Link Roundup, 10/1/16

From Politico: Get ready for A LOT more of this as the firewall between politics and celebrity disintegrates – Curt Schilling says he’s planning to run against Elizabeth Warren for Senate.

From Evonomics: Economics may finally be adapting. A look at evolutionary economics.

From New York Times Magazine: A look at Baltimore Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby and the Freddie Gray case.

From The Texas Tribune: Democrats are making new investments in Texas.

From Neurology: An open letter from Robin Williams’ wife describing his experience with a neurologic disease.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
179 comments on “Link Roundup, 10/1/16
  1. 1mime says:

    Here’s a compilation of the best Trump articles from Doug Muder of The Weekly Sift.

  2. Watched Morning Joe this morning. All three Republicans, starting with Joe, lamented that rich people pay a low rate of tax on their investment income, lower than the rate of tax the working man pays. Lamented that hedge fund managers pay a low rate of tax on their income. “How unfair this is” they all say!!! Not one of them said it was Republican policy, which they will not change, that not only allows this but demands it! Not one of them said that every single republican running for president had a tax plan filled with tax breaks for billionaires!

    Also, according to Morning Joe, Trump is running away with Ohio, mainly because it is filled with uneducated white people, will probably win North Carolina, which they did not say but i think is because of the riots, and Trump is within striking distance of winning!

    Please, shooting the messenger is not allowed:-)!

  3. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    I think think there is one important feature of this Trump tax issue (besides the good possibility he hasn’t paid any federal income taxes for nearly two decades) is the stunning scale of the losses he endured in 1996.

    Why should that be a top issue for discussion?

    $916 million.
    That is a sh*t load of money. That purported loss exceeds the GDP of some countries.
    That is the definition of “massive” and um… “huge”.

    My big question of the night…
    Who the f*** thinks someone like this should have presidential level influence over the U.S. economy?

    How could that end well?

    And that apparent boast by Giuliani?

    He’s a genius because he figured a way to not pay taxes after losing nearly a billion dollars in wealth?

    That doesn’t sound smart to me. I am more impressed by the 20 something software trailblazer who creates a series of apps that creates a billion dollar startup in less than half a decade. The person who writes software that helps improve the lives of millions (or even save them).

    That example seems rather brilliant to me.

    What this business with Trump sounds like to me is this man made a series of horrible/no good business decisions, nearly lost it all… but still had enough money to pay some crafty tax lawyers who could perform an act of legal alchemy.

    The lovely result being that he gets to avoid dealing with the kind of obligations most tax payers must contend with each year.

    Congratulations Mr. Trump, you are the first inept billionaire to expertly exploit the cheat code to the game “Here Comes the Taxman!”.

    Your prize (as desired by your supporters) is for you to be given an office once occupied by Abraham Lincoln.

    Seems fair right?

    • 1mime says:

      Another “fair and balanced” article from that bastion of business acumen, the WSJ.

      I copy/past since the journal paywalls.

      “where is the progressive ire directed at the Clintons, who in two presidential terms and eight years in the Senate enjoyed various opportunities to tweak the tax code to their liking? We should also mention that the Clintons house much of their own wealth in the Clinton Foundation, where it can support their political ambitions tax-free. While there is no evidence Mr. Trump did anything illegal, a Journal editorial notes, “What is illegal in this story is that someone disclosed Mr. Trump’s tax returns without his permission.”

      To which I appended my comment: “And, “why” do we know what the Clintons did with their tax losses? We “know” because the Clintons have publicly released their tax returns for 30 years. As you note in your editorial, all were using tax laws that are legal. The difference is disclosure.

      The WSJ continues to fail to hold D.J. Trump accountable. Let’s hold him accountable for his poor business decisions. Genius is not accruing $916 million in losses, it is making profits. ”

      Damn, but I hate pomposity and stupidity from people who know better.

    • formdib says:

      “$916 million.”

      I like business people who don’t lose money.

  4. RobA says:

    Boy, this is rich.

    Check out all the instances when Trump has specifically called out “the 50% who don’t pay tax” (I.e. poor ppl). This scumbag is calling out the working poor and middle class for not paying taxes and doing their part, while the whole time HE was amassing huge net worth and using a tax loophole to pay ZERO percent.

    But…..he never used a private email server!

    • 1mime says:

      And, Trump wasn’t “enabled” by his ex-wives either……..

      This is when you just loooove media…You can run, but you can’t hide, Donald. I bet this works its way into an ad…

      It continues to amaze me that so many working class people actually believe Trump wants to help them…..

      • Help out in what way is the better question. Economically or fiscally? Absolutely not. You know this as well as I do, mime. Trump is the vehicle for their frustration and anxiety about a world that has left them behind and feeling socially disrespected. He’s not there to make life better for them. He’s there to give a middle finger to anyone and everyone that they feel has screwed them over.

      • 1mime says:

        That is clear, Ryan, but the fact that these people are deluded enough to believe he is sincere is sad. Those who are supporting him for other reasons – Hillary-hate, SCOTUS, Senate majority – at least they clearly see the man they are selling their souls for….which is more reprehensible, when you think of it….people who are educated enough to know what this man represents and still are voting for him vs people who are poorly educated and very unsophisticated who think this man will help them….E

      • RobA says:

        Ryan, exactly.

        I saw a tweet that said something like “If working class whites supposedly worried about “economic anxiety” vote for a billionaire who has hasn’t paid taxes in decades, something else is going on”

      • 1mime says:

        2 + 2 + 5, right?

    • Trump not paying federal income taxes for 18+ years is surprising to absolutely no one. Reprehensible and immoral, yes, but not surprising. What’s more revealing is just how rattled Trump is by his tax returns. This isn’t Clinton baiting him with Alicia Machado and him tweeting about a sex tape at 3AM. Trump seems genuinely unnerved by this and desperate to try and change the conversation, regardless as to where it takes him.

      That said, anyone with half a brain in the Clinton campaign and across the country sees this as much as I or anyone else and will go after it with all the relentless ferocity of a bloodhound.

      • 1mime says:

        Notice the Trump defense on this issue by his campaign surrogates: Trump is a genius (Giuliani, Christie, et al)….

        In my limited knowledge of high finance, “genius” is avoiding a $916 loss, not “using” it to avoid paying taxes……

  5. 1mime says:

    Tuesday morning – expect another wikileaks dump:

    “In the early hours of Sunday morning, hours after the Times published its tax story, longtime Trump ally Roger Stone tweeted, “Wednesday @HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.” Stone did not respond to a request for more information on the coming revelations, but WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said his organization was preparing to publish damaging information on Clinton. Last week, “Morning Joe” senior producer Jesse Rodriguez tweeted, “Julian Assange set to make an announcement from his balcony in London next Tuesday, according to @WikiLeaks.”

    “Further muddying th path ahead, the expected WikiLeaks dump could take a toll on Trump as well. According to one person close to the Trump campaign who has been briefed on the implications, but not the substance, of the coming reveal, “It ain’t great for either candidate.”

  6. Bobo Amerigo says:

    OT and will never get the press that tRump gets, but here’s good reporting about on more reason Americans pay more for health care than any other developed nation.

  7. flypusher says:

    I’d love to know who leaked those 1995 Trump tax returns. There’s a Trump tower return address, but could be a fake. Much delicious and amusing speculation- was it an inside job? Notice that the Trump campaign isn’t disputing the authenticity of these documents.

    • 1mime says:

      Well, there are a whole lot of former Trump campaign staffers that he didn’t pay….I am sure there will be a concerted effort to find the source and an equally concerted effort to keep the source protected.

    • Stephen says:

      Talking to a Trump supporter yesterday I pointed out how erratic and crazy Trump is. To him that was a feature not a bug. Many Trump supporter have the attitude of paid attention to me and fix my problems or else I will blow the place up. White working class is about 30% of the electorate. The biggest single groups of voters. They have political clout. If any one wants to dominate politics you either have fracture this group or gain their support. If Hillary wins she will I believe try to address this groups concerns .

      • RobA says:

        “To him that was a feature not a bug. Many Trump supporter have the attitude of paid attention to me and fix my problems or else I will blow the place up. ”

        These ppl are idiots. The fact that there are millions of them doesn’t lessen their idiocy.

