Millennials Flunking at Work Because They're Entitled and Disloyal

Special snowflakes.

At Heat Street.

Simon Sinek says CEOs are pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to inspire millennials. https://t.co/OxAfCGcnTl

— Heat Street (@heatstreet) May 14, 2017

Truck Driving, Once a Road to the Middle Class, is Now Low-Paying, Grinding, Unhealthy Work. Why Do They Do It?

I've always been fascinated with truck drivers. Still am.

I especially love the peaceful and easy feeling of the cross-country long haul. But alas, there's not much glamour to the job, at least not any more.

At NYT, "Alone on the Open Road: Truckers Feel Like ‘Throwaway People’":

My grandfather and some of my uncles were truckers. This piece by @tripgabriel is exceptional. https://t.co/w7o3fN8zz3

— Alan Blinder (@alanblinder) May 22, 2017

EFFINGHAM, Ill. — The vast Petro truck stop here is a neon-lit, blacktop oasis at the crossroads of America. It beckons big-rig drivers with showers, laundry machines, a barber shop, even a knife store. “Professional drivers only,” reads the sign above the tables of the Iron Skillet restaurant, where truckers sit mostly alone, carrying the solitude of their jobs into an otherwise social setting.

Driving a long-haul tractor-trailer is as commonplace as the items that drivers carry, from blue jeans to blueberries, from toilet paper for Walmart to farm machinery bound for export. There are 1.7 million men and women working as long-haul drivers in the country. Yet truckers — high up in their cabs — are literally out of view for most Americans.

At a moment when President Trump has ignited a national discussion of blue-collar labor and even climbed into a truck during a White House event, trucking, which was once among the best-paying such jobs, has become low-wage, grinding, unhealthy work. Turnover at large for-hire fleets hauling freight by the truckload — the backbone of the industry — runs an astonishing 80 percent a year, according to a trade group. Looming over the horizon is a future in which self-driving trucks threaten to eliminate many drivers’ livelihoods.

Still, trucking continues to draw plenty of newcomers, reflecting the lack of good alternatives for workers without a higher education (one survey found that 17 percent of truckers had less than a high school diploma). Some have lost better-paying manufacturing jobs in the continuing deindustrialization of America. Others have spent years knocking on the door of the middle class in minimum-wage jobs in fast food or retail. To them, trucking is a step up.

Over two days recently, The New York Times spoke to truckers at the Petro stop, which sits at the intersection of Interstate 57, between Chicago and Memphis, and Interstate 70, between Indianapolis and St. Louis. These interviews were edited and condensed. The maps show drivers’ routes in picking up and delivering their loads...

Keep reading.

Ford Investing $1.2 Billion in Plants as Trump Touts Jobs — #MAGA!

President Trump gets results!

At Bloomberg.

Also, at WaPo, and Neil Cavuto below:

Trump said Ford will invest at three Michigan auto plants https://t.co/4I5dDnS9H1

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 28, 2017

Deirdre McCloskey: Economic Growth Saves the Poor

A great essay, at the New York Times:

Growth, Not Forced Equality, Saves the Poor. https://t.co/nd90GXokj4

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 5, 2017

The Right to Disconnect

I don't ever "disconnect." I might not check my emails for a while, but I'm always available.

It's not that big of a deal to me.

But see the Washington Post, "French employees can legally ignore work emails outside of office hours":

French employees can legally ignore work emails outside of office hours https://t.co/pJA1eOGpxI

— Katie Zavadski (@katiezavadski) January 1, 2017

I've always thought that if you need to shut off when you leave the office, then you must not really like what you do. https://t.co/31QTfxGuOr

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 1, 2017

That 10 p.m. email from your boss? It's your right to ignore it.

That Saturday ping from a colleague with “just one quick question?” A response on Monday should suffice.

If you're in France, that is.

French workers rang in a new year at midnight — as well as a “right to disconnect” law that grants employees in the country the legal right to ignore work emails outside of typical working hours, according to the Guardian.

The new employment law requires French companies with more than 50 employees to begin drawing up policies with their workers about limiting work-related technology usage outside the office, the newspaper reported.

The motivation behind the legislation is to stem work-related stress that increasingly leaks into people's personal time — and hopefully prevent employee burnout, French officials said.

