Gerrymandering Today

The naked power grab that is happening in Texas is only the most recent example of Republicans attempting to retain power whether or not there is popular support for them or their policies. 

Gerrymandering is not illegal on a national level. There is no federal law that sets standards for how election district boundaries are to be drawn. The Supreme Court has ruled that gerrymandering with the purpose of disenfranchising racial groups is illegal, but that it's outside of its authority to rule on partisan gerrymandering. Some states have set their own guidelines for how districts will be set up, many with "independent" or bipartisan commissions created for the job. 

What gerrymandering doesn't do: it has no effect on presidential elections. The undemocratic features of the Electoral College are a whole 'nother issue, but other than in Nebraska and Maine, how Congressional districts boundaries are drawn have no effect on how electoral votes are allocated. (After the last census, Nebraska Republicans attempted to gerrymander District 2, which frequently elects Democrats, by dividing the majority Democratic City of Omaha between Districts 1 and 2, effectively eliminating the potential for one electoral vote going to a Democrat. More recently they tried to revert to a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, which would have accomplished the same thing). 

Gerrymandering on the Congressional level affects the party balance of the House of Representatives. Since the Republican-Democratic split has been so tight recently, the Republicans are looking for any advantage in order to retain their majority. But the effects of gerrymandering don't start with Congressional maps, but with how state legislative maps are drawn. The process always begins with a Republican majority, however slight, in a state legislature. Once they have that majority, if it's a state where the legislature draws the district maps, then they are free to gerrymander so that a slight majority turns into a large majority or even a super- or veto-proof majority. A veto-proof majority is important because in some of these states the governor and other statewide elected officers are Democrats. Wisconsin is a prime example. The electorate is very evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, even though the legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. They failed to achieve a supermajority but still work to frustrate the plans of the Democratic governor. (Several states that had an outgoing Republican being replaced by a Democrat as governor passed last-minute legislation limiting or reducing the governor's authority)

Texas is a state that votes around 53% Republican in statewide elections, so the Governor, Attorney General and both Senators are all Republicans. I have no argument against that. The majority wins; no problem. The problem, even before the current redistricting, is that instead of having a slight majority in the Congressional delegation, the Republicans had around two thirds of the House seats, or a 2 -1 advantage. The latest redistricting will theoretically increase that advantage to three quarters of the seats, or a 3 - 1 advantage, simply by moving around some boundaries. What makes this particularly egregious is that it's being done, not as a result of population changes after a decennial census, but after only four years, at the behest of the president.  

California is taking steps to neutralize Texas' action by doing their own redistricting. California is unique already in that primaries are open and the two top vote getters advance to the general election, even if both are of the same party. Currently of California's 52 House seats, all but nine are Democrats, so I don't know how much more they can do. California generally votes for Democrats in statewide elections by just under 60%, so it's reasonable to assume that California is already gerrymandered. Other states will need to step up. 

In a perfect world there would be a standard method of drawing district boundaries. This New York Times article has some ideas, but I doubt we're close to a universal solution. The problem with gerrymandering isn't simply that one party is able to illegitimately keep  power, but that large percentages of the electorate are disenfranchised. The Electoral College method of electing presidents already does that, accelerated partisan gerrymandering is just going to make a bad situation worse. 

The Texas situation is an isolated case. Republicans have been acting to make it harder for people to vote via a variety of methods for years.

Which "Epstein Files" Are We Talking About Here?

What exactly are "The Epstein Files"? Who has them?

In any criminal trial, the "files" are not just one thing or in one place. 

It starts with an investigation by law enforcement. The investigating agency keeps a record of all the interviews that they conducted, the forensic evidence, clues, theories and anything else that leads them to a conclusion that an arrest is warranted. Keep in mind that this is just an investigation; no matter how convinced the cops are of the solidity of the evidence, it still remains that in this country the accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the prosecutor believes that a case can be made and that a conviction is possible, a grand jury is convened. 

Grand jury procedures vary from one jurisdiction to another, however, the one commonality is that the prosecution presents their evidence that there is probable cause to hold a trial. There is no opportunity for the accused to present exculpatory evidence. Therefore a grand jury indictment is not the same as a conviction and doesn't always result in a conviction. For this reason grand jury investigations and testimony are usually sealed, especially if no indictment is returned. It's also a misnomer to characterize a grand jury as investigatory, even though that's what they are referred to. Grand jurors are not investigators. They are regular citizens who are selected randomly and if they have any law enforcement or investigatory experience it's a coincidence. Theoretically they can interview witnesses and review evidence, and even call for additional witnesses and evidence to be presented, but in practice they simply vote on whether what the prosecutors presented made sense. See this article regarding unsealing grand jury records.

If a grand jury indicts someone, that means that the legal system moves on to a trial. Some of the same testimony that was presented to a grand jury can also be presented at trial, but the grand jury testimony itself remains sealed. The accused can now present their side, and perhaps even get the charges dismissed. Once a trial has commenced, everything in it (with very narrow exceptions) is public record. Prosecution and defense each have their say and a jury decides who has made their case. In the case of Epstein, we never got to this stage because he died in custody. There are no "Epstein Files" from the trail, because he was dead before there was a trial. 

So what "Epstein Files" are there?

Epstein was indicted by a grand jury, so the transcripts from the grand jury exist. But the judge has ruled three times that the testimony will remain sealed. (Apparently the entire sealed transcript consists of testimony by one FBI agent.) What's left? The files from the DOJ investigation. 

Should the DOJ case files that led to the indictment of Epstein be made public? I don't know whether or not they should, but they will. According to this article the House Oversight Committee will release the files to the public after redacting sensitive information:

"The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims' identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted," the spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News. "The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations."

I don't know what they will find and neither does anyone else, but no matter how complete the information, there will be suspicion that we aren't seeing everything. And there surely will be controversy over what we do see means. We already know that Trump and Epstein were friends - there are dozens of photos and videos of them partying together. We know from the phone logs that many prominent people in politics and entertainment (including Bill Clinton) appear in the flight logs of Epstein's plane. Conclusions certainly have been drawn in all corners about this information. If there are ongoing investigations, will we know about it? If Trump or other Republicans are implicated, will DOJ hide that information? If top Democrats were involved in criminality, wouldn't that information have already been shouted from the rooftops? (For evidence of this, see the multiple accusations and investigations into Trump's "enemies") I predict that the release of the DOJ files relating to Epstein will be a huge disappointment. 

This was never about concern for the victims. It's always been a way for politicians to attack their oppoents. 

Trump "Accomplishments" - Part V

There's no doubt in my mind that we're in the early, or even mid stages of a dictatorship. I've discussed that conclusion on many occasions. As someone who believes that democracy is not only important, but is the bedrock upon which our nation is built, the many undemocratic actions that Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party have undertaken have taken a wrecking ball to our democratic institutions. I often hear his supporters minimize this incipient authoritarianism, justifying it by claiming that "he gets things done". 

But does he? If the illegal and unconstitutional actions had been accomplished legally, would they still be considered as having contributed to the greater good? 

One of the things Trump campaigned on was the promise to keep us out of "forever wars". During his 2024 campaign he made the point that he was the first president in decades to have not started a war. That last one wasn't quite accurate, Obama didn't start any new ones either. But it was true; even though he made use of the military often, including bombing Syria and assassinating an Iranian general, there weren't any new wars in his first term. He failed to end the war we were in in Afghanistan though, and set the stage for a messy exit during the early days of Biden's term. But can his supporters legitimately claim that technically no new wars were started during his first term? Yes they can. 

Trump's "president of peace" schtick wore a little thin when he got us involved in one of Israel's wars, dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm still amazed that Iran's retaliation was as moderate as it was. This bombing also seemed at odds with Trump supposed policy of isolationism. But Iran is a whole 'nother subject. 

Speaking of peace, Trump seems bound and determined to get a Nobel Peace Prize for himself. Before the election he mocked President Biden for being "weak", which he claimed was the reason that there were wars all over the world that wouldn't have started if he was president. He said that he'd end the Russia-Ukraine War "in 24 hours...even before he was inaugurated". He boasted that he could end the Israeli war in Gaza. Israel and Gaza did agree on a cease-fire just before he took office mediated jointly by Biden and Trump team negotiators. Which of course Trump took credit for. As we all know, Israel soon continued its war in Gaza and Ukraine and Russia are still going at it. Trump found out that he couldn't bully Zelenskyy into rolling over and accepting Putin's land grab and that he wasn't as buddy-buddy with Putin as he thought he was. Putin wasn't suddenly going to change his whole foreign policy because Trump posted "Vlad! Stop!" on Truth Social. Trumpists are curiously silent about Trump's failure in the sphere. 

But their boy Donnie isn't giving up on that Nobel Prize just yet. Every regional pissing match around the globe has Trump claiming that he negotiated "peace" when they run out of bullets. India-Pakistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)-Rwanda, Thailand-Cambodia are all claimed as "wins". India has denied that Trump had anything to do with the cessation of hostilities which will surely heat up again the next time somebody's soccer ball rolls across the border in Kashmir. With Cambodia and Thailand he's threatening tariffs if they don't kiss and make up. Do I even need to explain how stupid that is? DRC and Rwanda have been fighting for 30 years, and while the United States did mediate an agreement, this is simply the latest in a long string of agreements that one or the other side has broken. Egypt and Sudan are arguing with Ethiopia about a damn Ethiopia built on the Nile. They're not at war and all Trump has done is comment that there should be water in the Nile. Apparently he's also claiming that he stopped a war where there wasn't a war, Serbia-Kosovo, both nations are perplexed by the suggestion that there was a war that Trump had to prevent. And the wildest at all, Trump is claiming that dropping mega-bombs on Iran should be recognized as ending the "12-Day War" between Israel and Iran. 

Trumpists claiming these "peace negotiations" as Trump accomplishments are simply believing their cult leader's unsupported assertions (lies). The big ones, the ones that he cannot take unearned credit for, Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza are still raging.

Trump "Accomplishments" - Part IV

There's no doubt in my mind that we're in the early, or even mid stages of a dictatorship. I've discussed that conclusion on many occasions. As someone who believes that democracy is not only important, but is the bedrock upon which our nation is built, the many undemocratic actions that Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party have undertaken have taken a wrecking ball to our democratic institutions. I often hear his supporters minimize this incipient authoritarianism, justifying it by claiming that "he gets things done". 

But does he? If the illegal and unconstitutional actions had been accomplished legally, would they still be considered as having contributed to the greater good? 

What about tariffs? He's imposed hundreds of those; isn't that an accomplishment? Sure, for a certain value of "accomplishment". He's without a doubt imposed tariffs, but to what end? This is one of those categories where Trumpists, as ignorant of economics as Trump, will buy into his explanations and rationales and credit Trump with accomplishing something. When it comes to tariffs, the first thing to understand is that Trump doesn't understand tariffs. He believes that tariffs are paid by foreign governments. He believes that a trade deficit somehow means that we are losing money. Earlier this year I wrote an article explaining tariffs and trade that can be found here. Here's a quote from that article:

Trump thinks tariffs are the answer to most of our problems. It's the hammer when every problem looks like a nail. Some of Trump's supporters are reverse engineering his senseless policies by attempting to pin some kind of rationality on the irrational. Trying, through convoluted illogic, to hallucinate some kind of reason why any of this makes sense. You'll grow old trying to find any kind of policy coherence in anything Trump does. There are more holes in his "logic" that anyone could count before the heat death of the universe. The reason for any of this is Trump's personality. One aspect is his simplistic thinking. He can't conceive of complex systems or relationships. It's why he seems incapable of considering how interconnected our economy is with the rest of the world. 

It doesn't get any better. What is the goal of a tariff? (For a sane leader)

Ideally, a tariff is set to counter prices for foreign made goods that are well below the cost of American products. Often the low price is the result of government subsidies in the originating country, resulting in an "unfair" price difference. The tariff brings the foreign and domestic products closer to parity, with the goal of supporting American business. Foreign countries may impose tariffs on American goods as a way to jump start their own home grown industries. 

Trump has imposed tariffs for a multitude of reasons:

1. To stop the flow of fentanyl into the country from Canada
2. France recognized a Palestinian state
3. Brazil is prosecuting a former president for various crimes
4. To stop illegal immigration
5. To balance the budget
6. It's fair
7. National security
8. To make child care more affordable (really)
9. He doesn't like China

None of these are legitimate economic reasons and some are quite frankly nonsensical. Then there's the formula that he used to calculate tariffs on everyone. 

The tariffs are not, as first assumed, mirror images of tariffs being imposed on U.S. businesses. The tariff rates are based on the ratio of imports and the trade deficit between the United States and the target country. For example, if we export 25 billion to Tariffland, and import 35 million, the deficit is 10 billion, so the formula is 10 ÷ 35. Trump is dividing the resulting percentage by 2 (to be kind, he says), so  28.57%  ÷ 2 = a 14.28% tariff. 

Add to all of this insanity is the on again/off again nature of his tariffs pronouncements. 

The only thing that a Trumper can legitimately claim that Trump accomplished with tariffs is that the Treasury has collected over $100 billion in tariffs this year so far this year. 2021, 2023 and 2024 had tariff revenue of around $80 billion, while 2022 had slightly less than $100 billion. Congratulations! Trump managed to enact a national sales tax, extracting additional billions from taxpayers and businesses. 

That's quite an accomplishment!

Trump "Accomplishments" - Part III

There's no doubt in my mind that we're in the early, or even mid stages of a dictatorship. I've discussed that conclusion on many occasions. As someone who believes that democracy is not only important, but is the bedrock upon which our nation is built, the many undemocratic actions that Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party have undertaken have taken a wrecking ball to our democratic institutions. I often hear his supporters minimize this incipient authoritarianism, justifying it by claiming that "he gets things done". 

But does he? If the illegal and unconstitutional actions had been accomplished legally, would they still be considered as having contributed to the greater good? 

One of the biggest reasons that I heard people give for voting for Trump in 2024 was that they believed that he would be better for the economy. In some cases I thought this was merely a cover for them liking his anti-immigration, and own-the-libs positions and being too embarrassed to admit it. Voting for him for pragmatic, economic reasons seemed reasonable and might have even been sincere. Of course this necessitated ignoring everything else about him, but it was plausible camouflage. Could Trumpers claim that he accomplished his economic promises? They've been pretty quiet about this category. 

Politicians often latch on to an area where their opponent appears to be failing, focusing on the failure, but not always laying out a plan for how they would do things differently. Since inflation was high during Biden's middle two years in office, and the high prices stayed high, Trump could point out that inflation was low to nonexistent during his first term. But he didn't stop there, he made many specific claims about what he would do if reelected:

August 9, 2024:

“Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.”

August 14, 2024

“Under my administration, we will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months, at a maximum 18 months” [We're only at 6 months, so we've got time yet]

“Prices will come down. You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.”

August 17, 2024

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down and we will make America affordable again. We’re going to make it affordable again.”

“We’re going to get your energy prices down. We’re going to get your energy prices down by 50%.”

September 5, 2024

“Energy is going to bring us back. That means we’re going down and getting gasoline below $2 a gallon, bring down the price of everything from electricity rates to groceries, airfares, and housing costs.”

“We will eliminate regulations that drive up housing costs with the goal of cutting the cost of a new home in half. We think we can do that.” 

September 18, 2024

“While working Americans catch up, we’re going to put a temporary cap on credit card interest rates. We can’t let them make 25 and 30%.”

September 29, 2024

“We're going to get the prices down. We have to get them down. It's too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We're going to get the prices down. While working Americans catch up, we are going to put a temporary cap on credit card interest rates at 10%. People are being made to pay 25%. Temporary ban.”

October 1, 2024

“Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again. We’ll do that. We’ve got to bring it down.”

November 4, 2025

“A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper” January 7, 2025 “We’re going to have prices down- I think you’re going to see some pretty drastic price reductions.”  You can find sources here. Now those of us who have even a passing familiarity with macroeconomics know that a president has only limited influence on inflation and prices. While high inflation happened on Biden's watch, it wasn't reasonable to blame him for most of it. The shutting down of global supply chains in 2020 and 2021 meant that when demand increased in late 2021 and into 2022 the supply chains had trouble keeping up. Scarcity caused costs to go up on all points along the way. Low unemployment, coupled with a trend toward more independence on the part of employees resulted in higher wages, even when the minimum wage was not legislated. The stimulus checks at the end of Trump's and the beginning of Biden's terms contributed as well. Biden and Harris supporters pointed this out to no avail. To Trumpists it was as simple as No Inflation Under Trump/High Inflation Under Biden. Democrats knew that Trump was making empty promises.  Did prices come down, on Day One or at any time in the last six months? To any honest observer the answer is an unequivocable "NO!". Egg prices might be the one exception. Due to the scarcity of egg laying chickens as a result of rampant bird flu, egg prices had soared even higher than the overall inflation rate. As the supply of eggs rebounded the prices went down a little, but not as low as before and certainly not on Day One. But, as predicted, inflation hasn't ended either. It's right around the level it was at during the final months of Biden's term. What caused Trump's plan to fail? The obvious answer is that there was no plan. At best, the no inflation, price rollback talk was just aspirations, they were hopes and dreams. There was never any planned action that would result in inflation coming to an end let alone prices returning to 2020 levels.  Once in office though, Trump was quoted as saying that ending inflation and lowering prices "was hard" and that we were in a transition where things would be tough on consumers for a while. Of course he blamed Biden. Sure, even if it was all Biden's fault, you're in charge now Donnie, and you said you'd fix it.  This is one area where I haven't heard many Trumpists claiming that anything has been accomplished, although Trump himself has started saying, without evidence, that there is no inflation and that prices are coming down. I'm concerned that, following in the wake of the firing of a Bureau of Labor Statistics official for providing accurate numbers, Trump will do the same for those tasked with tracking inflation, with that agency providing Trump-friendly numbers instead of real ones. Trump has also been making ridiculous claims about "directing" pharmaceutical companies to reduce their prices by mathematically impossible percentages.  Who knows what imaginary statistics he will produce and his people will believe?

Trump "Accomplishments" - Part II

There's no doubt in my mind that we're in the early, or even mid stages of a dictatorship. I've discussed that conclusion on many occasions. As someone who believes that democracy is not only important, but is the bedrock upon which our nation is built, the many undemocratic actions that Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party have undertaken have taken a wrecking ball to our democratic institutions. I often hear his supporters minimize this incipient authoritarianism, justifying it by claiming that "he gets things done". 

But does he? If the illegal and unconstitutional actions had been accomplished legally, would they still be considered as having contributed to the greater good? 

If they didn't care how he did it, how many families he broke up, how many laws he broke, would a Trump supporter consider that Trump was fulfilling his campaign promise of closing the border? Probably they would. 

One of the reasons that it appears that Trump has solved the problem of illegal immigration is that Trump says he has solved the problem of illegal immigration. He throws around statistics that are suspect and often compares apples to oranges. For example, early in his second term he compared the total number of Border Patrol encounters for one month of Biden's term with the average weekly numbers for a month early in his own term. Figures that you seldom see are the comparison of the average number illegal crossings that Biden inherited from Trump's first term with the number that Trump inherited from Biden. Trump walked into a much better scenario than Biden did. Trump also tends to take credit for the actions of others. While it is true that Biden's action on border security came late in his term, and only after tremendous pressure, what we are seeing now is a continuation of the downward trend that began under Biden. 

While it's clear that illegal immigration through the southern border is a fraction of what it had been at its peak, what's not clear is why. People who are fleeing poverty and gang violence can be pretty tenacious about getting out of those situations. We haven't increased the number of Border Patrol agents (although the Army and National Guard are patrolling sections of the border) and we haven't yet built Trump's Wall. It's possible that potential illegal immigrants have checked out the political situation here and have decided that it isn't worth the risk. In that case it isn't that the border is more secure, it's just that the millions facing starvation and death think coming here is a worse deal for them. Or maybe the coyotes are just getting more creative. What happens if one day things get so bad that they all think it's worth the risk? The Border Patrol will still be the same size as it was in 2024 and we're back where we started. Personally I think it's suspicious that illegal crossings are supposedly down when one of the main avenues of legal entry, asylum claims, have been virtually eliminated. I would think that cutting off a legal way to come here would increase illegal attempts. Me, I don't trust the numbers; as soon as they start looking bad Trump will fire Noem or whoever tracks that information. 

From what I can tell asylum seekers who are turned back are tracked separately from illegal crossings. However, Trump and his people have made no secret that they think asylum claims are a big scam, with those applying for it just parroting the right words in order to bring their drug import business into the U.S. But it's perfectly legal to apply for asylum; denying virtually all cases without due process has nothing to do with controlling illegal immigration, but with ending immigration period. (At least the brown kind) Would Trumpists see this as an accomplishment? No doubt they would. Because it's not just about illegal immigration, if it was, there would be a push for an expanded immigration court system, and a streamlined system for vetting and processing people. But the Trumpists see immigration as diluting the blood of "real" Americans. 

This is why the lack of due process as undocumented immigrants, as well as non-citizens who are here legally, are rounded up and sent to Salvadoran prisons, or to countries with which they have no ties, doesn't bother them. They're willing to turn aside as the promise to prioritize ejecting violent criminals is forgotten and otherwise law abiding asylum seekers, green card holders and those under temporary protect status are arrested at immigration hearings or at appointments to renew their green card. They consider the ICE raids an "accomplishment" even though it's not really what Trump said he would do. 

To the Trump Cult the ends justify the means.

Trump "Accomplishments" - Part I

There's no doubt in my mind that we're in the early, or even mid stages of a dictatorship. I've discussed that conclusion on many occasions. As someone who believes that democracy is not only important, but is the bedrock upon which our nation is built, the many undemocratic actions that Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party have undertaken have taken a wrecking ball to our democratic institutions. I often hear his supporters minimize this incipient authoritarianism, justifying it by claiming that "he gets things done". 

But does he? If the illegal and unconstitutional actions had been accomplished legally, would they still be considered as having contributed to the greater good?

How about taxes? Separating out all the non-tax related items in the just passed tax and spend bill, the items that affect working class Americans are the tax rate, taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security and reductions in Medicaid. The tax rates in the 2017 tax bill were set to expire this year, if they had not been made permanent, this would have resulted in an effective tax increase for many Americans. The most significant part of the tax code change in 2017 was that the standard deduction was doubled. This reduced taxable income, and therefore tax liability for many middle income taxpayers. It also simplified tax return preparation for taxpayers who were on the low end of itemization, since the higher standard deduction in many cases obviated the need to itemize. Naturally the effect of the change effected different households in different ways, but I personally benefitted. Since the personal deduction was eliminated, households with larger families could have come out behind, but the average family came out ahead. 

The promised elimination of taxes on tips and on overtime were a bit more complicated. I wrote about that in this article on tips, overtime and Social Security. Tips and overtime will still be subject to payroll (FICA) taxes and state income tax, but taxpayers will be able to claim a deduction when filing their federal tax return. This should, at least for the first year, result in larger than usual refunds. Since most people seem to judge the fairness of the tax code based on the size of their refund, this should make a lot of people happy. I get a small number of tips every year as part of my business income, so I'm not sure if I benefit from the tip deduction. I had around $1400 in overtime income this year, but the only amount that is deductible is the "and a half" portion of time and a half. So I'll reap a small benefit. Taxes on Social Security is similar, but not exactly the same. Before this bill passed seniors (65+) could claim an addition $2,000 standard deduction. Starting next year that extra senior deduction increases by $6,000 whether or not they are receiving Social Security. This should wipe out an additional tax liability I incurred from cashing out my accrued vacation and sick time hours. 

Don't forget that the deductions for tips, overtime and seniors all expire after four years!

One could argue (and I do) that the net benefit to middle income Americans is infinitesimal, the benefit to low income families is nil, but the cumulative hit to the government revenue is quite significant. Wealthy individuals and corporations certainly are the winners here. Whether it's a big picture "win" is debatable, but it's unquestionably a public relations victory and gives Trump supporters something to point to when cheering on their guy. This isn't something that I has a Trump opponent would waste my time arguing, the nuances are just too deep for a typical Trumper. 

Medicaid reduction is another story. Trumpists will cheer this on, mainly due to misunderstanding and disinformation regarding what Medicaid is. Simply put, it's medical insurance for people with limited income and resources. Trumpists and other Republicans would have you believe that Medicaid recipients are living high on the hog, drawing these government benefits. The only benefits that those who are enrolled in Medicaid receive are their medical bills paid. In order to reduce the amount spent on Medicaid, work requirements have been imposed on all recipients. To some, this might seem like common sense. Of course someone receiving "free stuff" shouldn't be sitting on their butt all day. But three quarters of all Medicaid beneficiaries are already working. The bulk of the remainder are either disabled, elderly, or children. So what's the problem? The problem is twofold. Any time individual states have added work requirements a significant number of people have dropped out. Not because they didn't qualify, but because the red tape was often so confusing that they were kicked off because they didn't fill out the labyrinthine forms correctly, or just became discouraged and gave up. This is what the Republicans want to happen. The other part of the problem stems from the way Medicaid is paid. The federal government delegates to the states the administration of the program and distributes grants to them to do so. With the budget for Medicaid slashed, fewer dollars will be going to the states, which will need to make hard decisions on whether to raise taxes or cut the programs. Guess which choice most state legislatures will make? 

Unlike the situation with taxes and deductions, there's no grey area here. Trump and his toadies in Congress are attempting to pay for their support of their billionaire buddies by taking away medical care from those of us who can least afford it. (And partly to pay for the PR stunt of "no tax" on tips, OT and Social Security) And they've still managed to increase the deficit and the debt while doing it. 

I was planning on including other Trump campaign promises, but this one took up a lot of space. There will be a Part II (and maybe a III or IV)