        These are my generations parents and grandparents. I feel like WE have to be the adults in the room, taking away sharp things from them so they don’t cut themselves.

        While some of their concerns are valid (anxiety about automation and loss of jobs), others are not (“waaaaahhhh!! Now we have to compete fairly with The Blacks?! NO FAIR!!!”). But regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying concerns, I have zero respect for their solution: I.e. elect a bomb throwing know nothing who speaks almost entirely in rambling, word salad stream of consciousness to either “Make America Great Again” or, barring that, “raze this motherf***er to the ground!!!”

        Those political tactics need to be unequivocally condemned and shamed, and we need not even attempt to treat it as legitimate political protest.

      • Stephen says:

        No use getting angry. Do things like help register new voters more sane and encourage them to vote. Not all older people see things the same way. I am far from being the only oldster who is alarm by Trump. The Trump supporter I talked to was in his thirties. Many people are being left behind and many of those are white and Trump is their finger to those who are succeeding . More people are going good to be displace in the new world developing. This is a major problem of our civilization that we are going to have to solve.

      • Stephen says:

        I wrote this on my tablet with auto spellchecker. I need to turn it off.

      • 1mime says:

        We just can’t count on any idgit to have our backs, can we Stephen (-;

        Don’t worry, we all make mistakes…I know I do. It’s the message that counts!

    • formdib says:

      “Yep, Trump went even crazier.”

      Reading the article, I honestly didn’t see any difference between pre-debate Trump behavior and post-debate Trump behavior. I don’t really mean that sarcastically in any sense, the details the article is using to try to emphasize the relative level of ‘hinge-iness’ of Trump is to me no more chaotic and bizarre than anything I’ve heard him say since The Apprentice.

      So how can you tell the difference?

      • 1mime says:

        Does it matter? It’s still just as ugly.

      • formdib says:

        I’m trying to suss whether it matters or not.

        My default position is to feel like various news media didn’t know how to handle Trump, so now they’re trying to develop a new way of emphasizing how ‘special case’ this is in terms of irregularities and extremes. And derivative of that is the fact that it’s too late, and the language around Trump has already been normalized to the point that an article like this reads like the alt-right’s impressions of a ‘liberal media’ twisting his words.

        I can absolutely understand how someone could feel that way, if those exact words were used against Clinton; she does, after all, bounce from topic to topic in an attempt to ‘big tent’ every subject. And since we live in an era where places like Breitbart, ProgressNow, Buzzfeed, and so forth have exclamatory and simplistic language and your best friend is now a sensationalist tabloid headline writer for every piece of news in the junket, this Washington Post article doesn’t really read, to me, as anything more significant than that if you don’t take into context that previous Washington Post articles weren’t quite like that.

        Sorry if that’s unclear. Basically Huffington Post is, I feel, objectively liberal biased and sensationalist, and uses a Social Justice Warrior sort of syntax in their more opinionated / editorialized ‘blog’ style posts. Washington Post is not that extreme, even if you consider it liberal. This Washington Post article read like a Huffington Post article. I believe the reason for that is because many mainstream media outlets are trying to change their language around Trump to emphasize his ‘unhinged’ qualities, but it’s too late because the sensationalist quality of media is already baked into people’s biases and assumptions about what they read.

      • 1mime says:

        People’s opinions may be baked in or not, formdib. Maybe it’s generational, maybe it’s situational (job loss, etc). There are those who bought in to the whole rabid approach of Trump from the get-go and won’t change. I think it’s fair to say that many people don’t take the time to read a newspaper like the WaPo or any other journals of substance….whatever journal you find serious…and they respond to a superficial candidate because that’s where they are and maybe always will be intellectually and emotionally.

        Then there are the serious folks who are just as decided but their opinions are predicated on one of two things: hate for Hillary (or Trump) or a very deliberative, well reasoned study of the two and have made their choice.

        Then there are those who are undecided,…mellinnials, etc. for whom a thoughtful article might resonate, or yet another dumb-ass stunt or scandal might tip them over to the “hold my nose and vote for …because “he’s crazy or she’s crooked'”….Where I profoundly disagree with you is that serious, well documented coverage about the candidates doesn’t matter. I think what you read that is sensational (but substantiated) soon hits the airwaves and the internet…or, vice versa…but it all coalesces if it’s important.

        Then there are the looney tunes people who blow ever logical argument up….

  8. RobA says:

    This NYT story is obviously being looked at through the lens of “does this hurt Trump? If so, how?” And I think that’s appropriate considering where we are in the election cycle.

    But in the big picture, the big, big loser here is Paul Ryan’s “better way” and conservative tax dogma. Most informed ppl know that trickle down economics is a failure. but this story is going to hammer home to everyone else just how bad the problem is.

    Many of the wealthy do t pay ANY taxes. And Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist are going to have an impossible task to now tell the rest of us that the REAL solution for all our ills is cuttingng taxes.

    Its one thing to try to convince someone using research or data that cutting taxes slows growth. It’s a much more visceral, effective tactic to say “this billionaire doesnt pay ANY taxes. Does this seem right to you? Do you think we need to be cutting more taxes?”

    • flypusher says:

      Maybe someone reading this blog knows something about tax law and can answer this question for me. Team Trump is making this claim:

      ‘In a statement released Saturday, the Trump campaign didn’t dispute the Times’ claims, but calls Trump a “highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family, and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required.” ‘

      But the offsets he got for this losses were applied to his PERSONAL income, is that right? If so, how exactly is that to the benefit of employees and shareholders? He could offset his personal profits from a book or a selling the right to use the name “Trump”, right?

    • 1mime says:

      Rob, I don’t see this being a problem for Trump with his working class, low-information base. They just don’t care. They are still in a &*$k you mode and they probably do think Trump is a genius businessman. The people who will be offended are the better educated, more affluent voter(s).

      • RobA says:

        You’re probably right Mime. One group it will definitely matter too though is millenials in general, and the Bernie crowd in particular.

        Trump not paying ANY taxes makes him the literal personification of the broken system they (and myself) hate so much. This group is not going to care that “well, hey, it’s legal!!”.

        And this group is currently on the fence or not sold on Hillary in large numbers. I think this will make a difference to them, bigly.

      • 1mime says:

        Yes, and who passed these real estate developer-friendly tax laws? Using them is one thing; designing them for self-serving interests is quite another.

    • 1mime says:

      I am absolutely flummoxed with the WSJ reporting. In this article (please let me know if you can’t read it and I will C&P it here), it is blatantly partisan and quotes heresay. If you have followed the Deutsche Bank charges (silver market manipulation with other banks going back to 2007), you know that they agreed to the fines. I did a little research and offer another POV with the second link.

      Is it just me or is this one of the most arrogant, blatant attacks on a President of the United States by a major journal you have seen!


      • 1mime says:

        OK, that WSJ link didn’t activate so I am sufficiently pissed that I will C&P the salient parts, beginning with the headline:

        “Obama’s Political Bank Run – The U.S. stages an election robbery and nearly triggers a panic.”

        “The government threat to Deutsche Bank’s safety and soundness began on Sept. 15. That’s when the Journal reported that Justice was demanding an eye-watering $14 billion to resolve an investigation of the bank’s sale of mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial panic.”

        “Why announce this giant robbery now? Well, on Friday morning the Financial Times quoted two anonymous sources as saying Justice is seeking an “omnibus settlement” from Deutsche Bank, Barclays and Credit Suisse “to achieve maximum public impact by collecting an eye-catching sum in penalties” merely “weeks before the U.S. presidential election.”

        The FT is often wrong, but we assume it didn’t make this up. And you don’t have to be a cynic to believe that this Administration would stage a bank raid that it could brag about to rev up voter enthusiasm among Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Democrats.”

        “We’d sure like to see the phone and email communications between Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Attorney General Loretta Lynch this week. Maybe Mr. Lew’s Financial Stability Oversight Council should investigate this case of government-induced systemic risk. He could bring in House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling as investigating counsel.

        Notably missing here is any thought for proper justice in the creation of either settlement number. It all seems to have been an arbitrary political game. Justice lawyers have never even publicly stated what exactly Deutsche Bank is supposed to have done wrong. Does it even matter in Barack Obama’s Washington?”