“Employees physically leave the office, but they do not leave their work. They remain attached by a kind of electronic leash, like a dog,” Benoit Hamon, Socialist member of Parliament and former French education minister, told the BBC in May. “The texts, the messages, the emails: They colonize the life of the individual to the point where he or she eventually breaks down.”

France has had a 35-hour workweek since 2000, but the policy came under scrutiny recently given France's near-record-high unemployment rate.

The “right to disconnect” provision was packaged with new and controversial reforms introduced last year that were designed to relax some of the country's strict labor regulations. The amendment regarding ignoring work emails was included by French Labor Minister Myriam El Khomri, who reportedly was inspired by similar policies at Orange, a French telecommunications company.

“There are risks that need to be anticipated, and one of the biggest risks is the balance of a private life and professional life behind this permanent connectivity,” Orange Director General Bruno Mettling told Europe1 radio in February. “Professionals who find the right balance between private and work life perform far better in their job than those who arrive shattered.”

Well, I don't think your life's going to be "shattered" by checking your email, and as a professor, I know that a lot of the emails are from students. So I check it throughout the day. It's no big deal.

In any case, keep reading.

William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears [BUMPED]

Professor Wilson's work is increasingly in vogue. Lots of folks are citing it, from J.D. Vance to Katherine S. Newman and Hella Winston.

I have a copy of the book on my living room bookshelf.

Time to crack it out again!

At Amazon, William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor.

Training Workers for the New Economy

From Katherine S. Newman and Hella Winston, at the January/February 2017 issue of Foreign Affairs, "Make America Make Again":

Unlike the United States, Germany never abandoned vocational education. https://t.co/sODylrdnUM

— Foreign Affairs (@ForeignAffairs) December 15, 2016

Despite their many differences, the major candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential election managed to agree on at least one thing: manufacturing jobs must return to the United States. Last April, the Democratic contender Hillary Clinton told a crowd in Michigan, “We are builders, and we need to get back to building!” Her opponent in the Democratic primaries, Senator Bernie Sanders, said the manufacturing sector “must be rebuilt to expand the middle class.” And the Republican candidate Donald Trump bemoaned bad trade deals that he said had robbed the country of good jobs. “‘Made in America,’ remember?” he asked a rally in New Hampshire in September. “You’re seeing it less and less; we’re gonna bring it back.”

It’s true that many manufacturing jobs have left the United States, with the total number falling by about a third since 1980. But the news isn’t all bad. After decades of offshoring, U.S. manufacturing is undergoing something of a renaissance. Rising wages in developing countries, especially China, and increasing U.S. productivity have begun to make the United States much more attractive to manufacturers, who have added nearly half a million jobs since 2010.

But these jobs are not the same as the millions that have disappeared from the United States over the past four decades. Workers in contemporary manufacturing jobs are more likely to spend hours in front of a computer screen than in front of a hot furnace. To do so, they need to know simple programming, electrical engineering, and robotics. These are well-paying, middle-skill jobs that require technical qualifications—but not necessarily a four-year college degree. Between 2012 and 2022, these will account for half of all the new jobs created in the United States.

Yet the U.S. work force is woefully unprepared to take advantage of this opportunity. In New York State, for example, almost 25 percent of these jobs will likely go unfilled. According to a 2015 survey by the consulting firm Deloitte, 82 percent of manufacturing executives expect that they will be unable to hire enough people. The situation is all the more troubling when so many young people in the United States desperately need work.

There is a better way. In Germany, a “dual system” of vocational training that mixes classroom learning with work experience has helped drive the youth unemployment rate down to historic lows. The United States used to take a similar approach, but its commitment waned after decades of federal neglect and cultural antipathy to manual labor. It’s long past time to resurrect it.

NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE

In the years following World War II, the United States embraced vocational education. High schools prepared students for highly sought-after blue-collar work by training them to become aircraft mechanics or automotive repair technicians. The United States had hundreds of vocational schools where students studied welding, construction, and electrical engineering alongside a standard high school curriculum. These schools helped create a thriving blue-collar middle class.

But by the 1960s, white-collar positions had started to outstrip blue-collar jobs in number and prestige as the service sector came to dominate the economy. In 1963, Congress passed the Vocational Education Act, which provided federal funds to train students who were at an academic or socioeconomic disadvantage. The legislation was well intentioned but had the unintended consequence of encouraging the public to associate vocational education with troubled youth. A decade later, in 1972, the sociologist Richard Sennett found that many young people were embarrassed by their parents’ working-class origins and that older people felt at an increasing distance from their children as those children entered more prestigious jobs than their own. The stigma has stuck: parents in even very poor neighborhoods today believe that attending college is essential for a well-paying career and that middle-skill jobs are an inferior choice for their children. As a result, over the past four decades, the quality of technical education declined as investment in equipment and teacher training fell off, and private-sector interest has waned.

