggests an awareness of the moral intuition that they fear the public will follow. Americans may disagree on many things, but they still distinguish between necessary force and needless killing.

Stanley misread the public of his time. He thought it would see heroism where it saw cruelty. The question now is whether our own leaders are making the same mistake.

The public deserves the chance to judge for itself. Release the video, Mr. President.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

 

Is the MAGA Coalition Beginning to Fray?

The elections last month and this past week's special election in Tennessee suggest that perhaps - if the nation is lucky - the MAGA coalition may be beginning to unravel.  The GOP losses in Virginia were steep in part because the Republican ticket had a horrible standard barer and the GOP wins four years early were, in my view, a fluke. Youngkin ran a slick and deeply deceptive campaign while his Democrat opponent made serious missteps and statements that were very damaging to Democrat prospects.  But the GOP losses across the rest country are not so easily explained away, by allegations of poor candidates merely a return to more normal voting patterns, particularly in red states and historically Republican districts and county legislative bodies. Indeed, while all races have their local issue components, the overarching issue was the Felon's regime and policies that have not improved so-called "affordability" - supposedly a major concern in 2024 by those voting for the Felon - and in many ways that are outright harming many working class and other voters in red states. As a piece in the New York Time notes, both voters and Republican office holders may be awakening to the reality that the Felon is toxic to their lives and finances or political viability as applicable.  One can only hope more Americans wake up to the need to be rid of the Felon.  Here are column highlights:

It hasn’t happened much in my life, but last Tuesday night a place I know very well was at the center of national attention. The bright red congressional district where I lived until this summer delivered a sharp warning to the Republican Party.

I’m speaking about the special election results in Tennessee’s Seventh Congressional District, a mostly suburban and rural district that includes parts of Nashville. The Republican candidate, Matt Van Epps, defeated his Democratic opponent, Aftyn Behn, by just under nine points.

In some places, a nine-point Republican margin is considered a resounding victory. But not in Tennessee 7. . . . This is not a swing district or one that Democrats expect to win this side of the apocalypse.

But for a few days in October, it seemed like the end was nigh. I’d been hearing rumors that Republicans were starting to worry about the race, and a poll taken between Nov. 22 and Nov. 24 showed Van Epps leading by only two points. . . . That it was close at all was stunning, not least because Behn is hardly an ideological match for one of the most conservative districts in Tennessee. She’s been labeled — and not as a gesture of love and respect — the “A.O.C. of Tennessee.”

So, no, this race was not what it looks like when Democrats strategically nominate someone who will appeal to Tennessee Republicans. This is what it looks like when your coalition is coming apart at the seams.

The end of the Trump era is coming into view, and too much attention is focused on what Republicans think of Trump and too little is focused on what Republicans think of one another.

Last Monday the Manhattan Institute released the results of a poll of nearly 3,000 voters that was designed to identify the ideology and beliefs of the American right. What it found was fascinating — and almost exactly mirrors my personal experience living in a deep-red district in a deep-red state. . . . “Roughly two-thirds of the coalition are what we call ‘Core Republicans’: longstanding G.O.P. voters who have pulled the Republican lever for years. They are consistently conservative on economics, foreign policy and social issues. They still prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, still see China as a threat, still support Israel, and remain firmly opposed to D.E.I. and gender ideology.”

And what about the rest? Roughly 30 percent are what the Manhattan Institute terms “New Entrant Republicans.” They are more diverse, younger and “more likely to have voted for Democratic candidates in the recent past.” . . . But there’s more to the New Entrant Republicans than diversity and ideological moderation. Again, here’s Arm: “Many of them have also absorbed the ugliest content sloshing around online. One-third of New Entrant Republicans believe in all or most of the six conspiracy theories we tested — including about vaccines, 9/11 and the moon landing — compared with just 11 percent of Core Republicans. Sixty-three percent of that highest-conspiracy group previously voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.”

You can see the culture clash with your own eyes in the Seventh District. I lived in Williamson County, a prosperous suburban region just south of Nashville, and in the years since the pandemic, we made national news for multiple Republican intramural fights.

There was the time when a gang of far-right, anti-mask activists gathered around a small group of proponents of masking in public schools, shouting “We know who you are” and “We will find you.” Then, a local Moms for Liberty chapter tried to ban the book “Ruby Bridges Goes to School: My True Story,” among others, from the elementary school curriculum — claiming that the book violated Tennessee’s ban on teaching critical race theory.

Each of these disputes has created enmity between the different factions. And that enmity isn’t just rooted in ideological differences; it’s rooted in mutual resentment. Establishment Republicans resent the extremism and cruelty of the new right, and the new right is furious that the establishment — the Core Republicans — is not sufficiently radicalized.

In fact, the new right is often angrier at traditional conservatives than it is at the left. . . . The depth of these Republican divisions has been obscured by two things: shared affection for Trump and shared revulsion at the left. But Trump is no longer on the ballot, and there is increased alarm over the new right. Those two factors are working together to shrink the Republican tent, and in the Seventh District we watched the tent shrink right in the middle of the Republican heartland.

Core Republicans may like Trump, but they have much less affection for MAGA ideology or MAGA political figures not named Trump. As a result, they’re far more willing to take on figures like Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel. They’re certainly more willing to take on the likes of Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes.

MAGA took the ferocity and extremism and dialed it up. Now there are actual fans of Adolf Hitler in the new right universe, and explicit antisemitism and ethnonationalism is all over right-wing social media.

It’s a common human failing that it’s often hard to see extremism as a problem when extremists aim their fire outside the tent. But when the fire is aimed inside — at you — it becomes impossible to ignore.

If the internal Republican clashes are helping to push people out of the party, it’s still incumbent on Democrats to try to pull wavering Republicans and swing voters in. I don’t know if a more moderate Democrat could have won last week . . . . . but it’s worth noting that Behn’s 13-point blue swing has been the smallest among special elections and primaries thus far. Every other blue shift was between 16 and 28 points.

If a number close to 13 is the minimum swing for Democrats, then the consequences could be devastating for the Republican Party, and no amount of gerrymandering will save it. In fact, if present trends continue (and, of course, much can change between now and November 2026), it could backfire substantially.

In other words, if you’ve been doing nothing but shedding support since Trump was sworn in, and if the Democrats work to win over decent Republicans who are repulsed by what their party has become, then the gerrymandering party may be reminded of one of Solomon’s most memorable proverbs: “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

Monday Morning Male Beauty