        Get this: the “source” of the story is the FT which is “often” wrong….???!!!! Then they get cute with “invite Jeb Hensarling” to be investigating counsel. To which I say – bring him on, and while you’re issuing invites, call Sen. E. Warren. She’ll be certain the investigation is through.

      • johngalt says:

        I used to be a regular reader of the WSJ years ago. My wife subscribed to it for several years, ending about five years ago. It’s little more than a Murdoch mouthpiece now. It’s about 5-10 years behind the National Review in terms of legitimacy.

      • 1mime says:

        What was worse, JG, was the direct accusations calling the President by name and making all the derogatory ancillary comments that were purely partisan. It’s almost like they found a subject that they could use (Deutsche Bank) to work in their slurs about Obama. That’s why I posted a second link to explain what had happened that caused Deutsche Bank to have to pay fines. This bank is notorious for its fiduciary irresponsibility….But, even if this was a one-time situation, the bank admitted to precious metal market manipulation in 2007, and they were now in the settlement negotiation stage. The WSJ article made it seem that America was casually, inappropriately going after fines it had no business seeking!

        In scrolling through the comments, I couldn’t believe how juvenile and ugly many of them were, despite the fact that you know they have to be educated and sufficiently endowed to follow a market journal….It makes me appreciate all the more, the quality of all who comment here and the civility that is constant.

        I subscribed to the digital edition of the WSJ because they were running a special and I really try to look at issues more broadly. I thought this paper would offer balance. It doesn’t.

      • formdib says:

        Zero Hedge is a worse source than Breitbart. Breitbart is at least run by people who don’t use pseudonyms based on pop nihilist bullshit from the 90s.

      • 1mime says:

        That’s good to know, formdib, but they did have a pretty good recap of later articles I read on the subject. I won’t use them as a source again based upon your observation. Regardless, the WSJ piece was way over the top of either accuracy or decency.

    • Stephen says:

      This is a extreme example. Most people supporting Trump,are not even close to being this crazy. Most are white people who are worried that their culture is losing dominance and are losing ground in the new emerging economy. We will not win the culture war if we become as removed from reality as the alt right.

      • 1mime says:

        I think you are correct but the relevance here is that there are people like this and they are energized. Their votes count just as much as your own. That’s how democracy works but it is disconcerting.

    • 1mime says:

      Then there are seniors, who are giving Clinton a second look, according to a recent WSJ poll.
      (I include commentary in quotes because I am uncertain if non-subscribers will be pay-walled from reading the full article. Let me know for future reference.)

      “Mrs. Clinton appears to be luring them(seniors) back to her party’s fold. She was winning among older voters, 44% to 42%, among registered voters in the latest Wall Street Journal poll…..In Florida, the nation’s largest presidential battleground, one of every five residents is a senior citizen, the highest ratio in the country. A Mason-Dixon poll last week showed Mr. Trump ahead of Mrs. Clinton by six percentage points among voters 65 and older. Mr. Romney won them by 17 percentage points four years ago, and lost the state…”

      “Most older voters view Mr. Trump as more honest (!!!!!! my exclamation points) and better to deal with the economy than Mrs. Clinton. But his margins among this age group are much tighter, according to the Journal poll. Older voters also overwhelmingly view Mrs. Clinton as having the better temperament, more suited to be in charge of nuclear weapons and more knowledgeable to handle the presidency.”

      “Mrs. Clinton has her own demographic dilemma, as her campaign works feverishly to energize the nation’s youngest voters, who overwhelmingly backed Mr. Obama four years ago and now are considering support for third-party candidates.”

      The author notes that in FL, one in five voters are seniors. That’s an important statistic to keep in mind when looking for electoral votes.

  9. Armchair Philosopher says:

    OT. Here is an excellent piece by Politico on “watchers” at Pennsylvania polling places, and how state Republicans are trying to expand their powers.

    1mime, you had asked for an update on PA HB 29. This gives a very thorough explanation.

    And while the article actually demonstrates some good uses for Watchers, it more clearly points out how Republicans have used Watchers to intimidate voters.

    • 1mime says:

      I continue to be appalled at the lengths to which Republicans will go to steal elections. For all their bluster about how good their party is, why do they feel it is necessary to do things like this?

      Thanks for the update, Armchair. I’m sickened but hope Clinton will have her team ready. Surely they could deploy as many attorneys if needed to do the same…Best thing is to advise people to vote early if this is permitted.

      One point within the article that relates directly to all the conversation here about voter fraud: 1 person in 15 Million persons commits voter fraud. Wow, that’s really justification for the crackdown, isn’t it!

    • vikinghou says:

      These so-called “poll watchers” will have a great time in Oregon trying to find a poll to watch. Vote-by-mail is the only way to go!

      • 1mime says:

        This is sobering. From Nate Silver, today. Think Johnson as 3rd party candidate isn’t a spoiler?

        “There was one poll that caught our eye, though, and it was from New Mexico. The survey, from Research & Polling, Inc. for the Albuquerque Journal, showed a competitive three-way matchup, with Clinton at 35 percent, Trump at 31 percent, and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson at 24 percent. Because New Mexico hasn’t been polled much, the survey had a fair amount of influence on our forecast, reducing Clinton’s chances of winning New Mexico to 82 percent from 85 percent in the polls-only model.

        Most of the time, Trump would be the beneficiary of a Clinton loss in New Mexico. But the model also assigns Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, an outside chance — 2 or 3 percent — of winning the state. That could lead to an Electoral College deadlock that looks like this: 267 to 266”

      • RobA says:

        Mime, but Johnson is a former NM gov.

        I don’t think this is representive of anything except the specific case of NM.

      • 1mime says:

        “What Silver is pointing out here are states critical to Clinton if Trump upsets her in swing states – OH and FL, NC, IA, NH – where the race is close.

        It is “telling” that a former governor of NM is polling second…that speaks to his record there as well as how Clinton is polling with Hispanics.

        Just keeping my eyes on the ball, Rob….I think with media “finally” doing their job of investigating Trump, the focus is on Trump at the moment, and polls are favoring the candidate not roiling the news cycle. Just keep waiting for that other shoe to drop…

      • vikinghou says:


        Remember we don’t want the polls to go too far in Hillary’s favor; otherwise, Dem voter turnout may be suppressed.

      • 1mime says:

        If Democrats (and others) fail to GOAV, they will be responsible for Clinton’s defeat. This is a legitimate area of criticism for the Democratic leadership – educating and creating a base who considers voting a high priority and responsibility.

        What I think and hope is different in this election is that Trump will get more inflammatory as we get closer to election day. He will likely counterbalance any apathy by Dems. Let us hope.

  10. flypusher says:

    Hillary’s trap wasn’t subtle at all. But it didn’t have to be. She does indeed know her opponent. This is even dumber than his response to the Kahns because it was an was more obviously a trap.

    • 1mime says:

      Imagine for a moment, how impossible it would be for presidential advisors to contain Trump’s worst (natural) impulses. Can you envision him in the situation room, with all that power, surrounded by men and women who have years of military and administrative experience trying to offer guidance to him on critical decisions?

      • 1mime says:

        You don’t really have to “imagine” how bad Trump will be….witness the smallness of his character in this clip. What kind of person mocks people who have disabilities and health issues? How does this lack of character inform voters about his judgement on critical issues of national security? How would a DJT be able to comfort grieving families who’ve lost spouses and children in conflict and terrorist attacks? He can’t. There is something fundamentally missing at the core of Trump. He truly has no soul. He is an evil man who knows no shame, humility, or empathy. It is all about how he gains. Truly a sad time in America’s history.

      • 1mime says:

        And this slur alledging Hillary Clinton is unfaithful to Bill. There is simply nothing he will not stoop to in actions or speech to demean others. What kind of person thrives on hurting those around him like this? Ask yourself – how would a man with this moral void be capable of governing a democracy?

        “After taking the stage 102 minutes after the rally’s scheduled 7 p.m. start time, Trump veered off-script several times, impersonating Clinton’s near fall last month as she was suffering from pneumonia and asserting — after taking credit all week for his restraint in not bringing up Bill Clinton’s sexual improprieties at the debate — that she probably isn’t faithful to her husband anymore because, he said, “Why should she be?”

      • 1mime says:

        “What happens when presidents get bad news? ” The WaPo explores how a President Trump would most likely react….The answer seems to be: denial, denial, denial. And that’s not a good look for a president of the United States.”

  11. Pedneuro says:

    Did anyone read the bombshell of a story on NYTimes? They leaked 1995 Trump tax returns and basically, I have no words to explain it, except to say that it is very likely he has paid no federal taxes since then.

    • RobA says:

      Just saw it.

      What a con this whole thing has been. “Trump as the champion of the Little Guy” is such a ludacris idea as to be almost unbelievable. The guy is a vampire, pure and simple. Literally, the very personification of the corrupt system that HE rails against.

      The true “rigged system” is the one that allows the user rich to legally game the tax system.

      Why the **** can you deduct your business losses on your personal income tax? Why does the gov’t subsidize your business losses? We’re they going to share in the profits too?

      • flypusher says:

        I think of him more as a lamprey. Vampires have much more class.

      • 1mime says:

        What I found astonishing in the WaPo article on Trump’s taxes was this statement from the Trump campaign, which is the height of arrogance:

        “Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”

        The ultimate “spin”….no shame or embarrassment over the fact that his business performance had been so poor that he was able to write off over $900 million dollars against profits in the future! What about all the shareholders, banks, and contractors who were stiffed?

        This man has no shame. No wonder he doesn’t want his tax returns released. This fact that shows he can earn up to $50 million a year and still owe zero taxes punches a huge hole in his pitch to everyday working men and women who are paying taxes.

        Shame, DJ Trump. Shame.

      • flypusher says:

        ‘“Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”’

        He does his own taxes?

      • 1mime says:

        (-; I doubt it, Fly, but he knows how to “use” tax laws to his advantage. You and I take deductions and credits as we can. Tax laws that reward failure such as Trump took advantage of, are legal……although I do wonder if we were ever able to look at his tax filings in their entirety if they would stand the smell test. Once a pattern is set – look at how sloppy his foundation has operated WITH NO PENALTY!!!! where donor funds were used for personal purposes and extrapolate that over his large business operation. Remember, this is the guy who “stiffed” contractors who performed contracted services for him. And the guy who made contributions to state attorney generals (Paxton/Bondi) as a quid pro quo to drop lawsuits against Trump U. And, there is the whole Trump U litigation. How many people have been hurt?

        Yet the little people are the ones who are supporting this bag of filth.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        tRump’s then-CPA has a small part in the NYTimes story. His signature is on one of the pages.

      • 1mime says:

        I don’t believe it is right for anyone’s tax returns to be fraudulently obtained or exposed, and I don’t know if we will ever know who sent Trump’s returns to the NYT. Trump is considering legal action against the NYT for publishing the returns without his permission – he is not denying the 3 page document was incorrect.

        This reinforces the need for mandatory income tax return disclosure for POTUS candidates, but at present, the law does not require it and Trump is within his rights to object to release without authorization. It pains me to say this but it is true.

        The Trump tax filings Hillary announced were public record.

    • flypusher says:

      I’m thinking that paying little to no taxes since then isn’t what he’s really hiding, he sort of admitted to that in the debate. I suspect any or all of these:

      1) some very skeevy accounting with the Trump foundation (he’s already paid fines on a few minor violations he got caught in)

      2) loans from Russia- he’s said that he’s not invested in Russia. But that doesn’t exclude Russia being invested in him.

      3) He’s worth much less than he brags about (the one I would bet on)

      • RobA says:

        I’ve heard some estimations of $0 net worth.

        Obviously, he has assets. But net worth also has to take in debt, and there’s a lot of evidence he is highly, highly leveraged.

        If you have assets worth $1 billion and debt worth $1 billion, you don’t really have anything.

      • 1mime says:

        What Trump may really be trying to hide is his net worth in order to protect his “brand”. If that becomes suspect, it topples his whole business structure. It’s a shell game – with other people making the capital investments and paying Trump for his “name”.

      • Griffin says:

        He didn’t just admit it. He bragged about it. Which is what he’ll do again. This won’t put any dent into his support, he can just twist it again to make it about how much of a business “genius” he is as he often does.

      • RobA says:

        I dunno Bobo. We all know for the die hards, nothing will sway them. But 40% of the electorate is not die hards, which isbwhat Trumps polling at.

        It’s hard to point at one thing and say “that’s it, it’s over”. But it’s almost impossible for the cumulative effect of problem after problem to not have ANY impact.

        If I were Clinton, I wouldn’t attack him for getting the tax breaks. I’d use it to attack his message: “THIS is your “change agent”? A billionaire born a millionaire who has personally and enormously benefitted from the very system he purports to change?”

      • 1mime says:

        To which I’d add: A billionaire benefiting from tax breaks for terrible business management. Speak to the source of the losses more so than the income tax avoidance, which is legal even if it seems patently unfair. Trump touts his “business acumen” – go after that. Not just about his catastrophic failure in the 90s but how his “brand/reputation” should reflect his shady business practices – ignoring the Cuban embargo; foundation abuses; stiffing contractors/banks; his statement that he will not have a blind trust in the normal sense, but will turn over business operations to his children – how’s that for “arm’s length” financial dealings?

        The tax thing is probably going to hurt T more with sophisticated, educated, informed voters who for the most part are already voting Clinton.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Makes me wonder if, after the election, the tax code will get the examination and reform it deserves.

      The scale of that tax break will surely stun most regular tax payers, maybe even stun them into action.

      • 1mime says:

        I”m going to predict right now how Trump will handle this. “Nobody should have to pay taxes like this! The IRS will take all of your money if you let them! I’m going to cut everybody’s taxes so we can end all the waste and fraud and balance America’s budget! And, our economy will be great, beautiful, and everyone will be happier and more wealthy….

        Deflect, deflect…

      • Do you think it’s likely that the disclosure of tax returns will be legally required, following this fiasco?

      • 1mime says:

        I think the answer to that question depends upon which party wins this election. Should it be required? Absolutely.

        The arrogance of DJT (“Trump himself tweeted, “I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing @nytimes.”) who simultaneously takes advantage of tax laws that he knows need to be changed and “HE” is the only one who can fix them?

        I will say this. This is a legitimate area of anger from taxpayers. Laws like these shift the burden for running our country to the backs of working people who never engage on the scale of Trump’s business operation and thus if they have a business problem, they are bankrupted. Fixing problems like this in the tax code is more important (imo) than reducing taxes. It makes one wonder how much tax revenue would be available absent these sorts of loopholes.

      • 1mime says:

        Here is a well written WSJ article on the Trump income tax issue. It outlines the favorable tax treatment real estate developers enjoy through the tax code. The comments are interesting and telling about the subscriber base of the Journal.

        “Also, real-estate developers can generate losses more easily than other taxpayers. First, they can take deductions for depreciation of their property. Second, they deduct the interest when they borrow. And third, unlike investors in other businesses, they can use those losses to offset their other income.”

        The article also educated me on a sophisticated tax instrument called a “conservation easement”, which Trump utiilized. When you hear all those stories about how the 1% benefit on both ends – revenue generation and friendly tax policies – we ordinary folk don’t really have a clue as to the extent the tax code favors the wealthy.

        “a taxpayer looking to cut his tax bill would seek to lower his taxable income—and that is what Mr. Trump did in 2014 and 2015. In each of those years, he donated what is known as a conservation easement, essentially extracting income-tax deductions out of properties he had owned for more than a decade. In 2014 Mr. Trump pledged not to build houses on the driving range at a golf course in California. And in December 2015, typically the time for planning at the end of a tax year, he set aside 74% of his estate in Westchester County, N.Y.”

      • flypusher says:

        The “system” is rigged alright. But it’s the economic system, not the election system.

      • 1mime says:

        It’s both, Fly, when Republicans can do the things they do to suppress voters from exercising their constitutional rights.

    • Armchair Philosopher says:

      The focus shouldn’t be on the fact that he legally used the tax code to his advantage. The merits of that can be discussed in a debate about changing the tax laws if we think they are unfair.

      The focus should be on the fact that he lost a billion dollars in one year. It’s a relevant question since his entire campaign is predicated on the “fact” that he is a good businessman.

      • 1mime says:

        If you read about what caused this terrific loss, it was more than one year’s bad performance by his businesses, and years of litigation. I’m fairly certain this series of events was covered in the WaPo/Newsweek articles.

        The laws DO need to be changed. Just as banks are not too big to fail, neither should real estate developers be too big to fail nor profit (because that’s what happens) when they do fail by tax avoidance on future profits. That’s wrong. I don’t know which party is most responsible for these tax breaks but they need to change.

        It’s worth pointing out, that under Trump’s tax plan, real estate developers benefit even more than they currently are.

        How much money is enough? When is this insanity and gross unfairness going to stop? When are those who perpetrate it going to be held accountable?

  12. tuttabellamia says:

    As for voting from the grave:

    A couple of weeks ago I received in the mail from the Texas AFL CIO voter registration applications addressed to my mom and dad, who are both deceased – my mom for 5 years, my dad for 40.

    Of course I threw the applications away, and I would think that fraudulent activity would be discovered once the information on the applications went through the verification process had I actually submitted them, but why the heck is the Texas AFL CIO sending out voter applications to dead people? Do they just send them out indiscriminately, from names from the phone directory or what?

    • tuttabellamia says:

      I should probably give the Texas AFL CIO a call and ask them, instead of just throwing out rhetorical questions on this blog.

    • 1mime says:

      Yes, Tutta. They do. When I ran for office, you could purchase phone records with (in this particular company at this point in time) complete with addresses. You used these for your phone banks, mailers, and door to door canvassing. I assume many other lists exist just like the email list Cruz sold to the Trump campaign.

    • RobA says:

      Just in case ppl don’t read that Mime, I’m going to highlight Trumps responses. It’s important to remember as you read these responses that millions of ppl think this moron should be president:

      On cyberwarfare, and his plan to deal with the increased cyber threat in geopolitics:

      “We have to get very, very tough,” he said. “I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable. But I will say we are not doing the job we should be doing.”

      Um…..what? THATS your answer? That wasn’t…. anything. Just rambling that kids are good with computers.

      Next, where does he stand on nuclear first strikes? Will he have a “no first strike” policy like Obama, or is he open to them?:

      “I’d like everybody to end it, just get rid of it, but I would certainly not do first strike. I think once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over,” he said. “At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table.”

      Jesus, this is getting bad. Not only does he open with nonsensical gibberish, but he makes two points….and they are diametrically opposed to each other. He goes from “I would certainly not do first strike” to “I can’t take anything off the table” in the same breath. But hey, it’s only nuclear weapons. Not like we they’re important, or that we need to know the president’s policies about them.

      Moving on……a few weeks ago, Trump said that if the Iranians were to taunt US Navy boats like they did, he’d “blow them out of the water” (exact quote). When Clinton rightly pointed out that this sort of hair trigger temper would almost certainly start a shooting war, his response:

      When they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water,” he declared:

      “That would not start a war. They were taunting us,”

      What? Jesus, what an idiot. OF COURSE IT WOULD START A WAR if you sink the Navy ships of a belligerent power. That’s why you don’t do it for something stupid, like their sailors giving our sailors the finger.

      But hey… he never used a private email server!

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Not to mention the US Marine patrol boats were off course and in Iranian territorial waters. That is not in dispute. Imagine if some Iranian ship were in sovereign US territorial waters and we rightfully surrounded them and they start shooting and “blow our ships out of the water”? And somehow that is justified for us? Geez what an idiotic jerk. And what does that say for his supporters no matter what the dissonant rationalization they conjure up from who knows where?

      • 1mime says:

        You’ll have to ask them, Bubba.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        It was a rhetorical question and the answer is pretty clear just from the postings on this blog alone.

      • flypusher says:

        He’s ignorant about all aspects of warfare, and he can be baited into a rage just by saying something about him that’s perfectly true, but unflattering. We all know that ISIS has to be working on bait material right now. But Hillary is the one who is worse.

  13. antimule says:

    Here’s Slate Star Codex, going against Trump while being maximally charitable to Trump voters:

    • 1mime says:

      That was a detailed read, antimule. His endorsement of Clinton was consistent with each refutation of Trump’s positions, but he also focuses attention on the need for a strong two party system. He suggests the conservative party will always have to “own” the religious poor southern whites which will make the party less intellectual than the liberal party, (Dems).

      “If Trump fails, then the situation is – much the same, really, but conservatives can at least get started right now picking up the pieces instead of having to wait four years. There’s a fundamental problem, which is that about 30% of the US population is religious poor southern whites who are generally not very educated, mostly not involved in US intellectual life, but form the biggest and most solid voting bloc in the country. If you try to form two parties with 50% of the vote each, then whichever party gets the religious poor southern whites is going to be dominated by them and end up vulnerable to populism. Since the religious poor southern whites are conservative, that’s always going to be the conservative party’s cross to bear and conservatism is always going to be less intellectual than liberalism in this country. I don’t know how to solve this. But there have been previous incarnations of American conservatism that have been better at dealing with the problem than this one, and maybe if Trumpism gets decisively defeated it will encourage people to work on the problem.”

      “…having him (Trump) as the public face of anti-social-justice for the next four years would be a godsend for them and a disaster for everyone else.”

      He concludes by saying: “I don’t like having to vote for the lesser of two evils. But at least I feel like I know who it is.”

    • Creigh says:

      Great article. Here’s a quote I really liked: “When the left errs, it’s through using shouting and shaming to cut through the long and painful process of having to justify its beliefs.’

      Try not to do that.

      • 1mime says:

        I agree, Creigh. Fight with facts and voter registration/GOTV. But when you read articles such as Armchair posted about the tactics used by the right, it sort of makes shouting (while ineffective) look rather more acceptable, doesn’t it?

      • 1mime says:

        Here ya go, Creigh.

        The view from the right: “Katie Martin, spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), said… the polls defy the Democrats’ predictions and “prove” that Republican candidates “are in the perfect position to win this fall.”

        “While we applaud the DCCC for being painfully on message — as flawed as their message and strategy is — it’s probably time for them to give voters credit for being smart and move on to another topic,” she said.

        Democrats are clearly fighting back. This is the time to support their efforts with donations (these efforts take $$) and your time. “Time for some ‘election’ changes”, as they say in NJ….

  14. tuttabellamia says:

    This is in reply to Duncan regarding voter ID and fraud on the previous thread:

    You say that fraud would be automatically detected when 2 people show up to vote under the same name.

    That would only apply perhaps in countries where voting is mandatory, where both the real person and his or her fraudulent double would appear at the polls.

    In the US, however, voting is not mandatory, so it would be theoretically possible for me to legally sit out an election and for my fake double to vote in my name, and therefore there would be only one check mark beside my name and no one would be the wiser.

    This is not an argument about whether or not fraud exists, only that your argument that voter fraud is impossible to get away because two ticks beside one name are a dead giveaway does not necessarily apply in the US.

    I am inclined to believe that fraud is not that common because there is so much voter apathy. People don’t care enough about voting to take such a great risk.

    • RobA says:

      But Tutta, nobody knows WHO will vote beforehand. The person whondecides to go and vote as “John Smith” doesn’t actually know if John Smith is going to vote. That very dynamic would be a huge disincentive to do what you’re suggesting, as the police would be notified pretty quickly.

      And again, that dynamic is probably a good reason why that type of voter fraud is almost non existent.

      To enact laws that purport to prevent a crime that never really happens, but has the side effect of preventing hundreds of thousands from voting is a bad law and an assault on democracy.

      Laws should be in response to actual crimes, not hypothetical ones.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Rob, it might work within a family for example, if a son or daughter knows for a fact that the parent they’re impersonating is not going to vote.

        Like I said, though, even that’s a stretch. Voters are so apathetic they don’t even show up to vote under their own names, much less under someone else’s name. I don’t see people taking such a risk.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Tutt – This a reply on top of what RobA stated.

      These types of voter fraud crimes that occur are very rare. But the negative affects hits tens if not hundreds of thousands. It is a little hard to believe people that want to make sure elections are not fraudulently affected by the one or two voter impersonations that occur over a decade, when their solution means thousands will loss their ability to vote. I find this to be an intended consequence especially when they brag about it and are so blatant in their attempts to deny people the ability to vote.

      Solutions should never be worse than the problem.

      • 1mime says:

        You are all being “spun”. Voter ID is a canard to deflect attention away from having to justify voting for Trump. All of us on this blog know what voter suppression is and none of us need to defend the fact that it exists and is Republican to its core.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Turtles, I agree. Requiring voter ID in and of itself seems harmless and kind of makes sense, even without examples of fraud, but taken within the context of other measures, like shortening the period for voting, does give one pause for thought. I don’t see how shortening the voting period preserves the integrity of the election process.

      • 1mime says:

        Minorities tend to be working class people, Tutta. Their work schedules are seldom 9-5, M-F. Many in this group work more than one job. They have childcare issues, transportation issues. Getting to the polls is hard and they seldom have the luxury of being able to wait in long lines…..which is what happens when your shorten voting periods, reduce the number of voting centers making the travel distance even further, and generally discourage people by simply making it such a hassle they end up not voting. Add Voter ID requirements to that and you have yet another challenge. People going to apply for voting rights being sent to another site…paperwork that is not complete. Students who are not permitted to vote on campus with their voter ID but are required to vote at their home address…which can mean travel and expense.

        I promise you, if voter suppression didn’t benefit Republicans, they wouldn’t use it. They have made an art form from doing this over the years and the courts have been dismissive. With Scalia’s death, more courts are acting independently as they should have all along.

        Hope this little tutorial helped. If it were up to me, everyone would be able to either vote by mail or by computer. The easier the better. The challenge is for people to be informed voters. We are seeing some of that problem unfold right now.

  15. 1mime says:

    The Baltimore story about Prosecutor Mosly was a revealing, sad read about the difficulty of changing our justice process – beginning with policing, moving on to all administrative and community tangents. Freddie Gray’s death is one more black life in a very, very long line that shouldn’t have ended in death. No one’s arrest should proceed as his did, and let me say that even if Ms. Mosly didn’t do a “good enough” job toachieve justice in his death, at least she tried. What she did took courage – it may take her career and her marriage before it is all over. We have so far to go in this country in how we treat people who are poor and minority.

    On the TX piece about Democratic voter ID efforts, I am aware they are ongoing but after reading the list, I am really encouraged! I didn’t know there were so many Democrats living in Texas! On a positive note, it is encouraging to see the leadership within the Democratic Party finally get off their butts and re-build grassroots support and candidate viability. We’ve lost a lot of time in the process and I applaud the commitment to change things.

  16. RobA says:

    It’s interesting to see what happens when Trumps inner circle ventures out of their echo chamber. They truly think they’ve got this “movement” that resonates with everyone.

    Apparently , the comment that forced the group hosting Rudy to apologize was met with stunned silence. Rudy apparently thought he was going to get applause.

    I’m getting a feeling of the beginning of the end of this entire Trump charade.

    I predict the polls will never again be as close as they are now. The debate may have broken the dam. Trump is losing it, becoming more and more unhinged. The media is smelling the blood in the water and really vetting him hard. Ppl close to Trump, especially those who are involved just to further their careers (I.e. almost all of them), may start to think about cutting their losses if they want a career afterwards.

    • flypusher says:

      What odds can I get that Conway bails before Election Day?

      • 1mime says:

        I’ve been watching and listening to Conway very closely. She is not the soft, sweet little woman she presented in her early interviews. My first clue should have been that Ted Cruz had her on his team. In every interview, she is combative, defensive, and snippy. In short, she and Trump are a match made in heaven. Have you ever seen a campaign chair person in the media so much? I don’t think I have.

        Frankly, I could care less what happens to anyone who has chosen to work for Trump. They have sold their souls to the devil and they will pay for it.

      • vikinghou says:

        Lately when I look at Conway I’m reminded of the picture of Dorian Gray.

  17. RobA says:

    I don’t always like Bill Maher, but he absolutely skewers Trump here. Comedians have a huge role to play in deflating the Trump personality cult. The best way to prick holes in his obvious buffoonery is by laughing at him, not getting angry.

    It’s why I’m so interested in SNL tonight. SNL had a major role is exposing Palin for her fundamental unfitness for the 2nd highest office. Who can forget “and I can see Russia from my house!”?

    • 1mime says:

      Thanks for the reminder about SNL. I’ll DVR it.

      • RobA says:

        Yeah, I had wondered why we haven’t heard from them but they’ve been off season for months now. Tonight’s the season premiere. Apparently, Alec Baldwin is playing Trump, should be interesting.

      • 1mime says:

        Baldwin, that’s interesting. The Atlantic did a reader survey a while back asking who we felt would be the Trump surrogate for debate prep. I chose Baldwin. Ha ha…

      • RobA says:

        Did you see his cameo in Glengarry Glenross?

        A brilliant monologue, to be sure. And almost a perfect caricature of Donald Trump.

      • 1mime says:

        No, I’ll look for it. Thanks.

      • RobA says:

        Classic scene.

        For context, the scene opens on a sales office full of underperforming salesmen. Baldwin is the big shot “from downtown” sent down to whip the rubes into shape.

      • 1mime says:

        Always be closing…….Gosh, I heard that a lot in my sales meetings! Tough role…tougher message, great cast.

      • flypusher says:

        Just saw the opening skit. Baldwin knocked it out of the park! Hilarious!

  18. OT!

    Someone the other day was posting how “voter ID” laws are necessary.

    Here’s the answer to why some states passed “voter ID” laws in their own words, basically to suppress Democrat votes!

    Sorry this is so late!

    • RobA says:

      Anybody who still thinks voter ID is actually necessary is either a flat out political hack who doesn’t care about democracy, or totally brainwashed.

      There is no middle ground. The GoP ADMITS it for goodness sake.

      I would challange these ppl to find even 5 examples of voter fraud of the type voter ID rules are supposed to prevent.

      • RobA says:

        On: I said, examples of fraud OF THE TYPE voter ID is supposed to prevent. i.e. ppl showing up physically at polls and voting.

        From the article:

        “But the Los Angeles County Registrar confirms they have signed vote-by-mail envelopes with her mother’s name for the 2014 and 2012 election, though she died 10 years ago.”

        We already knew mail in fraud happens. But voter ID laws doesn’t prevent that whatsoever.

        The laws are designed to suppress Dem votes. Period. The best you could say is that they aren’t racist PER SE, as the GOP operative admits in the above link. If black ppl voted GOP, I have no doubt the GOp would oppose them. But regardless of if they’re racist or not, they are undoubtedly designed to suppress democracy. You don’t get to pass laws making it harder for specific groups to vote because they tend to vote for the other party. That’s some authoritarian dictatorship bullshit.

      • objv says:

        Rob, I’ve mentioned how easy it would be to take my mom’s voter registration card and vote for her if I knew that she wasn’t going to vote in the next election or if she became incapacitated. My mom and dad have always liked the Clintons (shudder) so I would not be voting the way my mom would choose.

        Do you really think that no one would take the opportunity to vote in someone’s place? It’s easy to rationalize that just because a spouse has Alzheimer’s or a parent has had a stroke or a child is away at college that voting “in their best interest” would be okay.

        Just because no one has been seen stealing from the cookie jar, doesn’t mean that theft has not occurred. (Speaking from experience.. . since I’m usually the guilty party!)

        As I’ve said before, obtaining a photo ID should be made easer not harder and should be free for a wide variety of reasons besides using the ID to vote. The opportunity to get a photo ID should be in place before elections. On that point I completely agree.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Reposting my response from the previous blog entry as OV has unsurprisingly “obstinately” stuck to and doubled down on her debunked her lies here again:

        objv says:
        September 30, 2016 at 10:29 pm
        “If Republicans have tried to hinder people from voting, they’ve done a terrible thing. That is not to say that Democrats should stick obstinately to the silly notion that voter fraud is an impossibility.”

        There is no “if” on Republicans suppressing votes and particularly minority votes. It is FACT based on all the court rulings.

        Also I see to OV facts are STILL a “silly notion”. Hence all her cognitive dissonance/willful ignorance regarding facts and reality to support her hateful views and hateful leaders/role models.

        “A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast”

        And OV will continue to insist she’s not a racist as she publicly expounds, cheers, and supports one racist idea/action after another.

        I see nothing has changed a bit.

      • flypusher says:

        “As I’ve said before, obtaining a photo ID should be made easer not harder and should be free for a wide variety of reasons besides using the ID to vote. The opportunity to get a photo ID should be in place before elections. On that point I completely agree.”

        You say you agree, but you won’t admit to the GOP’s actions IN DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE. So your sincerity is very much in doubt.

      • objv says:

        Rob, the article doesn’t say that all the instances of dead people voting was through the mail.

        Here’s another example from my home state of Ohio:

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So I read OV’s link and I am shocked, absolutely shocked (eyeroll) that she has arrived at yet another racist red herring of a (wrong) solution looking for a problem.

        Verbatim quote from OV’s link:

        “It’s possible as a junior, election officials [sic] mistakenly attributed the vote to his father. There is no way to tell from CBS2’s data but he wonders why his dad is still registered.

        The Los Angeles County Registrar told CBS2: ‘We remove 1200 to 2000 deceased records from the database per month.’

        But the news station checked all of the dead voters from LA County on the Registrar’s website and found 212 of the 215 were still registered and eligible to vote in next month’s presidential primary election.”

        So no smoking gun “proof” of voter fraud, much less fraud that voter ID’s address, but it could be a mere clerical error of attribution of legitimate votes. As already noted in the Washington Post exhaustive study I linked above and the previous blog by Chris.

        So the problem is the state or county doesn’t keep voter registrations rolls up to date and rather than a simpler, less expensive,and less discriminatory solution of updating and purging voter registrations rolls more frequently, timely, and accurately, OV kneejerk reflexively reeeeeeeeaches for the confirmed (by numerous courts) racist minority voter suppression solution. Hmmmm.

        If it quacks like a racist…

      • objv says:

        fly: I’m sure the GOP HAS suppressed the vote in some places. Does that mean that showing a photo ID is a bad idea in the future if accessibility issues are dealt with?

      • objv says:

        bubba: I made a promise to only say positive things about you.

        So, here is a virtual bouquet of daffodils surrounded by butterflies and double rainbows sent to you with love from yours truly, objv. 🙂

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Nice try and keep digging that racist hole for yourself OV. The Cleveland voter fraud was by ABSENTEE BALLOT which voter ID laws do NOTHING to prevent as others have already noted ad nauseum but you willingly choose to continue to ignore.

        But I’m sure the fact the perpetrator was pro-Obama put you into spasms of joy and you absolutely had to post it regardless of how irrelevant and inconsequential it was to the voter ID suppression issue.

        Keep quacking away OV.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV, I have continually and consistently posted the absolute naked truth and documented facts. Quack, quack OV.

      • flypusher says:

        “fly: I’m sure the GOP HAS suppressed the vote in some places. Does that mean that showing a photo ID is a bad idea in the future if accessibility issues are dealt with?”

        They have suppressed the vote in MANY places. People here been posting stories about the court decisions- did you bother to read any of them? Stop hedging. Admit the truth. As things stand right NOW, the effort to make sure that all voters have the right form of ID is woefully incomplete. Therefore there should be no ID requirement in effect for this election. Fix the access issue first. Then, and only then, we’ll talk about requiring photo ID for voting.

      • objv says:


        “she told an official that she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.
        …Richardson has worked on elections since 1988, and other allegations state that she intimidated other poll workers and hid items from them.”

      • objv says:

        fly, don’t you realize I’m agreeing with you on this point?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV do you understand the definition and legal context of “allegations”?

        And why do you insist on bringing up again absentee ballots yet again when ID laws do NOTHING to address them? And neither do the ID laws address or prevent the other ALLEGATIONS that you apparently posted for no other reason than to continue quacking away your irrational racial bias. You’ve already proven that. No need to continue to post untruths and non sequiturs to convince us OV. But it’s a free world and open forum so quack away to your heart’s content.

      • flypusher says:

        “fly, don’t you realize I’m agreeing with you on this point?”

        On the least significant point, and still evading the truth of GOP guilt as much as you can. Do you agree that voter ID laws should not be in effect for this election? Yes or no? Comment all you want after, but yes or no first.

      • RobA says:

        “And OV will continue to insist she’s not a racist as she publicly expounds, cheers, and supports one racist idea/action after another.”

        This is the insidiousness of institutionalized racism, and why it’s going to be so much harder to root out then overt racism was.

        I don’t think obvj is, personally, a racist. I think she would have no issues with black ppl coming over for dinner. I think she probably agrees that black ppl are no better/no worse then white ppl. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if she has black friends she genuinely cares for. But she’s been sold a bill of goods by right wing media that gives her an out.

        “Voter ID” isn’t racist; It’s needed to prevent fraud (and who could argue with that?). The police don’t treat black/white ppl different; these guys just need to comply with police and everything will be fine! (again, seems reasonable). Harsh drug laws arent racist; they’re needed to keep crime low! (Ignoring the fact that powder cocaine is chemically no different from crack in terms of addictiveness or social disruption, and yet crack sentencing is often 50+ times harsher then powder. weird, until you understand crack is used far more proportionally by black ppl). Cutting off benefits for poor ppl isn’t racist policy, since the benefits are cut for everyone (leaving out the fact that black ppl are disproportionately affected due to higher poverty levels).

        Because obvj (and ppl like her) is likely not PERSONALLY racist, and because she likely doesn’t understand the racial dynamics at play behind the policies she supports, she is able to bridge the cognitive dissonance of how a non racist can support a racist system.

        And frankly, systemic racism is far more dangerous then overt “traditional” racism. To the black person held back because of racist laws, or lack of opportunity, or hurt by police brutality, does it matter one lick the personal feelings of those who support the laws that hurt them?

        Of course not. I’m sure most black ppl would far prefer a society with lots of overt racists but strong and fair laws designed to ensure they receive equal protection under the law, then a society where everyone pays lip service to opposing racism, and pat themselves on the back for admiring MLK, but in the voting booth, support candidates who support the laws that keep them oppressed.

      • objv says:

        Yes … when it comes to recently enacted laws that would place an undue burden on those who would have difficulty in getting an ID.

        The problem here is that different states have different laws that were enacted at different times and different states have different histories on voting rights. Whew! If a state has had laws in place for many years that require an ID I do not think that it should be changed to no requirement for the coming election.

        For example, I live in New Mexico. When I voted for the first time a few years back, I had to show an ID (not sure it had to be a photo ID but I had my driver’s license handy) before I could vote because I had registered online and that was their requirement. I do not think that New Mexico necessarily has to change their existing rules for the coming election since it was not a new law meant to discourage voting.

    • 1mime says:

      Truth has no expiration date……….

    • Creigh says:

      Courts actually haven’t objected to voter suppression unless it is targeted at or predominantly affects (intentionally or not) minorities. My biggest objection to voter ID laws is that as they have been proposed they wouldn’t stop voting fraud via absentee ballots. It seems patently obvious that the easiest and safest way to perpetrate voter fraud would use absentee ballots.

      • RobA says:

        Creigh, that is true about the courts, but that’s because the courts had been following long standing tradition where they only weigh what the state SAYS instead of what is likely the obvious reason. In other words, they had a policy of taking states at face value.

        That only changed a few months ago with the NC ruling, where the opinion explicitly said the court didn’t believe the state. Since just those short few months, you’ve seen several states apply the same standard and striking them down .

        It’s similar to the Trump/media thing. The media tools the media use to deal with Prez candidates wernt designed to handle a pathological liar like Trump, who has no compunctions about saying demonstrably false things, even if they were on video. It took a while for the media to understand what Trump was about, and it’s only the past few weeks that they’ve changed how they deal with him. It would be been unthinkable for the NY Times to call a major nominee a liar before this cycle, and yet they did a few weeks ago.

        Likewise, the courts wernt equipped to deal with states that are flat out lying. They tended to take states at face value. Like with the media, it took a while for the courts to understand what exactly was going on and to adjust their tactics accordingly. But, also like with the media, it does appear that they are adjusting appropriately.

      • 1mime says:

        There is so much more work to be done to increase accountability. I admire the tireless work of the SPLC and the Equal Justice Initiative. If you’re not familiar with these organizations, look them up and support their efforts. They are toiling down in the pits where most of us would never venture.

  19. Sir Magpie De Crow says:

    For the win…

    “Here’s the Donald Trump sex tape (sort of)”

    “GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump made a grotesque little cameo appearance in a Playboy softcore porn video released back in 2000. Do not worry, the appearance was very brief and he kept his clothes on. Because Jesus loves you.”

    The “Because Jesus Loves you.” part cracks me up.

    To quote a famous cocky (later despondent) space marine before engaging in battle with a plague hideous monsters…

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      Trump’s official response:

      “I watch porn. I watch the best porn! I would hire only the best porn stars… believe me!”

    • RobA says:

      Boy, good thing we have those evangelicals to keep the country “moral”.

      Theyre supporting a thrice married adulterer whose appeared in playboy/softcore porn vids who doesn’t know bow to pronounce the books of the Bible and said that he’s “never asked God for forgiveness” over a woman whose held together her 40 year marriage through thick and thin, good times and bad who has been outspoken about her Methodist faith for decades.

      So moral!

      • 1mime says:

        The hypocrisy of Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich going after Hillary as an enabler of Bill’s sexual liaisons is rich. Between Giuliani and Gingrich, they have had a total of 6 wives and many affairs. Throw Trump into the mix and the trio have had 9 wives and any number of mistresses….Guess they are experts at adultery and divorce, but it is past absurd that any of these men would speak to how the women they have cheated on would feel….Were their wives “enablers”? Or were the men just jerks? (given the circumstances of each divorce). But, you know what? If Trump decides to attack Hillary on this basis, I predict it will end badly for him.

        One has to be careful about throwing rocks at glass buildings……Women in America will be able to work through the smears and hypocrisy quite easily given the quite public reputations of everyone involved. One can question Hillary Clinton’s reasons for staying in her marriage, but not these men – nary a one., bubbas.

  20. irapmup says:

    Susan Schneider’s thought is very moving.

    Curt Schilling’s less so.

    Ditto Baltimore.

    And Texas


  21. johngalt says:

    Just imagine what Elizabeth Warren could do to an unevolved simian like Curt Schilling in a debate. In Massachusetts no less. The moderator would have to stop it in a TKO before the first commercial break.

  22. texan5142 says:

    Read about Robin Williams 4am this morning, must have been really tough for him, explains why he committed suicide.

    • flypusher says:

      I cannot blame him for wanting to end that pain.

    • vikinghou says:

      Such a moving editorial. It’s easy to understand why Mr. Williams wanted to end it all. What surprised me in the piece was the statistic that 1 in 6 people will contract a brain disease. I had no idea it was so prevalent. Also, the article demonstrates why we should cherish each day and live life to the fullest. You never know what’s around the corner that may take you down.

      • flypusher says:

        There is a saying: “Health is the first wealth.” So truth. Good health is a blessing I am very grateful to have.

      • 1mime says:

        I saved this post from Susan Williams to read last. My husband has Parkinson’s Disease. We are fortunate that it has not morphed into LBD, but it is still challenging. I say “we” because PD is a family disease. It robs couples, families, children of precious time together, memories lost or never built. As one’s body and mind decline, the assistance they require is demanding but the struggle experienced by the person with the disease is far greater. I could not agree more with Mrs. Williams about the importance of knowing what is causing these problems. There is comfort to be able to put a “label” on a disease that overtakes a person’s mind and body.
        I admire Susan’s commitment beyond Robin’s death to contribute her time and story to those who work in the neurology field. Susan William’s appeal is to encourage those who educate, research and treat patients to continue to push for more definitive diagnosis and treatments. To make the lives of the affected persons as good as they can be while living with this disease. She has also spoken for so many of us who live with those who struggle with neurological diseases and conditions. I found it uplifting. Thank you Chris, for sharing this inspiring story with us.

  23. Stephen says:

    I got a texted a picture from my sister who is a Trump supporter showing a bulge on Hillary’s back and a wire crease going up her back from the first debate. Of course this was being put out by Fox News. I checked snopes and found out like Trump she was wearing a lapel mike. She and her husband are educated and high income folk. But follow Fox news. I think that somehow Fox brain washes people making them very gullible. Since Hillary basically mowed over Trump during the debate Fox people think she must of cheated somehow instead of maybe she might know more than Trump including how to debate and speak publically. In the short time we have to voting it is a waste of time trying to deprogram such people. Better to register and motivate people who are clear thinking but seldom bother to vote.

    • texan5142 says:

      Educated and smart are not the same thing. Fox is nothing but a propaganda network. Smart people can see that, education has nothing to do with it.

    • flypusher says:

      Here’s what I’d like to ask your sister and all these other people casting about for any reason to excuse Trump’s debate loss. Let’s say your child had a class assignment to research a topic and give a 15 minute oral report. If s/he refused to do any or the research or practice the talk, tried to wing the presentation and got an F, what would you do? Would you blame the teacher or the school for not being fair to your child? Or would you tell your child “This is YOUR fault because you didn’t prepare.”? I’m betting on the latter, which makes me ask why do you hold a candidate for the job of President, with all that power and responsibility, to a lower standard than a child’s homework assignment? Given all the rationalizing I keep hearing/reading, I do not expect any honest, thoughtful answers. But that spot should keep getting poked. People making poor choices should get called out.

      There are many flaws in politicians that I don’t like. But for me the number one, unforgivable political sin is failure to prepare. It’s why I have zero respect for Sarah Palin. It would be the number one reason I object to Trump, expect for the fact that he has such a childish temperment. That’s a flaw that’s usually selected out, because it’s so scary dangerous, but this is a weird year.

      • 1mime says:

        Fly, I posted the introductory link to the WaPo series of editorials where they speak directly to Trump supporters. I think it affirms what is obvious to thinking people. The editorials hopefully will change some minds, but as we’ve seen on this blog, some people are too far gone to influence. All we can do is pity them, hope they don’t vote, and hope they go far away. I go back to what EJ said this morning: there are views you disagree with but respect, and there are views you disagree with and disrespect. That pretty much sums up my feeling for those people who say they think Trump is awful but hate Hillary more. To them I say: stay home. Don’t add your ill informed, irrational, careless vote to the Trump side of the ledger. Stay home. Don’t vote. You add nothing but danger to the process.

      • objv says:

        Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising the right to vote. ~ From Wikipedia


        Mime, I believe you are guilty of voter suppression according to its definition.

      • Creigh says:

        Congratulations Mime, you passed a law! (Or did you?)

      • 1mime says:

        Oh, there are laws I’d like to pass, but all I can do now is speak out….

      • RobA says:

        Obvj, there is a huge difference between somebody saying they hope someone doesn’t vote (which is not, in any way, “suppression”) and the gov’t passing LAWS that make it harder for someone to vote.

        Mime saying she hopes low information voters dont vote does not suppress those voters in any way. Government passing laws that makes it much harder to do so is. This isn’t hard.

      • objv says:

        Mime, is “discouraging” me from voting with verbal attacks. 😦 It meets the definition. Bad form, mime, bad form. As a supposedly good Democrat you should be encouraging all to do their patriotic duty and vote on election day.

      • RobA says:

        Obvj, come on. If you stay home because someone “discourages you” from voting, that’s on you.

        On the other hand, if you stay home because the state has made unnecessary rules to allow voting AND THEN made it as hard as possible to follow those rules, that’s voter suppression.

      • objv says:

        Rob, I was kidding … but only half-kidding. To tell you the truth, I was shocked that mime would encourage anyone NOT to vote.

    • johngalt says:

      A few years ago, Fairleigh Dickinson University polled people on what sources of news they regularly consumed and then asked them some fairly straightforward current events questions. People who regulatory watched FoxNews was less informed (got fewer questions correct) than people who reported they had no regular news source. They were significantly less well informed than those who reported they got most of their news from The Daily Show, a fake news show. Ponder that.

  24. 1mime says:

    Shilling – He can make accusations that Clinton should be in jail and make anti-LGBT comments on air and “they have a problem”?

    Well, game on it is. Somehow I think that E. Warren is more than up for the challenge. Shilling may be an all-star baseball player, but he is going to receive a real lesson from a diminutive, whip-smart woman on humility and political reality.

    Why is it that there is so much criticism of the quiet act by Kopernick of taking a knee during the national anthem yet someone like Shilling makes publicly derogatory comments about people who are LGBT and he’s a hero? Which, I ask you, is a more dignified manner of personal protest that hurt no one in the process?

    • flypusher says:

      Schilling is also an anti-science whack job. He was a very good baseball player, but he is not qualified to be a Senator because he is too ignorant. Sadly, he would appeal to the Trumpkins for that very reason.

Leave a Reply to texan5142 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: