Fidest – Agenzia giornalistica/press agency

Quotidiano di informazione – Anno 31 n° 259

Posts Tagged ‘donald trump’

America’s global influence has dwindled under Donald Trump

Posted by fidest press agency su lunedì, 13 novembre 2017

cover economistA YEAR ago this week Donald Trump was elected president. Many people predicted that American foreign policy would take a disastrous turn. Mr Trump had suggested that he would scrap trade deals, ditch allies, put a figurative bomb under the rules-based global order and drop literal ones willy-nilly. NATO was “obsolete”, he said; NAFTA was “the worst trade deal maybe ever”; and America was far too nice to foreigners. “In the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country,” he opined, adding later that he would “bomb the shit out of” Islamic State (IS) and “take the oil”.So far, Mr Trump’s foreign policy has been less awful than he promised. Granted, he has pulled America out of the Paris accord, making it harder to curb climate change, and abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a big trade deal. However, he has not retreated pell-mell into isolationism. He has not quit NATO; indeed, some of America’s eastern European allies prefer his tough-talk to the cool detachment of Barack Obama. He has not started any wars. He has stepped up America’s defence of Afghanistan’s beleaguered government, and helped Iraq recapture cities from IS. In the parts of the world to which he pays little attention, such as Africa, an understaffed version of the previous administration’s policy continues on autopilot. As Mr Trump makes a 12-day visit to Asia, it is hard to dismiss him as a man wholly disengaged from the world.
Many people find reassurance in the sober, capable military men who surround him (see article). His chief of staff, his defence secretary and his national security adviser all understand the horrors of war and will stop him from doing anything rash, the argument goes. Optimists even speculate that he might emulate Ronald Reagan, by shaking up the diplomatic establishment, restoring America’s military muscle and projecting such strength abroad that a frightened, overstretched North Korea will crumble like the Soviet Union. Others confidently predict that even if he causes short-term damage to America’s standing in the world, Mr Trump will be voted out in 2020 and things will return to normal.
All this is wishful thinking. On security, Mr Trump has avoided some terrible mistakes. He has not started a needless row with China over Taiwan’s ambiguous status, as he once threatened to do. Congress and the election-hacking scandal prevented him from pursuing a grand bargain with Vladimir Putin that might have left Russia’s neighbours at the Kremlin’s mercy. And he has apparently coaxed China to exert a little more pressure on North Korea to stop expanding its nuclear arsenal.However, he has made some serious errors, too, such as undermining the deal with Iran that curbs its ability to make nuclear bombs. And his instincts are atrocious. He imagines he has nothing to learn from history. He warms to strongmen, such as Mr Putin and Xi Jinping. His love of generals is matched by a disdain for diplomats—he has gutted the State Department, losing busloads of experienced ambassadors. His tweeting is no joke: he undermines and contradicts his officials without warning, and makes reckless threats against Kim Jong Un, whose paranoia needs no stoking. Furthermore, Mr Trump has yet to be tested by a crisis. Level-headed generals may advise him, but he is the commander-in-chief, with a temperament that alarms friend and foe alike.
On trade, he remains wedded to a zero-sum view of the world, in which exporters “win” and importers “lose”. (Are the buyers of Ivanka Trump-branded clothes and handbags, which are made in Asia, losers?) Mr Trump has made clear that he favours bilateral deals over multilateral ones, because that way a big country like America can bully small ones into making concessions. The trouble with this approach is twofold. First, it is deeply unappealing to small countries, which by the way also have protectionist lobbies to overcome. Second, it would reproduce the insanely complicated mishmash of rules that the multilateral trade system was created to simplify and trim. The Trump team probably will not make a big push to disrupt global trade until tax reform has passed through Congress. But when and if that happens, all bets are off—NAFTA is still in grave peril.Perhaps the greatest damage that Mr Trump has done is to American soft power. He openly scorns the notion that America should stand up for universal values such as democracy and human rights. Not only does he admire dictators; he explicitly praises thuggishness, such as the mass murder of criminal suspects in the Philippines. He does so not out of diplomatic tact, but apparently out of conviction. This is new. Previous American presidents supported despots for reasons of cold-war realpolitik. (“He’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard,” as Harry Truman is reputed to have said of an anti-communist tyrant in Nicaragua.) Mr Trump’s attitude seems more like: “He’s a bastard. Great!”
This repels America’s liberal allies, in Europe, East Asia and beyond. It emboldens autocrats to behave worse, as in Saudi Arabia this week, where the crown prince’s dramatic political purges met with Mr Trump’s blessing (see article). It makes it easier for China to declare American-style democracy passé, and more tempting for other countries to copy China’s autocratic model (see article).
The idea that things will return to normal after a single Trump term is too sanguine. The world is moving on. Asians are building new trade ties, often centred on China. Europeans are working out how to defend themselves if they cannot rely on Uncle Sam. And American politics are turning inward: both Republicans and Democrats are more protectionist now than they were before Mr Trump’s electoral triumph.
For all its flaws, America has long been the greatest force for good in the world, upholding the liberal order and offering an example of how democracy works. All that is imperilled by a president who believes that strong nations look out only for themselves. By putting “America First”, he makes it weaker, and the world worse off. (by The Economist) (foto: cover economist)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Trump Presidency and the Transformation of American Constitutional Law

Posted by fidest press agency su domenica, 12 novembre 2017

trumpRoma Lunedì 13 Novembre 2017, ore 15:00 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Aula 6 il prof. David L. Faigman, Dean della Faculty of Law e Chancellor di UC Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, terrà una conferenza sulla Presidenza Trump e la trasformazione del diritto costituzionale negli Usa. Il prof. Faigman sarà lieto di incontrare al termine della lezione studenti e dottorandi che intendano frequentare un programma post-graduate presso la UC Hastings.

Posted in Roma/about Rome, Università/University | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

The spotlight shifts from Germany to France

Posted by fidest press agency su sabato, 30 settembre 2017

macron1WHO leads Europe? At the start of this year, the answer was obvious. Angela Merkel was trundling unstoppably towards a fourth election win, while Britain was out, Italy down and stagnating France gripped by the fear that Marine Le Pen might become the Gallic Donald Trump. This week, it all looks very different. Mrs Merkel won her election on September 24th, but with such a reduced tally of votes and seats that she is a diminished figure (see article). Germany faces months of tricky three-way coalition talks. Some 6m voters backed a xenophobic right-wing party, many of them in protest at Mrs Merkel’s refugee policies. Having had no seats, Alternative for Germany, a disruptive and polarising force, is now the Bundestag’s third largest party.Yet west of the Rhine, with a parliament dominated by his own new-minted and devoted party, France’s President Emmanuel Macron is bursting with ambition (see our special report in this issue). This week he used a speech about the European Union to stake his claim to the limelight. Whether Mr Macron can restore France to centre-stage in the EU after a decade in the chorus depends not just on his plans for Europe, but also on his success at home, reforming a country long seen as unreformable.
This week’s speech was brimming over with ideas, including a shared military budget and an agency for “radical innovation”, as well as the desire to strengthen the euro zone. At one level, Mr Macron’s bid for the role of intellectual innovator in Europe fits a long French tradition. Moreover, elements of his speech—a new carbon-tax on the EU’s frontiers, a proposal to tax foreign tech firms where they make money rather than where they are registered, a crusade against “social dumping” with harmonised corporate tax rates—were in keeping with long-standing French attempts to stop member states competing “disloyally” against each other.Yet Mr Macron has a more subtle and radical goal than old-style dirigisme; as if to prove it, he agreed this week that Alstom, which makes high-speed trains, could drift from state influence by merging with its private-sector German rival. His aim is to see off populism by striking a balance between providing job security for citizens, on the one hand, and encouraging them to embrace innovation, which many fear will cost them their jobs, on the other (see Charlemagne). In his speech Mr Macron also made the case for digital disruption and the completion of the digital single market. Euro-zone reform would make Europe less vulnerable to the next financial crisis.
The merit of these ideas depends on whether they lead to a more enterprising, open and confident Europe or to a protectionist fortress. But they may not be tried out at all unless Mr Macron can make a success of his policies at home. For, if France remains a threat to the EU’s economic stability rather than a source of its strength, its president can never be more than a bit player next to Germany’s chancellor.
Mr Macron’s domestic policy might seem to have made a poor start. He has grabbed headlines thanks to the size of his make-up bill, the collapse of his popularity and the whiff of arrogance about his “Jupiterian” approach to power. Predictably, the grouchy French are already contesting the legitimacy of the plans they elected Mr Macron to carry out. Reform in France, it seems, follows a pattern. The street objects; the government backs down; immobilisme sets in.
Yet take a closer look, and Mr Macron may be about to break the pattern. Something extraordinary, if little-noticed, took place this summer. While most of the French were on the beach, Mr Macron negotiated and agreed with unions a far-reaching, liberalising labour reform which he signed into law on September 22nd—all with minimal fuss. Neither France’s militant unions, nor its fiery far left, have so far drawn the mass support they had hoped for onto the streets. Fully 59% of the French say that they back labour reform. More protests will follow. Harder battles, over pensions, taxation, public spending and education, lie ahead. Mr Macron needs to keep his nerve, but, astonishingly, he has already passed his first big test.In many ways, the 39-year-old Mr Macron is not yet well understood. Behind the haughty exterior, a leader is emerging who seems to be at once brave, disciplined and thoughtful. Brave, because labour reforms, as Germany and Spain know, take time to translate into job creation, and usually hand political rewards to the successors of those who do the thankless work of getting them through. Disciplined, because he laid out clearly before his election what he planned to do, and has stuck to his word. The unions were fully consulted, and two of the three biggest accepted the reform. Compare that with his predecessor, François Hollande, who tried reform by stealth and encountered only accusations of bad faith. Last, thoughtful: Mr Macron does not approach policy as an à la carte menu. He has grasped how digital technology is dislocating the world of work. His governing philosophy is to adapt France’s outdated system of rules and protections accordingly.
Over the past few years, an enfeebled France has been a chronically weak partner for Germany, pushing Mrs Merkel into a solo role that she neither sought nor relished. If he is to change that dynamic, Mr Macron needs to move swiftly to match his labour law with an overhaul of France’s inefficient training budget, increase the number of apprenticeships and renovate the state’s sleepy employment services. He also needs to explain with a less contemptuous tone why his plans for tax cuts, including to France’s wealth tax and corporate tax, are not designed simply to benefit business and the better-off. In Europe he needs to reassure the northern, more open economies that he is not trying to put up walls.Of course, Mr Macron’s first steps in the spotlight may falter. The odds on any leader reforming France are never high. He will struggle to convince Germany to embrace his vision of euro-zone reform. But, if this year has shown anything, it is that it is a mistake to bet against the formidable Mr Macron.This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Europe’s new order” (by The Economist)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump has no grasp of what it means to be president

Posted by fidest press agency su lunedì, 21 agosto 2017

trumpDEFENDERS of President Donald Trump offer two arguments in his favour—that he is a businessman who will curb the excesses of the state; and that he will help America stand tall again by demolishing the politically correct taboos of left-leaning, establishment elites. From the start, these arguments looked like wishful thinking. After Mr Trump’s press conference in New York on August 15th they lie in ruins.The unscripted remarks were his third attempt to deal with violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend (see article). In them the president stepped back from Monday’s—scripted—condemnation of the white supremacists who had marched to protest against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general, and fought with counter-demonstrators, including some from the left. In New York, as his new chief of staff looked on dejected, Mr Trump let rip, stressing once again that there was blame “on both sides”. He left no doubt which of those sides lies closer to his heart.
Latest updates. Mr Trump is not a white supremacist. He repeated his criticism of neo-Nazis and spoke out against the murder of Heather Heyer (see our Obituary). Even so, his unsteady response contains a terrible message for Americans. Far from being the saviour of the Republic, their president is politically inept, morally barren and temperamentally unfit for office.
Self-harmStart with the ineptness. In last year’s presidential election Mr Trump campaigned against the political class to devastating effect. Yet this week he has bungled the simplest of political tests: finding a way to condemn Nazis. Having equivocated at his first press conference on Saturday, Mr Trump said what was needed on Monday and then undid all his good work on Tuesday—briefly uniting Fox News and Mother Jones in their criticism, surely a first. As business leaders started to resign en masse from his advisory panels (see article), the White House disbanded them. Mr Trump did, however, earn the endorsement of David Duke, a former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
The extreme right will stage more protests across America. Mr Trump has complicated the task of containing their marches and keeping the peace. The harm will spill over into the rest of his agenda, too. His latest press conference was supposed to be about his plans to improve America’s infrastructure, which will require the support of Democrats. He needlessly set back those efforts, as he has so often in the past. “Infrastructure week” in June was drowned out by an investigation into Russian meddling in the election—an investigation Mr Trump helped bring about by firing the director of the FBI in a fit of pique. Likewise, repealing Obamacare collapsed partly because he lacked the knowledge and charisma to win over rebel Republicans. He reacted to that setback by belittling the leader of the Senate Republicans, whose help he needs to pass legislation. So much for getting things done.Mr Trump’s inept politics stem from a moral failure. Some counter-demonstrators were indeed violent, and Mr Trump could have included harsh words against them somewhere in his remarks. But to equate the protest and the counter-protest reveals his shallowness. Video footage shows marchers carrying fascist banners, waving torches, brandishing sticks and shields, chanting “Jews will not replace us”. Footage of the counter-demonstration mostly shows average citizens shouting down their opponents. And they were right to do so: white supremacists and neo-Nazis yearn for a society based on race, which America fought a world war to prevent. Mr Trump’s seemingly heartfelt defence of those marching to defend Confederate statues spoke to the degree to which white grievance and angry, sour nostalgia is part of his world view.At the root of it all is Mr Trump’s temperament. In difficult times a president has a duty to unite the nation. Mr Trump tried in Monday’s press conference, but could not sustain the effort for even 24 hours because he cannot get beyond himself. A president needs to rise above the point-scoring and to act in the national interest. Mr Trump cannot see beyond the latest slight. Instead of grasping that his job is to honour the office he inherited, Mr Trump is bothered only about honouring himself and taking credit for his supposed achievements.Presidents have come in many forms and still commanded the office. Ronald Reagan had a moral compass and the self-knowledge to delegate political tactics. LBJ was a difficult man but had the skill to accomplish much that was good. Mr Trump has neither skill nor self-knowledge, and this week showed that he does not have the character to change.This is a dangerous moment. America is cleft in two. After threatening nuclear war with North Korea, musing about invading Venezuela and equivocating over Charlottesville, Mr Trump still has the support of four-fifths of Republican voters. Such popularity makes it all the harder for the country to unite.
This leads to the question of how Republicans in public life should treat Mr Trump. Those in the administration face a hard choice. Some will feel tempted to resign. But his advisers, particularly the three generals sitting at the top of the Pentagon, the National Security Council and as Mr Trump’s chief of staff, are better placed than anyone to curb the worst instincts of their commander-in-chief.
For Republicans in Congress the choice should be clearer. Many held their noses and backed Mr Trump because they thought he would advance their agenda. That deal has not paid off. Mr Trump is not a Republican, but the solo star of his own drama. By tying their fate to his, they are harming their country and their party. His boorish attempts at plain speaking serve only to poison national life. Any gains from economic reform—and the booming stockmarket and low unemployment owe more to the global economy, tech firms and dollar weakness than to him—will come at an unacceptable price.Republicans can curb Mr Trump if they choose to. Rather than indulging his outrages in the hope that something good will come of it, they must condemn them. The best of them did so this week. Others should follow.(This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Unfit” Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space, Uncategorized | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump junior’s meeting with a Russian lawyer

Posted by fidest press agency su sabato, 15 luglio 2017

donald trumpTHE official version is as follows. In June 2016, the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump junior was asked by an acquaintance, someone whom he knew from the Miss Universe pageant, to have a meeting with someone who, he was told, “might have information helpful to” his father’s campaign. He agreed, despite not knowing the name of the person he was to meet. Mr Trump junior “had to listen”, he tweeted. He also asked the campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and Mr Trump’s son-in-law and consigliere, Jared Kushner, to come along. On the other side of the table, it turned out, was Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer. The meeting lasted for 20 to 30 minutes, Ms Veselnitskaya was “vague, ambiguous and made no sense”. The candidate did not know about this meeting.The unofficial version, which may prove to be more accurate, and was supplied by the New York Times, overlaps with this but with some crucial differences. The campaign did indeed meet Ms Veselnitsaya, who may have been working for the Russian government in some capacity, since she was involved in trying to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Ms Veselnitskaya offered damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Mr Trump’s opponent in the general election.The story of Russian interference in last year’s presidential election is a slimy rock face, but there are a few solid footholds. It is known, thanks to repeated assessments made by the intelligence agencies, that the Russian government tried to intervene in last year’s presidential election. The agencies believe that the aim of this intervention was to harm Mrs Clinton and to aid Mr Trump, though it is not clear whether the Kremlin actually wanted Mr Trump to win, or just wanted to sow discord and distrust (an aim it achieved).But there has, to date, been little evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The Wall Street Journal has reported that a Republican operative was working on a plan to get e-mails stolen from the Democratic National Committee by Russian hackers into the hands of Michael Flynn, then an adviser to the Trump campaign, for example. There have also been lots of stories about the importance of Russian money in the president’s business dealings, which is interesting but not necessarily damning. By placing the president’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager in a meeting with someone with ties to the Russian government who was, apparently, keen to provide damaging information about Mrs Clinton that had been stolen, the Times goes much further.From the importance of a personal connection made at a beauty contest to the location of the meeting in a tower with the family’s name on it, from the willingness to take a meeting on the fly with anyone with a shared enemy, the story is a concentrated shot of Trump. From the Kremlin’s point of view, just getting a lawyer who was working to undermine American foreign policy into the room with the president’s family and campaign manager was a coup, and one that comes with substantial opportunities for undermining the candidate at a later date, whatever was said.Whichever version turns out to be closer to the truth, though, the range of explanations is between bad and worthy of prosecution. Either the Trump campaign was exceptionally naive in meeting Ms Veselnitskaya. Or it colluded with an agent of a foreign power to gain an advantage in the election. It is now up to Robert Mueller, the special counsel looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election, to find out which of these it was. (font: The Economist)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump’s reset on Islam

Posted by fidest press agency su sabato, 27 maggio 2017

trump (2)The people of Saudi Arabia, not least the royal family, seem to care only about what Donald Trump is saying now. And while Candidate Trump taunted the Saudis, President Trump has embraced them, making the kingdom his first foreign destination. In Riyadh, the capital, on May 20th-21st, he sought to reassure Muslim leaders and draw a sharp contrast with Barack Obama’s foreign policy.The centrepiece of the trip was a speech by Mr Trump to dozens of Sunni Muslim leaders, which his staff billed as an answer to Mr Obama’s address in Cairo in 2009. In their own way, both presidents sought to reset America’s relations with the Muslim world. But whereas Mr Obama attempted to mend the damage wrought by the war in Iraq, Mr Trump was burdened by his own Islamophobic rhetoric. “I think Islam hates us,” said Mr Trump last year, after calling for a blanket ban on Muslims entering America. His first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, considered Islam a “malignant cancer”.Autocrats and dictators must have short memories, because Mr Trump’s appeal to fight extremism, which he now says is “not a battle between different faiths”, but “between good and evil”, seemed to go down well in Riyadh. Perhaps it helped that the president did not push his audience on their generally poor human-rights records, which many analysts think contribute to terrorism. Such hounding was more the way of Mr Obama (who addressed university students in 2009 and firmly stood up for human rights). “We are not here to lecture,” said Mr Trump. “We are not here to tell other people… what to do.”The president then told his audience what to do. “The nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them,” said Mr Trump. “A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists.” “Drive them out,” he repeated, five times. To that end, Mr Trump announced the sale of “beautiful” weapons worth $110bn to Saudi Arabia, the opening of the Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh and the creation of a Terrorist Financing Targeting Centre. No doubt delighting his hosts, and fuelling the sectarian divide within Islam, Mr Trump blamed Iran, which is predominantly Shia, for most of the region’s problems. “From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region,” said the president (omitting the fact that most jihadists in the Middle East are Sunni, not Shia). A day earlier, Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, even condemned Iran’s human-rights record, which is not notably worse than Saudi Arabia’s. That brief lecture took place only hours after the Iranians re-elected Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate, as their president.
The frequent criticism of Iran was just one way in which Mr Trump and his hosts sought to underscore how different things are under the new administration. Just two years ago, Mr Obama engaged with Mr Rouhani to complete a deal that curbs Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. This realignment upset the Saudis, who gave Mr Obama a cool welcome on his final visit to the kingdom in 2016. By contrast, when Mr Trump stepped off Air Force One, he was greeted by King Salman in a lavish ceremony featuring military jets casting red, white and blue contrails.But the changes have been in style more than substance. Mr Trump has not ripped up the nuclear agreement with Iran and, like Mr Obama, said he would avoid “sudden interventions” in the region. Moreover, “Obama was pretty good to [the Saudis],” says Thomas Lippman of the Middle East Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC. He visited the kingdom more times and sold the Saudis more weapons
than any other American president before him. In fact, many of the arms deals celebrated by Mr Trump were negotiated under his predecessor, who also provided intelligence support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Next, Mr Trump heads to Israel, where the dynamics at times will be similar those of his Saudi trip. Mr Trump will visit Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial centre, perhaps to counter accusations of anti-Semitism against some in his administration, after a failure to mention Jews in a statement commemorating the Holocaust earlier this year. The president also plans to propose a path to the “ultimate” peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. Some may doubt his ability to end the decades-long conflict, but in Riyadh, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt’s president, described Mr Trump as “a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible”—to which Mr Trump responded, “I agree.” (by The Economist) (photo: trump)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

A report card for Mr Trump: Could do better

Posted by fidest press agency su martedì, 2 maggio 2017

the-economist-trumpOn April 29th Donald Trump, America’s president, will mark his 100th day occupying the highest office in the land. This period is seen as a high-water mark for presidential power: the time in which presidents enjoy both popularity and momentum from campaigning to set the agenda for the next four years and to push through legislation in Congress.Measuring the performance of presidents is often tricky. But before he was elected Mr Trump helpfully issued a “100-day action plan to make America great again”. These 18 actions and ten congressional bills spelt out Mr Trump’s priorities for his presidency. They included construction of a wall on the Mexican border; suspending illegal immigration from “terror-prone countries”; and labelling China a currency manipulator.By this yardstick, progress has been slow. Although Mr Trump has now issued more than 30 executive orders, ten more than Barack Obama over the same period (see left-hand chart), efforts have not begun on 12 of the issues in his action plan. His presidency-defining health-care legislation and immigration bans have so far been thwarted by Congress and the judiciary, respectively.That has left Mr Trump frustrated, but it might not deter his supporters. A poll conducted by YouGov for The Economist on April 22nd asked 1,500 Americans whether their president had exceeded their expectations or not. Of those who identified as Republican or Democrat, 30% thought that Mr Trump had met their expectations. Yet the remainder were sharply divided: 41% of Democrats thought the president had performed “much worse” than expected; 28% of Republicans thought he had performed “much better”.
These sentiments are reflected in Mr Trump’s approval ratings, which are the lowest of any post-war president. But the country is divided by party loyalties: 88% of Republicans approve of the president, while 82% of Democrats disapprove. Mr Obama, by contrast, was far less divisive. Mr Trump was a polarising figure on the campaign trail; he is no different in office. The correspondence of Nelle Harper Lee and Wayne Flynt by The Economist)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump ha il potere di rinnovare il consiglio della Fed

Posted by fidest press agency su lunedì, 24 aprile 2017

Federal ReserveGli investitori danno per certo che la Federal Reserve statunitense diventerà più intransigente con l’accelerazione della crescita USA – soprattutto se le politiche proposte dal Presidente Trump innescheranno un boom economico. Ma quello di cui non tengono conto è il potere del Presidente di modificare la composizione del consiglio della Fed in base ai suoi scopi politici. Una Fed a misura di Trump potrebbe adottare un approccio decisamente più morbido nei confronti dell’inflazione rispetto alla linea tenuta dalla banca centrale dagli anni ‘70.
Dopo le dimissioni di Daniel Tarullo, valide dal 5 aprile, Trump ha ora il compito di riempire tre delle sette poltrone del consiglio della Fed. Un numero che potrebbe salire a cinque entro metà 2018, quando scadranno i mandati del presidente e del suo vice. Trump non è mai stato un fan di Janet Yellen, che probabilmente lascerà la banca centrale insieme al suo fidato vice Stanley Fischer qualora i due non venissero riconfermati.
Non è cosa da poco. L’organo che stabilisce la linea della Fed, il Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), è composto dai sette governatori del Federal Reserve Board, dal presidente della Fed di New York e da quattro degli 11 presidenti delle altre Federal Reserve Bank, a rotazione. Anche se un gruppetto scelto da Trump rappresenterebbe una minoranza all’interno del FOMC, non bisogna sottovalutare l’influenza che il presidente della Fed ha sempre avuto nel definire la politica della banca. Se già il dissenso di un membro della Fed rispetto al pensiero del presidente fa scalpore, è facile immaginare quale shock provocherebbe una decisione contraria al parere del numero uno.
Dunque, che tipo di Fed vorrebbe Trump? Il magnate ha già espresso il suo disappunto per le misure non ortodosse della banca centrale che hanno mantenuto i tassi di interesse prossimi allo zero per gran parte del gli ultimi 10 anni. E spesso viene associato a falchi come l’economista John Taylor, che ha più volte criticato il quantitative easing. Tuttavia è importante ricordare che in cima alla lista delle priorità di Trump c’è la crescita economica che vuole favorire fornendo un vantaggio competitivo alle aziende USA rispetto a quelle estere tramite la riduzione delle imposte societarie, il sostegno agli esportatori e l’incremento della spesa pubblica nelle infrastrutture. Di certo non vorrebbe scontrarsi con una politica monetaria avversa. Inoltre, la debolezza del dollaro, probabile conseguenza di una linea monetaria meno rigida, contribuirebbe a spostare la domanda interna dai prodotti importati a quelli locali anche senza la controversa “border tax”, la tassa che la nuova amministrazione USA vorrebbe imporre sulle importazioni.D’altro canto, il rialzo dell’inflazione non è assolutamente inammissibile per l’establishment economico. Di recente, gli economisti della Fed e i membri del Brookings Institution hanno dichiarato che l’autorità monetaria potrebbe ragionevolmente accettare un’inflazione superiore al target del 2%. Nello specifico, il Presidente della Fed di Minneapolis Neel Kashkari ha preso le distanze dall’inasprimento di marzo, sostenendo che alzare i tassi quando l’inflazione di fondo è al di sotto del target significa che la banca centrale “considera la soglia del 2% come un tetto piuttosto che un obiettivo… Non trovo giusto parlare di target e agire come se fosse un tetto.” Anziché alzare il target, la Fed potrebbe benissimo asserire di voler mantenere l’inflazione al 2%, ma per tutto il ciclo economico. Dopo anni di inflazione sottotono, un simile orientamento consentirebbe un lungo periodo di inflazione elevata. In alternativa, la Fed potrebbe abbracciare un nuovo regime di “obiettivo di inflazione flessibile”, in modo da riuscire ad ampliare il range di inflazione accettabile senza abbandonare l’impegno di raggiungere il target nel lungo periodo.
Ovviamente, ogni minima percezione di politicizzazione della Fed scatenerebbe ondate di sdegno. L’indipendenza dell’autorità monetaria è un principio macroeconomico irrinunciabile, ma non è garantito – e i membri della Fed lo sanno. Durante il Monetary Policy Forum di New York a inizio marzo, Stanley Fischer ha affermato che la Fed sarebbe rimasta indipendente “sino a che non prenderemo una decisione veramente sbagliata per l’economia.”Ma le nostre analisi suggeriscono che l’indipendenza della Fed è già in bilico. (Da Steve Donzé, Senior Macro Strategist di Pictet Asset Management)

Posted in Economia/Economy/finance/business/technology, Estero/world news | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Trump presidency is in a hole

Posted by fidest press agency su lunedì, 3 aprile 2017

trump presidencyDONALD TRUMP won the White House on the promise that government is easy. Unlike his Democratic opponent, whose career had been devoted to politics, Mr Trump stood as a businessman who could Get Things Done. Enough voters decided that boasting, mocking, lying and grabbing women were secondary. Some Trump fans even saw them as the credentials of an authentic, swamp-draining saviour. After 70 days in office, however, Mr Trump is stuck in the sand. A health-care bill promised as one of his “first acts” suffered a humiliating collapse in the—Republican-controlled—Congress (see Lexington). His repeated attempts to draft curbs on travel to America from some Muslim countries are being blocked by the courts. And suspicions that his campaign collaborated with Russia have cost him his national security adviser and look likely to dog his administration (see article). Voters are not impressed. No other president so early in his first term has suffered such low approval ratings.
It is tempting to feel relief that the Trump presidency is a mess. For those who doubt much of his agenda and worry about his lack of respect for institutions, perhaps the best hope is that he accomplishes little. That logic is beguiling, but wrong. After years of gridlock, Washington has work to do. The forthcoming summit with Xi Jinping, China’s president, shows how America is still the indispensable nation. A weak president can be dangerous—picture a trade war, a crisis in the Baltics or conflict on the Korean peninsula.Mr Trump is hardly the first tycoon to discover that business and politics work by different rules. If you fall out over a property deal, you can always find another sucker. In politics you cannot walk away so easily. Even if Mr Trump now despises the Republican factions that dared defy him over health care, Congress is the only place he can go to pass legislation.The nature of political power is different, too. As owner and CEO of his business, Mr Trump had absolute control. The constitution sets out to block would-be autocrats. Where Mr Trump has acted appropriately—as with his nomination of a principled, conservative jurist to fill a Supreme Court vacancy—he deserves to prevail. But when the courts question the legality of his travel order they are only doing their job. Likewise, the Republican failure to muster a majority over health-care reflects not just divisions between the party’s moderates and hardliners, but also the defects of a bill that, by the end, would have led to worse protection, or none, for tens of millions of Americans without saving taxpayers much money.Far from taking Washington by storm, America’s CEO is out of his depth. The art of political compromise is new to him. He blurs his own interests and the interests of the nation. The scrutiny of office grates. He chafes under the limitations of being the most powerful man in the world. You have only to follow his incontinent stream of tweets to grasp Mr Trump’s paranoia and vanity: the press lies about him; the election result fraudulently omitted millions of votes for him; the intelligence services are disloyal; his predecessor tapped his phones. It’s neither pretty nor presidential.
That the main victim of these slurs has so far been the tweeter-in-chief himself is testament to the strength of American democracy. But institutions can erode, and the country is wretchedly divided (see article). Unless Mr Trump changes course, the harm risks spreading. The next test will be the budget. If the Republican Party cannot pass a stop-gap measure, the government will start to shut down on April 29th. Recent jitters in the markets are a sign that investors are counting on Mr Trump and his party to pass legislation.More than anything, they are looking for tax reform and an infrastructure plan. There is vast scope to make fiscal policy more efficient and fairer (see article). American firms face high tax rates and have a disincentive to repatriate profits. Personal taxes are a labyrinth of privileges and loopholes, most of which benefit the well-off. Likewise, the country’s cramped airports and potholed highways are a drain on productivity. Sure enough, Mr Trump has let it be known that he now wants to tackle tax. And, in a bid to win support from Democrats, he may deal with infrastructure at the same time.
Yet the politics of tax reform are as treacherous as the politics of health care, and not only because they will generate ferocious lobbying. Most Republican plans are shockingly regressive, despite Mr Trump’s blue-collar base. To win even a modest reform, Mr Trump and his team will have to show a mastery of detail and coalition-building that has so far eluded them. If Mr Trump’s popularity falls further, the job of winning over fractious Republicans will only become harder.Were he frustrated in Congress, the president would surely fall back on areas where he has a free hand. He has already made full-throated use of executive orders and promises to harness the bureaucracy to force through his agenda. In theory he could deregulate parts of the economy, such as finance, where the hand of government is sometimes too heavy. Yet his executive orders so far have been crudely theatrical—as with this week’s repeal of Barack Obama’s environmental rules, which will not lead to the renaissance of mining jobs that he has disingenuously promised coal country (see article). It is the same with trade. Mr Trump could work through the World Trade Organisation to open markets. More probably, the economic nationalists on his team will have the upper hand. If so, America will take a bilateral approach, trade protection will grow and foreign policy will become more confrontational.The Americans who voted for Mr Trump either overlooked his bombast, or they saw in him a tycoon with the self-belief to transform Washington. Although this presidency is still young, that already seems an error of judgment. His policies, from health-care reform to immigration, have been poor—they do not even pass the narrow test that they benefit Trump voters. Most worrying for America and the world is how fast the businessman in the Oval Office is proving unfit for the job. (By The economist) (photo the trump presidency)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Goldman Sachs all’arrembaggio della nave di Trump

Posted by fidest press agency su domenica, 26 marzo 2017

trump11Molti negli Usa si riferiscono all’amministrazione Trump con l’appellativo “Government Sachs” in quanto ha imbarcato un numero impressionante di personaggi che, in vario modo, hanno lavorato o collaborato con Goldman Sachs, la più chiacchierata banca d’affari americana. Dall’esplosione della crisi globale la banca ha scalato molte posizioni nella lista delle banche americane più esposte in derivati finanziari over the counter fino a conquistare la terza posizione con oltre 45,5 trilioni di dollari di valore nozionale.
Rispetto alle prime due, la Citigroup e la JP Morgan Chase, c’è una “piccola” differenza. Essa vanta il peggiore rapporto in assoluto tra il valore dei derivati e gli asset (gli attivi), che sono soltanto 880 miliardi di dollari. Il che significa che per ogni dollaro di asset, la GS ha quasi 52 dollari di derivati, mentre la Citigroup ne ha 28,5 e la JPMorgan 20. Per cui, se queste due ultime non navigano in mari tranquilli, per la GS il mare rischia di essere sempre in burrasca. Sono dati significativi quanto preoccupanti tanto che anche l’Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), l’agenzia di controllo delle banche americane, a fine settembre 2016 ha affermato che il rapporto tra l’esposizione dei crediti e il capitale di base (credit exposure to risk-based capital) era del 433% per Goldman Sachs, rispetto al 216% della JP Morgan e al 68% della Bank of America. Sempre secondo il citato rapporto, sei anni dopo l’entrata in vigore della riforma finanziaria Dodd-Frank, che obbligava le banche a sottoscrivere tutti i contratti derivati attraverso piattaforme regolamentate, la GS mantiene ancora il 76% dei suoi derivati in otc non regolamentati. Si tratta della percentuale più alta tra tutte le banche quotate a Wall Street.
Come è noto l’opacità dei derivati otc ha giocato un ruolo determinante nella crisi finanziaria, in quanto le banche in quel periodo avevano in gran parte sospeso di farsi credito reciprocamente sospettando buchi nascosti. Di conseguenza le stesse hanno cercato di garantirsi contro eventuali crolli accendendo polizze presso le grandi assicurazioni, in particolare con il gigante AIG. Solo di recente è diventato noto che circa la metà dei 185 miliardi di dollari versati dal governo americano per salvare la citata AIG è andata a beneficio delle grandi banche “too big to fail”. Infatti la GS ne avrebbe ricevuti ben 12,9 miliardi. Crediamo non debba sorprendere il fatto che la GS sia sempre stata al centro delle grandi indagini per far emergere i responsabili della crisi globale, né tanto meno il conoscere che la banca sia stata in prima fila nel tentativo di bloccare tutte le riforme del sistema bancario e finanziario americano. E’ sorprendente, invece, che il presidente Trump continui a reclutare molti dei suoi uomini tra gli ex leader della GS. Da ultimo il suo team economico si è “arricchito” con l’arrivo di Dina Power, presidente della Fondazione della Goldman Sachs.
Ma la nomina più provocatoria indubbiamente è quella di Jay Clayton a capo della Security Exchange Commission (SEC), l’agenzia governativa preposta al controllo della borsa valori, l’equivalente della nostra Consob. Clayton è un importante avvocato che ha lavorato per la GS, cosa che la di lui moglie fa ancora. Si tratta della stessa SEC che ha multato più volte Goldman Sachs per operazioni illegali di vario tipo: nel 2010 una multa di 550 milioni di dollari per operazioni fraudolente con titoli tossici immobiliari subprime e un’altra di 11 milioni nel 2012 perché alcuni suoi analisti avevano segretamente favorito dei clienti ben selezionati.
Anche la Federal Reserve nell’agosto 2016 le ha inflitto una sanzione di 36,3 milioni di dollari per aver usato informazioni confidenziali risultanti da operazioni di controllo fatte dalla stessa Fed. Per non dire della condanna a pagare 120 milioni per manipolazioni fatte sui tassi di interesse comminata nel dicembre dell’anno scorso dalla Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), l’agenzia che ha il compito di controllare le borse delle merci e delle relative operazioni in derivati finanziari. Non è un caso, quindi, che nelle settimane passate alcuni senatori americani abbiano chiesto alla Goldman Sachs di rendere pubbliche le sue attività di lobby contro la legge di riforma Dodd-Frank e di conoscere l’ammontare dei profitti risultanti dalla sua cancellazione. Si ricordi che tra i primi provvedimenti del presidente Trump c’è stata l’abrogazione della citata legge. Evidentemente, purtroppo, il presidente americano ha dimenticato quando da lui stesso detto qualche settimana fa: “Per troppo tempo, un piccolo gruppo nella capitale della nostra nazione ha raccolto i compensi governativi, mentre la gente ne ha sostenuto le spese. Washington ha prosperato, tuttavia il popolo non ha condiviso la sua ricchezza”. E’ il classico esempio di quanta distanza a volte c’è tra il dire e il fare.
(Mario Lettieri già sottosegretario all’Economia e Paolo Raimondi economista)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump’s “America First” budget would make deep cuts to domestic programmes

Posted by fidest press agency su martedì, 21 marzo 2017

Donald TrumpSTEPHEN BANNON, President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, famously promised the “deconstruction of the administrative state”. On March 16th, the Trump administration took its first step toward achieving Mr Bannon’s vision by proposing a budget that makes steep cuts to domestic programmes.Not all departments would suffer. Mr Trump’s budget proposal, which covers $1.1trn of discretionary spending for the 2018 fiscal year, requests an additional $52bn for the Department of Defence and $2.8bn for the Department of Homeland Security. The majority of this additional spending would go towards what the administration calls “urgent warfighting readiness needs” including fighter jets, drones, missiles and weapons systems. At least $2.6bn would be spent on the construction of a wall on the southern border, a project which could eventually cost as much as $22bn. An additional $1.5bn would go towards the expanded detention, transport and removal of illegal immigrants.
To pay for this build-up in defence and border protection, Mr Trump would slash budgets across the federal government. Under his proposal, with a familar title of “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again,” the Department of Health and Human Services would be cut by $13bn or 16%, the State Department would lose $11bn or 29% and the Department of Education would see its funding fall $9bn or 14%. The Environmental Protection Agency, widely expected to face the steepest cuts under the Trump administration, would be reduced by a whopping 31%, eliminating 50 programmes and 3,200 jobs.How Mr Trump’s budget would affect the broader economy is still unclear. Despite calling the national debt a “crisis”, the proposal would keep overall spending at roughly the same level. Given Mr Trump’s zeal for tax cuts and frequent promise for massive infrastructure spending, deficits may even increase. The administration will not release its full budget—complete with ten-year spending and revenue projections—until May.
Of course, the president’s budget is only a wish list. It is Congress that ultimately controls the government’s purse strings. And at the moment, many lawmakers are wary of deconstructing the administrative state just yet. When asked on February 28th about the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the State Department, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters the president’s budget is “dead on arrival”. (graphic: presidential budgets) (font: The Economist)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Russian state media is falling out of love with Donald Trump

Posted by fidest press agency su venerdì, 24 febbraio 2017

putinIn the months following Donald Trump’s election, Russian media fell hard for their brash new beau. Television anchors and columnists lauded Mr Trump’s promises to rebuild relations with Russia. Dmitry Kiselev, the Kremlin’s chief propagandist, fawned over Mr Trump on his flagship Sunday-night show, declaring the new American president to be a “muzhik”, or a “real man”—a sharp shift for a programme that had spent years stoking anti-Americanism. (His praise became so effusive that a fringe nationalist group even staged a protest accusing Mr Kiselev of “Trumpomania”.) In January, Mr Trump was mentioned more often in the Russian press than Vladimir Putin himself. Yet just as suddenly as he appeared, the triumphant image of Mr Trump has largely vanished from Russian television sets. In the past week, as the Trump administration has issued increasingly conflicting signals on its policy toward Russia, the country’s news programmes have overlooked his activities, and commentators have taken up a decidedly more skeptical spirit. The firing of the Russia-friendly Michael Flynn as national security adviser may have caused some consternation in the Kremlin. So too did the White House’s statement last week that it expected Russia to “return” Crimea to Ukraine. (photo: russian media)

Posted in Estero/world news, Politica/Politics | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , | Leave a Comment »

L’irriverente. Se non fosse che proprio non ce la faccio…. tiferei per Trump

Posted by fidest press agency su mercoledì, 14 dicembre 2016

trumpRitratto sanitario delle contee che hanno votato a maggioranza per Donald Trump. Si tratta di luoghi abitati dal 28-30% di persone malate rispetto alla media federale del 22%. E ancora di piu’: in queste contee i decessi per droghe e alcool sono 24,2 su 100.000 residenti, mentre, sempre a livello federale, sono 20 ogni 100.000. Sono dati raccolti da Gallup e dai Centri per il controllo e la prevenzione delle malattie (cdc), analizzati dall’American Communities Project, e da ‘Meet The Press’, sulle contee in cui Trump ha vinto con più di 20 punti percentuali: residenti più anziani, più cristiani evangelici e lavoratori a salario minimo; un migliaio di contee per lo piu’ rurali, con basso livello di istruzione. Cioe’ sono tutti quei brutti, sporchi e cattivi (a parte gli evangelici, speriamo) che hanno reso possibile il successo del repubblicano Trump sulla democratica Clinton. Non si tratta di opinioni diffuse da media democratici incalliti e “soloni” del verbo democratico tipo The New York Times, ma raccolti da una delle piu’ accreditate agenzie statistiche degli Usa e mondiali, la Gallup. Quindi -secondo il comune e diffuso sentire- credibili per definizione. Quelli che quando ci dicono che buona parte dei campioni statistici gradisce mangiare la merda, subito trovano cantori, chef ed estimatori che ne tessono le lodi. Chissa’ se avrebbero fatto altrettanta indagine se avesse vinto la moglie dell’ex-presidente Bill Clinton. E, per quanto mi sforzo a memoria, non mi sovviene di aver letto di altrettante indagini quando in passato ha vinto Bush jr e Obama dopo. Una innovazione, quindi, nell’informazione e nell’uso della scienza statistica.Sono questi i momenti in cui -io irriverente- mi verrebbe voglia di tifare per la vittima. Tranquillo -dico anche a me stesso- non ti-fare cosi’ male, soprattutto se penso ai ministri che sono stati scelti da Trump per confermare cio’ che aveva promesso in campagna elettorale e che sta mettendo in pratica…. Ma… e’ piu’ forte di me, per cui mi limitero’ a confermarmi che non si torce neanche un capello all’avversario pur peggiore. Ed a consolidare il garantismo che stimola ogni mio pensiero ed ogni mia azione. Soprattutto -per l’appunto- verso gli “altri”.E mi domando: ma come si fa a farsi venire in mente di fare indagini di mercato di questo tipo? Mi aspetto ora che cio’ accada anche in Italia per gli elettori del referendum, vinto da molti di quelli che non erano alla guida dei media determinanti (privati o di Stato che fossero). E mi preoccupo, perche’ forse sto suggerendo la strategia di rivalsa post-sconfitta per i sostenitori del SI’ dello scorso 4 dicembre. Esagero? Suvvia, stiamo parlando di quelli che si sono sentiti fieri di dire che tutti quelli che avevano votato SI’ erano la base del proprio partito… c’e’ da aspettarsi questo ed altro. Ma tanto, i potenziali emuli nostrani dei metodi dei fautori per eccellenza del politically-correct, non se li fila nessuno nel mondo. Ed e’ in quest’ultimo che accadono le cose che contano e determinano le linee generali della nostra vita. Non me ne vogliano tutti quelli che attendono qualcosa dal puffo al borotalco e col “sorriso graziato e gentil-oni” che ci governera’ da oggi, ma -in questa osservazione solo estetica- c’e’ l’irriverenza di chi non riesce a non vedere il lato tragicomico dell’essere. Mi sono scatenato dopo aver letto la Gallup e mi sono detto: “gulp” che tempi bui! Per far seguito alla mia irriverenza laida, ci stavo per cascare anch’io e mandare un telegramma di solidarieta’ a Trump. Ah! Allora ho scoperto che la Gallup e’ tutta una trama per far credere che i Democratici di Oltreoceano, facendo il gioco del controgioco, volevano scappellare a destra per portare a sinistra… oppure viceversa? O come il mercato dopato si fa male da solo credendo di fare il bene comune? … che casino, mi sono perso! Ma se fossero solo imbecilli? (Vincenzo Donvito, presidente Aduc)

Posted in Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

In vendita casa d’infanzia di Donald Trump

Posted by fidest press agency su domenica, 13 novembre 2016

donald-trump1donald trump.pngLa casa d’infanzia di Donald Trump, nel ricco quartiere di Jamaica Estates di New York, è in vendita su il prezzo base è attualmente di 1.250.000 dollari. La villa si sviluppa su una superficie di oltre 230 mq e dispone di cinque camere, cinque bagni, un soggiorno con camino, una cucina abitabile e cinque posti auto. Gli attuali proprietari della villa dove Donald Trump visse da ragazzo hanno rinviato la vendita dell’abitazione per dare ai potenziali acquirenti più tempo per valutarla. L’annuncio immobiliare è stato pubblicato sul portale di (fonte: blog di

Posted in Cronaca/News, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , | Leave a Comment »

Elezioni USA: clamorosa vittoria dei Repubblicani e di Trump

Posted by fidest press agency su mercoledì, 9 novembre 2016

hillary-clintonDopo Brexit, ecco Donald Trump. Ma non solo, i repubblicani trionfano al Congresso e anche in caso di pareggio tra i grandi elettori, la strada verso la Casa Bianca è ormai spianata per il miliardario newyorchese. Sgomento tra i media liberal e i mercati finanziari di tutto il mondo.La corsa per la Casa Bianca è in dirittura d’arrivo e a vedere il traguardo, contro le previsioni della vigilia, è Donald Trump. Il tycoon ha mantenuto la posizione nelle roccaforti repubblicane, ha vinto il confronto con Hillary Clinton negli swing state – in particolare in Ohio e Florida – ed è persino riuscito a fare propri alcuni Stati che i pronostici assegnavano senza troppi dubbi ai democratici. I seggi si sono appena chiusi (alle 7, ora italiana) in Alaska. Ma nel resto degli Stati lo spoglio è ormai avviato a conclusione. E il quadro che emerge dai risultati è impietoso per Hillary Clinton e il suo staff: dopo otto anni di presidenza Obama, il nuovo inquilino di 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue tornerà ad essere un membro del Great Old Party, seppure decisamente fuori dagli schemi e arrivato al successo nonostante l’ostracismo di una parte del suo stesso partito, si legge su “il Corriere della Sera“. Anche il voto popolare, ovvero il consenso complessivo raccolto su scala nazionale al di là dell’assegnazione dei grandi elettori su base maggioritaria e territoriale, conferma lo stato di grazia di «The Donald»: l’alfiere dei conservatori ha messo insieme il 48,3% delle preferenze, contro il 47,2% della sua contendente. (fonte: Redazione del Secolo d’Italia)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

We both know Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency

Posted by fidest press agency su domenica, 21 agosto 2016

barack obamaBut that doesn’t mean he can’t win in November — not when his campaign and the Republican Party are raising millions of dollars every day to help him beat Hillary Clinton, including more than $80 million last month alone. So no matter what the polls and pundits say, we have to act like a team that’s playing from behind — because until the very last person in line casts his or her vote, nothing is certain.That means doing everything we can to give our organizers on the ground all the support and resources they need to do the work it takes to win presidential campaigns. It means making phone calls or standing in front of grocery stores or knocking on doors. It means doing everything we can to make sure folks get registered. It means making sure people know why Hillary’s the best candidate for this job, and making sure they make it to the ballot box on Election Day. (Barack Obama)

Posted in Estero/world news, Spazio aperto/open space | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump can never be president: He is out of control

Posted by fidest press agency su giovedì, 11 agosto 2016

Donald TrumpLast week, Senator John McCain was asked a simple question: are you comfortable with Donald Trump having control of our nuclear arsenal? Now, John McCain supports Donald Trump to become our next Commander-in-Chief — the person who decides whether we use our nuclear weapons. So this should have been a pretty easy answer.Here’s how The Washington Post transcribed his response:
McCAIN: [Silence, followed by unintelligible stammering.] Anyone that the people of this country choose to be the Commander-in-Chief and the President of the United States — therefore can lead this country, and will lead in a responsible fashion. Anyone who is elected president fairly in this country. And that’s the way that our democratic system works. That’s how our government works. The American people select the next President of the United States, knowing full well what the role of the Commander-in-Chief is. Therefore, I have the utmost respect for the verdict of the people. You may have noticed that, after the “unintelligible stammering,” McCain didn’t actually answer the question! But he did get one thing right: the person we elect in November will have all the power and responsibility of Commander-in-Chief. So we can’t let someone as dangerously unhinged as Donald Trump become president.

Posted in Estero/world news, Politica/Politics | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump: USA e getta!

Posted by fidest press agency su giovedì, 12 maggio 2016

Donald TrumpIn questa democrazia Occidentale della globalizzazione, le elezioni a capo di Stato non riguardano solamente la nazione interessata, ma coinvolgono tutte le nazioni che operano sulla scia di alleanze basate su analogie ideologiche, economiche ed etiche.
Le elezioni negli USA riportano la nazione ai tragici momenti dell’era Bush, quando il petrolio dominava la scena politica occidentale e le guerre erano diventate il mezzo di conquista, con lo slogan di volere “esportare la democrazia”. E’ la candidatura di Donald Trump che sconvolge il difficile rapporto tra la nazione-guida dell’Occidente e tutto il resto del pianeta.
Si tratta di un vero e proprio terrorista in abiti civili, con un programma aggressivo, sostenuto dal Partito Repubblicano, ormai spinto verso l’estrema destra; i punti salienti del programma di Trump evidenziano il rischio di ritrovare una nazione come gli USA sulle barricate che furono della dinastia Bush, i cui effetti deleteri stiamo pagando in termini di sicurezza, minacce terroristiche e crisi economiche.Di Donald Trump parla a lungo Webster Griffin Tarpley (come riporta Il Fatto quotidiano) filosofo della storia, giornalista, scrittore, molto noto per il bestseller George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) e per molti altri lavori, tradotti in diversi paesi, che vivisezionano la storia dei poteri americani.Tarpley non usa mezzi termini e lancia un segnale di grande pericolo per l’intero poianeta:“Attenti (Donald Trump n.d.r.), è un fascista e un pericolo reale per gli States e per il mondo intero. Non è un buffone ma l’uomo delle banche. Sbaglia di grosso chi lo sottovaluta”.L’insorgere del terrorismo jadista dell’Isis è una reazione agli attacchi voluti da Bush; con Trump alla Casa Bianca si accentueranno gli atti terroristici, incontrollabili e non prevedibili, come immediata risposta alle minacce di ricorrere alla forza per debellare un nemico che è stato stimolato al peggio.
Un parallelo ci viene in mente che avvicina due realtà, apparentemente distanti: l’Italia del 1994 e gli USA del 2016, quando due miliardari, con risorse di provenienza dubbia, hanno promesso, e oggi tornano a promettere le medesime politiche che si concretizzano in una distribuzione della ricchezza nazionale a vantaggio delle classi più opulente, anche se rappresentano una minoranza trascurabile della popolazione. (Rosario Amico Roxas)

Posted in Cronaca/News, Estero/world news, Politica/Politics | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , | Leave a Comment »