The move away from vocational education accelerated in the 1980s, when a 14-month-long recession triggered a crisis of confidence in U.S. education more generally...

Keep reading.

CNN, Kaiser Family Foundation Poll on White Working Class Voters (VIDEO)

At CNN, "The anatomy of a white, working-class Trump voter."

'Game of Thrones' at Mitt Romney Election Summit in Utah

Romney needs to just go away.

He lost twice already. He's not making a good name for himself here.

At WaPo, "Romney loyalists’ divisions over Trump spill out into the open at Utah summit":

PARK CITY, Utah — Mitt Romney warned that a Donald Trump presidency could normalize racism, misogyny and bigotry in the national conscience. Businesswoman Meg Whitman compared the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to Adolf Hitler. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was asked, uncomfortably, how he could explain his endorsement of Trump to a young child.

Then came Trump’s boosters, awkwardly imploring about 300 business executives and GOP establishment donors and strategists gathered here for Romney’s annual ideas festival to unite for the fall campaign. In a stroke of defiance, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus declared that Trump and the GOP would win in November “with or without you,” according to attendees.

So went the three-day Romney-hosted E2 summit that concluded here Saturday in this luxurious mountaintop resort. The confab put on stark display the Republican Party’s moral and philosophical divisions over its new standard-bearer and underscored the difficulty that Trump and allies such as Priebus will have to consolidate forces at the start of a general election in which Democrat Hillary Clinton is favored.

Anthony Scaramucci, a New York financier who was one of Romney’s top funders in 2012, came to Park City seeking to galvanize his old friends to help him raise money for Trump. He likened the atmosphere here to the hit HBO series “Game of Thrones.”

“I feel like Jon Snow, trying to get the Wildlings to team up with the kings of the castles,” Scaramucci said.

Recalling what he told Romney loyalists, Scaramucci said: “Your father just got slayed by your uncle, whom you don’t really like, and your uncle is now in charge. You’ve got the White Walkers descending from the north and they’re coming to hunt you and all the living. What do you do? Do you fight with your uncle or band together and fight the White Walkers?”

Romney made clear he would rather fight his uncle, figuratively speaking. The 2012 GOP presidential nominee was emotional here Saturday as he delivered an impassioned case against Trump. He said the business mogul’s campaign rhetoric — the latest example being his accusations of bias by a federal judge because of his Mexican American heritage — is so destructive that it is fraying at the nation’s moral fabric and could lead to “trickle-down racism.”

“I love what this country is built upon, and its values — and seeing this is breaking my heart,” Romney told summit attendees, according to the Associated Press.

Trump punched back at Romney at his Saturday rally in Tampa, calling him “poor, sad, Mitt Romney” and a “stone-cold loser.”

Scaramucci and other Romney associates supportive of Trump, including Ron Kaufman, a longtime RNC member from Massachusetts, have pleaded with Romney to tone down his opposition in the interest of party unity.

More.

I blogged Anthony Scaramucci's WSJ op-ed earlier, "Here Are Four Things #NeverTrump Doesn't Get."

Donald Trump Promises New Attacks on Hillary Clinton as GOP Race Ends (VIDEO)

The the full speech from last night at the clip.

And at the Wall Street Journal:

BRIARCLIFF MANOR, N.Y. – Donald Trump, sidestepping the firestorm that has engulfed his campaign in recent days, marked the end of the GOP primary season Tuesday by escalating his attacks on Hillary Clinton, raising questions about her ethics and promising to give a “major speech” as early as Monday to discuss “all of the things that have taken place” with the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“The Clintons have turned the politics of personal enrichment into an art form form themselves,” Mr. Trump said speaking to supporters as the polls closed in New Jersey, one of five states voting Tuesday.

He made no mention of the controversies that have been roiling his own party for the last two weeks over his criticism of a federal judge handling litigation against Trump University.

Hoping to quiet the firestorm that has pitted Mr. Trump against most elected officials in the GOP, he had earlier in the day issued a statement saying he had been “misconstrued” by critics who said he was racist because he accused U.S. Judge Gonzalo Curiel of being biased against him because he is of Mexican descent. Mr. Trump did not apologize or recant his attacks despite wide criticism from allies and adversaries alike, but he said he would not discuss the case any more.

He stuck to that intention at the Tuesday evening appearance at his golf course in the suburbs of New York, as he prepared to celebrate primary victories in New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, and California on the last day of the long, unpredictable primary season.

He took no questions from reporters; his speech was short, focused on Mrs. Clinton and uncharacteristically scripted for a man famous for his off-the-cuff performances. He read the speech from a teleprompter, less than a week after deriding Mrs. Clinton for using the device to present a major speech of her own attacking Mr. Trump as ill-suited for the Oval Office.

For a man struggling to unify his party after a long, divisive primary season, he chose one of the most powerful tools available for galvanizing Republicans: attacking Mrs. Clinton just as she was at last ending her own primary battle against Sen. Bernie Sanders...

Good for him.

Keep reading.

Bernie Sanders Campaign Divided Over Next Step

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen had a great piece at the Wall Street Journal the other day, "Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee."

The scenario he lays out rests on Bernie winning California on Tuesday, which would give the Vermont socialist tremendous momentum heading into the Democrats' July convention in Philadelphia.

But Tuesday's Democrat primary's too close to call, and personally I'd be surprised if Bernie wins (although that would be great).

But we'll see. We'll see.

Meanwhile, here's WSJ, "Bernie Sanders Campaign Is Split Over Whether to Fight on Past Tuesday":

A split is emerging inside the Bernie Sanders campaign over whether the senator should stand down after Tuesday’s election contests and unite behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, or take the fight all the way to the July party convention and try to pry the nomination from her.

One camp might be dubbed the Sandersistas, the loyalists who helped guide Mr. Sanders’s political ascent in Vermont and the U.S. Congress and are loath to give up a fight that has far surpassed expectations. Another has ties not only to Mr. Sanders but to the broader interests of a Democratic Party pining to beat back the challenge from Republican Donald Trump and make gains in congressional elections.

Mr. Sanders in recent weeks has made clear he aims to take his candidacy past the elections on Tuesday, when California, New Jersey and four other states vote. But the debate within the campaign indicates that Mr. Sanders’s next move isn’t settled.

For now, Democratic officials, fund-raisers and operatives are getting impatient, calling on Mr. Sanders to quit the race and begin the work of unifying the party for the showdown with the Republican presumptive nominee.

Orin Kramer, a New York hedge-fund manager who has raised campaign funds for both President Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton, said with respect to Mr. Sanders’s future plans: “I would hope people would understand what a Trump presidency would mean and act accordingly—and ‘accordingly’ means quickly.”

A strong showing in New Jersey on Tuesday, before California results even come in, could help Mrs. Clinton reach the 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Her total includes hundreds of superdelegates—party leaders and elected officials who can back either candidate. Mr. Sanders is hoping that defeating Mrs. Clinton in the most populous state later Tuesday might give superdelegates reason to drop her and get behind his candidacy. Those superdelegates have given no indication they will shift allegiances.

Even so, Mr. Sanders isn’t backing off. In an interview that aired Sunday on CNN, he stepped up an attack on Mrs. Clinton involving the Clinton Foundation. Echoing a critique made by Republicans, Mr. Sanders said he has “a problem” with the foundation accepting money from foreign sources during her service as secretary of state.

In a news conference Saturday in California, Mr. Sanders indicated he would battle for superdelegates all the way to the convention.

“The Democratic National Convention will be a contested convention,” he said...

More at the link.

And here's that CNN interview, with Jake Tapper, "Sanders sees 'conflict' in Clinton Foundation..."

Why Donald Trump Was Inevitable

From political scientists Alan Abramowitz, Ron Rapoport, and Walter Stone, at the New York Review, "Why Trump Was Inevitable":

On banning Muslims, building a wall, and deporting immigrants, a majority of likely Republican voters support Trump https://t.co/fS4HEF7mr1

— NY Review of Books (@nybooks) June 2, 2016

Polling in February already showed that Trump would win a one-on-one contest against any other Republican candidate https://t.co/fS4HEEPLzt

— NY Review of Books (@nybooks) June 2, 2016

God this is depressing https://t.co/UY7uwnmniB pic.twitter.com/beQr2viDYA

— Michael Hobbes (@RottenInDenmark) June 3, 2016

One of the main reasons many political commentators were surprised by Donald Trump’s success in the primaries was his willingness to take extreme positions and use unusually harsh rhetoric in talking about immigration and related issues. Indeed, Trump’s comments about Mexican immigrants and Muslims have been at the center of his campaign. And his pronouncements on these topics have greatly concerned many Republican leaders and elected officials who feared they would harm the party’s image and damage its electoral prospects. But how did his positions and comments play with Republican primary voters?

The clear answer is that they reflected the views of likely Republican voters extremely well. We asked a series of questions about Trump’s controversial proposals (banning Muslims from entering the US, building a wall on the Mexican border, and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants). On all three issues overwhelming majorities of likely Republican voters supported his positions: almost three quarters (73 percent) favored banning Muslims from entering the US, 90 percent favored identifying and deporting illegal immigrants as quickly as possible, and 85 percent favored building a wall on the Mexican border.

Trump supporters were more in favor of these proposals than supporters of other candidates, but as Figure 3 shows, large majorities of likely Republican voters who did not support Trump for the nomination did support Trump’s positions on his three central issues. Almost two thirds favored his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US and four fifths favored building the wall and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. In fact 60 percent of non-Trump supporters took his position on all three of his distinctive issues.

As with electability, Trump’s positions on immigration, rather than limiting his appeal, actually gave him the potential to expand his electoral coalition.

Trump’s emergence on the political scene in the summer of 2015 was unprecedented. That someone with no office-holding experience and little previous involvement in the Republican Party could emerge as the GOP nominee seemed implausible. Media commentators, pundits, and academics continued to hold this position deep into the fall and winter, even at a time when national and state polls showed Trump to be a formidable candidate if not the inevitable nominee.

As our data here show, Donald Trump’s primary victories on his way to the nomination were not simply a result of a crowded field. Among our national sample of likely Republican primary voters, Trump was favored over every other Republican candidate in one-on-one matchups. Moreover, he was viewed as the most electable candidate by a majority of Republican primary voters, and on his distinctive issues involving immigration even those favoring other candidates overwhelmingly agreed with him.

Trump and his supporters were not in line with the opinions of a majority of Republican voters. As we showed in our earlier essay for Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball,* Trump supporters were quite distinct from other Republicans on issues like raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on upper-income households. Almost two thirds of Trump supporters favored raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 compared with only 41 percent of other Republicans, and while almost half of his supporters (48 percent) favored raising the minimum wage, that was true of less than a third of those supporting other candidates.

It is not happenstance that these are two issues on which Trump has said he may change his positions in order to “clarify” them. Whether he can maintain these more populist positions on economic issues without turning off more conservative Republican voters remains a central question for his campaign.

But regardless of how successful he is in unifying the Republican Party behind his candidacy in the future, Donald Trump was already very close to being the inevitable nominee in January 2016.

Laura Ingraham: Donald Trump Shouldn't Get Bogged Down Fighting the Media (VIDEO)

And remember, Ingraham's a huge Trump booster. But she's got a point. The presumptive nominee should stick to hammering his populist message. Tone down some of the sniping and fighting.

The only danger for Trump is for him to deviate too much from his signature combative brand, which is why many, many people support him. But still. He's got to find the balance.

Watch, from Hannity's last night:

Ireri Carrasco, Open-Borders Activist, Sues Obama Administration Over Deferred Deportation (VIDEO)

I hate the entitlement. Folks like this should be the first deported under the Donald Trump administration.

At Democracy Now!:

Donald Trump's 'Hostility' Toward the Media (VIDEO)

Well, if he's "hostile," it's a good kind of hostile. His supporters are going to be eating it up.

Watch, at CBS This Morning, "What Trump's hostility toward press could mean for possible presidency."

Why the Next President Will Inherit a Divided Country

From Ronald Brownstein, at great piece, at the Atlantic:

These three charts explain how each party's coalition has evolved-and diverged-since 1984. https://t.co/HbAZBvrI11

— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) May 31, 2016

Racial chasm: In '16 non-white voters could provide nearly 1/2 of all Democratic votes-but only 1/10 of GOP votes https://t.co/HbAZBvrI11

— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) May 31, 2016

Why "this election will widen the distance between the class and racial composition of each party’s core of support" https://t.co/HbAZBvrI11

— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) May 31, 2016

Why Trump Won, and Why the Current Crop of Purported Leaders Must Be Swept Aside

Ace of Spades HQ, on a roll lately.

Here:

Trump won because when a Native American activist (posing as a journalist) declared that "Pocahantas" was "very offensive" as used in regard to Elizabeth Warren -- dishonestly, I might add, as everyone knows the term is used to deny she's an Indian, not to denigrate her as an Indian, and everyone knows this, and only a liar pretends otherwise -- Trump did not begin falling over himself to make apologies and keep the well-wishes of the increasingly unreasonable left-wing hegemony...

RTWT.

Ace is great.

Leftist Animals! Punches Thrown During Protest at #DonaldTrump Rally in San Diego (VIDEO)

Via ABC News 10 San Diego:

Why the President Needs to Be White, Male, and Republican

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, "Media watchdogs snoozed while Obama expanded executive power. They'll wake up and bite when it's Trump":

The press has done a lousy job of protecting American freedoms in recent years. But I have a modest proposal for improving press performance: Elect a white male Republican.

When Bill Clinton was inaugurated as president, actor Ron Silver, then a Democrat, was there. And when fighter jets flew over the Lincoln Memorial, he was reportedly at first upset at the military symbolism, but then reminded himself that since Democrat Clinton was being sworn in, ”those are our planes now.”

We’re seeing something of a reverse-version of this phenomenon as large swathes of the commentariat realize that we might wind up with a President Trump. Suddenly, sweeping executive power (fine with many under President Obama) is being portrayed as a possible threat to the republic. Which, to be fair, it is. But only now do they care.

At National Review, Charles C.W. Cooke poses this question to folks on the left: “Has Donald Trump’s remarkable rise done anything to change your mind as to the ideal strength of the state?”

A sensible view is that we might not want the government as a whole, and the president in particular, to possess more power in general than we would be willing to allow when our political enemies were in power. Because experience demonstrates that, just as for Ron Silver “their planes” became “our planes” when the White House changed hands, so too “our president” becomes “their president” when it changes in the other direction.

But while that view might be sensible, it doesn’t seem especially common. Though a few people are evenhanded on executive power — law professor John Yoo, for example, who supported sweeping antiterror policies under both President Bush and President Obama — most seem to regard stretched authority as necessary and proper when a president of their party does it, and as an imperial presidency when the other party does.

Here’s a hint: It’s the imperial presidency pretty much all the time.

But it’s nice to see the prospect of a Trump administration reminding folks on the left of this, particularly as the journalist and pundit classes are dominated by lefties. It’s terrible, we’re told, that Trump is issuing veiled threats to journalists — though Obama joked about auditing his enemies, seized journalist phone records and threatened a journalist who refused to reveal sources with imprisonment. Trump would be a warmonger, we’re told, although in fact Barack Obama has been at war longer than any other U.S. president, if without any particular success. Trump would arrogantly ride roughshod over any opposition, though Barack Obama famously used “I won” as an excuse to ignore opponents and bragged that he had a “pen (and) a phone” to bypass congressional disagreement. (And he’s used them a lot.)

Many of the journalists and pundits who see Trump as the next imperial president were silent over these Obama actions. Like Ron Silver with his fighter jets, they saw Obama’s envelope-pushing as fine because it was by their own president...

Keep reading.

A lot of my students this semester wrote their papers on President Obama's DAPA (Deferred Action on Parents of Americans) program, in which the White House issued executive orders granting work permits and preventing deportations for at least 4 million undocumented migrants. The case is before the Supreme Court, which is tied 4-4 and likely to uphold the lower court's ruling against the administration (striking down the unilateral executive amnesty). Students to the one supported DAPA and wanted the high court to sustain Obama's executive actions. None of them considered what might happen if the shoe was on the other foot, if a President Trump had the same unchecked executive power on U.S. immigration policy. In theory, a President Trump could use those same sweeping executive powers to reverse Obama's DAPA (and DACA, Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals) and begin rounding up illegal aliens for deportation. Students looked positively glum when I posed that possibility to them. But no one said they didn't want Obama to have those powers. American politics is completely tribalized, all the way down to the low-information (non-voting) students at community college.

No Major Violence: Donald Trump Supporters and Protesters in Anaheim (VIDEO)

At LAT, "Several arrested after Trump supporters and opponents square off at rally in Anaheim."

And at CBS News 2 Los Angeles: