• Trump confronts repeated booing during Libertarian convention speech

    Donald Trump was booed repeatedly while addressing the Libertarian Party National Convention on Saturday night, with many in the crowd shouting insults and decrying him for things like his COVID-19 policies, running up towering federal deficits and lying about his political record.

    When he took the stage, many jeered while some supporters clad in “Make America Great” hats and T-shirts cheered and chanted “USA! USA!” It was a rare moment of Trump coming face-to-face with open detractors, which is highly unusual for someone accustomed to staging rallies in front of ever-adoring crowds.

    Libertarians, who prioritize small government and individual freedoms, are often skeptical of the former president, and his invitation to address the convention has divided the party. Trump tried to make light of that by referring to the four criminal indictments against him and joking, “If I wasn’t a Libertarian before, I sure as hell am a Libertarian now.”

    Trump tried to praise “fierce champions of freedom in this room” and called President Joe Biden a “tyrant” and the “worst president in the history of the United States,” prompting some in the audience to scream back: “That’s you.”

    Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson won about 3% of the national vote in 2016, but nominee Jo Jorgensen got only a bit more than 1% during 2020’s close contest.

    Libertarians will pick their White House nominee during their convention, which wraps on Sunday. Trump’s appearance also gave him a chance to court voters who might otherwise support independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who gave his own Libertarian convention speech on Friday.

    Polls have shown for months that most voters do not want a 2020 rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden. That dynamic could potentially boost support for an alternative like the Libertarian nominee or Kennedy, whose candidacy has allies of Biden and Trump concerned that he could be a spoiler.

  • Reasons Why Crypto Is Top Policy Issue

    The passing of FIT21 in the House of Representatives, moving forward to the Senate, is the latest sign that crypto is increasingly a political issue, a non-partisan issue, and one that matters to voters, investors, and policymakers alike. Additionally the fact that the House passed a bill that would ban the Federal Reserve from ever issuing a CBDC indicates that policy over-reach is slowly being recognized and addressed.

    Another high profile, and surprisingly bipartisan, action taken related to cryptoassets in the U.S. was the repudiation of SAB 121, an SEC issued staff accounting bulletin that would have it more complicated and costly for financial institutions to hold cryptoassets on behalf of clients.
    Despite pushback from the industry, and even SEC commissioner Hester Peirce, it took time for this matter to reach the level of Congressional attention. The fact that, even in an election year that looks set to be one of the most contentious in modern history, Congress has acted quickly and in a bipartisan manner highlights the following; crypto is a major policy issue for voters and investors.

    The most obvious reason why crypto has quickly become a hot topic in policy circles is that as TradFi moves into the space the realization is growing that crypto will change and influence the U.S. (and global) financial system going forward.

    No matter what the price of bitcoin or any other specific token does on a given day, the fact remains that tokenized transactions and tokenized financial instruments look like the path forward for investors and institutions alike.

    One small example of this is the announcement that the campaign of former President Donald Trump (seeking re-election following a 2020 defeat) is the first political campaign of major U.S. political party to accept crypto donations.

    Larger scale changes can be seen working through different aspects of the banking and payments infrastructure. PayPal PayPal 0.0% issuing a native stablecoin, following years of slowly integrating crypto options into its widespread payment network, is just one payment processor accelerating crypto adoption.

    After pulling back during the aftermath of FTX, both Visa Visa 0.0% and Mastercard Mastercard 0.0% have reinvigorated efforts around both enterprise blockchain and crypto payments. Last but not least Stripe has reintroduced stablecoin payments via a partnership with Circle.

    Crypto payments and here to stay, are growing, and are increasingly accessible to even novice crypto enthusiasts.
    Crypto Drives Innovation

    One of the most important critiques of cryptoassets and blockchain in general is that the investment dollars and time deployed into these projects could be better allocated elsewhere.

    Setting aside the exceedingly low probability that policymakers would be adept at picking winners and choosers – it has never worked well in the past – this position is also incorrect.

    In addition to the changes and improvements that tokenized assets and payments are already delivering to the financial space, the continued development of, and investment in, cryptoassets is manifesting benefits in other economic areas.

    Renewable energy is one such example, and even though the debate around fossil fuel alternatives has become politically charged, cryptoassets remain an important part of these conversations.

    Privacy has been a subject of policy debate, Congressional hearings, and multiple other forms of oversight and critique since social media platforms obtained such an outsized role in how individuals and firms interact, learn, and engage with each other.

    This initially narrow focus on social media has expanded to include virtually every aspect of digital commerce and life in the United States.

  • President Biden signs most sweeping gun violence bill in decades – called it “a historic achievement”

    President Joe Biden on Saturday signed the most sweeping gun violence bill in decades, a bipartisan compromise that seemed unimaginable until a recent series of mass shootings, including the massacre of 19 students and two teachers at a Texas elementary school.

    “Time is of the essence. Lives will be saved,” he said in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. Citing the families of shooting victims he has met, the president said, “Their message to us was, ‘Do something.’ How many times did we hear that? ‘Just do something. For God’s sake, just do something.’ Today we did.”

    The House gave final approval Friday, following Senate passage Thursday, and Biden acted just before leaving Washington for two summits in Europe.

    “Today we say, ‘More than enough,’” Biden said. “It’s time, when it seems impossible to get anything done in Washington, we are doing something consequential.”

    The legislation will toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders and help states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous.

    The president called it “a historic achievement.”

    Most of its $13 billion costs will help bolster mental health programs and aid schools, which have been targeted in Newtown, Connecticut, Parkland, Florida, and elsewhere in mass shootings.

  • What the US can learn from Ukraine

    The US army is getting ready to use the tactics that they learned from the Russia-Ukraine war, as the soldiers train for future fights against an army like that of Russia and China.

    Here’s how the training unfolds:

    • Next training will focus on how to battle an enemy willing to destroy a city with rocket and missile fire in order to conquer it.
    • The training also includes lessons learned from Russia’s equipment and logistic troubles.
    • It will also touch on communications and the use of the internet during wartime.

    The war in Ukraine has surprised a lot of people and the USA has object lessons to learn in situations where a weaker army could defend itself against a more powerful adversary.

    The US is preparing to ensure that in any case, it is ready and capable to fight and win against a sophisticated enemies such as Russia and China.

  • The U.S. Watches as China Moves Ahead in Africa

    China’s support for the ideologically driven freedom movements in Africa during the Cold War years was paid back when the African vote in 1971 pushed China over the threshold to claim its seat at the United Nations. While their mutual interest is the legacy of those times, mutual economic and strategic interests have drawn them closer over the years.

    China’s commercial engagement with Africa has ballooned since China opened its economy. China–Africa trade has grown 40-fold in the last 20 years, making China Africa’s biggest trading partner and top lender today. Throughout the continent, China has built soccer stadiums, hospitals and other infrastructure that touch lives of ordinary folks who still carry scars from Western colonialism. China’s multi-trillion, multi-country, multi-ocean Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has provided another ambitious platform for its engagement with the African continent.

    Long marginalized, Africa badly needs foreign investments that Chinese companies are more than willing to provide. Compared to their Western counterparts, they are less easily deterred by human rights issues or non-official roadblocks to project development in Africa.

    The UN predicts that the population of Africa will surpass China’s by 2025. Given Africa’s youthful population, and that fact that in 2020 six of the world’s ten fastest growing economies were in Africa, the Chinese have come to see Africa as a sweet spot for investment. Of particular interest to China’s rapidly developing economy is Africa’s abundant natural resources, which also include strategic minerals.

    Chinese finance and contractors have therefore, literally reshaped Africa’s infrastructure by building new ports, railways and roads. Chinese investments in manufacturing, mines and commercial real estate have also been substantial. Mckinsey, one of the top consulting firms in the world suggests that insofar as Africa is concerned “no other country matches this depth and breadth of engagement.”

    90 percent of the 10,000+ Chinese companies operating in Africa are privately owned, finding that investing in Africa has become comparatively profitable. So, they keep reinvesting. The worry is the poorly governed states where China has poured in a lot of money into projects may turn out to be white elephants, compelling China to write-off loans.

    Another area where China focuses heavily is education. China gives tens of thousands of scholarships to African students. This has led to African students going to China surpassing those going to the U.S. and Britain combined for the first time since 2014, generating immense goodwill for China. Various other training programs create a massive network of human resources throughout Africa. For instance, more than half the South Africa’s African National Congress executive committee members have had training and education in China.

    In pursuit of its engagement policy, China has set up the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) that includes China and 53 of 54 African states. Meeting every three years alternating between China and Africa, the Forum draws more heads of African states than at the annual UN General Assembly. The only holdout is eSwatini (previously Swaziland) that continues to recognize Taiwanese sovereignty. Since these African countries often vote as a bloc in international fora, the relationship with Africa is of immense importance for China.

    In the past year, Africa has recorded just about 5 percent of global Covid-19 cases and China has been quick to provide medical equipment, and has also joined in with WHO and G-20 initiatives meant to assist less privileged states. Since Covid – 19 has impacted global economic activity, FOCAC 2021 in Dakar is unlikely to see China matching its previous commitments but it shouldn’t be taken to mean China is losing interest in the African continent. Africa also is looking up to China for support in vaccinations, and the path forward beyond Covid-19.

    In the wider context of global geopolitics, China’s rise and its involvement in different parts of the world has attracted claims of strategic competition and rivalry between China and the U.S.. Fearing erosion of its influence, the U.S. has adopted an aggressive posture to counter increased Chinese influence worldwide. In Africa, however, the U.S. has historically had relatively minimal strategic interests that China could threaten. Therefore, increased Chinese penetration in Africa has not drawn the level of American bellicosity that it has drawn against China in Southeast and South Asia.

    On their part, African leaders have rejected American attempts to make relations with Africa a zero-sum game. Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s president, warns that Africa is not a prize to be fought over and doesn’t want to be forced to choose. Similarly, the South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, the veteran of the liberation movement, was blunt in warning that Africa should not suffer because of America’s “jealousy” of what China can offer the continent. “The West is unwilling to underwrite the cost of antagonizing China,” says W. Gyude Moore, a former cabinet minister in Liberia, now at the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank.

    The U.S. and Japan have tried to increase infrastructure development allocations but nowhere near the scale of BRI. So, instead of development assistance the U.S. Secretary of State warns the African states that China is out-competing the U.S. and that African states should scrutinize the Chinese assistance.

    The fact is, despite substantial spending in specific areas America does not match what China offers to the African nations. China is the ready partner in the continent’s need for new roads, bridges or other infrastructure projects. Huawei has not lost a single order in Africa despite American posturing against it . In absence of a real alternative offered up by the Americans, the U.S.’s demands cannot be taken seriously by Africa.

    No country is ‘indispensable.’ The rise and fall of great civilizations have occurred throughout history. If history was static, Europe would still be a part of the Roman empire. The United States has had its time, during which it has done a lot of good and continues to do good for humanity. Now, in its waning years the U.S. should do one big favor: that is to let the world transition to the next phase of history peacefully.

  • What’s responsible for fall in USA police officers?

    Recently released data suggests there are fewer police officers per person in the United States that at any point in the last 25 years. The figures are from the Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll.

    According to recent federal data there were 214 officers per 100,000 Americans in 2019, which represents a nine percent fall since 2007 when police numbers were at their peak.

    The figures come as the United States wrestles with the consequences of the death of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter campaign.

    Read on

  • US Army Pushes for Missile to Reach Moscow

    US Army leaders are looking to field a new ground-to-ground missile with a range of more than 900 miles. Since the US left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August 2019, it has pursued several such weapons, which violate the treaty’s peace-promoting parameters.

    Brig. Gen. John Rafferty, director of the US Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) Cross-Functional Team, said recently that an intermediate-range missile capable of hitting targets between 500 and 1,500 kilometers (310 and 930 miles) away would be a serious asset in a future conflict with Russia or China.

    More on this

  • Surprising allegations up on Hunter Biden…

    Bombshell emails obtained by the New York Post made headlines on 14 October, as they suggested that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s overseas business affairs after all. The rapid spread of the story was, however, impeded by Facebook and Twitter, both of which limited users from sharing it under various pretexts.

    Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, previously pursued an agreement with a Chinese energy giant that would be “interesting” to him and his “family”, a new trove of emails published by the New York Post suggests.

    More on it

  • To understand the backlash against the women in the running for vice president, watch more TV

    President Allison Taylor of ‘24’ ends up being exposed as Machiavellian.
    20th Century Fox

    Karrin Vasby Anderson, Colorado State University

    Joe Biden’s promise to name a woman running mate has prompted familiar debates about gender and power.

    Are these potential vice presidents supposed to be presidential lackeys or understudies to the leader of the free world? Should they actively seek the position, or be reluctant nominees bound by duty?

    After Senator Kamala Harris’s name emerged as a short-list favorite, CNBC reported that some Biden allies and donors “initiated a campaign against Harris,” arguing that she was “too ambitious” and would be “solely focused on eventually becoming president.”

    Claiming that people who want to be president make bad vice presidents might seem ill-conceived if your audience is Vice President Joe Biden. And pundits and journalists quickly pointed out that the argument was racist and sexist – like, really, really sexist.

    So why were Democratic party insiders spouting it?

    One clue can be found in the way we tell stories about women politicians. In our book, “Woman President: Confronting Postfeminist Political Culture,” communication scholar Kristina Horn Sheeler and I examine how fictional and actual women presidential figures are framed in news coverage, political satire, memes, television and film. Our close reading of these diverse texts reveals a persistent backlash that takes many forms: satirical cartoons that deploy sexist stereotypes; the pornification of women candidates in memes; and news framing that includes misogynistic metaphors, to name a few.

    But in our chapter on fictional women presidents on screen, we found something particularly relevant to the coverage of the Democratic Party “veepstakes.” Women who are politically ambitious are presented as less trustworthy than those who don’t actively seek the presidency.

    Senator Kamala Harris peers out of a window at Veterans Village in Las Vegas.
    Senator Kamala Harris is being attacked for trying to climb too high.
    AP Photo/John Locher

    There have been six series on U.S. television that follow a woman president for at least one full season: ABC’s “Commander in Chief”; the Sci-Fi Channel’s “Battlestar Galactica”; Fox’s “24”; CBS’s “Madam Secretary”; Fox 21’s “Homeland”; and HBO’s “Veep.”

    It may seem like a small point, but when showrunners want to create a “likeable” woman president, they go out of their way to demonstrate that pursuing the presidency isn’t her life’s goal.

    The women presidents in “Commander in Chief” and “Battlestar Galactica” didn’t campaign for the office. They ascended to the presidency as a result of tragedy. In the former, the president dies of a brain aneurism; in the latter, a nuclear attack takes out the first 42 people in the presidential line of succession, leaving the secretary of education to fill the role. (To be fair, this did seem like a woman’s likeliest path to presidential power in 2004.) Each character is portrayed as an ethical and effective leader – not perfect, but plausibly presidential.

    Conversely, series like “24” and “Homeland” feature women candidates who aggressively seek the presidency. In both cases, the women start out as principled politicians, but their true nature is revealed as weak and duplicitous. Their presidential tenures end up being ruinous for the nation, and order is restored by a white male – “24’s” Jack Bauer and the male vice president in “Homeland.” HBO’s “Veep” takes the premise of a craven woman politician to an absurd extreme, with actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus winning six consecutive Emmy Awards for her burlesque send-up of the familiar female trope.

    Interestingly, both “24” and “Homeland” have important connections to real-world presidential politics. Both series portray the first woman U.S. president as a veteran politician and middle-aged white woman. They bear strong resemblances to the only woman who has been a major-party presidential nominee: Hillary Clinton. Appearing in 2008 and 2017, respectively, the storylines were clearly planned to coincide with what could have been Clinton’s first term as U.S. president.

    Yet “24’s” and “Homeland’s” depictions of fictional women presidents align with communication scholar Shawn J. Parry-Giles’ findings that the media framed Clinton as inauthentic, Machiavellian and, ultimately, dangerous.

    President Elizabeth Keane, played by actress Elizabeth Marvel, stands at a podium in an episode of 'Homeland.'
    President Elizabeth Keane of ‘Homeland’ is a craven politician who has a ruinous tenure in office.
    Showtime

    That brings us back to our current veepstakes.

    Criticisms of women vice presidential prospects echo cultural scripts that insist women who want to be president shouldn’t be trusted. Understanding the resistance to Harris – and Elizabeth Warren, Stacey Abrams and others who announce their eagerness to serve – requires recognizing the diverse forms that backlash against women’s political ambitions can take, which span from calling a congresswoman a “f—— b—-” on the steps of the U.S. capitol to portraying women presidents as Machiavellian on television dramas.

    Did pop culture cause those Biden funders to try to undermine Harris?

    No. But the stories we tell ourselves on screen have taught us that women who actually want to be president can’t be trusted. That might be why people like Ambassador Susan Rice, who’s never run for office, and Congresswoman Karen Bass, who said she doesn’t want to run for president, landed on Biden’s short list to favorable coverage.

    “At every step in her political career,” The New York Times wrote of Bass, “the California congresswoman had to be coaxed to run for a higher office. Now she’s a top contender to be Joe Biden’s running mate.”

    Men who run for president typically have to demonstrate the requisite desire – the so-called “fire in the belly.”

    Bizarrely, women are supposed to act like they don’t even want it.The Conversation

    Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.