Please tell us Wyatt, how was it appropriate for you to swap the Republican and Democrat poll results when people were asked "Who do you blame for the government shutdown?"?
You can't claim that didn't hurt anyone, it unjustly hurt the reputation of the Democrats and gave undeserved credit to the Republicans. When you lie so cavalierly about things like that why shouldn't everyone automatically assume you're lying whenever you make a statement without proof to support it?
Wyatt/bad anonymous posted an article describing how abortions had dropped dramatically BEFORE Republicans passed a huge number of anti-abortion laws but he changed the article to say the drop occurred after all the laws. When we pointed out the lie to Wyatt he said when he cuts and pastes a news article "unless I attribute a post to someone else, I'll feel free to change the wording as I like" (true or not). Of course he lies even when he attributes a post to others. One of his favourite tactics is to dishonestly quote people out of context. For example I once wrote "I hate christians who use their religion to oppress LGBT people", Wyatt later posted "Priya said "I hate christians"." changing what I actually said to something that dishonestly painted me in negative light. This is frequent standard operating procedure for Wyatt.
This is not a person who tells white lies, this is a person who doesn't feel bound by the truth at all. This is a person who will lie at anytime on any topic if he thinks it will help promote his anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-environment, pro-rich people agenda or make him look good and his opponents look bad. And he doesn't care who he hurts to do it.
TORONTO – Causing a ruckus from the basement of Temple Street Productions where the myriad clones of Tatiana Maslany are kept for the award-winning series Orphan Black, 5 clones of the actress are currently fighting over who gets to keep the Best Actress Emmy statue they collectively won.
“I’m the series’ principal clone,” said the clone of Tatiana Maslany who plays Sarah in her working-class English accent that was programmed into her speech patterns from within her natal pod after the series was given the green light.
“It follows my character and her daughter. That’s what makes her special. That’s why people watch.”
“That Emmy is mine,” said the clone who plays Rachel, the hard-nosed corporate titan in her cold, emotionless tone that she has been forced by genetic engineering to perform.
“I’m like my character. And what the Tatiana Maslany who plays Rachel wants, the Tatiana Maslany who plays Rachel gets.”
According to sources, the clone that plays Alison, the high-strung suburbanite, has started a neighbourhood petition to support her case and would be going door-to-door if she was allowed to leave the property, while the Tatiana Maslany who plays Cosima, the brainy, dreadlocked scientists, says she has created an algorithm that analyzes screen time performance over audience reaction and has proved she deserves the statue.
“I will cut you!” said the genuinely disturbed and abused Tatiana Maslany who plays Helena in her ominous, Ukrainian accent rattling the bars of her cage from a dark corner deep within the production company’s bowels.
When asked why Temple Street and BBC America chose to clone their actresses rather than use tried-and-true special effects, a representative responded by saying, “this is Canadian TV, we simply didn’t have the budget.”
September 21, 2016 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...
"one need look no further than the joint appearances by the two on Jimmy Fallon last week"
Who needs Presidential Debates when we can have banter with late-night comedians instead?
< eye roll >
September 21, 2016 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi swears that Donald Trump didn’t get special treatment.
“Donald Trump did not get a pass,” Bondi told reporters. …
“There never was an investigation into Donald Trump by this office,” Bondi said.
… Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's office is reviewing the New York lawsuit's allegations, to determine whether Florida should join the multi-state case, a spokeswoman for the Republican attorney general said Wednesday.
That time. The time that came a couple of weeks after emails about the case circulated around Bondi’s office. The time that came just days after Bondi called Donald Trump personally to solicit a campaign contribution. The contribution neatly deposited in her coffers four days after her office told the Sentinel they were reviewing the New York case.
Bondi’s first political opponent in 2010, former state senator and federal prosecutor Dan Gelber, recently said she should at least have returned the check to Trump while the New York case was pending.
But Bondi on Tuesday said she didn’t return the check because it would have looked as if it were a bribe.
Returning the check while the case was pending? Would have looked suspicious. Accepting the check while the case was pending? Perfectly okay. By the way, How can there be a “case pending” when Bondi just said there was not even an investigation?
When Trump TV begins Pam Bondi is a shoe-in for the legal correspondent.
we actually don't have debates, we have media shows where the biased press tries to play "gotcha" with the Republican candidate
in a real debate, the candidates would take turns questioning one another
personally, I don't care what Lester Holt thinks is important to ask
btw, presidential "debates" are run as a joint venture of the Democrats and GOP
hey set up the rules to favor the two parties' monopoly
that's why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, supported by millions, won't get a chance to make their case
"when we can have banter with late-night comedians instead?
< eye roll >"
well, there's a sophisticated response
if you don't realize how important perceptions are, you really are ignorant
if only Nixon had put his make-up on
JFK would probably still be alive
of course, there was a time presidents had more dignity than going on late night talk shows but Obama pretty much put the nail in that coffin - he wasn't the first, just the most enthusiastic
and, of course, that's but one reason Hillary is sunk
"Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi swears that Donald Trump didn’t get special treatment."
no one cares
Trump makes contributions to candidates all over the board
he's always been upfront about it
September 21, 2016 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...
"btw, presidential "debates" are run as a joint venture of the Democrats and GOP
hey [sic] set up the rules to favor the two parties' monopoly
that's why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, supported by millions, won't get a chance to make their case"
Johnson and Stein don't poll at the required level of support, a measly 15%.
"Trump makes contributions to candidates all over the board"
If Trump makes political contributions from a charitable organization using his favorite resource of all -- OPM, Other People's Money -- that was donated to his charitable foundation, they are illegal contributions.
Refusing to release his tax returns is one way for Trump to try to hide how his "contributions to candidates all over the board" were made.
"Are there restrictions on political activity by churches and other charitable organizations?
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, incorporated charitable organizations--like other corporations--are prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections. Unlike most other corporations, charities face additional restrictions on political activity under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code."
And Trump should also remember:
"Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure."
"Johnson and Stein don't poll at the required level of support, a measly 15%"
this is an arbitrary number set up by a commission composed of the two parties
history lesson for you:
"In 1984, the cooperation between the Republican and Democratic parties led to a joint veto of almost 100 proposed panelists for the first debate. The following election cycle saw more of a grab for control by the two major parties. The campaigns of George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis met without the knowledge of the League of Women Voters (LWV) and drafted a memorandum of understanding. This secret document specified who would be allowed sit in the audience during the '88 debates and who would serve as panelists, as well as abolished follow-up questions. Under these terms, the LWV would be left to merely host and would have no say in how the debates were held.
In disgust, the League of Women Voters exposed the memorandum and resigned as hosts of presidential debates, citing the "fraud on the American voter" being carried out by the two major parties [source: PBS]. To fill the void left by the LWV, the Democrats and Republicans formed the joint nonprofit bipartisan organization the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)."
All any presidential candidate has to do is attain 15% support to qualify to participate in the presidential debates, but any party member, regardless of polling level, may participate in primary debates, though they may not air during prime time.
Like your favorite GOPers, Huckabee and Santorum, who got bumped to the GOP "undercard debate" due to their lack of support in polls.
"...Fox Business Network on Monday announced the candidate lineup for the Jan. 14 Republican presidential debates – and already one candidate has said he will not participate after not qualifying for the prime-time event.
The participants qualifying for the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET debate are:
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
The participants qualifying for the earlier, 6 p.m. ET debate are:
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; former HP CEO Carly Fiorina; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum...
...The FBN debate lineup was decided based on the results of national, New Hampshire and Iowa polling. To qualify for the prime-time debate, a candidate had to place in the top six in an average of recent national polls, or in the top five in an average of recent Iowa or New Hampshire polls..."
September 22, 2016 9:52 AM
curiously correct said...
Looks as if TTFers will argue about anything. Well, while Johnson only receives 9% currently, most Americans think he belongs in the debates. People are desperate for another reasonable choice this year.
Putting in the top five candidates in these debates would make for a healthier democracy. Certainly would make it more watchable. Any debate with Hillary will require a lot of caffeine.
btw, I've always liked Huckabee but I've always considered Santorum nauseating.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Looks as if TTFers will argue about anything".
Looks as if Wyatt/bad anonymous will do anything to avoid answering questions about his lying.
Please tell us Wyatt, how was it appropriate for you to swap the Republican and Democrat poll results when people were asked "Who do you blame for the government shutdown?"?
You can't claim that didn't hurt anyone, it unjustly hurt the reputation of the Democrats and gave undeserved credit to the Republicans. When you lie so cavalierly about things like that why shouldn't everyone automatically assume you're lying whenever you make a statement without proof to support it?
"Hillary, btw, will be on trial the reason her IT director was given immunity last week is that Hillary is going to be indicted"
Wyatt you said "there are many situations where lying is appropriate". How was that lie appropriate?
September 22, 2016 3:21 PM
just gimme me some truth said...
What a lying weasel! It makes me shudder to think of the harm this heinous falsehood caused.
He should have known that the Obama administration would never let a Democrat be indicted. That IT director may have gotten immunity from his participation in Clinton's crimes but now he's committing new crimes. Sounds like the Republicans in Congress will indict him.:
I've looked at Canada's clouds from both sides now said...
"Looks as if Wyatt/bad anonymous will do anything to avoid answering questions about his lying."
Priya Lynn, I assume you're are talking about the individual who's been posting earlier in the week.
I think you may be lying because, if that's who you mean, I've seen him make many responses to allegation from TTFers that he lied.
I think you owe him an apology. That will go part way toward remedying some of the damage you've caused. Not all, but some.
September 22, 2016 4:52 PM
svelte_brunette said...
Theresa said:
"I still believe you do incredible harm by suggesting to Tomboys that they might be male.... and it's incredibly SEXIST.
Just because you like the outdoors, and math, doesn't make you male !
you can say well we are not saying that. it's your brain sex, it's really who you were all the time, and I can tell you quite honestly looking back at the kid I was at 15 that if I had been presented with that information as truth you would have had me questioning my gender. Because kids are confused at that age !
I think it is SUCH a horrible thing to do to our young female engineers to suggest that because they like math and are tomboys they might be male.
I think it is such a horrible disrespectful thing to strong females everywhere to suggest that you are not a strong female, you are actually a male."
Theresa also said:
" And you didn't address MY question.... If you are smart, like the outdoors, like putting things together like legos, are female and hate barbies, WILL OUR CURRENT HIGHSCHOOLS TELL YOU YOU MIGHT BE MALE ?????
The answer is YES.
Deplorable MALE Theresa (mother of three, female).... but hey GENDER IS FLUID, I CAN DECIDE ANY DAY whether I am MRS. Rickman or MR. Rickman."
After reading the obviously impassioned passages above, I went back and read both of the lessons posted for 10th graders linked above to try and understand what might bring one to such radical conclusions. If there are other places that you got your information from Theresa, I would be happy to review those as well, just provide a link.
I have my quibbles with both lessons, and maybe I’ll touch on some of those, but I’ll focus on what appears to be the source of Theresa’s heartache.
The first lesson is pretty dry, as it is mostly stats and definitions like:
Transgender: “individual whose gender identity, characteristics, or expressions differ from most people of that person’s gender (Holt)”
Gender Identity: “your identification of yourself as a man or a woman based on the gender you feel to be (Glencoe and Holt)”
Yes, I know conservatives don’t consider these “real” but that’s what they are.
September 22, 2016 7:51 PM
svelte_brunette said...
(First part of this post appears to have been lost in the spam filter - can it be released??)
As best I can tell, there are two sentences in the second lessons from Portia’s statement that seem to be the source of the problem.
Here is a portion of here statement:
“When I was young, I loved dressing up in pretty things and playing with dolls. My mother never made me feel ashamed. I began school feeling good about myself. Elementary school was fine, but by middle school, things got pretty bad. I was made fun of, called names, shoved in the halls, and pushed down the stairs. High school was better in some ways. I had friends who stood by me, but even with their support, I was very depressed. I was supposed to be a boy, but every feeling inside me told me that I was a girl, but I didn’t know how people would respond.”
It is the first and last sentences from the above portion that appears to have been the source of the broad extrapolation to things like:
“"I still believe you do incredible harm by suggesting to Tomboys that they might be male.... and it's incredibly SEXIST.
Just because you like the outdoors, and math, doesn't make you male!”
“And you didn't address MY question.... If you are smart, like the outdoors, like putting things together like legos, are female and hate barbies, WILL OUR CURRENT HIGHSCHOOLS TELL YOU YOU MIGHT BE MALE ?????
The answer is YES.”
Actually, the answer is NO. What you have derived from those two sentences is WAY beyond what reasonable people would ascribe to Portia’s description of her life. I will also point out that there are no questions on the quizzes that refer back to these two sentences either. It is hard to imagine how the average student would extrapolate that just because one hates Barbie dolls, that they are a male. If one actually happens to be trans however, it could hit a nerve.
September 22, 2016 8:13 PM
svelte_brunette said...
The two class instruction lessons are scripted to the very last word, and timed down to the minute, and substitutions and outside resources are not allowed. What the students are taught appear to be tightly constrained to the text on the 33 pages of the lessons.
Personally, having tutored children and adults for math, some of them with learning challenges, I would feel extremely restricted in how these lessons were taught. Especially with learning challenged individuals, it might take me coming at the same problem 12 different ways before I finally find the route and explanation that ignites the light of understanding in the students’ eyes. Being constricted to just the text in the lesson allows one to repeat the same text over again, but if the student didn’t quite get it the first time, the second time is unlikely to provide greater insight.
I know there were lawsuits associated with the new curriculum, so I suppose it had to be done this way to get all of the litigants to find the minimum amount of language they all could agree on.
As a trans person who has actually given some “Transgender 101” talks at local colleges, I find the dearth of specifics on trans people a bit disheartening, and it may lead to unnecessary confusion. For example, there is absolutely no mention that there are clinical requirements that must be met to meet the definition of “Gender Dysphoria.” However, if one looks at the lessons as a whole, they are generally designed to reduce the amount of harassment that LGBT people receive from their peers, while providing a basic overview of the definitions associated with sexual and gender minorities.
My first inclination was that it might be a good idea to provide information from the DSM-V. After thinking about it though, I realized that if you gave a bunch of 10th graders that info, none of whom have a clinical background in psychology, you would then have a bunch of 10th graders trying to diagnose some of their peers. That, as you can imagine, simply would not end well.
There are a whole lot of people that fit under the “transgender umbrella,” including drag kings, drag queens, gender queer, androgyne, Eddie Izzard’s “executive transvestite,” and several others. But frankly I don’t think “tomboy” is gender-bendy enough to even bother including in the list. The lessons don’t address any of that. Hopefully though, the lessons learned will be broad enough to promote a bit of tolerance to classmates who are a little bit different.
September 22, 2016 8:49 PM
svelte_brunette said...
There are plenty of reasons in our society for women to be angry or envious of men, given how they have monopolized entire job categories for centuries, treated women like second class citizens, denied them the right to vote and still have a pernicious habit of sexually harassing and even raping them. A few decades ago, my mother was working at a department store, and became a valuable resource for her peers on a variety of work issues. When she applied for management training though, she was laughed at because “we don’t have women managers!” In some ways our society has come a long way from this, but there are still pockets of society that promulgate dismissive attitudes towards women as a matter of course. I can not blame any women for wanting the privileges associated with “manhood” in our society. But that doesn’t mean women that want jobs in male dominated fields are trans. I think most of society takes that for granted these days – female astronauts and CEOs are a thing now, after all, and we may even have our first female president in a few months. Even with James Carville saying things like "If Hillary gave up one of her balls and gave it to Obama, he'd have two,” no one really believes Hillary is trans. ( I take that back – I just did some googling – there are a lot of idiots on the internet.)
If you google “Michelle Obama is a man” though, you get 43.6 million results from right-wing trash media claiming they have “proof” or at least serious reason to believe she is. They are using this message to demean and diminish her.
But I’m going off-topic.
In short Theresa, unless there are other parts of the curriculum that I am not aware of, I find your extrapolation of the lessons to be all sorts of “sexist” to be unfounded. I know the sexism that some of my female colleagues has faced is far worse than I have had directed at me. I would not be surprised if you had a few incidents yourself. No doubt, going to school in the 70s and 80s in your chosen field had its own sexist mine fields to navigate. I have no way of knowing how your past experiences might have contributed to that response.
I also don’t know if the strength of your response is due to your strong desire not to have any LGBT material in the sex-ed classes, or if Portia’s story dredged up identity issues you have been struggling with since childhood. Only you can make that determination.
I will also say that no on WANTS to be trans. It is a conclusion we come to at the end of years of careful introspection. The spiritual would call it “soul searching.” There is often a tremendous cost to finding an identity where you can feel comfortable in your own skin. We avoid paying that cost as long as we can. In the end though, we can never run away from ourselves.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
September 22, 2016 9:34 PM
Anonymous said...
"The two class instruction lessons are scripted to the very last word, and timed down to the minute, and substitutions and outside resources are not allowed. What the students are taught appear to be tightly constrained to the text on the 33 pages of the lessons.
Well that was true at the beginning, Cynthia, but you will be happy to be reminded MCPS has forged ahead and "descripted" the curriculum as Jim reported on Feb. 2, 2015:
"...Last summer the school board proposed improvements to the curriculum -- including "descripting" -- and asked for public comment. Their official wording:
"WHEREAS, On February 13, 2001, the Montgomery County Board of Education approved a curriculum policy that guides the development, implementation, and monitoring of curricula throughout the school system; and
WHEREAS, A draft curriculum framework was developed for secondary health education; and
WHEREAS, The draft curriculum framework was shared with stakeholders and additional feedback was received during a public comment period from May 13 to June 13, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Feedback and input from stakeholders and public comments have been used to develop and refine the Secondary Comprehensive Health Education Curriculum Framework; now therefore be it
Resolved, That the Montgomery County Board of Education grants final approval of the Montgomery County Public Schools Secondary Comprehensive Health Education Curriculum Framework, which combines National Health Education Standards skills and Montgomery County Public Schools content standards as the foundation for the development of the Secondary Health Education Curriculum. Board Memorandum
The school district got 61 comments, of which 15 were opposed to the changes. They are summarized in the linked memo, along with documentation of the changes. Nobody can complain that this was a "stealth maneuver" or anything, the anti-gay side heard about it -- even Family Research Council monkey-monk Peter Sprigg spewed spoke to the board. None of this made the newspapers at the time, well there is no reason why it would. Extry extry, health class changes! Read all about it!
Mostly people were supportive, even enthusiastic about the changes. It is kind of fun to read. Even the "aberrant sexual behaviors" comments are colorful and folksy, in their way.
The June 2014 memo says:
"In the 2014–2015 school year, MCPS will implement the shift away from scripted lessons on sexual orientation and proper use of a condom. In the 2015–2016 school year, updated courses in Grades 6, 7, and 8 will be implemented. The implementation of the updated high school course will begin in the 2016–2017 school year. Each school will continue to provide parents with the opportunity to review the Family Life and Human Sexuality and Disease Prevention and Control curriculum and resources, and parents will be permitted to decide whether their children will participate in these units."....
September 22, 2016 10:23 PM
svelte_brunette said...
I (Cynthia) said: "Do not lie" is a common simplification of the commandment, easily found with a bit of googling."
And “This may even be the version that is taught to children before they master reading."
quick sand pudding said:
“google isn't evidence”
And “uh, this (sic) conjecture on your part, with no supporting evidence”
O.K. then, try this site, with the byline “Teach your kids about loving God and others”:
http://www.godsten-commandments.org/
Look at the table under “Ten Commandments for Kids.”
It says “Do not lie.”
Then there is this Ten Commandments poster from Amazon:
It has another simplification: “Always tell the truth.”
It’s ranked 25,106 in Toys and Games, and 92 under Flash Cards.
You can of course claim that this is not PROOF that children teach their kids “do not lie,” or “always tell the truth” and that businesses just sell posters like this to people who hide them from kids. But most people would not be that unreasonable (ridiculous).
quick sand pudding said:
“I've got news for you: a lot of people raised in churches aren't paying attention”
Ya don’t say… REALLY? (Yes, that was loaded with sarcasm.)
September 22, 2016 10:30 PM
svelte_brunette said...
quick sand pudding said:
“the TTFers here weren't merely quoting the commandments
they were using them as part of an attack on the character of others
funny, Jesus said not do to do that”
Funny, Jesus never attacked the character of trans people (eunuchs) either. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Jesus attacking the character of gay people either.
It makes me wonder how you justify saying so many nasty things about them. What would Jesus say?
quick sand pudding said:
“first of all, this has come up many times before and you have not always used the word "conflate"
Cyn: "My characterization is an accurate description of what the CRG and right wing conservatives have done to try and marginalize trans people"
qsp: no, it isn't”
I did not use “conflate” back in 2008 (2009?) when the CRG was saying thing like “confused men who wear dresses are going to invade women’s privacy.” “Confused men who wear dresses” is their shorthand for transwomen. Perhaps after Dana, Maryanne and I complained enough they got a guilty conscience and changed their lines to things more like “predators are going to invade women’s privacy” and “how can I tell if the funny looking guy in a dress is a real trans person or just someone taking advantage of the law to rape me?” Their change in verbiage was a distinction without a difference. But if they wanted to play semantic games like that fine. I then started to use “conflate” to address that change.
September 22, 2016 10:39 PM
svelte_brunette said...
qsp: "they've made a valid point about why people should use the bathroom of their gender
but, really the point is: women don't men undressing in a locker room with them, and that is a reasonable position"
I DO use the bathroom of my gender. I have breasts and a vagina. I use the ladies' room. I don't want men undressing in a women's locker room either. Personally, I avoid public locker rooms anyway. I’ve only been to 1 in the past 13 years. I don't want to risk seeing anyone naked, man, woman, or otherwise. I don’t want people seeing me naked either.
One could easily propose stronger penalties for people behaving badly in restrooms or locker rooms. There is no reason to bring trans people into that conversation at all. We have been using the best restroom or our gender for decades now so quietly and unobtrusively that more people believe they have seen a ghost than have seen a trans person:
qsp: “what would happen if the government announced they will give a billion dollars to anyone who says they feel like a different gender than they were born with?
the answer is obvious
is that conflation?”
Um, no. But if you did that to a public official, it would be “bribery.”
qsp: “conflation as defined as "joining as one"”
Close, but not quite. I expected a more exact answer coming from someone who is so pedantic about the semantics of the ten commandments, and the definition of “marriage.”
Try Webster, especially definition 2:
Con`flate´ v. t. 1. To blow together; to bring together; to collect; to fuse together; to join or weld; to consolidate. The State-General, created and conflated by the passionate effort of the whole nation. - Carlyle.
2. to ignore distinctions between, by treating two or more distinguishable objects or ideas as one; to confuse.
WordNet Dictionary Verb 1. conflate - mix together different elements; "The colors blend well"
qsp: “stick it somewhere that always has a total eclipse of the sun”
I have no intention of going anywhere near where you keep your cranium.
Anonymous: “Well that was true at the beginning, Cynthia, but you will be happy to be reminded MCPS has forged ahead and "descripted" the curriculum as Jim reported on Feb. 2, 2015:”
Thank you for pointing that out. I don’t know what I was doing on Feb. 2, 2015, but I don’t recall that bit of news. I don’t have kids in school, so it would not have been a priority topic for me. I’ve read some of the comments. They are pretty predictable from the right wingers.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
September 22, 2016 11:29 PM
MW said...
it's an interesting question what dictionary TTFers use
here's a real dictionary, Merriam Webster, on the meaning of conflate:
The poster got it just fine. "Join as one" and "fuse" are the same thing.
And to the earlier point, no one conflates transgenders with anyone else.
Whoever made that point was right. As usual, the TTFer was wrong...again.
September 23, 2016 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...
Thanks for posting. Nice to see someone with common sense occasionally posts here. Looks the guy who said TTFERS will argue about anything was right as rain.
September 23, 2016 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...
"Common" might be a word I'd use to describe the TTFTroll, who constantly argues with himself under various names.
That would be the fifth definition of "common" over at Merriam-Webster.com:
For the record, I stand by my use of "conflate." There are thousands of posts here from the anonymi over the last 8 years that will make my point. I'm quite sure that the majority of reasonable readers will agree with me.
I might get to Merkle's statement about Muslims later today.
Wyatt/bad anonymous (as usual pretending to be more than one person said "Priya Lynn, I assume you're are talking about the individual who's been posting earlier in the week. I think you may be lying because, if that's who you mean, I've seen him make many responses to allegation from TTFers that he lied.
No, you haven't responded to the questions I posted. You said there are many situations where its apropriate to lie. So:
How was it appropriate for you to swap the Republican and Democrat poll results when people were asked "Who do you blame for the government shutdown?"?
How was it appropriate for you to tell this lie:
"Hillary, btw, will be on trial the reason her IT director was given immunity last week is that Hillary is going to be indicted"
The log cabin Republicans said Trump was the "most gay friendly REPUBLICAN presidential nominee ever".
How was it apropriate for you to lie and say " Log Cabin Republicans think he's the most gay-friendly presidential nominee ever"?
BIG difference between "presidential nominee" and "REPUBLICAN presidential nominee".
When I once posted "I hate christians who use their religion to oppress gays", how was it appropriate for you to misleadingly portray me in a negative light by later posting out of context "Priya said "I hate christians""?
How is it appropriate for you to pretend to be more than one person?
Wyatt, its well known in image management circles that when you have a situation like this where you've been lying repeatedly there's only one way for you to get past it.
First you have to publicly admit that you've lied (and that it wasn't "appropriate").
Then you have to express sincere remorse.
Then make a sincere commitment to only telling the truth in the future
Lastly you then have to actually stick to telling the truth.
That's the only way you can (with time) repair your reputation Wyatt.
September 23, 2016 1:57 PM
gimme one said...
"For the record, I stand by my use of "conflate." There are thousands of posts here from the anonymi over the last 8 years that will make my point."
Thanks for providing your misunderstanding for the record, cinc. I'll concede that perhaps you sincerely misunderstood and didn't purposely lie. But, you're wrong - no one ever meant that.
If there are thousands of such posts, surely can provide one example.
September 23, 2016 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...
"btw, I've always liked Huckabee but I've always considered Santorum nauseating."
No, I don't. As I've said before, Trump doesn't have the temperament, judgement or self-control necessary to be President. At the same time, I have no doubt he will win.
Problem: Clinton is even worse.
America is under a curse because it has embraced the gay agenda. That is why our leadership choices are so objectionable.
Let's put it this way: Trump is outside the box, Clinton is the box. America wants how the box, no matter it takes. This where 8 years of the most incompetent President in history has brought us.
Look at the RCP electoral count. Right now, the score is Hillary 272, Trump 267. so, based on that, only one state needs to flip between now and the election to make Trump.
If you're a Dem, it gets scarier.
The RCP findings are based on an average of polls over several weeks and things are moving in Trump's direction
So, at this time, Trump may be winning
Further, pollsters have no idea how many people, out of embarrassment, won't admit they'll vote for him but will do so in the voting booth. It's likely a significant swath.
September 23, 2016 9:26 PM
goody goody gumdrops said...
Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8 — but one man is pretty sure:
Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984.
He explained that his decision isn't based on horse-race polls, shifting demographics or his own political opinions. Rather, he uses a system of true/false statements he calls the "Keys to the White House" to determine his predicted winner.
And this year, he says, Donald Trump is the favorite to win.
"What about Donald Trump on the other side? He's not affiliated with the sitting party, but has his campaign been an enigma in terms of your ability to assess this election?
Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860.
We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it."
We're a little bit less than seven weeks out from the election today. Who do you predict will win in November?
Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory. Remember, six keys and you're out, and right now the Democrats are out — for sure — five keys.
Key 1 is the party mandate — how well they did in the midterms. They got crushed.
Key number 3 is, the sitting president is not running.
Key number 7, no major policy change in Obama's second term like the Affordable Care Act.
Key number 11, no major smashing foreign policy success.
And Key number 12, Hillary Clinton is not a Franklin Roosevelt.
One more key and the Democrats are down, and we have the Gary Johnson Key. One of my keys would be that the party in power gets a "false" if a third-party candidate is anticipated to get 5 percent of the vote or more. In his highest polling, Gary Johnson is at about 12 to 14 percent. My rule is that you cut it in half. That would mean that he gets six to seven, and that would be the sixth and final key against the Democrats.
So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory. But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory, because I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor. So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way. Nobody should be complacent, no matter who you're for, you gotta get out and vote."
September 24, 2016 8:47 AM
still going down said...
what a great idea - a blog where you can teach the facts!!
here's a fact: more whites are killed by police every year than blacks
true, blacks are a smaller percent of the overall population but they also represent a larger portion of the criminal activity
it's just a fact
and police aren't making that criminal activity up
it's reported by law-abiding African American citizens who simply want to raise their families in peace
so, what's all the rioting about?
I personally don't pledge allegiance to an idol, such as a flag
but to not do so to protest the racism of a nation that has twice elected a black President is ridiculous
we live in ridiculous times
when the SCOTUS has ruled that guys who like to rub themselves on each other is marriage and when states rule that bakers must, under governmental coercion, make cakes to celebrate this perversion
and people who sneak into our country illegally are a constituent group
and people whose religion requires them to work to destroy our constitution are seen by the media as having a "constitutional right" to be allowed in
and our choice for President is between corrupt and crazy
Look, there's even "Ransomed Heart Ministries" with a prayer you can try.
Good luck, buddy!
September 24, 2016 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...
"here's a fact: more whites are killed by police every year than blacks"
And here's another fact: there are many more white people in the US than black people. What counts is a comparison of both police killings and population by race.
The writer at the National Review, who studied and teaches law, is a spin artist, not a statistician.
His claim that comparing the number of people who are killed by police by race while taking into account the number of people of each race in the population is "statistical fiddling" makes his lack of statistics comprehension plainly evident.
And you have fallen for his ignorant spin.
The fact is "data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers."
Not only do you fail at reading comprehension, you fail at mathematics and statistics comprehension too.
September 24, 2016 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...
As you are well aware, this was discussed adequately in the article. You're a liar
September 24, 2016 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...
"Oh goodness gracious.
Here, maybe one of these will help you.
Good luck, buddy!"
Thanks for the sentiment but as Mary Chapin Carpenter sang, "luck is just a waste of time"
and, besides that, I'm fine
truth of the matter is that the curse on this nation will only be lifted by national repentance
playing games with magic won't help
September 24, 2016 11:56 PM
Captain Obvious said...
The truth of the matter is curses aren't real.
September 25, 2016 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...
you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground
that's real, and the truth of the matter
September 25, 2016 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...
"and, besides that, I'm fine"
Maybe you are fine, other than your hocus-pocus belief "America is under a curse."
And you believe I am lying about mathematical principles while believing your lawyer spin artist is not, however, reading his piece anyone can see just exactly how much "statistical fiddling" he does.
The fact remains cops kill higher percentages of the black population than they kill of the white population and no amount of his spin and/or his "statistical fiddling" changes that fact.
September 26, 2016 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...
It is simply a fact that blacks, and particularly young black men, engage in lawless conduct, very much including violent conduct, at rates (by percentage of population) significantly higher than do other racial or ethnic groups. This is not a matter of conjecture. Crime gets reported by victims; the police don’t invent it, they investigate it. Overwhelmingly, the victims of black crime are black people. If African-American parents were really having “the talk” that is pertinent to protecting their children, it would have to involve the reality that those children are overwhelmingly more likely to be shot by other black youths. The police are having “police involved” confrontations with young black men largely because black communities demand police protection — and understandably so.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440361/police-shootings-black-white-media-narrative-population-difference
September 26, 2016 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...
That's the same crap from the same article and the author of it is still the one doing the "statistical fiddling."
The fact is black folks are killed by cops 2.5 times more often than white folks are, even law abiding ones like Philandro Castile.
September 26, 2016 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...
"Same crap"? Is this the new TTF term for facts? Contrary to your dishonest demagoguery, law-abiding black citizens want to live in safe communities and don't consider a factual assessment of crime in their inner city neighborhoods run by Democrats to be "crap"?
September 26, 2016 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...
Yes, and those law abiding black citizens want the right to defend themselves. Philandro Castile had a permit to carry a weapon and he was killed for it.
And the orange skittle you plan to vote for beliefs cops should take guns away from Black people when he re-institutes the unconstitutional Stop and Frisk:
Wait. What’s that noise? It’s nothing, that’s what it is. Dead silence.
"“If they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person and they’ll look and they’ll take the gun away,” Trump said Thursday on Fox News, laying out his vision of how the practice works. “They’ll stop, they’ll frisk, and they’ll take the gun away and they won’t have anything to shoot with.”
“I mean, how it’s not being used in Chicago is ― to be honest with you, it’s quite unbelievable, and you know the police, the local police, they know who has a gun who shouldn’t be having the gun. They understand that,” Trump added."
That’s Donald Trump explicitly saying that he’s going to order cops to grab guns. So you’d think that, perhaps, it would elicit a bit of response from the nation’s most hyper, over-the-top organization on the topic of open and concealed carry. Let’s listen again …
Nope. Not a word.
"But spokespersons for the National Rifle Association, (which has endorsed Trump for president), the National Association for Gun Rights and the Second Amendment Foundation did not answer multiple requests for comment in response to Trump’s remarks.
Their silence was not new: Many of the same people arguing for more access to firearms don’t stand by that support when it comes to fellow citizens of color. "
We can all imagine what the NRA be saying if Hillary Clinton had made these comments.
September 26, 2016 4:52 PM
Headlines said...
ORANGE CRUSH: DON DESTROYED AT DEBATE ‘This Is As Good As It Gets’ LUNTZ PANEL: 17-3 For Hillary, ‘Birther Question Destroyed Him’ CNN Panel: 18-2 Hillary Clinton Obliterates Trump On Tax Returns. And Shady Business Practices Donald Lies About Iraq War Support And Climate Change Record And Stop-And-Frisk Peddles Fed Conspiracy Theory And Promotes His Hotels — Again! Refuses To Apologize For Birtherism Suggests Obama Isn’t His President
September 27, 2016 12:01 AM
Anonymous said...
In the first 26 minutes of the debate alone, Vox noted that Trump had interrupted Clinton a whopping 25 times...
Sage Boggs @sageboggs
My friends & I were taking shots every time Trump interrupted Clinton. My BFF Chad is dead :(
Good news for TTFers! Gay friendly prez candidate DJ Trump has the big mo. Right now, RCP has electoral at 188 for Hillary, 165 for DJT, rest is a toss but DJT has the momentum in most of 'em. What a relief! The MSM not long ago said the Democratic electoral lead was insurmountable. Thankfully, it looks like the life-long antigay Clinton clan will be stopped.
September 28, 2016 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...
So good of you to mention RCP, which shows Hillary Clinton's polling numbers are already rising to reflect her stellar conduct at the Presidential debate vs. Trump's juvenile 50+ interruptions and constant sniffles.
During the debate the world got to see just like Trump himself, his deplorable supporters were unable to follow debate rules and remain respectfully silent.
Of course only one poll will matter, and that's the one that will be taken nationwide on November 8.
September 28, 2016 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...
In front of the largest televised debate audience ever, Donald Trump blew it. Swing-state Republicans expressed frustration at his Monday night performance, characterizing it as a series of missed opportunities to move the dial in the places that will matter most to his electoral fortunes in November.
Name-checking battleground states like Michigan and Ohio was a wise move, state and local GOP leaders said. And Trump’s message on trade resonates in industrial areas across the Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin. But above all else, Republican officials and operatives lamented his lack of preparation and failure to reach persuadable voters, especially women and GOP-leaners who are not yet sold on him. Instead of prosecuting the case against Hillary Clinton — which would have helped accelerate the consolidation of the GOP base in states like Pennsylvania where once-reticent Republicans are beginning to fall in line behind the nominee — Trump got bogged down defending controversial decisions he’s made, from championing birtherism to making insensitive comments about women. “I think Trump should have been better prepared,” said Alan Novak, a former Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman. “Her preparation, strategically, helped her control the flow of that debate. It was like a basketball game when the pace is dictated by one team. She clearly did that. His focus was on himself, explaining too much about him. The opportunity was missed to go after vulnerable points on her.” “He started out having a little bit of a better [performance] than what I was anticipating, on trade issues I believe he had her back on her heels in the very first part,” said a veteran North Carolina Republican strategist, working on several races in the state. “There were a lot of opportunities, when they got into discussing cybersecurity, to inject emails, the whole narrative of her carelessness, national security matters and all that. It was a missed opportunity by Trump that comes from a lack of being prepared.”
In interviews with more than a dozen battleground state Republican leaders, there was widespread agreement that Trump’s core supporters would continue to stand by him, and that the election would remain close in their states — they characterized the debate as a failure to accomplish what he needed to, rather than a costly debacle. “Trump had the opportunity to raise questions about her emails, to raise questions about the Clinton Foundation, to raise questions about Benghazi, to raise questions about a host of other things, and he simply failed to do it,” said Charlie Gerow, a GOP strategist based in Pennsylvania. While Trump surrogates criticized moderator Lester Holt after the debate, “The burden was on him to do that,” said Gerow of Trump...
...Added Gerow, “My sense is, no minds were changed last night among those who had cemented their views…but among the 8, 10, 12, 15 percent who are still genuinely persuadable, I think last night slowed down, if not halted, Trump’s momentum. That’s, I think, the problem. He’s got to try to regain momentum. He has to get back on offense.”
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie".
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Gay friendly prez candidate DJ Trump...life-long antigay Clinton clan".
How is that lie appropriate Wyatt?
Trump has said he will appoint supreme court justices who will put back in place the gay marriage ban and Trump supports so called "religious freedom" laws that give christians the special right to discriminate against gays (but not gays the right to discriminate against christians). Clinton opposes laws that allow christians to discriminate against gays and supports the right of gays to marry.
Prior to those lies Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Trump will be the next president let's hope our Republic survives".
If you're sincerely concerned about Trump destroying your Republic why do you tell lies that promote the idea that Trump will be good for gays and Hillary not? If you really think Trump may destroy your Republic why have you since said "Good news...DJT has the momentum...What a relief!... Thankfully, it looks like...Clinton clan will be stopped".
So, were you lying when you said "Trump will be the next president let's hope our Republic survives" or are you lying now?
Lying Wyatt/bad anonymous happily contradicts himself whenever it suits his immediate desires. Wyatt never burdens himself with speaking the truth, any lie in service of his agenda is "appropriate" to him.
"The Arizona Republic editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different...
September 28, 2016 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...
"Many of the same people arguing for more access to firearms don’t stand by that support when it comes to fellow citizens of color.
We can all imagine what the NRA be saying if Hillary Clinton had made these comments."
interesting, the liberals who pant for gun bans don't favor gun control for minorities
I believe Trump is in favor of enforcing whatever laws exist
"Headlines said... ORANGE CRUSH: DON DESTROYED AT DEBATE"
goes to show what kind of media you follow
Hillary acted like an ass, with a grin frozen in place like the Joker's and wearing a bright red clown suit
if you think Monday's performance will convince anyone that want Hillary in their living nightly for the next 4 years, you're insane
the majority if poll taken after the debate say Trump won
CNN is the outlier
"In the first 26 minutes of the debate alone, Vox noted that Trump had interrupted Clinton a whopping 25 times..."
wow, that's whooping
but he had to
the moderator interrupted Trump at least that many times and interrupted Hillary, well, never
"RCP also shows the No Toss Up Electoral College map with Clinton/Kaine up 292 to 246 over Trump/Pence"
yes, it does
but Dems have argued for years that they hold such an overwhelming locked-in advantage that no Repub will ever win again
right now, Hillary's locked-in states are down to NY, Calif, MD & Vermont
the rest of the country is looking for change
she's scared
swing states tend to move in unison
"Of course only one poll will matter, and that's the one that will be taken nationwide on November 8."
this is what the scared side in every election tells themselves over and over
BOO!! “Trump had the opportunity to raise questions about her emails, to raise questions about the Clinton Foundation, to raise questions about Benghazi, to raise questions about a host of other things, and he simply failed to do it,”
oh, he'll have two other opportunities
don't despair, TTF
the gay-friendly Trump will win
"The Arizona Republic editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different..."
sure, makes sense
you've got conservatives ideals and you endorse the Red Madame Tse Tung?
"...Trump’s comments about weight, along with a long line of other incendiary comments about women, present another serious challenge for him in attracting female voters in November. Trump needs to gain support from moderate suburban women to ascend to the White House, but so far he has found little success with female voters, many of whom find the Republican nominee offensive and unacceptable. According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll released this week, 55 percent of women surveyed said they plan to vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Trump’s obsession with weight carries some irony for a candidate who boasts about his unhealthy eating habits, dining regularly on McDonald’s hamburgers and buckets of KFC fried chicken on his private jet. By his own public accounting of his medical health, Trump is just five pounds shy of being considered obese under the body mass index...
...Tim Miller, a longtime Republican strategist and a staunch Trump opponent who worked for Jeb Bush during the GOP primary campaign, said Trump’s insults about weight and other physical characteristics and his general lack of discipline raise serious questions about his temperament.
“He’s a middle schooler who is filled with insecurities and insults people to try to deal with his insecurities,” Miller said.
Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist, tweeted: “I’ve struggled w/weight issues all my life. And I agree. A man who shames and bullies a woman for her weight, isn’t even fit to be a man.”..."
September 29, 2016 7:46 AM
the slob slobbers said...
oh, he's not quite at a middle school level of maturity yet
but he hasn't made "a long line of incendiary comments about women"
he has made comments about individuals who happen to be women
but he's made plenty of immature insults directed at men too
when the MSM says that his insults of any women are directed at all women, it shows how sexist they are
"The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now.
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:
He is erratic....
He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief....
He traffics in prejudice...
His business career is checkered....
He isn't leveling with the American people....
He speaks recklessly....
He has coarsened the national dialogue...
He's a serial liar...."
Click the link if you care to read the details.
September 30, 2016 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...
"FiveThirtyEight 2016 Election forecast: Who will win the presidency?"
Nate Silver has changed this assessment almost weekly. It's not really of any worth until the day before the election.
"The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now."
oh, I agree with most of this
problem is, Hillary is just as problematic
let's compare, name after each is the least problem in this regard:
"He is erratic...."
Hillary is more cautious
"He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief...."
Trump has better leadership skills
"He traffics in prejudice..."
Trump has more of a record of positive dealings with people of diversity
"His business career is checkered...."
Hillary's "business career" is peddling influence, Trump has sold valuable services and been profitable
"He isn't leveling with the American people...."
he is doing so more than Hillary
"He speaks recklessly...."
advantage Hillary, she is very cautious
"He has coarsened the national dialogue..."
yes he has, advantage Hillary
"He's a serial liar...."
not really, Hillary is a pathological liar
score: Trump 5, Hillary 3
Trump's a disaster, Hillary's not the answer
either will cause estimable damage to our country
question is: under which will we survive?
not an easy answer
we would probably be stronger under Trump but not sure our national ideals would survive
and, to quote Jesus, what profit a man if he gained the whole world and lost his own soul?
we have four and a half weeks
September 30, 2016 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money
Before 6 a.m., Donald Trump proved Hillary Clinton’s point about his temperament
Related: Megyn Kelly Tells Team Trump To ‘Just Shut Up’ Already About Women’s Weight
Clinton Sees Post-Debate Bounce In State Polls
Trump Pleaded The Fifth 97 Times To Avoid Admitting To Adultery
Literally sticking their heads in the dirt: GOP Blocks Probes Into Trump-Russia Ties
Related: For First Time In Over 150 Years, Supreme Court Will Be Shorthanded On Election Day
September 30, 2016 1:17 PM
Anonymous said...
PORT CLINTON, Ohio - Every few minutes, the glass door of the Ottawa County Republicans' storefront office would swing open to admit a blast of humid air and another supplicant.
Word had gone forth: Headquarters had a new shipment.
"We just got a bunch, and were we ever tickled," Carolyn Adams, the county chairwoman, said one afternoon last week. "The first time, they only sent us 50, and they were gone in less than 24 hours. People were desperate."
Now she could meet the demand for Donald Trump yard signs, and it was steady - one street-level indicator that the real estate developer has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in Ohio. He was leading in the most contested battleground state by an average of 2 percentage points in recent polls.
Over the last 30 elections, Ohio's vote for president has more closely reflected the national voting average than any other state, and it went with the winner every four years from 1964 to 2012, according to elections scholar Kyle Kondik's The Bellwether: Why Ohio Picks the President.
And Ottawa County, along the Lake Erie shoreline southeast of Toledo, is the only one of Ohio's 88 counties to always match the winner-picking streak, from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama.
September 30, 2016 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...
"Imagine a woman who showed up [to a presidential debate] unprepared, sniffling like a coke addict and interrupting her opponent 70 times. Let's further imagine that she's had five kids by three different men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, paid zero federal taxes and rooted for the housing crisis in which many thousands of families lost their homes. Wait...there's more: she has never held any elected office in her life."
"On Monday night, nine-year-old Zianna Oliphant took the stand at a city council meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina following the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, to talk about growing up in the city. Her testimony says everything."
"At 1:34 p.m. Sunday, Donald Trump’s second ex-wife, Marla Maples, tweeted a photograph of a pumpkin patch. Does what happened next contain clues that confirm she anonymously mailed Trump’s 1995 tax return to The New York Times?...
...On Saturday night, the Times published Trump’s 1995 tax return, a three-page document that revealed he had declared a $916 million loss, which, in the Times’ assessment, means he then potentially could have legally avoided “paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.”...
...The documents were mailed with a New York City postmark and a Trump Tower return address to Times reporter Susanne Craig, who covers City Hall...
...Besides Trump, who would be in possession of such a valuable document?
Maples would.
In 1995, Trump was married to the zen actress (their holy union would come to its unfortunate conclusion two years later). She signed the tax returns “Marla Trump” in her delicate script....
...Maples returned from visiting family in Georgia with Tiffany to New York, where she now lives, on September 20th. We met the 21st. The Times received the tax returns the 23rd.
Which brings us to Sunday’s tweet.
Maples is either genuinely talking about Kabbalah, or she’s coyly copping to distributing the most important document yet published relating to her ex’s murky financial history.
Either way, Marla Maples is already great."
October 04, 2016 7:30 AM
at a loss for words said...
916 million?
that's how much Trump spent setting up businesses that now employ tens of thousands
18 years?
depends how much profit he had the next year
if he made a billion the next year, it's all gone
the press is acting like this is some arcane tax game Trump played
truth is: he simply deducted amounts he spent to make money
that has been deductible since the tax code began early in the 20th century
the carryforward provisions simply recognize that expenses in connection with producing income should match over the years the income is produced, to the extent possible
Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama all pay the amount of tax they owe under the law
not any more or less
why shouldn't Trump?
also, under Obama the government has lost trillions
makes 916 million seem trivial
October 04, 2016 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...
"Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama all pay the amount of tax they owe under the law"
Another lie by a lying liar who seems to think there was a 34% bracket for couples earning in the $10 million range.
"Hillary and Bill Clinton released their 2015 tax returns on Friday, showing they paid $3.6 million in taxes on adjusted gross income of $10.6 million.
The release appeared to be aimed at drawing renewed attention to Donald Trump's refusal to release his own tax records.
The Clintons deducted $2.24 million last year, and paid an effective federal tax rate of 34.2 percent and an effective combined tax rate of 43.2 percent. They gave 9.8 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity, according to a campaign release.
Of the the $1,042,000 the Clintons gave to charity as listed on their return, $1 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation. The other $42,000 went to Desert Classic Charities.
Hillary Clinton also listed $1.475 million in gross income from speaking, and Bill reported $5.25 million in gross income from speaking. No details were provided on those speaking engagements."
October 04, 2016 3:08 PM
svelte_brunette said...
"the press is acting like this is some arcane tax game Trump played
truth is: he simply deducted amounts he spent to make money"
Anyone familiar with 1040 Schedule D is well aware of the concept of deducting losses and using them to offset gains. It doesn't take a "genius" to figure that out. You just have to follow the instructions for the little boxes on the form.
This is not what Trump did though. It appears that what happened is entirely different. Normally, if you default on a billion dollar property loan, you have to pay taxes on that money you received as a loan as if it were income - afterall, you were given a billion dollars, and now you don't have to give it back. It appears that what Trump did was form a corporation with the failing properties, forfeited a billion dollars of depreciation on those properties, then sold those properties to someone else, and then kept the losses on those properties as a tax benefit for himself. He stiffed the new owners out of the depreciation, got paid millions for the properties, and then got nearly two decades of (federal) tax free living.
So yeah, it does look like some arcane tax game Trump played.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 05, 2016 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...
"Anyone familiar with 1040 Schedule D is well aware of the concept of deducting losses and using them to offset gains. It doesn't take a "genius" to figure that out. You just have to follow the instructions for the little boxes on the form."
not to mention Schedules C and E
"This is not what Trump did though. It appears that what happened is entirely different. Normally, if you default on a billion dollar property loan, you have to pay taxes on that money you received as a loan as if it were income - afterall, you were given a billion dollars, and now you don't have to give it back. It appears that what Trump did was form a corporation with the failing properties, forfeited a billion dollars of depreciation on those properties, then sold those properties to someone else, and then kept the losses on those properties as a tax benefit for himself. He stiffed the new owners out of the depreciation, got paid millions for the properties, and then got nearly two decades of (federal) tax free living."
this is equal parts conjecture and misinterpretation
costs of producing income have always been deductible
if the Clintons have a problem with that, they've had 25 years in public "service" to propose changes
but, of course, they wouldn't because everyone would find that foolish
the whole tax issue is Dem demagoguery
"So yeah, it does look like some arcane tax game Trump played."
nope
and I can assured you that an NOL of that size was audited by the IRS twenty years ago
they either made a change or he was entitled to the deductions
either way, Trump has paid the right amount of tax
just like Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama
"Have a nice day,"
don't tax your brain with any more spin
October 05, 2016 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...
brilliant anon:
"Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama all pay the amount of tax they owe under the law"
not-brilliant anon:
"Another lie by a lying liar who seems to think there was a 34% bracket for couples earning in the $10 million range"
where's the lie? are you saying those people paid more or less than the owed, because most Americans pay the amount they owe after taking the deductions they are entitled to
"Clintons made $10.6 million in 2015, paid federal rate of 34%"
obviously, Trump has deductions because he had expenses of producing income he received from those he provided services for
whereas the Clintons don't because they don't do anything but peddle influence and take bribes
there really aren't many costs involved with such activity
"Hillary and Bill Clinton released their 2015 tax returns on Friday, showing they paid $3.6 million in taxes on adjusted gross income of $10.6 million."
maybe, if they ever get brought to justice in a court of law, they'll give it all back
"The release appeared to be aimed at drawing renewed attention to Donald Trump's refusal to release his own tax records."
the Clintons are lifelong politicians who have arranged their affairs for public consumption
Trump has run profitable businesses that have provided tens of thousands of jobs to U.S. citizens, all of whom paid taxes
"Of the the $1,042,000 the Clintons gave to charity as listed on their return, $1 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation."
ah, the Foundation
this is a vehicle for them to keep their minions loyal by providing lifetime employment
the same people moved from Bill's WH staff to the Foundation to Hillary's Senate staff to the Foundation to Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign to her State Dept staff to the Foundation to her 2016 presidential campaign staff
sounds like personal inurement rather charity to me
"Hillary Clinton also listed $1.475 million in gross income from speaking, and Bill reported $5.25 million in gross income from speaking. No details were provided on those speaking engagements."
have you heard Hillary speak? she wasn't paid for her eloquence, it's a form of bribery
ask Bernie Sanders
October 05, 2016 10:47 AM
svelte_brunette said...
"this is equal parts conjecture and misinterpretation"
It is no secret that Trump financed his doomed empire with high interest loans that he later defaulted on. The amounts of those loans are known,and it is no secret the casinos failed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened - once you know the rules of the tax game -it's called math.
"costs of producing income have always been deductible"
No one is arguing that it is not. But defaulting on a loan is not "producing income," no matter how you spin it. I do not know the ins and outs of real estate tawell enough to know whether or not what Trump did was legal, or if the IRS was unable to follow his shell game well enough to figure out what he was up to.
If Trump released his full taxes like the other candidates have, he could put all of the analysis to rest.
As it looks right now, it appears he is not such a great businessman at all, but a genius at sticking others with the bills for his failed ventures. It explains why US banks don't give him loans anymore and he's had to go to Russia for cash to support his failures.
After Trump won the primary, and the Republican party started paying his campaign bills, he raised the rent in his own offices by a factor of 5, (despite using fewer people) and is now making a tidy profit from gullible Republican donors.
I have no doubt Trump will profit from his latest escapades. My only question is who will be stuck with the bill.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 05, 2016 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...
""Of the the $1,042,000 the Clintons gave to charity as listed on their return, $1 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation."
ah, the Foundation
this is a vehicle for them to keep their minions loyal by providing lifetime employment"
More lying spin trying to deflect the fact the private Donald J. Trump Foundation is in legal trouble these days for being used as as Trump's personal piggy bank.
"...The American Institute of Philanthropy’s “Charity Watch” gives the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating for its efficiency (the top rating is A+). It says the foundation spends 88 percent of its expenses on programs and 12 percent on overhead. It also says the Clinton Foundation spends just $2 to raise $100."...
"The Donald J. Trump Foundation is not eligible to be rated by CharityWatch because it is structured as a private foundation. CharityWatch primarily rates public charities, as well as some social welfare and veterans organizations that broadly solicit the public for donations.
The governing board of the Trump Foundation consists of Trump family members and an employee of The Trump Organization (Trump’s for-profit business conglomerate) that control the Foundation’s grant-making activities, as is typical for private foundations. This differs from public charities whose operations usually are directed by independent boards with no or few related parities..."
How is that possible if the Donald "hires the best people?" Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself not catch that error?
Apparently the Donald is not as brilliant as he imagines himself to be.
It will be interesting to learn what else the investigation of the private Trump Foundation will reveal.
October 05, 2016 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...
"Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself not catch that error? "
Oops typo corrected below:
Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself catch that error?
October 05, 2016 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...
you are only allowed to deduct expenses for ventures at which you are "at-risk"
again, an NOL as large as this would invariably been examined by the IRS
your speculation that he made his affairs so confusing that the IRS couldn't determine if he was "at-risk" is, frankly, insulting to the professionals there and you have no basis for the statement other than bias
the IRS is actually bound by confidentiality so we actually don't know if Hillary's tax returns are fake
wild speculation, sure, but no different from what you're saying
truth is, Trump has filed FCC disclosure forms that will tell voters everything they need to know about his financial status
what Dems are really looking for is how much tax he paid and how much charitable deductions he took so they can demagogue, kind of like they're doing now
take, for example, "he hasn't paid anything toward veterans" or "he may not have paid any tax for 18 years"
what these baseless statements are intended to do is provoke a responses where he discloses his tax information
this is not required under law and the tradition only started in the overkill reaction to the abuses of Richard Nixon
if Hillary thinks it should be required, she can propose that
but probably more relevant would be all her e-mails related to Foundation business, her deleted State Dept e-mails, and the content of speeches she has given to special interest groups and banks
just ask Bernie Sanders
and Julian Assange
the latest report is that she wanted him hit with a drone to keep him quiet
October 05, 2016 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...
"Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself catch that error?"
actually, it's not uncommon for non-profits, even those set up by tax whizzes, to neglect this, as it really isn't used for anything
most states have a small fee but there is no tax
most Foundations have a law firm do it for every state they solicit in
NY, however, is generally more hostile to charities and has more stringent rules than other places
but, as usually happens in these cases, they've informed the Foundation what steps to take and they undoubtedly will
believe it or not, it's not illegal or improper to donate to political campaigns
climate change? the classic non-verifiable hypothesis
however, if you want to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, the two best ways would be a massive investment in constructing new nuclear power plants and a massive tree-planting effort
For most of Barack Obama's White House career, less than half of Americans have approved of the job he is doing. Now, in his last year in office, as attention turns to finding his successor and evaluating his historical legacy, Americans are seeing him in a more positive light.
Obama's recent approval ratings have consistently been above 50% and among the best of his second term. That rise has mostly been fueled by increased support from Democrats of all ideological orientations, especially conservative Democrats. As a result, the gap between Democrats who are conservative and those who are moderate and liberal has narrowed.
The increase among Democratic groups has likely been aided by the presidential campaign, which serves to activate Americans' partisanship and thus cause them to view politicians of their preferred party more positively.
The most obvious historical parallel to Obama's eighth-year increase from below 50% approval to above it is that of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's job approval ratings pushed above 50% in 1988, creating a favorable political environment for George H.W. Bush to win the political equivalent of a third Reagan term. Democrats surely hope that they can capitalize on a similar trend and see the party win a rare third consecutive presidential election.
October 06, 2016 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...
his approval rating is up because of the contrast with his two probable successors
it's not complicated
his economic record is atrocious, the world has become a much more dangerous place, Russia and Iran are ascending, U. S. race relations have worsened and poverty has increased
we couldn't survive another eight years
but at least he's not venally corrupt like Clinton or lacking self-control and empathy like Trump
"PGN reached out to the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, to discuss LGBT issues in advance of next month’s election. Clinton provided PGN this exclusive op-ed detailing her LGBT-rights record and her goals for future LGBT-equality efforts. The offer remains open for Trump.
This is the first time a major-party presidential candidate has written an op-ed for an LGBT newspaper. As such, this piece will kick off our annual LGBT History Month Project coverage, which will run weekly through the end of October.
More than half a century ago, at Independence Hall, participants at the first Annual Reminder march picketed, chanted and sang. They did this to show their fellow Philadelphians that the LGBT community lacked fundamental civil rights.
In the decades since those protests, our country has come a long way. Marriage equality is the law of the land. This year, the last state law prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting was finally struck down. And President Obama signed an executive order protecting federal workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. We should celebrate that progress.
But the simple truth is that even now, in 2016, there are still too many states in America where LGBT people can be fired or evicted from their home because of who they are or who they love. Pennsylvania is one of them. Here, you can get married on Sunday and fired on Monday, just for being gay or transgender.
That goes against everything we stand for as a country.
We need to act on the federal level to take on discrimination in all its forms. That’s what I’ll do as President — with your help.
But first, we have to win this election. Donald Trump must not be elected president. He would rip away so much of the progress we’ve made. He would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn marriage equality and rescind many of President Obama’s executive orders — including those protecting LGBT people.
It’s not just Trump’s policies that reveal the kind of president he would be. So does his choice of running mate. Mike Pence is one of the most anti-LGBT public officials in America. As governor of Indiana, Pence supported a bill that legalized discrimination against LGBT people. As a member of Congress, he voted against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” saying doing so would be “social experimentation.” And he’s said that homosexuality would bring about “societal collapse.”
That’s why the stakes in this election are so high.
If I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, I’ll protect the progress we’ve fought so hard to achieve — and I’ll keep fighting until every American can live free from discrimination and prejudice.
That means working to pass the Equality Act. It would finally provide LGBT people full federal nondiscrimination protections in housing, employment and so much more. I know that differences of opinion on LGBT equality still exist in the hearts of some Americans, but they should not exist under our laws. As president, I’ll be your partner in bringing about the vision of the inclusive nation that advocates, activists and allies have been seeking for decades..."
October 06, 2016 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...
"...I also believe we must address the ongoing issue of violence against the LGBT community. LGBT people are now more likely than any other group to be the target of a hate crime. America saw the effects of hate in Orlando, with the attack on the Pulse nightclub — the deadliest mass shooting by a single person in our history. The danger is compounded for LGBT people of color, who face intersectional pressures and dangers, particularly transgender people of color. Last year, more than 20 transgender women were killed in America. Recently, three were murdered right here in Philadelphia.
We need to stop the violence and save LGBT lives. We need to collect more data around gender identity and sexual orientation in hate crimes, so we can stop them in a smarter, more effective way. And we need to finally pass common-sense reforms to address the gun violence epidemic. Along with the vast majority of Americans, I believe that we can protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while still making sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands.
Finally, we need to continue our fight to achieve our goal of an AIDS-free generation. HIV and AIDS still disproportionately impact gay and bisexual men, communities of color, transgender people and young people. We need to increase research, expand the use of effective prevention medications like PrEP, cap out-of-pocket drug costs and reform outdated HIV-criminalization laws.
Like many, I’ve lost friends and loved ones to AIDS. We owe it to them — the people we love and miss, and the people whose names we’ll never know — to continue this fight.
As First Lady and Senator, I fought to significantly expand funding for AIDS research. As Secretary of State, I changed the rules so that State Department employees in same-sex relationships were treated the same as their colleagues and so that transgender Americans could obtain passports that reflected their true gender identity. So these fights aren’t new to me.
And as president, I’ll keep fighting for LGBT rights, because — as I told the world in one of the most important speeches I gave as Secretary — they are human rights. And I won’t quit until all our laws reflect that basic reality."
October 06, 2016 9:00 PM
Hillary is horrible said...
"He would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn marriage equality and rescind many of President Obama’s executive orders"
thanks, Hillary, for reminding everyone why we might want to consider voting for Trump instead of you
"It’s not just Trump’s policies that reveal the kind of president he would be. So does his choice of running mate"
good point
choosing a VP is our first chance to see what kind of decision making skills a potential president has
Trump got an A plus
you got a D minus
really, you almost had to feel sorry for that nervous nelly you chose
he was trying so hard to Mr Tough Guy
it was pathetic
"Mike Pence is one of the most anti-LGBT public officials in America"
not true
he wants to help
he supports free reparative therapy, funded by the Feds, at mental asylums across the country
"As governor of Indiana, Pence supported a bill that legalized discrimination against LGBT people"
declining to participate in immoral sexual arrangements should not be considered discrimination
to do so is an abomination
"As a member of Congress, he voted against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity"
so he's a free speech advocate
good for him
"He opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” saying doing so would be “social experimentation.”"
you mean that policy your husband created to shut gays up?
Pence supports a Clinton policy and this is the thanks he gets
"And he’s said that homosexuality would bring about “societal collapse.”"
that's what seems to follow
the U.S. government has sided with a "right" to gay marriage and the result is that we have a choice between horrible you and horrible Trump as our next Prez
October 06, 2016 9:23 PM
svelte_brunette said...
"climate change? the classic non-verifiable hypothesis"
Um, no. There are a number of lines of evidence that provide verification of anthropomorphic climate change, including, but not limited to:
The C12/C14 ratio in the atmosphere which follows the burn rate of fossil fuels.
The sun cycle activity variation which does not correlate with the increasing temps.
Ocean acidification due to CO2 from fossil fuels.
Disappearing glaciers / rising sea levels.
Shifting seasons and migration patterns.
Continuing increases in global temperatures, more record highs, fewer record lows, and no end in sight for continued rise.
At this point, it can be reasonably argued that, though high, these are still statically possible, just very, very unlikely. But when we combine these facts with our knowledge of physics, and how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, we really can't be surprised these things are happening, in fact, we should EXPECT them.
If you want a "classic non-verifiable hypothesis," look for statements like this classic:
"you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground"
As for planting trees to solve this problem, it won't be nearly enough. There are some "order of magnitude" estimates we can look at to see why. Perhaps after my friends' wedding this weekend, I'll post them.
"the U.S. government has sided with a "right" to gay marriage and the result is that we have a choice between horrible you and horrible Trump as our next Prez"
You're not really much of one for "cause and effect" are you?
Trump is on the Republican ticket because for the last 3 decades Republicans have pandered to the most gullible portion of the electorate, namely those who have little capacity for analytical thought, and are easily swayed by catchy slogans like "Read my lips..." "You betcha!," and "We're gonna build a wall!" without regard to the long-term consequences of short-sighted Republican policies.
Republican politicians have cultivated this base for decades. They are now reaping what they have sown.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 07, 2016 12:56 AM
unnecessarily said...
"At this point, it can be reasonably argued that, though high, these are still statically possible"
that's true, thanks for having the integrity to concede this
"just very, very unlikely"
as any gay afficionado of musicals will tell you, impossible things are happening all the time
it practically defines existence
"But when we combine these facts with our knowledge of physics, and how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, we really can't be surprised these things are happening, in fact, we should EXPECT them."
except "these things" aren't happening
that's the point
everything is "these things" to AGW adherents
every anomaly is considered proof of pending catastrophe
you would have thought the cessation of global warming from 1998-2014 or the unprecedented placidity of the Eastern seaboard for the last 11 years would have given these people pause but, to them, evidence is irrelevant
they just start adjusting data and making up theories why it doesn't fit their predetermined theories
and look at this:
"The sun cycle activity variation which does not correlate with the increasing temps"
talk about chutzpah
it doesn't correlate perfectly but it does so better than human caused carbon emissions, which have continued unabated while there are large swaths of time without temperature increases
"If you want a "classic non-verifiable hypothesis," look for statements like this classic:
"you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground""
while this could never be absolutely proven, there are many things to indicate it is so
it can be reasonably argued that, though high, these are still statically possible, just very, very unlikely
right?
"As for planting trees to solve this problem, it won't be nearly enough"
actually, if the alarmists are correct, nothing will be enough
combining it with a massive switch to nuclear power would indeed eliminate carbon in the atmosphere
"Perhaps after my friends' wedding this weekend, I'll post them"
is that a wedding or a "wedding"?
"the U.S. government has sided with a "right" to gay marriage and the result is that we have a choice between horrible you and horrible Trump as our next Prez"
You're not really much of one for "cause and effect" are you?
oh, OK, here you go:
there is nothing in the constitution that could be argued to produce this right
it was decided to appease certain elements
the same thinking has produced two ignorant candidates who both threaten the survival of our constitution
"Trump is on the Republican ticket because for the last 3 decades Republicans have pandered to the most gullible portion of the electorate, namely those who have little capacity for analytical thought, and are easily swayed by catchy slogans like "Read my lips..." "You betcha!," and "We're gonna build a wall!" without regard to the long-term consequences of short-sighted Republican policies"
there you go again
chutzpah
how about:
"it depends what your definition of is is"
"if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
"if you built a business, you didn't do that"
"I takes a village"
"never waste a catastrophe"
"elections have consequences so stop being so partisan"
"he MAY have paid no tax for 18 years"
"I was only joking when I said let's send a drone to take out Julian Assange"
Democratic politicians have cultivated this base for decades. They are now reaping what they have sown.
"Have a nice day"
yeah, don't have any unnecessary surgery
October 07, 2016 9:25 AM
harumph! said...
"If you want a "classic non-verifiable hypothesis," look for statements like this classic:
"you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground""
you're right Unnecessarily
it takes chutzpah to say something like this
these are the same people who always say "the arc of history bends toward justice"
"these are the same people who always say "the arc of history bends toward justice"
they think that happens by accident?"
Of course it doesn't happen by accident. It happens through the persistent efforts of liberal minded people trying to better the lives of people by changing an unjust status quo - a status quo that is invariably kept in place by conservatives who bring up every excuse they can think of to justify everything from slavery, Jim Crow, keeping gay people from serving their country and getting married, "law and order" as a pretext for "stop and frisk" and others, including inter-racial marriage.
"there is nothing in the constitution that could be argued to produce this right"
Justice Kennedy pointed to both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. On constitutional matters, he has a whole lot more authority than a bunch of nameless, conservative internet trolls.
My friends are two lovely people who have had to deal with a lot of difficulties in their lives, and it has affected them deeply. I am glad they found each other, as I think their strengths compliment each other and I think they will each be a positive force in each other's lives for very different reasons. It's great that they have the opportunity to find joy together. Their pastor is an amazing guy. He grew up as a missionary kid to Evangelical parents in Uraguay. He saw first hand how his father used "faith healing" as a trick to win converts to the faith and extract as much income as possible from them. He didn't grow up jaded and cynical though, even after being called out for execution. He found a deeper meaning for God, and a stronger foundation for his faith.
Thank you, Justice Kennedy, and four other justices, for making this possible.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 07, 2016 11:04 AM
Lament of the lawyers of the GOP #1 lying liar: said...
"BuzzFeed and several other news outlets were able to obtain the court filings related to several of Donald Trump’s bankruptcies in the early 1990s. As news outlets begin to dig, Twitter user @nycsouthpaw immediately noticed something in the 1993 filing—Donald Trump’s lawyer admitted they had to meet with him in pairs because of his penchant for lying.
The key part can be seen here, but I’ve transcribed for easier reading. Check out this exchange in the deposition of Trump bankruptcy lawyer Patrick T. McGhan, key parts emphasized:
Q: You had a meeting on June 16, 1990?
A: Right. Same identical entry. Right. Okay. For three quarters of an hour with Donald, right.
Q: Did Mr. Miller always do everything together with you when he was active in this case?
A: Not everything, but we—it’s always been our practice to make sure two people are present, and we don’t have a problem of people lying.
Q: You are meeting with your client?
A: That’s right. Our client. Hey, Trump is a leader in the field of expert—he’s an expert at interpreting things. Let’s put it that way.
Q: That’s interestingly put. As I recall in your letter to Mr. Descantis, which we marked yesterday, you indicated the policy of your office was to have two attorneys present for meeting with public officials?
A: Correct.
Q: Here you are meeting with your client?
A: That’s right.
Q: Was it necessary for both you and Mr. Miller to always attend the meeting —
A: We always do that.
Q: Always?
A: We tried to do it with Donald always if we could because Donald says certain things and then has a lack of memory.
There you have it. Donald Trump’s own lawyers could not meet with him individually because of his history of lying to them."
That's actually three former FBI agents mentioned in an opinion piece, not exactly "news."
Oh sure, just like the military was supposed to suffer personnel losses in recruitment and retention when DADT was repealed according to Peter Sprigg
No such losses have occurred.
Instead of your opinion piece that mentions complaints of three former FBI agents, be sure to let us know if any current FBI agents actually do "revolt."
There is nothing to fear here but that doesn't stop you and your fear-mongering friends like Peter Sprigg from trying to whip some up.
The 6-year-old girl turned to her mother and asked, “What does it mean to grab somebody by the p---y?”
Rachael MacIsaac Parker thought she had misheard her daughter. “What?” she recalled responding. “What do you mean?”
Then she saw the television screen. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them,” Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, was saying in a 2005 recording. “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
Fame gave him power over the opposite sex, Trump was bragging to Billy Bush, then the host of “Access Hollywood.”
“Grab them by the p---y,” he said, caught on a hot mic. “You can do anything.”...
...The recording isn’t the first example of Trump employing language that has worried parents. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in March, Cokie Roberts pressed the candidate about how he influences young minds.
“There’ve been incidents of white children pointing to their darker-skinned classmates and saying, ‘You’ll be deported when Donald Trump is president,’ ” Roberts said in a reference to Trump’s promise to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants if he becomes president. “There’ve been incidents of white kids at basketball games holding up signs to teams which have Hispanic kids on them, saying, ‘We’re going to build a wall to keep you out.’ ”
She asked if he was proud.
“I think your question is a very nasty question,” Trump replied, “and I’m not proud of it because I didn’t even hear of it, okay?” [Head buried in dirt excuse]
Parker, an assistant principal at an elementary school in Louisiana, pulled her daughter close. “I told her we needed to talk about our bodies,” she said, “and that sometimes bad people touch our bodies without permission.”
She said her daughter asked if Trump was a bad guy. “What do you even say to that?” she remarked. [Yes, he is very bad!]
The decade-old footage of Trump has upended the presidential campaign since The Washington Post first published it Friday afternoon, prompting dozens of Republicans to call for the candidate to exit the race. But it also has presented parents nationwide with a vexing quandary: how and whether to explain the jarring remarks to their children.
Trump’s comments dominated television and the Internet on Friday night and all of Saturday — a digital universe open to any kid with a device and a connection.
Teddy Mott, a freshman at a high school in the District, first saw part of the transcript on Instagram. Curious, he Googled “Donald Trump” on his iPhone and the phrase “Grab them by the p---y” came up.
He thought, “What?”
“You hear guys at school talking about women, but you don’t hear them talking like that,” Mott, 14, told a reporter as his mother listened. “You hear, ‘Am I out of the doghouse?’ ”
Did the exchange affect his view of women?
He paused to think.
“You respect them as people,” he said. “My mom taught me that. You look at them from afar. You look into their eyes first.”
For some families, the remarks have prompted emotional reactions. Keisha Robinson, an employee at a nonprofit organization in Arizona, said “grab them by the p---y” brought her 18-year-old daughter to tears.
“She came to me and said, ‘Oh, my gosh. Did you hear what he said?’ ” recalled Robinson, 38, a supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. “She’s terrified about what this means for women. She’s scared people think that behavior is okay.”
Michael Clifford, 37, an author who lives in Los Angeles, said he turns off the television when Trump is talking. “It’s a fatherly instinct to shield them from that negativity,” he said of his two boys, ages 2 and 4 months. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Oh, that’s just real guy talk,’ and that disgusts me. I’ve never hung around guys like that.”
Trump went where many begged him not to go: Diving into scandals, real or fake
This debate is one for the record books
DON IN FLAMES
Trump Vows ‘Jail’ For Hillary
Shrugs Off Sex Assault Brag: Just ‘Locker Room Talk’!
Admits To Dodging Income Tax
INTRIGUE: Pence Cancels Fundraiser
Earlier: Trump Throws Him Under The Bus
DONALD DIRTY: ‘Crudest Debate Ever’
‘Disaster’
Trump attacks Anderson Cooper over Clinton email controversy
REPORT: Paul Ryan May Revoke Endorsement
Trump Tried To Seat Bill’s Accusers In ‘Family Box’ — Thwarted By Debate Commission
Melania Trump sports 'pussy-bow' at debate
Backs Assad!
Lies About Iraq — Again
October 10, 2016 8:33 AM
And don't forget... said...
How Many Times Did Donald Trump Sniffle In the Second Presidential Debate?
"...The number we tallied is 93 sniffles for Donald Trump. That’s about one sniffle per minute, as the debate went slightly over the allotted 90 minutes.
The density of sniffs decreased over the course of the debate — in the finale third, the rate at which Trump sniffled went down pretty significantly compared with the early goings. Just as we couldn’t guess at why he was sniffling in the first place, we also couldn’t guess about why the sniffles would come less often as the debate goes on.
So there you go."
October 10, 2016 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...
Eric Holder @EricHolder
So @realDonaldTrump will ORDER his AG to take certain actions-When Nixon tried that his AG courageously resigned. Trump is dangerous/unfit 9:41 PM - 9 Oct 2016
October 10, 2016 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...
Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63
Trump's "President Day 1" checklist: 1 Jail opponent. 2 Media crackdown. 3 Support Assad. Coincidentally, that was also Putin's checklist. 12:03AM - 10 Oct 2016
October 10, 2016 11:04 AM
"Madame President" said...
It’s all falling apart for the GOP. With his debate performance last night, Donald Trump may have managed to keep his own running mate from jumping a sinking ship, but for the rest of the party it’s a free-for-all. Speaker Paul Ryan effectively gave his troops license to abandon the nominee to save their own skins, declaring that his sole focus this November is “making sure Hillary Clinton does not get a blank check.” Ryan’s position is hardly a courageous one—indeed, he squandered what was probably his last chance to officially withdraw his endorsement for Trump. But there is no longer a pretense that, if Republicans band together, they can eke out a victory in November. Ryan is telling the rank-and-file in Congress that the presidential election is over, and it is now every man for himself.
A new, devastating poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal (Poll: After Trump Tape Revelation, Clinton's Lead Up to Double Digits) appears to bear this out. Conducted after the release of the now-notorious tape of Trump making casual remarks about sexual assault, it shows that Hillary Clinton has an 11-point lead over Trump in a four-way race that includes Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. (In a two-way contest, the lead expands to 14 points.) More polls are sure to come this week that will incorporate the public response to the debate, but if these numbers hold up come November, Clinton could win in a landslide.
October 10, 2016 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...
Max J. Rosenthal @maxjrosenthal
You know who else marked C on papers?
Trump's management company in the 70s when black people tried to rent from them. 9:28 PM - 9 Oct 2016
October 10, 2016 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...
"More polls are sure to come this week that will incorporate the public response to the debate, but if these numbers hold up come November, Clinton could win in a landslide."
Could?
What also could happen is that people start reading the transcript of Hillary's banker speeches. And that further material Julian Assange is planning to release.
Trump is a boor but Clinton's problems are substantive, not just personal. Trump's no worse than another U.S. Grant. The Clintons have always saved stuff to cover their tracks. Do you think it's a coincidence this tape was leaked hours after Clinton's bank speeches were released? Doesn't that make you want to check them out? How stupid can you be? Do you think it was a coincidence that Bill would bomb a supposed bin Laden sighting every time a Monica revelation came out?
The Clintons represent no less a threat to our democracy than Trump. Get your head out of the sand. This is a sad time for America. And a plan needs to be devised to save our country.
Now.
October 10, 2016 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...
"Do you think it's a coincidence this tape was leaked hours after Clinton's bank speeches were released? "
A few hours huh? Is that what you imagine happened you poor little conspiracy theorist you?
Who needs facts when you have fears?
Here I'll let a journalist, Brian Stelter, tell you what he learned:
The videotape of Donald Trump that is shaking up the presidential election sat forgotten on a shelf at NBC's "Access Hollywood" until just a few days ago.
On Monday, according to an NBC source, one of the entertainment newsmagazine's producers remembered Trump's 2005 taping session with former "Access" co-host Billy Bush.
Trump's offensive comments about Alicia Machado were still making waves. And the Associated Press had just published a detailed story quoting former "Apprentice" employees saying Trump "was lewd and sexist" while taping the reality show.
With that in mind, a producer dug up the tape.
By mid-week, executive producer Rob Silverstein and his producing team had taken a look at its contents, and discovered that among other things it included a moment in which Trump told Bush, "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
It also included Trump saying he once tried and failed to have sex with Nancy O'Dell, who was Bush's co-host at the time.
After reviewing the tape, "we were debating what to do" with it, an NBC source explained.
By Friday morning, Silverstein had decided to broadcast it, and a script had been written. The story was not slated to air on Friday night's edition of the show, however.
That means the earliest it would have aired is Monday night -- after Sunday's presidential debate.
Another NBC source confirmed that "Access" was working on a story, and that NBC News knew about it, but said that as of Friday morning the story "wasn't quite finalized."
That's when Silverstein was notified that David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post had come into possession of a copy.
Fahrenthold, who has been reporting for months on Trump's charitable donations and the Trump Foundation, was contacted around 11 a.m. on Friday by a source who told him about the footage, according to a Post story about how he got this scoop.
Fahrenthold asked NBC for comment about the tape around noon Eastern time. The producers at "Access," which is based in California, were blindsided by Fahrenthold's call.
According to the Post, Farenthold knows the identity of the person who leaked the video to him, but will not disclose it.
Sources at NBC believe someone inside NBC downloaded the footage from one of the network's video servers. The tape was accessible internally since the "Access" story was already in the works.
Silverstein told Page Six on Friday afternoon, "I don't know who leaked it. I have no idea."
After the Post called NBC for comment, NBC News staff hurried to finish a story about it. So did the "Access" staff.
On Friday night's edition of the newsmagazine, co-host Natalie Morales reported on the tape, linking it to Monday's investigation by The A.P.
Morales also noted that Trump has appeared on the show "hundreds of times" over the years.
"In the course of reporting on Mr. Trump, we have reviewed much of our own footage," she said.
So does "Access" have other tapes of Trump speaking in vulgar terms? One of the NBC sources said, "Not that I know of."..."
"Reporter David Fahrenthold got a phone call around 11 a.m. Friday from a source with a tip about Donald Trump. The source asked: Would Fahrenthold be interested in seeing some previously unaired video of Trump?
Fahrenthold didn’t hesitate. Within a few moments of watching an outtake of footage from a 2005 segment on “Access Hollywood,” the Washington Post reporter was on the phone, calling Trump’s campaign, “Access Hollywood” and NBC for reaction.
By 4 p.m., his story was causing shock waves.
The recording, of course, was of Trump’s vulgar comments about women as he rode on an “Access Hollywood” bus with the show’s then-host, Billy Bush. With Bush’s encouragement, and an open microphone recording him, Trump describes in crude terms his unsuccessful attempt to seduce a woman named Nancy and brags that his celebrity status enables him to grope women...."
I find it interesting that Assange planned to release his Russian-hack-acquired emails intended to damage Hillary Clinton before the debate but you have nothing to say about that, indicating you are fine with foreigners trying to change the outcome of this election.
You should practice saying "Madame President," which will be much preferable to waking up on November 9th to find the USA has become Trump's Banana Republic.
"...Trump said that if he became president he would “instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.”
When you are threatening to investigate and then jail your political opponent in a presidential debate you have crossed an exceptionally dangerous line.
This is Trump saying that the director of the FBI and the US attorney general are corrupt because they cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing in the investigation of her emails. This is Trump saying that he will order his attorney general and the Department of Justice to investigate and jail the runner-up in the presidential election. This is Trump suggesting that if he becomes president he would simply throw people in prison, because he “alone” determines that they are guilty of a crime. This is an abrogation of the rule of law in America and a fundamental violation of the democratic norms that allow for the peaceful turnover of power from one political party to the other.
And you know the absolute worst part about this? When Trump said it, his partisans in the crowd cheered. This is banana republic territory. This is what fascism in America looks like...."
I bet Putin was cheering too.
October 11, 2016 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...
"This is Trump saying that the director of the FBI and the US attorney general are corrupt because they cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing in the investigation of her emails"
no, it was because they offered immunity to key participants in the crime, allowed the destruction of evidence, and had a private meeting with the alleged perpetrator's husband
further, the FBI director announced there was evidence of crimes but he wasn't going to pursue "in the context", in other words because she was a major party presidential nominee and not an ordinary employee
"This is Trump saying that he will order his attorney general and the Department of Justice to investigate and jail the runner-up in the presidential election. This is Trump suggesting that if he becomes president he would simply throw people in prison, because he “alone” determines that they are guilty of a crime."
actually, he said he would appoint an special investigator, which is what the corrupt Obama should have done, considering the obvious conflict of interest
"This is an abrogation of the rule of law in America and a fundamental violation of the democratic norms that allow for the peaceful turnover of power from one political party to the other."
not really, he is talking about delegating to an impartial party
however, it is a concern and to prevent it Obama should pardon her before leaving office
I'd support that
btw, all this trivial tape of locker room talk is obscuring some very substantive developments
yesterday, wikileaks released disclosures that most Clinton Foundation money comes from foreign powers
Updated | I am Sidney Blumenthal. At least, that is what Vladimir Putin—and, somehow, Donald Trump—seem to believe. And that should raise concerns not only about Moscow’s attempts to manipulate this election, but also how Trump came to push Russian disinformation to American voters.
An email from Blumenthal—a confidant of Hillary Clinton and a man, second only to George Soros at the center of conservative conspiracy theories—turned up in the recent document dump by Wikileaks. At a time when American intelligence believes Russian hackers are trying to interfere with the presidential election, records have been fed recently to Wikileaks out of multiple organizations of the Democratic Party, raising concerns that the self-proclaimed whistleblowers group has become a tool of Putin’s government. But now that I have been brought into the whole mess—and transformed into Blumenthal—there is even more proof that this act of cyberwar is not only being orchestrated by the Russians, but that they are really, really dumb.
The evidence emerged thanks to the incompetence of Sputnik, the Russian online news and radio service established by the government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya.
The documents that Wikileaks unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the Wikileaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal.
The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal, Podesta and the topic of conservative political fevered dreams, Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton bore total responsibility for the terrorist attack on the American outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign.
To understand the full importance of the story—and how much Putin and his Kremlin cronies must have been dancing with delight—I have to quote the top few paragraphs:
In a major revelation from the second batch of WikiLeaks emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta it was learned that Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal believed that the investigation into Benghazi was legitimate because it was "preventable" and the result of State Department negligence.
In an email titled "The Truth" from Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the adviser writing to undisclosed recipients said that "one important point that has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable" in what may turn out to be the big October surprise from the WikiLeaks released of emails hacked from the account of Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta...."
October 11, 2016 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...
"Then came the money quote: "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate," said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton's management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.
Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.
The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000 word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the terror attack and by the former Secretary of State herself. But that was hardly the point of the story, “Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages.” The piece is about the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans, and the article slammed the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation—the tenth inquiry into the tragedy.
Here is the real summation of my article, which the Russians failed to quote: “The historical significance of this moment can hardly be overstated, and it seems many Republicans, Democrats and members of the media don’t fully understand the magnitude of what is taking place. The awesome power of government—one that allows officials to pore through almost anything they demand and compel anyone to talk or suffer the shame of taking the Fifth Amendment—has been unleashed for purely political purposes. It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party’s leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America’s past are rare. Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army…The consequences, however, are worse than the manipulation of the electoral process. By using Benghazi for political advantage, the Republicans have communicated to global militants that, through even limited attacks involving relatively few casualties, they can potentially influence the direction of American elections.”
Of course, this might be seen as just an opportunity to laugh at the incompetence of the Russian hackers and government press—once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down. But then things got even more bizarre..."
October 11, 2016 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...
"...This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?
At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”
“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.
“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”
The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”
This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?
The Russians have been obtaining American emails and now are presenting complete misrepresentations of them—falsifying them—in hopes of setting off a cascade of events that might change the outcome of the presidential election. The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump? That is a topic for another time.
For now, though, Americans should be outraged. This totalitarian regime, engaged in what are arguably war crimes in Syria to protect their government puppet, is working to upend a democracy to the benefit of an American candidate who uttered positive comments just Sunday about the Kremlin's campaign on behalf of Bashar al-Assad. Trump’s arguments were an incomprehensible explication of the complex Syrian situation, which put him right on the side of the Iranians and Syrian,s who are fighting to preserve the government that is the primary conduit of weapons used against Israel.
So no, Mr. Putin, I’m not Sidney Blumenthal. And now that you have been exposed once again, get the hell out of our election. And Mr. Trump—you have some explaining to do.
This story has been updated to include information about Donald Trump's speech in Pennsylvania.
October 11, 2016 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...
"Comparisons from America’s past are rare. Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army…"
how about when Obama won the last election by harassing political enemies using the IRS?
October 11, 2016 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...
You and your conspiracy theories are a hoot!
No wonder the GOP is falling apart at the seams!
”WikiLeaks @wikileaks
RELEASE: the first 2050 of well over 50000 email from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Pedesta wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...#Podesta #imWithHer
2:01 PM -- 7 Oct 2016 -- https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784498891936915456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"David Fahrenthold @Fahrenthold
"I just start kissing them..Just Kiss. I don't even wait,' Trump said. "And when you're a star they let you do it."
Video Video Caption: Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005: On soap opera set, the GOP nominee bragged about grouping and trying to have sex with women washingtonpost.com
1:05 PM - - 7 Oct 2016” -- https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/784484724131717124
"Do you think it's a coincidence this tape was leaked hours after Clinton's bank speeches were released? “
The videotape of Donald Trump talking about sexually harassing women was posted to twitter an hour BEFORE Assange dumped a small portion of the Russian-hacked Clinton Campaign emails he plans to release drip, drip, drip.
October 11, 2016 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...
The Apprentice tapes will be drip, drip dripping soon enough and we'll be able to confirm Trump's apology and claim that "Anyone who know me knows they words don't reflect who I am," was just another of his gold-plated lies.
Trump is a successful businessman as this closing makes clear:
”…“I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944, when I was 13. (Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year,)" Buffett wrote. “I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carryforward.”…”
October 11, 2016 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...
Warren Buffet is an investor, not a businessman. So, he likely wouldn't have any NOLs. If he's saying he's never had a capital loss carryforward, he's lying.
Today's wikileaks include the revelation that Hillary told bankers she supports fracking and is partly responsible for creating it
October 11, 2016 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...
look, kids
it's sixteen times Democrats have tried to jail their opponents
" Right now, RCP has electoral at 188 for Hillary, 165 for DJT, rest is a toss but DJT has the momentum in most of 'em. What a relief! The MSM not long ago said the Democratic electoral lead was insurmountable. Thankfully, it looks like the life-long antigay Clinton clan will be stopped.
September 28, 2016 11:29 AM"
How's that momentum thing working for the Orange One now?
Kellyanne Conway is still trying to clean up Trump’s threat to politicize the criminal justice system and have Clinton thrown in jail...UNLESS...
October 11, 2016 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...
"And how many of those SIXTEEN TIMES involved a Democratic Presidential candidate trying to jail their opposing Republican Presidential candidate?"
how many times has a Presidential nominee been under investigation for crimes by the FBI and the FBI director said there was evidence to indict but he advises against it?
how many times has the FBI allowed the preferred presidential candidate of the current administration to destroy evidence?
how many times has the attorney general met with a presidential candidate of the same party's husband while felony charges were being considered against that candidate?
obviously, only the CLintons would not have resigned under all the scandals thus far
amazing to think that in our lifetime Gary Hart dropped out of the race because he had an affair
the corrupt and vile Clintons would have doubled down
October 12, 2016 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...
"director said there was evidence to indict but he advises against it"
This did not happen, you liar.
Comey did not give advice on his own. As he told the nation, "we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization."
You Trumpsters are fact free opinion givers only, completely useless to getting a job done properly.
"how many times has the FBI allowed the preferred presidential candidate of the current administration to destroy evidence?"
Comey reported the FBI "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."
Trump, on the other hand, has a long history of deleting emails. Here, check out what the Hill and Drudge Report have had to say about that fact.
"how many times has the attorney general met with a presidential candidate of the same party's husband while felony charges were being considered against that candidate?"
Ah yes, and how soon they forget Bush sent his then White House Counsel and future Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales to kneecap then Attorney General John Ashcroft's deputy, Acting Attorney General Jame Comey:
Great job Cynthia! I especially liked your explanation of how Trump borrowed 1 billion, stuck the lenders with the loss, and then claimed the tax deduction for himself.
October 12, 2016 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...
"This did not happen, you liar.
Comey did not give advice on his own"
OK, to be clear, you are saying it was a lie to say "he" and not "we"
hmmmm, I don't think most will agree with you
"Comey reported the FBI "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them"
it's a little hard to establish intent, for obvious reasons
but it's not necessary in such cases
negligence and carelessness in handling government secrets is prosecutable and there are many who have been prosecuted for less than Hillary's felonies
"Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."
he didn't say that was the only time she deleted e-mails
she did so after being asked to produce them
"Trump, on the other hand, has a long history of deleting emails"
he was in business, not a trusted government official of a representative democracy
there is nothing improper or illegal about that
October 12, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 12, 2016 2:33 PM
The Trumpian Way... said...
"....3+4. Scott & Steve Leader
When the Leader Brothers encountered a sleeping, homeless immigrant in Boston, they called him slurs, punched him, whacked him with a metal pole and then urinated on him for added insult. Oh, and then they high-fived each other, proud of their despicable actions.
Scott’s defense of the attack is straightforward. He said, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.”
In a press conference, Trump referred to the savagery as a “shame,” then immediately followed up with, “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again.” That sounds like way more of an excuse if not an endorsement than a condemnation.
Fortunately, the Leaders later pleaded guilty to multiple felonies.
5. John McGraw
Who can forget McGraw, the 78-year-old man who sucker punched a black man exiting a Trump rally? Probably feeling emboldened by Trump’s previous pledge to pay the legal bills of his supporters who attack his protesters, McGraw socked an unsuspecting Rakeem Jones.
If punching a man on camera wasn’t shameful enough, McGraw then participated in a filmed interview where he said the next time he saw Jones, “we might just have to kill him” because he may be a terrorist.
Trump might get away with inciting this kind of violence, but McGraw was charged with assault and battery, as well as disorderly conduct.
6. Henry Slapnik
Twenty-year-old Timothy Stewart was visiting his grandfather, also named Timothy Stewart, at his apartment when a neighbor, Slapnik, approached with a knife. Slapnik seemed to be upset that there were black men at his apartment complex and attempted to stab the grandfather and grandson.
What might have been casual racism seemed amplified due to Trump’s popularity. After being arrested, Slapnik told police, “The RNC will take care of them. Donald Trump will fix them because they are scared of Donald Trump.”
Excerpts: "Trump has been unable to keep up with Hillary Clinton's $400 million campaign operation (not including the well-funded super PAC backing her). While August was Trump's best fundraising month yet — he took in $41 million — Trump has struggled to gain the support of major Republican donors. Aides at four of the five super PACs backing Trump have repeatedly told NBC News that fundraising for Trump is a struggle."
And
"The bundler said that the videotape pushed him over the top, but his dissatisfaction had been building. He pointed to other insults to women, including attacks on Fox News host Megyn Kelly and smears of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. He also noted Trump's attacks on federal judge Gonzalo Curiel based on his Mexican-American heritage was disconcerting."
Excerpt: "The religious right isn’t dead yet. But after this election becomes history, the movement will be forced to reckon with the consequences of its quest for power. Young adults, who overwhelmingly oppose Trump, are already leaving conservative churches, and the religious right’s Trump moment will surely only fuel this trend. If it had maintained a consistent public morality, maybe it could have retained some countercultural appeal. Now that its most visible leaders have sacrificed that authority, it has nothing left."
October 12, 2016 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...
looks like Bill Clinton's assessment of Obamacare is emboldening other Dems to state the obvious:
Oh sure. Twenty-million more Americans are now covered with health insurance, there are no more preexisting condition cancelation games, no more kicking kids off parents' policies until age 26 and you call that a failure.
Go post your whiny comments over at InfoWars. You'll fit right in.
"Rush seems to think what he's saying is some kind of indictment of "the left."
"RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left."
Yeah, all those liberals insisting on "consent" is what's wrong with this world.
I think he means this. So, apparently, does Donald Trump."
October 12, 2016 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...
"Oh sure. Twenty-million more Americans are now covered with health insurance, there are no more preexisting condition cancelation games, no more kicking kids off parents' policies until age 26 and you call that a failure."
both the pre-existing condition and age 26 came into effect before Obamacare
insurance companies were always happy to do it if they could get away with charging more
since Obamacare made it illegal to not pay for insurance, they could get away with it
as for covering more people, it was a temporary gain mad by shuffling things around basically making everyone else pay for it
gig's up, and everyone is realizing it won't be economically feasible over the long around
don't believe me, believe Bill Clinton
he says it was always a crazy scheme
meanwhile, most in the FBI wanted Hillary charged with a felony:
Dozens of Republican former federal prosecutors condemn Donald Trump for his threat to jail Hillary Clinton
Women, independents flee Trump, propelling Clinton in polls
Groped In First Class
Kissed Receptionist On The Mouth
Grabbed Woman During A Photoshoot.
‘PEOPLE’ Mag Writer: He Attacked Me
FLASHBACK: ‘Grabbed’ Miss Washington’s ‘Ass’
‘92 VIDEO: Don Points To 10-Year-Old, Says He’ll Be ‘Dating Her In 10 Years’
Multiple women accuse Trump of forcibly groping, kissing them
Trump’s stumbles present challenge to GOP turnout
Liberty University students protest school president's defense of Trump
Trump Goes Nuclear On Clintons
Drafts Lawsuit Against New York Times
Rudy Giuliani Falsely Claims Clinton Lied About Being In NYC On 9/11
Even Students At Liberty University Are Turning On Trump
Not Even Bill O’Reilly Believes Mike Pence’s Nonsense About Women
#RepealThe19th: Donald Trump supporters tweet new anthem after Nate Silver’s poll shows he’d win if only men voted
Could the House really flip?
Frenzy Surrounds 'Apprentice' Tapes
October 13, 2016 7:44 AM
Anonymous said...
two national polls out this morning
Ramussen had Trump ahead
LA Times has a tie
despite revelations about how despicable Trump's personal qualities are, despite the entire media/Hollywood complex arrayed against Trump, despite the enormous amounts of money Clinton has spent in excess of Trump, this is where we are
isn't clear that America really, really, really doesn't want President Hillary?
October 13, 2016 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...
Trump groping story by NY Times is a hoax. Who saw that coming?
Trump Likes to Spy on Miss Universe Contestants Naked
After he bought the Miss Universe pageant, Donald Trump made it quite clear in an interview with Howard Stern why he did so: Because it would allow him to go into dressing rooms while these very young women were in various states of undress.
On an April, 11, 2005, airing of “The Howard Stern Show,” Donald Trump bragged about some of the special perks he enjoyed while he was owner of the Miss USA pageant. They came not in a locker room but a dressing room.
“I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said. “And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it.”
Stern replied, “You’re like a doctor.”
Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
He did the same thing with the Miss Teen USA pageant, which he also owns, using that to peep on 15 and 16 year old girls in the buff:
Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing.
“I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA.
Trump, she recalled, said something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”
Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it “shocking” and “creepy.”
And this guy is widely supported by the same people who lose their damn minds at the idea of a trans person using the bathroom that fits their gender On an April, 11, 2005, airing of “The Howard Stern Show,” Donald Trump bragged about some of the special perks he enjoyed while he was owner of the Miss USA pageant. They came not in a locker room but a dressing room.
“I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said. “And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it.”
Stern replied, “You’re like a doctor.”
Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
He did the same thing with the Miss Teen USA pageant, which he also owns, using that to peep on 15 and 16 year old girls in the buff:
Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing.
“I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA.
Trump, she recalled, said something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”
Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it “shocking” and “creepy.”
And this guy is widely supported by the same people who lose their damn minds at the idea of a trans person using the bathroom that fits their gender identity. They’re voting for and support an admitted sexual predator.
When you've publicly admitted to sexual assault and women come forward and say you've done exactly that your subsequent denials that you've done so aren't believable.
Sexual Consent: The Evangelical Blindspot October 10, 2016 by Neil Carter
The American public is still reeling from the election drama that escalated over the past weekend. One breaking story after another kept blowing up our newsfeeds every half hour or so, straining our collective capacity to process so many outlandish moments, it makes us numb.
“Oh, look, now he’s invited all the alleged former mistresses of his opponent’s husband. To a nationally televised debate. To sit on the front row. This, too, is normal for this election cycle.”
At this point, virtually nothing can shock us anymore. It’s become absurdist political theater. Watching the Donald pace and scowl behind Secretary Clinton in last night’s town hall style debate seriously made me worry that the man would lose his cool and do something violent. The moment he grabbed the chair in front of him, I could only think of his days putting on a show for the WWE, shamelessly manufacturing a display of unhinged violence just to get the crowd riled up and boost the ratings. You couldn’t help but wonder if he might get so worked up he could grab that chair and threaten to hit her with it. His body language was unnerving.
Can you imagine having to watch the debate, with him walk around the way he did, hovering over her while she talked, if you yourself were previously a victim of abuse? A number of my friends can tell you exactly how that feels, and I can assure you that dynamic did not escape their notice.
“It’s Just Locker Room Talk”
This particular debate reached the tension level it did because, just 48 hours before the debate, a tape was released capturing a “hot mic” moment in which Trump bragged to (now suspended) talk show host Billy Bush about how easily he can have his way with beautiful women. He used crude language and joked about needing a tic tac before greeting their beautiful host since he wasn’t sure when the impulse would strike him to reach out and kiss her. As if she had any interest.
But interest on her part never entered the equation. In fact, that is the one missing element in every part of what we heard on that recording this past Friday: When Trump is around friends joking about sex, he never seems to factor in whether or not the targets of his advances really want him to make a pass at them.
I’ve been a party to many a locker room brag fest, and I’ve heard plenty of grandiose claims from guys who probably aren’t capable of a third of what they want their buds to think they can pull off. But I don’t recall any friends of mine joking about making things happen . Actually, that’s not entirely true. I can recall one or two occasions, and in both cases, the other guys were creeped out and they either spoke up, or else they just learned not to “go there” with that particular guy anymore. It made enough of us uncomfortable that we quietly decided to avoid getting caught “out and about” with that one.
What bothered us this past weekend wasn’t that Trump used a “four-letter word” (technically it was five) in describing his escapades. It wasn’t that he was joking in private conversation about his own virility and love of beautiful women. It was his utter lack of regard for consent in his joking, and his unabashed reveling in the imbalance of power that allowed him as a rich and famous celebrity to take whatever he wants from women whether or not they want him in return. That’s what made us all sick to our stomachs about the kind of man we heard in that recording.
A Blind Spot for Evangelicals
Quickly, evangelicals came to Trump’s defense. Or rather, they defended what they see as his enduring superiority over Clinton in the race to the White House, despite this latest revelation (e.g. Ralph Reed, Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and Tony Perkins to name only a few). Over the last three days, I’ve heard any one of the following from multiple sources:
“You do it, too! Everybody plays along with locker room humor. Your talk is just as coarse.” “You have no room, since you look at porn, and you watch movies with language that’s even more foul!” “You can’t say a word, since you yourselves celebrate lasciviousness, immorality, lewdness, and impropriety!” “What you do is no better than what he did.”
First of all, in the list of logical fallacies, this is what they call a tu quoque fallacy, which diverts attention from the thing under consideration by deflecting the conversation back to the speaker. It’s judged a fallacy because it’s bad argumentation, even if psychologically effective among the easily diverted.
In effect, we are saying “This man’s attitude toward women is deplorable,” and they are responding with, “Well, you people regularly celebrate the very things you’re now trying to denounce.”
No, actually, we don’t.
Because, you see, it’s not just that this guy brags about trying to have sex with married women. And it’s not just because he uses “dirty words” in private conversation when he’s alone with the boys. If that were all that was happening, we wouldn’t all have a lot of room to judge him (although you’d think church leaders would see this as a deal breaker, and yet they don’t).
What crossed the line for us, making this more than just crude humor behind closed doors, was that the way he spoke about women in that recording indicated that he feels his money and celebrity entitles him to take advantage of women who haven’t even shown a hint of interest in being propositioned by him. His words were “rapey,” plain and simple. And frankly, it’s equally disturbing to realize that so many Christian friends can’t tell the difference. They’re too worked up that he said a dirty word to notice that the absence of consent is by far the larger issue at stake, here.
This is a blind spot among evangelical Christians.
Why? Because consent has never been very high on the priority list of biblical Christianity, especially where women are concerned.
In the Bible, for the most part, women are viewed as property. Granted, by the time the New Testament era rolls around, the surrounding culture has evolved enough to see women gain a bit more power and influence in society. But that development originated with the rest of the world, not with the nation of Israel or even with the church that followed thereafter.
In a number of places, we are informed that we are all property. “You are not your own. You were bought with a price.” In the minds of the writers of the Bible, consent just isn’t really a thing.
"Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"
Granted, this is talking about the divine authority over his creation, but notice the point of the analogy: You don’t get a say in what happens to you, according to the apostle Paul. Ultimately, you are a pawn for him to move and direct wherever he pleases. The notion of self-ownership, autonomy, and “free will” just didn’t seem to come up in the pages of the New Testament.
With source documents like that, where would conservative Christians ever pick up a notion that a woman owns her own body, and can determine for herself what happens to it? Does their preferred legislative agenda indicate they have done so? Obviously not.
Wyatt/bad anonymous is the perfect bad example of an alleged christian who doesn't believe that people have an ultimate right to decide what happens to their bodies. In trying to justify his god killing all the Egyptian first born children after his god made Pharoah refuse to let the Israelites go Wyatt's ultimate "defense" was that god created these people and thus owns them and can do whatever he wants with them, even kill the innocents and its somehow moral.
Wyatt will tell you "We are all god's children" and believes that because of that it is somehow moral for god to do whatever he wants with his children, even kill them because he owns them. But few of us would ever accept that a parent's children are his or her property, that a parent can do whatever they please with their children up to and including killing them merely because they created them. We have an inate sense of justice, a belief that although a woman gave birth to a child neither she nor the child's father have a right to do whatever they want whenever they want to that child. We have an innate sense of justice that forces us to understand that a child is a person seperate from their parents and has rights that a parent cannot morally take away from him or her.
Once again, we can see that Wyatt/bad anonymous's morality is subjective, what's right and whats wrong don't depend on the action but rather on who's doing the action, that its okay for god to kill his innocent children, but not okay for a parent to kill their innocent children. For Wyatt/bad anonymous morality is whatever he wants it to be at the moment regardless of whether or not that contradicts what he previously claimed to be moral.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "e-mails show Clinton called Hispanic leaders "needy Latinos", called Sanders supporters "self-righteous whiners", mocked the Catholic faith".
That's a lie. Even the alleged emails themselves say people other than Hillary said those things. In some cases its already been proven that at least portions of these "emails" have been faked. One email assigned statements to Hillary's campaign manager Sydney Blumenthal but a Newsweek reporter came forth and posted an article he wrote showing it was the newsweek reporter himself that made the statements, not Blumenthal.
There is no confirmation that all, or even any of the emails are authentic and there's no equating someone other than Hillary saying insulting things with Trumps admitted sexual assaults.
Never forget, Wyatt/bad anonymmous is the person who said:
"There are many situations where its appropriate to lie."
And his long and sordid history of constant deception shows he wholeheartedly believes that - there are far, far too many situations where Wyatt thinks its appropriate to lie.
How do you Trumpsters explain your support for this man to your daughters?
"When it comes to alleged victims of sexual assault, Trump seems to have a double standard: The women must be believed, unless they’re accusing Trump.
For most of this past week, Trump advocated for accusers of Bill Clinton. He said it was “very beautiful and very sad” to hear their stories. He blamed Hillary Clinton for attacking the women and discrediting them — even though her criticism was directed toward the “vast right-wing conspiracy” by Republicans, whom she said started rumors about Lewinsky, rather than against Lewinsky herself. He made no reference to how the allegations were made in the 1990s, or that some of the alleged attacks date as far back as four decades — and that the women waited years to make their claims.
Yet when four women accused Trump of making unwanted sexual advances, Trump flip-flopped. He called them “horrible, horrible liars.” He blamed Clinton for orchestrating the attacks with the media, similar to how Hillary Clinton had blamed the right-wing conspiracy for starting rumors of the Lewinsky affair. And suddenly, Trump cared that eight, 12 or 30-plus years had passed since the incidents that the women alleged."
"....There was a Girl Scout troop, came to our station the other day for a tour, and afterward, there was an 11-year-old girl who told our staff, and she said this completely unsolicited. She was talking about Donald Trump’s words in campaign commercials. She said this: “When I hear those words and look in the mirror, they make me feel bad about myself.” Again, she said that totally unsolicited. What would you say to that 11-year-old girl?
Pence: “Well, I would say to any one of my kids and any children in this country that Donald Trump and I are committed to a safer and more prosperous future for their family. The weak and feckless foreign policy that Hillary Clinton promises to continue has literally caused wider areas of the world to spin apart, the rise of terrorist threats that have inspired violence here at home, and we’ve seen an erosion of law and order in our streets. And we’ve seen opportunities and jobs evaporate and even leave Ohio and leave this country. I would say to any of our kids that if Donald Trump and I have the chance to serve in the White House, that we’re going to work every day for a stronger, safer and more prosperous America.”
"Greensboro, North Carolina— At 2 pm on Friday, as Donald J. Trump was supposed to take the stage, his surreal rally soundtrack struck up Elton John’s “Funeral For a Friend”—for the second time in about 20 minutes. Apparently his team plays it before every rally, but here it seemed a portent.
The White Oak Amphitheatre, which President Obama packed to excess of its 7,700 person limit Tuesday night, leaving another 1,500 supporters stranded outside, wasn’t even half full on Friday. A listless crowd occasionally chanted “Trump, Trump, Trump,” but it never got momentum. As we sat waiting, yet another woman came forward, this time to The Washington Post, and claimed that Trump forced his hand up her skirt and “touched my vagina through my underwear.” A former Apprentice contestant also made abuse allegations against Trump within hours. As I predicted on Thursday, Trump is on track to provide every major news outlet with its own victim of his reported sexual abuse. Or maybe more than one.
About a half-hour behind schedule, a swaggering Trump took the stage, and continued his crusade to demonize and deride the women who’ve accused him of sexual abuse this week, with the audience egging him on. The embattled GOP nominee seemed to notice the smallish crowd. “Lots of room!” he remarked, as though that’s a good thing at a political rally. But he plowed ahead with his defiant campaign, with a little less dark talk about “international” cabals and “bankers” than on Thursday and more talk about the “corrupt media” and the “failing New York Times”—and many more insults toward his accusers...
...And yet he didn’t categorically deny all of the abuse charges, leaving some legal wiggle room: “In just about all cases, it’s nonsense, it’s false.” That would seem to suggest that there are some “cases” out there that are true....
...Trump attacked President Obama for criticizing him, and then mused a little bit threateningly: “Why doesn’t some woman maybe come up and say what they say falsely about me, they could say about him. They could say it about anybody. He better be careful because they could say it about anybody.”...
...If the difference in the size of the Obama and Trump crowds here means anything at all, Republicans have an enthusiasm gap, at least here in Greensboro, and it could threaten Senator Richard Burr and Governor Pat McCrory, not just Trump,"
It's Saturday, October 15, Day 244 since Justice Antonin Scalia died and Mitch McConnell decided no nominee would get any Senate attention: No meetings, no hearings, no votes. It's also Day 213 since Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama to fill that vacancy.
Mental illness is in the news these days, and I am going to jump in with both feet.
Here's something: it is kind of a cliche to argue that mentally ill people should be restricted from buying guns.
It makes sense, doesn't it? Mentally ill people with guns are bound to be more dangerous than rational Americans like you and me with guns. We only shoot people who deserve it, but crazy people will shoot just about anybody.
The proposal raises two questions to my mind. The easy one first.
The criteria for "mental illness" are vague and differ from state to state. What about people who are troubled and go to a counselor or shrink to discuss their problems? The therapist may be expected to put down a diagnosis so they can bill the insurance company, or maybe they really do need some help or some meds. And maybe they get labeled bipolar or borderline or something, ADHD, depressed -- that would be a lot of people. Maybe they need a week or two of recovery in a mental hospital. Man, that would not be fair, taking a worried man's guns from him like that. I would hate to be the politician who says where they will draw the line.
So that is the first thing that would make it hard to implement a law to keep mentally ill folk from buying guns. It could sweep up a lot of people who are all right. The vast majority of people diagnosed with mental illness are not a threat to anyone.
The second problem though is actually the deal-breaker. Imagine a guy who has never gone to a mental health specialist, never been evaluated, he's cheerful and confident and has friends, he has a job and a family and a normal life. He is sure that Obama is using high-altitude jet contrails to control our minds with chemicals. He knows exactly how the gay agenda is working through the public schools to convert our children to homosexuality. Hillary is a criminal. Planned Parenthood is getting rich off abortions. Obama founded ISIS. The government has a plan to make all of us live under Sharia law. Liberal scientists are helping the communist Chinese and undermining America by lying about the weather... you see where I'm going here?
The question has to do with defining the concept of mental illness. A person walking around in a blinding fog of delusion, bordering on hallucination, might be a raving maniac, and they might just be a Republican -- in many cases these are one and the same thing. One thing you don't want to do is to prove to a crazy person that they're right. Easy buddy, it's just Obama coming for your guns.
You might have seen some of the people around the Internet asking if Donald Trump might bementally unhealthy. I don't think we normally discriminate against mentally ill people running for office -- they are not required to pass a test or anything -- but it is a good question for concerned voters, and there are some analyses online that seem to suggest he qualifies as clinically diagnosable.
Donald Trump as the candidate for President of the United States represents a large number of people who, among other things, really strongly believe in their right to have lots of guns, any type they want. He may be diagnosably nuts, according to the Internet, and from what I've read about what happens at his rallies, I'd say a lot of the people who'd vote for him might be, too.
So oddly, even while some are saying that the world would be safer if we limited mentally ill people's access to weapons, in a very real sense the lunatics are making their move to take over the asylum.
If you are going to suggest a law that restricts access to guns on the basis of mental health, then you must be prepared for massive pushback, because the idea is political. One side of the political spectrum considers a person who relies on scientific facts, logical inference, and empathy to be dangerous and even treasonous. They feel that educated and experienced "elites" need to be locked up, run out of town, mocked and beaten, even killed, and uneducated white people who think from the gut and hear God speaking to them personally should have military grade weapons behind every door of their house, in their car, and in a holster on their hip.
It looks like about forty percent of Americans are happy to get in step behind Trump. Even if it is not enough to win an election, that is a lot of people. There is nothing he can say that is so crazy that this core group of followers will back away from him. In fact, the crazier he is the more they like him.
ThinkProgress, bless their heart, takes another view of this, which I suppose is how liberals are supposed to think about it. Their view is that it's wrong to call Trump and his followers mentally ill, because it is not respectful of mentally ill people. They say:
The media has a responsibility to consider how to avoid stereotypes when covering mental illness, because research shows that mass media affects how we perceive people with mental illness. And unfortunately, mass media often gets it wrong or associates mental illnesses with negative stereotypes, research consistently shows.This is an argument that reifies mental illness and presumes that it is always something that happens to you and has to be treated by a doctor, as if an individual has no participation in the construction of their own thinking. We understand there is a continuum ranging from the psychotic who is not able to take care of himself and has no choice in the matter, to the manipulative individual who takes advantage of people, lies repeatedly, abuses his loved ones, and does not accept responsibility for his or her own actions. Both might be classified by a therapist as mentally ill (and one of them is more dangerous than the other when it comes to owning a gun), but there is some point where society holds a person accountable. You don't say he "suffers from irresponsibility."
Think about the Heaven's Gate group, thirty-nine people who committed suicide in the belief that they would be transported to a space-ship that was flying behind the Hale-Bopp comet in 1997. It is not controversial to say that those people were mentally ill. A group of people had access to facts and chose to believe something bizarre, and a lot of people died. Do you think thirty-nine people all caught the same mental disease at the same time? You have to believe that tragedy could have been diverted by some good solid common sense. A group of people can convince themselves that the most outrageously incorrect statements are facts, and they can validate their conviction through emblematic acts, including suicide, homicide, war and genocide, and other forms of violence.
Someone with disordered thinking, who chooses delusion over objectively verifiable facts, who refuses to accept responsibility for their choices or to tell the truth, someone who reacts with violence and threats -- that person has something seriously wrong with them. We do not need to be so in awe of psychologists that we can't form an opinion ourselves. If it is a social judgment, so be it. The rest of us can see that something is wrong, and we have been very tolerant of disturbed cognition masquerading as a respectable belief system. Now we will have an uphill political struggle if we want to keep guns and government out of the hands of people who are certifiably, dangerously nuts.
364 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment form
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
history lesson said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
curiously correct said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...-
just gimme me some truth said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
I've looked at Canada's clouds from both sides now said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
MW said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Keith's back! said...
-
it's all good said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...-
gimme one said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
the day of the shaky Dem said...
-
goody goody gumdrops said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
still going down said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Captain Obvious said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Headlines said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Trump's Big Fat Bubble said...
-
the slob slobbers said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
at a loss for words said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Hillary is horrible said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
unnecessarily said...
-
harumph! said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
svelte_brunette said...
-
Lament of the lawyers of the GOP #1 lying liar: said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Headlines about your guy -- you can have him! said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
How low will Trump take the GOP? said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Today's headlines said...
-
And don't forget... said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
"Madame President" said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
Priya Lynn said...-
Anonymous said...
- Comment deleted
-
The Trumpian Way... said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Yes he did said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Today's headlines said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...
Priya Lynn said...-
Anonymous said...
-
by and by said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
I'm with her too said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Have fun, kids said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
Anonymous said...
-
The bubble shrinks said...
-
Grand Obstruction Party said...
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 364 of 364Please tell us Wyatt, how was it appropriate for you to swap the Republican and Democrat poll results when people were asked "Who do you blame for the government shutdown?"?
You can't claim that didn't hurt anyone, it unjustly hurt the reputation of the Democrats and gave undeserved credit to the Republicans. When you lie so cavalierly about things like that why shouldn't everyone automatically assume you're lying whenever you make a statement without proof to support it?
Wyatt/bad anonymous posted an article describing how abortions had dropped dramatically BEFORE Republicans passed a huge number of anti-abortion laws but he changed the article to say the drop occurred after all the laws. When we pointed out the lie to Wyatt he said when he cuts and pastes a news article "unless I attribute a post to someone else, I'll feel free to change the wording as I like" (true or not). Of course he lies even when he attributes a post to others. One of his favourite tactics is to dishonestly quote people out of context. For example I once wrote "I hate christians who use their religion to oppress LGBT people", Wyatt later posted "Priya said "I hate christians"." changing what I actually said to something that dishonestly painted me in negative light. This is frequent standard operating procedure for Wyatt.
This is not a person who tells white lies, this is a person who doesn't feel bound by the truth at all. This is a person who will lie at anytime on any topic if he thinks it will help promote his anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-environment, pro-rich people agenda or make him look good and his opponents look bad. And he doesn't care who he hurts to do it.
September 21, 2016 11:59 AM
5 Tatiana Maslanys currently fighting over who gets to keep Emmy
TORONTO – Causing a ruckus from the basement of Temple Street Productions where the myriad clones of Tatiana Maslany are kept for the award-winning series Orphan Black, 5 clones of the actress are currently fighting over who gets to keep the Best Actress Emmy statue they collectively won.
“I’m the series’ principal clone,” said the clone of Tatiana Maslany who plays Sarah in her working-class English accent that was programmed into her speech patterns from within her natal pod after the series was given the green light.
“It follows my character and her daughter. That’s what makes her special. That’s why people watch.”
“That Emmy is mine,” said the clone who plays Rachel, the hard-nosed corporate titan in her cold, emotionless tone that she has been forced by genetic engineering to perform.
“I’m like my character. And what the Tatiana Maslany who plays Rachel wants, the Tatiana Maslany who plays Rachel gets.”
According to sources, the clone that plays Alison, the high-strung suburbanite, has started a neighbourhood petition to support her case and would be going door-to-door if she was allowed to leave the property, while the Tatiana Maslany who plays Cosima, the brainy, dreadlocked scientists, says she has created an algorithm that analyzes screen time performance over audience reaction and has proved she deserves the statue.
“I will cut you!” said the genuinely disturbed and abused Tatiana Maslany who plays Helena in her ominous, Ukrainian accent rattling the bars of her cage from a dark corner deep within the production company’s bowels.
When asked why Temple Street and BBC America chose to clone their actresses rather than use tried-and-true special effects, a representative responded by saying, “this is Canadian TV, we simply didn’t have the budget.”
September 21, 2016 2:07 PM
"one need look no further than the joint appearances by the two on Jimmy Fallon last week"
Who needs Presidential Debates when we can have banter with late-night comedians instead?
< eye roll >
September 21, 2016 3:54 PM
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi swears that Donald Trump didn’t get special treatment.
“Donald Trump did not get a pass,” Bondi told reporters. …
“There never was an investigation into Donald Trump by this office,” Bondi said.
Never. Never ever. Well, except maybe for that one time. The one where Bondi’s office told the Orlando Sentinel ...
… Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's office is reviewing the New York lawsuit's allegations, to determine whether Florida should join the multi-state case, a spokeswoman for the Republican attorney general said Wednesday.
That time. The time that came a couple of weeks after emails about the case circulated around Bondi’s office. The time that came just days after Bondi called Donald Trump personally to solicit a campaign contribution. The contribution neatly deposited in her coffers four days after her office told the Sentinel they were reviewing the New York case.
But don’t worry. That’s not a problem.
Bondi’s first political opponent in 2010, former state senator and federal prosecutor Dan Gelber, recently said she should at least have returned the check to Trump while the New York case was pending.
But Bondi on Tuesday said she didn’t return the check because it would have looked as if it were a bribe.
Returning the check while the case was pending? Would have looked suspicious. Accepting the check while the case was pending? Perfectly okay. By the way, How can there be a “case pending” when Bondi just said there was not even an investigation?
When Trump TV begins Pam Bondi is a shoe-in for the legal correspondent.
Who thinks Ailes will put her behind a glass desk too?
September 21, 2016 4:38 PM
"Who needs Presidential Debates"
we actually don't have debates, we have media shows where the biased press tries to play "gotcha" with the Republican candidate
in a real debate, the candidates would take turns questioning one another
personally, I don't care what Lester Holt thinks is important to ask
btw, presidential "debates" are run as a joint venture of the Democrats and GOP
hey set up the rules to favor the two parties' monopoly
that's why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, supported by millions, won't get a chance to make their case
"when we can have banter with late-night comedians instead?
< eye roll >"
well, there's a sophisticated response
if you don't realize how important perceptions are, you really are ignorant
if only Nixon had put his make-up on
JFK would probably still be alive
of course, there was a time presidents had more dignity than going on late night talk shows but Obama pretty much put the nail in that coffin - he wasn't the first, just the most enthusiastic
and, of course, that's but one reason Hillary is sunk
"Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi swears that Donald Trump didn’t get special treatment."
no one cares
Trump makes contributions to candidates all over the board
he's always been upfront about it
September 21, 2016 9:13 PM
"btw, presidential "debates" are run as a joint venture of the Democrats and GOP
hey [sic] set up the rules to favor the two parties' monopoly
that's why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, supported by millions, won't get a chance to make their case"
Johnson and Stein don't poll at the required level of support, a measly 15%.
Under the 2016 Criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.
"Trump makes contributions to candidates all over the board"
If Trump makes political contributions from a charitable organization using his favorite resource of all -- OPM, Other People's Money -- that was donated to his charitable foundation, they are illegal contributions.
Refusing to release his tax returns is one way for Trump to try to hide how his "contributions to candidates all over the board" were made.
FEC Quick Answers - General Questions
"Are there restrictions on political activity by churches and other charitable organizations?
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, incorporated charitable organizations--like other corporations--are prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections. Unlike most other corporations, charities face additional restrictions on political activity under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code."
And Trump should also remember:
"Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure."
Lovely video for all to see: Trump Lies About His Birther Past: A Closer Look
September 22, 2016 8:02 AM
"Johnson and Stein don't poll at the required level of support, a measly 15%"
this is an arbitrary number set up by a commission composed of the two parties
history lesson for you:
"In 1984, the cooperation between the Republican and Democratic parties led to a joint veto of almost 100 proposed panelists for the first debate. The following election cycle saw more of a grab for control by the two major parties. The campaigns of George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis met without the knowledge of the League of Women Voters (LWV) and drafted a memorandum of understanding. This secret document specified who would be allowed sit in the audience during the '88 debates and who would serve as panelists, as well as abolished follow-up questions. Under these terms, the LWV would be left to merely host and would have no say in how the debates were held.
In disgust, the League of Women Voters exposed the memorandum and resigned as hosts of presidential debates, citing the "fraud on the American voter" being carried out by the two major parties [source: PBS]. To fill the void left by the LWV, the Democrats and Republicans formed the joint nonprofit bipartisan organization the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)."
September 22, 2016 8:26 AM
And I'm sure you are a big supporter of the Women's League of Voters, both nationally and locally, especially their efforts to encourage voters to register to vote and to lobby Congress to "move the Voting Rights Advancement Act forward."
All any presidential candidate has to do is attain 15% support to qualify to participate in the presidential debates, but any party member, regardless of polling level, may participate in primary debates, though they may not air during prime time.
Like your favorite GOPers, Huckabee and Santorum, who got bumped to the GOP "undercard debate" due to their lack of support in polls.
Foxiness.com reported
"...Fox Business Network on Monday announced the candidate lineup for the Jan. 14 Republican presidential debates – and already one candidate has said he will not participate after not qualifying for the prime-time event.
The participants qualifying for the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET debate are:
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
The participants qualifying for the earlier, 6 p.m. ET debate are:
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; former HP CEO Carly Fiorina; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum...
...The FBN debate lineup was decided based on the results of national, New Hampshire and Iowa polling. To qualify for the prime-time debate, a candidate had to place in the top six in an average of recent national polls, or in the top five in an average of recent Iowa or New Hampshire polls..."
September 22, 2016 9:52 AM
Looks as if TTFers will argue about anything. Well, while Johnson only receives 9% currently, most Americans think he belongs in the debates. People are desperate for another reasonable choice this year.
Putting in the top five candidates in these debates would make for a healthier democracy. Certainly would make it more watchable. Any debate with Hillary will require a lot of caffeine.
btw, I've always liked Huckabee but I've always considered Santorum nauseating.
September 22, 2016 10:46 AM
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Looks as if TTFers will argue about anything".
Looks as if Wyatt/bad anonymous will do anything to avoid answering questions about his lying.
Please tell us Wyatt, how was it appropriate for you to swap the Republican and Democrat poll results when people were asked "Who do you blame for the government shutdown?"?
You can't claim that didn't hurt anyone, it unjustly hurt the reputation of the Democrats and gave undeserved credit to the Republicans. When you lie so cavalierly about things like that why shouldn't everyone automatically assume you're lying whenever you make a statement without proof to support it?
September 22, 2016 12:06 PM
In this thread Wyatt/bad anonymous told this lie:
"Hillary, btw, will be on trial the reason her IT director was given immunity last week is that Hillary is going to be indicted"
Wyatt you said "there are many situations where lying is appropriate". How was that lie appropriate?
September 22, 2016 3:21 PM
What a lying weasel! It makes me shudder to think of the harm this heinous falsehood caused.
He should have known that the Obama administration would never let a Democrat be indicted. That IT director may have gotten immunity from his participation in Clinton's crimes but now he's committing new crimes. Sounds like the Republicans in Congress will indict him.:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/22/house-panel-recommends-holding-former-clinton-it-aide-in-contempt.html
September 22, 2016 4:43 PM
well, he is indictable
and so was Hillary, according to the FBI
so, maybe he's not a lying weasel!!
September 22, 2016 4:45 PM
"Looks as if Wyatt/bad anonymous will do anything to avoid answering questions about his lying."
Priya Lynn, I assume you're are talking about the individual who's been posting earlier in the week.
I think you may be lying because, if that's who you mean, I've seen him make many responses to allegation from TTFers that he lied.
I think you owe him an apology. That will go part way toward remedying some of the damage you've caused. Not all, but some.
September 22, 2016 4:52 PM
Theresa said:
"I still believe you do incredible harm by suggesting to Tomboys that they might be male.... and it's incredibly SEXIST.
Just because you like the outdoors, and math, doesn't make you male !
you can say well we are not saying that. it's your brain sex, it's really who you were all the time, and I can tell you quite honestly looking back at the kid I was at 15 that if I had been presented with that information as truth you would have had me questioning my gender. Because kids are confused at that age !
I think it is SUCH a horrible thing to do to our young female engineers to suggest that because they like math and are tomboys they might be male.
I think it is such a horrible disrespectful thing to strong females everywhere to suggest that you are not a strong female, you are actually a male."
Theresa also said:
" And you didn't address MY question.... If you are smart, like the outdoors, like putting things together like legos, are female and hate barbies, WILL OUR CURRENT HIGHSCHOOLS TELL YOU YOU MIGHT BE MALE ?????
The answer is YES.
Deplorable MALE Theresa (mother of three, female).... but hey GENDER IS FLUID, I CAN DECIDE ANY DAY whether I am MRS. Rickman or MR. Rickman."
After reading the obviously impassioned passages above, I went back and read both of the lessons posted for 10th graders linked above to try and understand what might bring one to such radical conclusions. If there are other places that you got your information from Theresa, I would be happy to review those as well, just provide a link.
I have my quibbles with both lessons, and maybe I’ll touch on some of those, but I’ll focus on what appears to be the source of Theresa’s heartache.
The first lesson is pretty dry, as it is mostly stats and definitions like:
Transgender: “individual whose gender identity, characteristics, or expressions differ from most people of that person’s gender (Holt)”
Gender Identity: “your identification of yourself as a man or a woman based on the gender you feel to be (Glencoe and Holt)”
Yes, I know conservatives don’t consider these “real” but that’s what they are.
September 22, 2016 7:51 PM
(First part of this post appears to have been lost in the spam filter - can it be released??)
As best I can tell, there are two sentences in the second lessons from Portia’s statement that seem to be the source of the problem.
Here is a portion of here statement:
“When I was young, I loved dressing up in pretty things and playing with dolls. My mother never made me feel ashamed. I began school feeling good about myself. Elementary school was fine, but by middle school, things got pretty bad. I was made fun of, called names, shoved in the halls, and pushed down the stairs. High school was better in some ways. I had friends who stood by me, but even with their support, I was very depressed. I was supposed to be a boy, but every feeling inside me told me that I was a girl, but I didn’t know how people would respond.”
It is the first and last sentences from the above portion that appears to have been the source of the broad extrapolation to things like:
“"I still believe you do incredible harm by suggesting to Tomboys that they might be male.... and it's incredibly SEXIST.
Just because you like the outdoors, and math, doesn't make you male!”
“And you didn't address MY question.... If you are smart, like the outdoors, like putting things together like legos, are female and hate barbies, WILL OUR CURRENT HIGHSCHOOLS TELL YOU YOU MIGHT BE MALE ?????
The answer is YES.”
Actually, the answer is NO. What you have derived from those two sentences is WAY beyond what reasonable people would ascribe to Portia’s description of her life. I will also point out that there are no questions on the quizzes that refer back to these two sentences either. It is hard to imagine how the average student would extrapolate that just because one hates Barbie dolls, that they are a male. If one actually happens to be trans however, it could hit a nerve.
September 22, 2016 8:13 PM
The two class instruction lessons are scripted to the very last word, and timed down to the minute, and substitutions and outside resources are not allowed. What the students are taught appear to be tightly constrained to the text on the 33 pages of the lessons.
Personally, having tutored children and adults for math, some of them with learning challenges, I would feel extremely restricted in how these lessons were taught. Especially with learning challenged individuals, it might take me coming at the same problem 12 different ways before I finally find the route and explanation that ignites the light of understanding in the students’ eyes. Being constricted to just the text in the lesson allows one to repeat the same text over again, but if the student didn’t quite get it the first time, the second time is unlikely to provide greater insight.
I know there were lawsuits associated with the new curriculum, so I suppose it had to be done this way to get all of the litigants to find the minimum amount of language they all could agree on.
As a trans person who has actually given some “Transgender 101” talks at local colleges, I find the dearth of specifics on trans people a bit disheartening, and it may lead to unnecessary confusion. For example, there is absolutely no mention that there are clinical requirements that must be met to meet the definition of “Gender Dysphoria.” However, if one looks at the lessons as a whole, they are generally designed to reduce the amount of harassment that LGBT people receive from their peers, while providing a basic overview of the definitions associated with sexual and gender minorities.
My first inclination was that it might be a good idea to provide information from the DSM-V. After thinking about it though, I realized that if you gave a bunch of 10th graders that info, none of whom have a clinical background in psychology, you would then have a bunch of 10th graders trying to diagnose some of their peers. That, as you can imagine, simply would not end well.
There are a whole lot of people that fit under the “transgender umbrella,” including drag kings, drag queens, gender queer, androgyne, Eddie Izzard’s “executive transvestite,” and several others. But frankly I don’t think “tomboy” is gender-bendy enough to even bother including in the list. The lessons don’t address any of that. Hopefully though, the lessons learned will be broad enough to promote a bit of tolerance to classmates who are a little bit different.
September 22, 2016 8:49 PM
There are plenty of reasons in our society for women to be angry or envious of men, given how they have monopolized entire job categories for centuries, treated women like second class citizens, denied them the right to vote and still have a pernicious habit of sexually harassing and even raping them. A few decades ago, my mother was working at a department store, and became a valuable resource for her peers on a variety of work issues. When she applied for management training though, she was laughed at because “we don’t have women managers!” In some ways our society has come a long way from this, but there are still pockets of society that promulgate dismissive attitudes towards women as a matter of course. I can not blame any women for wanting the privileges associated with “manhood” in our society. But that doesn’t mean women that want jobs in male dominated fields are trans. I think most of society takes that for granted these days – female astronauts and CEOs are a thing now, after all, and we may even have our first female president in a few months. Even with James Carville saying things like "If Hillary gave up one of her balls and gave it to Obama, he'd have two,” no one really believes Hillary is trans. ( I take that back – I just did some googling – there are a lot of idiots on the internet.)
If you google “Michelle Obama is a man” though, you get 43.6 million results from right-wing trash media claiming they have “proof” or at least serious reason to believe she is. They are using this message to demean and diminish her.
But I’m going off-topic.
In short Theresa, unless there are other parts of the curriculum that I am not aware of, I find your extrapolation of the lessons to be all sorts of “sexist” to be unfounded. I know the sexism that some of my female colleagues has faced is far worse than I have had directed at me. I would not be surprised if you had a few incidents yourself. No doubt, going to school in the 70s and 80s in your chosen field had its own sexist mine fields to navigate. I have no way of knowing how your past experiences might have contributed to that response.
I also don’t know if the strength of your response is due to your strong desire not to have any LGBT material in the sex-ed classes, or if Portia’s story dredged up identity issues you have been struggling with since childhood. Only you can make that determination.
I will also say that no on WANTS to be trans. It is a conclusion we come to at the end of years of careful introspection. The spiritual would call it “soul searching.” There is often a tremendous cost to finding an identity where you can feel comfortable in your own skin. We avoid paying that cost as long as we can. In the end though, we can never run away from ourselves.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
September 22, 2016 9:34 PM
"The two class instruction lessons are scripted to the very last word, and timed down to the minute, and substitutions and outside resources are not allowed. What the students are taught appear to be tightly constrained to the text on the 33 pages of the lessons.
Well that was true at the beginning, Cynthia, but you will be happy to be reminded MCPS has forged ahead and "descripted" the curriculum as Jim reported on Feb. 2, 2015:
Curriculum Changes: World Does Not End
"...Last summer the school board proposed improvements to the curriculum -- including "descripting" -- and asked for public comment. Their official wording:
"WHEREAS, On February 13, 2001, the Montgomery County Board of Education approved a curriculum policy that guides the development, implementation, and monitoring of curricula throughout the school system; and
WHEREAS, A draft curriculum framework was developed for secondary health education; and
WHEREAS, The draft curriculum framework was shared with stakeholders and additional feedback was received during a public comment period from May 13 to June 13, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Feedback and input from stakeholders and public comments have been used to develop and refine the Secondary Comprehensive Health Education Curriculum Framework; now therefore be it
Resolved, That the Montgomery County Board of Education grants final approval of the Montgomery County Public Schools Secondary Comprehensive Health Education Curriculum Framework, which combines National Health Education Standards skills and Montgomery County Public Schools content standards as the foundation for the development of the Secondary Health Education Curriculum. Board Memorandum
The school district got 61 comments, of which 15 were opposed to the changes. They are summarized in the linked memo, along with documentation of the changes. Nobody can complain that this was a "stealth maneuver" or anything, the anti-gay side heard about it -- even Family Research Council monkey-monk Peter Sprigg spewed spoke to the board. None of this made the newspapers at the time, well there is no reason why it would. Extry extry, health class changes! Read all about it!
Mostly people were supportive, even enthusiastic about the changes. It is kind of fun to read. Even the "aberrant sexual behaviors" comments are colorful and folksy, in their way.
The June 2014 memo says:
"In the 2014–2015 school year, MCPS will implement the shift away from scripted lessons on sexual orientation and proper use of a condom. In the 2015–2016 school year, updated courses in Grades 6, 7, and 8 will be implemented. The implementation of the updated high school course will begin in the 2016–2017 school year. Each school will continue to provide parents with the opportunity to review the Family Life and Human Sexuality and Disease Prevention and Control curriculum and resources, and parents will be permitted to decide whether their children will participate in these units."....
September 22, 2016 10:23 PM
I (Cynthia) said: "Do not lie" is a common simplification of the commandment, easily found with a bit of googling."
And “This may even be the version that is taught to children before they master reading."
quick sand pudding said:
“google isn't evidence”
And “uh, this (sic) conjecture on your part, with no supporting evidence”
O.K. then, try this site, with the byline “Teach your kids about loving God and others”:
http://www.godsten-commandments.org/
Look at the table under “Ten Commandments for Kids.”
It says “Do not lie.”
Then there is this Ten Commandments poster from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Carson-Dellosa-Christian-Commandments-Chart/dp/0887242782/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1474595990&sr=8-2&keywords=ten+commandments+for+kids
It has another simplification: “Always tell the truth.”
It’s ranked 25,106 in Toys and Games, and 92 under Flash Cards.
You can of course claim that this is not PROOF that children teach their kids “do not lie,” or “always tell the truth” and that businesses just sell posters like this to people who hide them from kids. But most people would not be that unreasonable (ridiculous).
quick sand pudding said:
“I've got news for you: a lot of people raised in churches aren't paying attention”
Ya don’t say… REALLY? (Yes, that was loaded with sarcasm.)
September 22, 2016 10:30 PM
quick sand pudding said:
“the TTFers here weren't merely quoting the commandments
they were using them as part of an attack on the character of others
funny, Jesus said not do to do that”
Funny, Jesus never attacked the character of trans people (eunuchs) either. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Jesus attacking the character of gay people either.
It makes me wonder how you justify saying so many nasty things about them. What would Jesus say?
quick sand pudding said:
“first of all, this has come up many times before and you have not always used the word "conflate"
Cyn: "My characterization is an accurate description of what the CRG and right wing conservatives have done to try and marginalize trans people"
qsp: no, it isn't”
I did not use “conflate” back in 2008 (2009?) when the CRG was saying thing like “confused men who wear dresses are going to invade women’s privacy.” “Confused men who wear dresses” is their shorthand for transwomen. Perhaps after Dana, Maryanne and I complained enough they got a guilty conscience and changed their lines to things more like “predators are going to invade women’s privacy” and “how can I tell if the funny looking guy in a dress is a real trans person or just someone taking advantage of the law to rape me?” Their change in verbiage was a distinction without a difference. But if they wanted to play semantic games like that fine. I then started to use “conflate” to address that change.
September 22, 2016 10:39 PM
qsp: "they've made a valid point about why people should use the bathroom of their gender
but, really the point is: women don't men undressing in a locker room with them, and that is a reasonable position"
I DO use the bathroom of my gender. I have breasts and a vagina. I use the ladies' room. I don't want men undressing in a women's locker room either. Personally, I avoid public locker rooms anyway. I’ve only been to 1 in the past 13 years. I don't want to risk seeing anyone naked, man, woman, or otherwise. I don’t want people seeing me naked either.
One could easily propose stronger penalties for people behaving badly in restrooms or locker rooms. There is no reason to bring trans people into that conversation at all. We have been using the best restroom or our gender for decades now so quietly and unobtrusively that more people believe they have seen a ghost than have seen a trans person:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/more-americans-claim-to-have-seen-a-ghost-than-have-met-a-trans-person_us_5677fee5e4b014efe0d5ed62
qsp: “what would happen if the government announced they will give a billion dollars to anyone who says they feel like a different gender than they were born with?
the answer is obvious
is that conflation?”
Um, no. But if you did that to a public official, it would be “bribery.”
qsp: “conflation as defined as "joining as one"”
Close, but not quite. I expected a more exact answer coming from someone who is so pedantic about the semantics of the ten commandments, and the definition of “marriage.”
Try Webster, especially definition 2:
Con`flate´
v. t. 1. To blow together; to bring together; to collect; to fuse together; to join or weld; to consolidate.
The State-General, created and conflated by the passionate effort of the whole nation.
- Carlyle.
2. to ignore distinctions between, by treating two or more distinguishable objects or ideas as one; to confuse.
WordNet Dictionary
Verb 1. conflate - mix together different elements; "The colors blend well"
Synonyms: coalesce, fuse, immix, mix, merge, commingle, flux, blend, meld, combine
Related Words: absorb, accrete, admix, alloy, blend, blend in, change integrity, coalesce, combine, commingle, conjugate, flux, fuse, gauge, immix, meld, melt, merge, mix, mix in, syncretise, syncretize
September 22, 2016 11:09 PM
qsp: “stick it somewhere that always has a total eclipse of the sun”
I have no intention of going anywhere near where you keep your cranium.
Anonymous: “Well that was true at the beginning, Cynthia, but you will be happy to be reminded MCPS has forged ahead and "descripted" the curriculum as Jim reported on Feb. 2, 2015:”
Thank you for pointing that out. I don’t know what I was doing on Feb. 2, 2015, but I don’t recall that bit of news. I don’t have kids in school, so it would not have been a priority topic for me. I’ve read some of the comments. They are pretty predictable from the right wingers.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
September 22, 2016 11:29 PM
it's an interesting question what dictionary TTFers use
here's a real dictionary, Merriam Webster, on the meaning of conflate:
1. to bring together : fuse
2. to combine into a composite whole
September 23, 2016 8:40 AM
Well you got some of it.
Here's some of what you left out.
Merriam-Webster.com - Definition of conflate
conflated conflating
transitive verb
1 a : to bring together : fuse
b : confuse
2: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole
Merriam-Webster.com - Thesaurus: Conflate
Synonyms and Antonyms of conflate
1 to fail to differentiate (a thing) from something similar or related
Synonyms confuse, confound, mistake, mix (up)
Related Words lump (together); misapply, miscall, misidentify, misname
Antonyms difference, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, separate
2 to turn into a single mass or entity that is more or less the same throughout
Synonyms amalgamate, combine, comingle, commingle, commix, composite, concrete, blend, fuse, homogenize, immingle, immix, incorporate, integrate, interfuse, intermingle, intermix, meld, merge, mingle, mix
Related Words add, admix, beat (in), cut in, fold, stir, toss; coalesce, compound, emulsify; conjoin, join, knit, link, unite; intertwine, interweave, weave
Near Antonyms cleave, disjoin, disunite, divide, divorce, part, rupture, sever, sunder; disperse, dissolve, scatter; detach, disengage, split
Antonyms break down, break up, separate, unmix
September 23, 2016 10:00 AM
Video: 176 Reasons Donald Trump Shouldn't Be President
Article: 176 Reasons Donald Trump Shouldn't Be President
September 23, 2016 10:05 AM
"Well you got some of it.
Here's some of what you left out."
The poster got it just fine. "Join as one" and "fuse" are the same thing.
And to the earlier point, no one conflates transgenders with anyone else.
Whoever made that point was right. As usual, the TTFer was wrong...again.
September 23, 2016 11:14 AM
Thanks for posting. Nice to see someone with common sense occasionally posts here. Looks the guy who said TTFERS will argue about anything was right as rain.
September 23, 2016 11:47 AM
"Common" might be a word I'd use to describe the TTFTroll, who constantly argues with himself under various names.
That would be the fifth definition of "common" over at Merriam-Webster.com:
"common:
5. a : falling below ordinary standards : second-rate
b : lacking refinement : coarse"
And the TTFTroll is absolutely "senseless - b. foolish, stupid"
September 23, 2016 1:11 PM
For the record, I stand by my use of "conflate." There are thousands of posts here from the anonymi over the last 8 years that will make my point. I'm quite sure that the majority of reasonable readers will agree with me.
I might get to Merkle's statement about Muslims later today.
Have a nice day.
Cynthia
September 23, 2016 1:23 PM
Wyatt/bad anonymous (as usual pretending to be more than one person said "Priya Lynn, I assume you're are talking about the individual who's been posting earlier in the week. I think you may be lying because, if that's who you mean, I've seen him make many responses to allegation from TTFers that he lied.
No, you haven't responded to the questions I posted. You said there are many situations where its apropriate to lie. So:
How was it appropriate for you to swap the Republican and Democrat poll results when people were asked "Who do you blame for the government shutdown?"?
How was it appropriate for you to tell this lie:
"Hillary, btw, will be on trial the reason her IT director was given immunity last week is that Hillary is going to be indicted"
The log cabin Republicans said Trump was the "most gay friendly REPUBLICAN presidential nominee ever".
How was it apropriate for you to lie and say " Log Cabin Republicans think he's the most gay-friendly presidential nominee ever"?
BIG difference between "presidential nominee" and "REPUBLICAN presidential nominee".
When I once posted "I hate christians who use their religion to oppress gays", how was it appropriate for you to misleadingly portray me in a negative light by later posting out of context "Priya said "I hate christians""?
How is it appropriate for you to pretend to be more than one person?
September 23, 2016 1:48 PM
Wyatt, its well known in image management circles that when you have a situation like this where you've been lying repeatedly there's only one way for you to get past it.
First you have to publicly admit that you've lied (and that it wasn't "appropriate").
Then you have to express sincere remorse.
Then make a sincere commitment to only telling the truth in the future
Lastly you then have to actually stick to telling the truth.
That's the only way you can (with time) repair your reputation Wyatt.
September 23, 2016 1:57 PM
"For the record, I stand by my use of "conflate." There are thousands of posts here from the anonymi over the last 8 years that will make my point."
Thanks for providing your misunderstanding for the record, cinc. I'll concede that perhaps you sincerely misunderstood and didn't purposely lie. But, you're wrong - no one ever meant that.
If there are thousands of such posts, surely can provide one example.
September 23, 2016 3:45 PM
"btw, I've always liked Huckabee but I've always considered Santorum nauseating."
Homophobe Rick Santorum hired as Trump adviser
September 23, 2016 4:09 PM
Dear Theresa and TTFTroll,
Is this the President you want for your daughters?"
September 23, 2016 4:16 PM
No, I don't. As I've said before, Trump doesn't have the temperament, judgement or self-control necessary to be President. At the same time, I have no doubt he will win.
Problem: Clinton is even worse.
America is under a curse because it has embraced the gay agenda. That is why our leadership choices are so objectionable.
Let's put it this way: Trump is outside the box, Clinton is the box. America wants how the box, no matter it takes. This where 8 years of the most incompetent President in history has brought us.
Look at the RCP electoral count. Right now, the score is Hillary 272, Trump 267. so, based on that, only one state needs to flip between now and the election to make Trump.
If you're a Dem, it gets scarier.
The RCP findings are based on an average of polls over several weeks and things are moving in Trump's direction
So, at this time, Trump may be winning
Further, pollsters have no idea how many people, out of embarrassment, won't admit they'll vote for him but will do so in the voting booth. It's likely a significant swath.
September 23, 2016 9:26 PM
Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8 — but one man is pretty sure:
Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984.
He explained that his decision isn't based on horse-race polls, shifting demographics or his own political opinions. Rather, he uses a system of true/false statements he calls the "Keys to the White House" to determine his predicted winner.
And this year, he says, Donald Trump is the favorite to win.
September 23, 2016 9:57 PM
Yeah, skip the part where Professor Lichtman said:
"What about Donald Trump on the other side? He's not affiliated with the sitting party, but has his campaign been an enigma in terms of your ability to assess this election?
Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860.
We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it."
We're a little bit less than seven weeks out from the election today. Who do you predict will win in November?
Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory. Remember, six keys and you're out, and right now the Democrats are out — for sure — five keys.
Key 1 is the party mandate — how well they did in the midterms. They got crushed.
Key number 3 is, the sitting president is not running.
Key number 7, no major policy change in Obama's second term like the Affordable Care Act.
Key number 11, no major smashing foreign policy success.
And Key number 12, Hillary Clinton is not a Franklin Roosevelt.
One more key and the Democrats are down, and we have the Gary Johnson Key. One of my keys would be that the party in power gets a "false" if a third-party candidate is anticipated to get 5 percent of the vote or more. In his highest polling, Gary Johnson is at about 12 to 14 percent. My rule is that you cut it in half. That would mean that he gets six to seven, and that would be the sixth and final key against the Democrats.
So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory. But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory, because I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor. So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way. Nobody should be complacent, no matter who you're for, you gotta get out and vote."
September 24, 2016 8:47 AM
what a great idea - a blog where you can teach the facts!!
here's a fact: more whites are killed by police every year than blacks
true, blacks are a smaller percent of the overall population but they also represent a larger portion of the criminal activity
it's just a fact
and police aren't making that criminal activity up
it's reported by law-abiding African American citizens who simply want to raise their families in peace
so, what's all the rioting about?
I personally don't pledge allegiance to an idol, such as a flag
but to not do so to protest the racism of a nation that has twice elected a black President is ridiculous
we live in ridiculous times
when the SCOTUS has ruled that guys who like to rub themselves on each other is marriage and when states rule that bakers must, under governmental coercion, make cakes to celebrate this perversion
and people who sneak into our country illegally are a constituent group
and people whose religion requires them to work to destroy our constitution are seen by the media as having a "constitutional right" to be allowed in
and our choice for President is between corrupt and crazy
aren't we reaping what we've sown?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440361/police-shootings-black-white-media-narrative-population-difference
September 24, 2016 9:29 AM
"America is under a curse because it has embraced the gay agenda. That is why our leadership choices are so objectionable."
Oh goodness gracious.
Here, maybe one of these will help you.
And if not, the Google is full of ideas -- I got 1,390,000 hits for "how to undo a curse"
http://masterpsychicsofia.weebly.com/curse-removal.html
http://www.spellsandmagic.com/removing-curses.html
http://www.from-the-heart-feng-shui.com/remove-curse.html
http://powerbeforewisdom.com/Personal-Magick/Burning-Salt-to-Clear-Energy-Banish-Spirits-and-Remove-Curses.html
https://magic-spells-and-potions.com/asksfx/remove_curses_hexes_spell.htm
https://www.ransomedheart.com/prayer/prayer-breaking-curses
Look, there's even "Ransomed Heart Ministries" with a prayer you can try.
Good luck, buddy!
September 24, 2016 2:37 PM
"here's a fact: more whites are killed by police every year than blacks"
And here's another fact: there are many more white people in the US than black people. What counts is a comparison of both police killings and population by race.
The writer at the National Review, who studied and teaches law, is a spin artist, not a statistician.
His claim that comparing the number of people who are killed by police by race while taking into account the number of people of each race in the population is "statistical fiddling" makes his lack of statistics comprehension plainly evident.
And you have fallen for his ignorant spin.
The fact is "data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers."
Not only do you fail at reading comprehension, you fail at mathematics and statistics comprehension too.
September 24, 2016 3:48 PM
As you are well aware, this was discussed adequately in the article. You're a liar
September 24, 2016 7:43 PM
"Oh goodness gracious.
Here, maybe one of these will help you.
Good luck, buddy!"
Thanks for the sentiment but as Mary Chapin Carpenter sang, "luck is just a waste of time"
and, besides that, I'm fine
truth of the matter is that the curse on this nation will only be lifted by national repentance
playing games with magic won't help
September 24, 2016 11:56 PM
The truth of the matter is curses aren't real.
September 25, 2016 3:38 PM
you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground
that's real, and the truth of the matter
September 25, 2016 4:15 PM
"and, besides that, I'm fine"
Maybe you are fine, other than your hocus-pocus belief "America is under a curse."
And you believe I am lying about mathematical principles while believing your lawyer spin artist is not, however, reading his piece anyone can see just exactly how much "statistical fiddling" he does.
The fact remains cops kill higher percentages of the black population than they kill of the white population and no amount of his spin and/or his "statistical fiddling" changes that fact.
September 26, 2016 8:35 AM
It is simply a fact that blacks, and particularly young black men, engage in lawless conduct, very much including violent conduct, at rates (by percentage of population) significantly higher than do other racial or ethnic groups. This is not a matter of conjecture. Crime gets reported by victims; the police don’t invent it, they investigate it. Overwhelmingly, the victims of black crime are black people. If African-American parents were really having “the talk” that is pertinent to protecting their children, it would have to involve the reality that those children are overwhelmingly more likely to be shot by other black youths. The police are having “police involved” confrontations with young black men largely because black communities demand police protection — and understandably so.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440361/police-shootings-black-white-media-narrative-population-difference
September 26, 2016 10:04 AM
That's the same crap from the same article and the author of it is still the one doing the "statistical fiddling."
The fact is black folks are killed by cops 2.5 times more often than white folks are, even law abiding ones like Philandro Castile.
September 26, 2016 1:02 PM
"Same crap"? Is this the new TTF term for facts? Contrary to your dishonest demagoguery, law-abiding black citizens want to live in safe communities and don't consider a factual assessment of crime in their inner city neighborhoods run by Democrats to be "crap"?
September 26, 2016 2:02 PM
Yes, and those law abiding black citizens want the right to defend themselves. Philandro Castile had a permit to carry a weapon and he was killed for it.
And the orange skittle you plan to vote for beliefs cops should take guns away from Black people when he re-institutes the unconstitutional Stop and Frisk:
Wait. What’s that noise? It’s nothing, that’s what it is. Dead silence.
It’s the sound of the NRA reacting to Trump's promise to pry guns out of American hands.
"“If they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person and they’ll look and they’ll take the gun away,” Trump said Thursday on Fox News, laying out his vision of how the practice works. “They’ll stop, they’ll frisk, and they’ll take the gun away and they won’t have anything to shoot with.”
“I mean, how it’s not being used in Chicago is ― to be honest with you, it’s quite unbelievable, and you know the police, the local police, they know who has a gun who shouldn’t be having the gun. They understand that,” Trump added."
That’s Donald Trump explicitly saying that he’s going to order cops to grab guns. So you’d think that, perhaps, it would elicit a bit of response from the nation’s most hyper, over-the-top organization on the topic of open and concealed carry. Let’s listen again …
Nope. Not a word.
"But spokespersons for the National Rifle Association, (which has endorsed Trump for president), the National Association for Gun Rights and the Second Amendment Foundation did not answer multiple requests for comment in response to Trump’s remarks.
Their silence was not new: Many of the same people arguing for more access to firearms don’t stand by that support when it comes to fellow citizens of color. "
We can all imagine what the NRA be saying if Hillary Clinton had made these comments.
September 26, 2016 4:52 PM
ORANGE CRUSH: DON DESTROYED AT DEBATE
‘This Is As Good As It Gets’
LUNTZ PANEL: 17-3 For Hillary, ‘Birther Question Destroyed Him’
CNN Panel: 18-2 Hillary
Clinton Obliterates Trump On Tax Returns.
And Shady Business Practices
Donald Lies About Iraq War Support And Climate Change Record
And Stop-And-Frisk
Peddles Fed Conspiracy Theory
And Promotes His Hotels — Again!
Refuses To Apologize For Birtherism
Suggests Obama Isn’t His President
September 27, 2016 12:01 AM
In the first 26 minutes of the debate alone, Vox noted that Trump had interrupted Clinton a whopping 25 times...
Sage Boggs @sageboggs
My friends & I were taking shots every time Trump interrupted Clinton. My BFF Chad is dead :(
9:30 PM - 26 Sep 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-couldnt-stop-interrupting-hillary-clinton-on-debate-night_us_57e9ca11e4b024a52d2a0e26?
September 27, 2016 10:12 AM
Good news for TTFers! Gay friendly prez candidate DJ Trump has the big mo. Right now, RCP has electoral at 188 for Hillary, 165 for DJT, rest is a toss but DJT has the momentum in most of 'em. What a relief! The MSM not long ago said the Democratic electoral lead was insurmountable. Thankfully, it looks like the life-long antigay Clinton clan will be stopped.
September 28, 2016 11:29 AM
So good of you to mention RCP, which shows Hillary Clinton's polling numbers are already rising to reflect her stellar conduct at the Presidential debate vs. Trump's juvenile 50+ interruptions and constant sniffles.
During the debate the world got to see just like Trump himself, his deplorable supporters were unable to follow debate rules and remain respectfully silent.
RCP also shows the No Toss Up Electoral College map with Clinton/Kaine up 292 to 246 over Trump/Pence.
Of course only one poll will matter, and that's the one that will be taken nationwide on November 8.
September 28, 2016 12:30 PM
In front of the largest televised debate audience ever, Donald Trump blew it.
Swing-state Republicans expressed frustration at his Monday night performance, characterizing it as a series of missed opportunities to move the dial in the places that will matter most to his electoral fortunes in November.
Name-checking battleground states like Michigan and Ohio was a wise move, state and local GOP leaders said. And Trump’s message on trade resonates in industrial areas across the Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin. But above all else, Republican officials and operatives lamented his lack of preparation and failure to reach persuadable voters, especially women and GOP-leaners who are not yet sold on him.
Instead of prosecuting the case against Hillary Clinton — which would have helped accelerate the consolidation of the GOP base in states like Pennsylvania where once-reticent Republicans are beginning to fall in line behind the nominee — Trump got bogged down defending controversial decisions he’s made, from championing birtherism to making insensitive comments about women.
“I think Trump should have been better prepared,” said Alan Novak, a former Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman. “Her preparation, strategically, helped her control the flow of that debate. It was like a basketball game when the pace is dictated by one team. She clearly did that. His focus was on himself, explaining too much about him. The opportunity was missed to go after vulnerable points on her.”
“He started out having a little bit of a better [performance] than what I was anticipating, on trade issues I believe he had her back on her heels in the very first part,” said a veteran North Carolina Republican strategist, working on several races in the state. “There were a lot of opportunities, when they got into discussing cybersecurity, to inject emails, the whole narrative of her carelessness, national security matters and all that. It was a missed opportunity by Trump that comes from a lack of being prepared.”
In interviews with more than a dozen battleground state Republican leaders, there was widespread agreement that Trump’s core supporters would continue to stand by him, and that the election would remain close in their states — they characterized the debate as a failure to accomplish what he needed to, rather than a costly debacle.
“Trump had the opportunity to raise questions about her emails, to raise questions about the Clinton Foundation, to raise questions about Benghazi, to raise questions about a host of other things, and he simply failed to do it,” said Charlie Gerow, a GOP strategist based in Pennsylvania.
While Trump surrogates criticized moderator Lester Holt after the debate, “The burden was on him to do that,” said Gerow of Trump...
...Added Gerow, “My sense is, no minds were changed last night among those who had cemented their views…but among the 8, 10, 12, 15 percent who are still genuinely persuadable, I think last night slowed down, if not halted, Trump’s momentum. That’s, I think, the problem. He’s got to try to regain momentum. He has to get back on offense.”
September 28, 2016 12:37 PM
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "there are many situations where its appropriate to lie".
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Gay friendly prez candidate DJ Trump...life-long antigay Clinton clan".
How is that lie appropriate Wyatt?
Trump has said he will appoint supreme court justices who will put back in place the gay marriage ban and Trump supports so called "religious freedom" laws that give christians the special right to discriminate against gays (but not gays the right to discriminate against christians). Clinton opposes laws that allow christians to discriminate against gays and supports the right of gays to marry.
How is your lie appropriate Wyatt?
September 28, 2016 2:34 PM
Prior to those lies Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Trump will be the next president let's hope our Republic survives".
If you're sincerely concerned about Trump destroying your Republic why do you tell lies that promote the idea that Trump will be good for gays and Hillary not? If you really think Trump may destroy your Republic why have you since said "Good news...DJT has the momentum...What a relief!... Thankfully, it looks like...Clinton clan will be stopped".
So, were you lying when you said "Trump will be the next president let's hope our Republic survives" or are you lying now?
Lying Wyatt/bad anonymous happily contradicts himself whenever it suits his immediate desires. Wyatt never burdens himself with speaking the truth, any lie in service of his agenda is "appropriate" to him.
September 28, 2016 2:43 PM
Endorsement: Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America ahead
"The Arizona Republic editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different...
September 28, 2016 3:22 PM
"Many of the same people arguing for more access to firearms don’t stand by that support when it comes to fellow citizens of color.
We can all imagine what the NRA be saying if Hillary Clinton had made these comments."
interesting, the liberals who pant for gun bans don't favor gun control for minorities
I believe Trump is in favor of enforcing whatever laws exist
"Headlines said...
ORANGE CRUSH: DON DESTROYED AT DEBATE"
goes to show what kind of media you follow
Hillary acted like an ass, with a grin frozen in place like the Joker's and wearing a bright red clown suit
if you think Monday's performance will convince anyone that want Hillary in their living nightly for the next 4 years, you're insane
the majority if poll taken after the debate say Trump won
CNN is the outlier
"In the first 26 minutes of the debate alone, Vox noted that Trump had interrupted Clinton a whopping 25 times..."
wow, that's whooping
but he had to
the moderator interrupted Trump at least that many times and interrupted Hillary, well, never
"RCP also shows the No Toss Up Electoral College map with Clinton/Kaine up 292 to 246 over Trump/Pence"
yes, it does
but Dems have argued for years that they hold such an overwhelming locked-in advantage that no Repub will ever win again
right now, Hillary's locked-in states are down to NY, Calif, MD & Vermont
the rest of the country is looking for change
she's scared
swing states tend to move in unison
"Of course only one poll will matter, and that's the one that will be taken nationwide on November 8."
this is what the scared side in every election tells themselves over and over
BOO!!
“Trump had the opportunity to raise questions about her emails, to raise questions about the Clinton Foundation, to raise questions about Benghazi, to raise questions about a host of other things, and he simply failed to do it,”
oh, he'll have two other opportunities
don't despair, TTF
the gay-friendly Trump will win
"The Arizona Republic editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different..."
sure, makes sense
you've got conservatives ideals and you endorse the Red Madame Tse Tung?
September 28, 2016 11:23 PM
Donald Trump’s weight problem: He can’t stop talking about ‘fat’ people
"...Trump’s comments about weight, along with a long line of other incendiary comments about women, present another serious challenge for him in attracting female voters in November. Trump needs to gain support from moderate suburban women to ascend to the White House, but so far he has found little success with female voters, many of whom find the Republican nominee offensive and unacceptable. According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll released this week, 55 percent of women surveyed said they plan to vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Trump’s obsession with weight carries some irony for a candidate who boasts about his unhealthy eating habits, dining regularly on McDonald’s hamburgers and buckets of KFC fried chicken on his private jet. By his own public accounting of his medical health, Trump is just five pounds shy of being considered obese under the body mass index...
...Tim Miller, a longtime Republican strategist and a staunch Trump opponent who worked for Jeb Bush during the GOP primary campaign, said Trump’s insults about weight and other physical characteristics and his general lack of discipline raise serious questions about his temperament.
“He’s a middle schooler who is filled with insecurities and insults people to try to deal with his insecurities,” Miller said.
Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist, tweeted: “I’ve struggled w/weight issues all my life. And I agree. A man who shames and bullies a woman for her weight, isn’t even fit to be a man.”..."
September 29, 2016 7:46 AM
oh, he's not quite at a middle school level of maturity yet
but he hasn't made "a long line of incendiary comments about women"
he has made comments about individuals who happen to be women
but he's made plenty of immature insults directed at men too
when the MSM says that his insults of any women are directed at all women, it shows how sexist they are
September 29, 2016 9:07 PM
FiveThirtyEight 2016 Election forecast: Who will win the presidency?
Hillary Clinton 63.7%
Donald Trump 36.2%
September 29, 2016 11:01 PM
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
"The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now.
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:
He is erratic....
He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief....
He traffics in prejudice...
His business career is checkered....
He isn't leveling with the American people....
He speaks recklessly....
He has coarsened the national dialogue...
He's a serial liar...."
Click the link if you care to read the details.
September 30, 2016 9:26 AM
"FiveThirtyEight 2016 Election forecast: Who will win the presidency?"
Nate Silver has changed this assessment almost weekly. It's not really of any worth until the day before the election.
"The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now."
oh, I agree with most of this
problem is, Hillary is just as problematic
let's compare, name after each is the least problem in this regard:
"He is erratic...."
Hillary is more cautious
"He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief...."
Trump has better leadership skills
"He traffics in prejudice..."
Trump has more of a record of positive dealings with people of diversity
"His business career is checkered...."
Hillary's "business career" is peddling influence, Trump has sold valuable services and been profitable
"He isn't leveling with the American people...."
he is doing so more than Hillary
"He speaks recklessly...."
advantage Hillary, she is very cautious
"He has coarsened the national dialogue..."
yes he has, advantage Hillary
"He's a serial liar...."
not really, Hillary is a pathological liar
score: Trump 5, Hillary 3
Trump's a disaster, Hillary's not the answer
either will cause estimable damage to our country
question is: under which will we survive?
not an easy answer
we would probably be stronger under Trump but not sure our national ideals would survive
and, to quote Jesus, what profit a man if he gained the whole world and lost his own soul?
we have four and a half weeks
September 30, 2016 10:24 AM
Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money
Before 6 a.m., Donald Trump proved Hillary Clinton’s point about his temperament
Related: Megyn Kelly Tells Team Trump To ‘Just Shut Up’ Already About Women’s Weight
Clinton Sees Post-Debate Bounce In State Polls
Trump Pleaded The Fifth 97 Times To Avoid Admitting To Adultery
Literally sticking their heads in the dirt: GOP Blocks Probes Into Trump-Russia Ties
Related: For First Time In Over 150 Years, Supreme Court Will Be Shorthanded On Election Day
September 30, 2016 1:17 PM
PORT CLINTON, Ohio - Every few minutes, the glass door of the Ottawa County Republicans' storefront office would swing open to admit a blast of humid air and another supplicant.
Word had gone forth: Headquarters had a new shipment.
"We just got a bunch, and were we ever tickled," Carolyn Adams, the county chairwoman, said one afternoon last week. "The first time, they only sent us 50, and they were gone in less than 24 hours. People were desperate."
Now she could meet the demand for Donald Trump yard signs, and it was steady - one street-level indicator that the real estate developer has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in Ohio. He was leading in the most contested battleground state by an average of 2 percentage points in recent polls.
Over the last 30 elections, Ohio's vote for president has more closely reflected the national voting average than any other state, and it went with the winner every four years from 1964 to 2012, according to elections scholar Kyle Kondik's The Bellwether: Why Ohio Picks the President.
And Ottawa County, along the Lake Erie shoreline southeast of Toledo, is the only one of Ohio's 88 counties to always match the winner-picking streak, from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama.
September 30, 2016 2:38 PM
"Imagine a woman who showed up [to a presidential debate] unprepared, sniffling like a coke addict and interrupting her opponent 70 times. Let's further imagine that she's had five kids by three different men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, paid zero federal taxes and rooted for the housing crisis in which many thousands of families lost their homes. Wait...there's more: she has never held any elected office in her life."
- Michelle Vitali on Facebook
September 30, 2016 2:42 PM
Here is the repulsive audio of Donald Trump and Howard Stern talking about how 'vagina is expensive'
September 30, 2016 2:57 PM
This Girl Just Delivered One of the Most Powerful Messages on Police Shootings You Will Ever Hear: Just watch it.
"On Monday night, nine-year-old Zianna Oliphant took the stand at a city council meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina following the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, to talk about growing up in the city. Her testimony says everything."
October 01, 2016 8:47 AM
The microphone did not cause these sniffles
October 01, 2016 9:17 AM
Is a Cryptic Tweet by Marla Maples a Clue as to Source Behind Trump Tax Leak?
"At 1:34 p.m. Sunday, Donald Trump’s second ex-wife, Marla Maples, tweeted a photograph of a pumpkin patch. Does what happened next contain clues that confirm she anonymously mailed Trump’s 1995 tax return to The New York Times?...
...On Saturday night, the Times published Trump’s 1995 tax return, a three-page document that revealed he had declared a $916 million loss, which, in the Times’ assessment, means he then potentially could have legally avoided “paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.”...
...The documents were mailed with a New York City postmark and a Trump Tower return address to Times reporter Susanne Craig, who covers City Hall...
...Besides Trump, who would be in possession of such a valuable document?
Maples would.
In 1995, Trump was married to the zen actress (their holy union would come to its unfortunate conclusion two years later). She signed the tax returns “Marla Trump” in her delicate script....
...Maples returned from visiting family in Georgia with Tiffany to New York, where she now lives, on September 20th. We met the 21st. The Times received the tax returns the 23rd.
Which brings us to Sunday’s tweet.
Maples is either genuinely talking about Kabbalah, or she’s coyly copping to distributing the most important document yet published relating to her ex’s murky financial history.
Either way, Marla Maples is already great."
October 04, 2016 7:30 AM
916 million?
that's how much Trump spent setting up businesses that now employ tens of thousands
18 years?
depends how much profit he had the next year
if he made a billion the next year, it's all gone
the press is acting like this is some arcane tax game Trump played
truth is: he simply deducted amounts he spent to make money
that has been deductible since the tax code began early in the 20th century
the carryforward provisions simply recognize that expenses in connection with producing income should match over the years the income is produced, to the extent possible
Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama all pay the amount of tax they owe under the law
not any more or less
why shouldn't Trump?
also, under Obama the government has lost trillions
makes 916 million seem trivial
October 04, 2016 2:43 PM
"Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama all pay the amount of tax they owe under the law"
Another lie by a lying liar who seems to think there was a 34% bracket for couples earning in the $10 million range.
I guess Trump was right when he said "How stupid are the people of the country?"
Clintons made $10.6 million in 2015, paid federal rate of 34%
"Hillary and Bill Clinton released their 2015 tax returns on Friday, showing they paid $3.6 million in taxes on adjusted gross income of $10.6 million.
The release appeared to be aimed at drawing renewed attention to Donald Trump's refusal to release his own tax records.
The Clintons deducted $2.24 million last year, and paid an effective federal tax rate of 34.2 percent and an effective combined tax rate of 43.2 percent. They gave 9.8 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity, according to a campaign release.
Of the the $1,042,000 the Clintons gave to charity as listed on their return, $1 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation. The other $42,000 went to Desert Classic Charities.
Hillary Clinton also listed $1.475 million in gross income from speaking, and Bill reported $5.25 million in gross income from speaking. No details were provided on those speaking engagements."
October 04, 2016 3:08 PM
"the press is acting like this is some arcane tax game Trump played
truth is: he simply deducted amounts he spent to make money"
Anyone familiar with 1040 Schedule D is well aware of the concept of deducting losses and using them to offset gains. It doesn't take a "genius" to figure that out. You just have to follow the instructions for the little boxes on the form.
This is not what Trump did though. It appears that what happened is entirely different. Normally, if you default on a billion dollar property loan, you have to pay taxes on that money you received as a loan as if it were income - afterall, you were given a billion dollars, and now you don't have to give it back. It appears that what Trump did was form a corporation with the failing properties, forfeited a billion dollars of depreciation on those properties, then sold those properties to someone else, and then kept the losses on those properties as a tax benefit for himself. He stiffed the new owners out of the depreciation, got paid millions for the properties, and then got nearly two decades of (federal) tax free living.
This site has more detail:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/03/art-of-the-steal-this-is-how-trump-lost-916m-and-avoided-tax.html
So yeah, it does look like some arcane tax game Trump played.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 05, 2016 8:50 AM
"Anyone familiar with 1040 Schedule D is well aware of the concept of deducting losses and using them to offset gains. It doesn't take a "genius" to figure that out. You just have to follow the instructions for the little boxes on the form."
not to mention Schedules C and E
"This is not what Trump did though. It appears that what happened is entirely different. Normally, if you default on a billion dollar property loan, you have to pay taxes on that money you received as a loan as if it were income - afterall, you were given a billion dollars, and now you don't have to give it back. It appears that what Trump did was form a corporation with the failing properties, forfeited a billion dollars of depreciation on those properties, then sold those properties to someone else, and then kept the losses on those properties as a tax benefit for himself. He stiffed the new owners out of the depreciation, got paid millions for the properties, and then got nearly two decades of (federal) tax free living."
this is equal parts conjecture and misinterpretation
costs of producing income have always been deductible
if the Clintons have a problem with that, they've had 25 years in public "service" to propose changes
but, of course, they wouldn't because everyone would find that foolish
the whole tax issue is Dem demagoguery
"So yeah, it does look like some arcane tax game Trump played."
nope
and I can assured you that an NOL of that size was audited by the IRS twenty years ago
they either made a change or he was entitled to the deductions
either way, Trump has paid the right amount of tax
just like Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama
"Have a nice day,"
don't tax your brain with any more spin
October 05, 2016 10:47 AM
brilliant anon:
"Hillary, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Barack Obama all pay the amount of tax they owe under the law"
not-brilliant anon:
"Another lie by a lying liar who seems to think there was a 34% bracket for couples earning in the $10 million range"
where's the lie? are you saying those people paid more or less than the owed, because most Americans pay the amount they owe after taking the deductions they are entitled to
"Clintons made $10.6 million in 2015, paid federal rate of 34%"
obviously, Trump has deductions because he had expenses of producing income he received from those he provided services for
whereas the Clintons don't because they don't do anything but peddle influence and take bribes
there really aren't many costs involved with such activity
"Hillary and Bill Clinton released their 2015 tax returns on Friday, showing they paid $3.6 million in taxes on adjusted gross income of $10.6 million."
maybe, if they ever get brought to justice in a court of law, they'll give it all back
"The release appeared to be aimed at drawing renewed attention to Donald Trump's refusal to release his own tax records."
the Clintons are lifelong politicians who have arranged their affairs for public consumption
Trump has run profitable businesses that have provided tens of thousands of jobs to U.S. citizens, all of whom paid taxes
"Of the the $1,042,000 the Clintons gave to charity as listed on their return, $1 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation."
ah, the Foundation
this is a vehicle for them to keep their minions loyal by providing lifetime employment
the same people moved from Bill's WH staff to the Foundation to Hillary's Senate staff to the Foundation to Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign to her State Dept staff to the Foundation to her 2016 presidential campaign staff
sounds like personal inurement rather charity to me
"Hillary Clinton also listed $1.475 million in gross income from speaking, and Bill reported $5.25 million in gross income from speaking. No details were provided on those speaking engagements."
have you heard Hillary speak? she wasn't paid for her eloquence, it's a form of bribery
ask Bernie Sanders
October 05, 2016 10:47 AM
"this is equal parts conjecture and misinterpretation"
It is no secret that Trump financed his doomed empire with high interest loans that he later defaulted on. The amounts of those loans are known,and it is no secret the casinos failed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened - once you know the rules of the tax game -it's called math.
"costs of producing income have always been deductible"
No one is arguing that it is not. But defaulting on a loan is not "producing income," no matter how you spin it. I do not know the ins and outs of real estate tawell enough to know whether or not what Trump did was legal, or if the IRS was unable to follow his shell game well enough to figure out what he was up to.
If Trump released his full taxes like the other candidates have, he could put all of the analysis to rest.
As it looks right now, it appears he is not such a great businessman at all, but a genius at sticking others with the bills for his failed ventures. It explains why US banks don't give him loans anymore and he's had to go to Russia for cash to support his failures.
After Trump won the primary, and the Republican party started paying his campaign bills, he raised the rent in his own offices by a factor of 5, (despite using fewer people) and is now making a tidy profit from gullible Republican donors.
I have no doubt Trump will profit from his latest escapades. My only question is who will be stuck with the bill.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 05, 2016 11:41 AM
""Of the the $1,042,000 the Clintons gave to charity as listed on their return, $1 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation."
ah, the Foundation
this is a vehicle for them to keep their minions loyal by providing lifetime employment"
More lying spin trying to deflect the fact the private Donald J. Trump Foundation is in legal trouble these days for being used as as Trump's personal piggy bank.
Today's Washington Post reports:
"...The American Institute of Philanthropy’s “Charity Watch” gives the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating for its efficiency (the top rating is A+). It says the foundation spends 88 percent of its expenses on programs and 12 percent on overhead. It also says the Clinton Foundation spends just $2 to raise $100."...
The American Institute of Philantrhorpy's "Charity Watch" doesn't rate Trump's Foundation because unlike the Clinton Foundation:
"The Donald J. Trump Foundation is not eligible to be rated by CharityWatch because it is structured as a private foundation. CharityWatch primarily rates public charities, as well as some social welfare and veterans organizations that broadly solicit the public for donations.
The governing board of the Trump Foundation consists of Trump family members and an employee of The Trump Organization (Trump’s for-profit business conglomerate) that control the Foundation’s grant-making activities, as is typical for private foundations. This differs from public charities whose operations usually are directed by independent boards with no or few related parities..."
This week American voters have learned the private Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money
How is that possible if the Donald "hires the best people?" Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself not catch that error?
Apparently the Donald is not as brilliant as he imagines himself to be.
This week American voters also learned:
In new blow to campaign, Trump's foundation ordered to halt fundraising
Why? Because recently American voters learned Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems
It will be interesting to learn what else the investigation of the private Trump Foundation will reveal.
October 05, 2016 1:15 PM
"Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself not catch that error? "
Oops typo corrected below:
Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself catch that error?
October 05, 2016 1:18 PM
you are only allowed to deduct expenses for ventures at which you are "at-risk"
again, an NOL as large as this would invariably been examined by the IRS
your speculation that he made his affairs so confusing that the IRS couldn't determine if he was "at-risk" is, frankly, insulting to the professionals there and you have no basis for the statement other than bias
the IRS is actually bound by confidentiality so we actually don't know if Hillary's tax returns are fake
wild speculation, sure, but no different from what you're saying
truth is, Trump has filed FCC disclosure forms that will tell voters everything they need to know about his financial status
what Dems are really looking for is how much tax he paid and how much charitable deductions he took so they can demagogue, kind of like they're doing now
take, for example, "he hasn't paid anything toward veterans" or "he may not have paid any tax for 18 years"
what these baseless statements are intended to do is provoke a responses where he discloses his tax information
this is not required under law and the tradition only started in the overkill reaction to the abuses of Richard Nixon
if Hillary thinks it should be required, she can propose that
but probably more relevant would be all her e-mails related to Foundation business, her deleted State Dept e-mails, and the content of speeches she has given to special interest groups and banks
just ask Bernie Sanders
and Julian Assange
the latest report is that she wanted him hit with a drone to keep him quiet
October 05, 2016 1:33 PM
"Who didn't file the proper certification and why didn't the Tax Wiz himself catch that error?"
actually, it's not uncommon for non-profits, even those set up by tax whizzes, to neglect this, as it really isn't used for anything
most states have a small fee but there is no tax
most Foundations have a law firm do it for every state they solicit in
NY, however, is generally more hostile to charities and has more stringent rules than other places
but, as usually happens in these cases, they've informed the Foundation what steps to take and they undoubtedly will
more dumb Dem demagoguery
October 05, 2016 3:02 PM
ut-oh, TTF
they're on to you:
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/is-modern-science-polluted/
October 05, 2016 3:29 PM
Uh-oh Anon,they're on to you:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161004103313.htm
October 05, 2016 8:05 PM
Uh-oh Donald, they're on to you:
WSJ: Donald Trump Often Made Donations to State Attorneys General Reviewing His Business
Throughout his career, the GOP nominee and others close to him donated to state officials, in particular from New York
October 06, 2016 6:59 AM
believe it or not, it's not illegal or improper to donate to political campaigns
climate change? the classic non-verifiable hypothesis
however, if you want to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, the two best ways would be a massive investment in constructing new nuclear power plants and a massive tree-planting effort
I'm fine with that
how about you?
October 06, 2016 7:57 AM
Reuters: Trump calls tax avoidance 'smart,' most Americans call it 'unpatriotic': poll
Gallup: Obama Job Approval Up Most Among Conservative Democrats
...Bottom Line
For most of Barack Obama's White House career, less than half of Americans have approved of the job he is doing. Now, in his last year in office, as attention turns to finding his successor and evaluating his historical legacy, Americans are seeing him in a more positive light.
Obama's recent approval ratings have consistently been above 50% and among the best of his second term. That rise has mostly been fueled by increased support from Democrats of all ideological orientations, especially conservative Democrats. As a result, the gap between Democrats who are conservative and those who are moderate and liberal has narrowed.
The increase among Democratic groups has likely been aided by the presidential campaign, which serves to activate Americans' partisanship and thus cause them to view politicians of their preferred party more positively.
The most obvious historical parallel to Obama's eighth-year increase from below 50% approval to above it is that of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's job approval ratings pushed above 50% in 1988, creating a favorable political environment for George H.W. Bush to win the political equivalent of a third Reagan term. Democrats surely hope that they can capitalize on a similar trend and see the party win a rare third consecutive presidential election.
October 06, 2016 9:53 AM
his approval rating is up because of the contrast with his two probable successors
it's not complicated
his economic record is atrocious, the world has become a much more dangerous place, Russia and Iran are ascending, U. S. race relations have worsened and poverty has increased
we couldn't survive another eight years
but at least he's not venally corrupt like Clinton or lacking self-control and empathy like Trump
faint praise
October 06, 2016 5:08 PM
PGN Exclusive: Hillary Clinton addresses LGBT equality
"PGN reached out to the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, to discuss LGBT issues in advance of next month’s election. Clinton provided PGN this exclusive op-ed detailing her LGBT-rights record and her goals for future LGBT-equality efforts. The offer remains open for Trump.
This is the first time a major-party presidential candidate has written an op-ed for an LGBT newspaper. As such, this piece will kick off our annual LGBT History Month Project coverage, which will run weekly through the end of October.
More than half a century ago, at Independence Hall, participants at the first Annual Reminder march picketed, chanted and sang. They did this to show their fellow Philadelphians that the LGBT community lacked fundamental civil rights.
In the decades since those protests, our country has come a long way. Marriage equality is the law of the land. This year, the last state law prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting was finally struck down. And President Obama signed an executive order protecting federal workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. We should celebrate that progress.
But the simple truth is that even now, in 2016, there are still too many states in America where LGBT people can be fired or evicted from their home because of who they are or who they love. Pennsylvania is one of them. Here, you can get married on Sunday and fired on Monday, just for being gay or transgender.
That goes against everything we stand for as a country.
We need to act on the federal level to take on discrimination in all its forms. That’s what I’ll do as President — with your help.
But first, we have to win this election. Donald Trump must not be elected president. He would rip away so much of the progress we’ve made. He would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn marriage equality and rescind many of President Obama’s executive orders — including those protecting LGBT people.
It’s not just Trump’s policies that reveal the kind of president he would be. So does his choice of running mate. Mike Pence is one of the most anti-LGBT public officials in America. As governor of Indiana, Pence supported a bill that legalized discrimination against LGBT people. As a member of Congress, he voted against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” saying doing so would be “social experimentation.” And he’s said that homosexuality would bring about “societal collapse.”
That’s why the stakes in this election are so high.
If I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, I’ll protect the progress we’ve fought so hard to achieve — and I’ll keep fighting until every American can live free from discrimination and prejudice.
That means working to pass the Equality Act. It would finally provide LGBT people full federal nondiscrimination protections in housing, employment and so much more. I know that differences of opinion on LGBT equality still exist in the hearts of some Americans, but they should not exist under our laws. As president, I’ll be your partner in bringing about the vision of the inclusive nation that advocates, activists and allies have been seeking for decades..."
October 06, 2016 9:00 PM
"...I also believe we must address the ongoing issue of violence against the LGBT community. LGBT people are now more likely than any other group to be the target of a hate crime. America saw the effects of hate in Orlando, with the attack on the Pulse nightclub — the deadliest mass shooting by a single person in our history. The danger is compounded for LGBT people of color, who face intersectional pressures and dangers, particularly transgender people of color. Last year, more than 20 transgender women were killed in America. Recently, three were murdered right here in Philadelphia.
We need to stop the violence and save LGBT lives. We need to collect more data around gender identity and sexual orientation in hate crimes, so we can stop them in a smarter, more effective way. And we need to finally pass common-sense reforms to address the gun violence epidemic. Along with the vast majority of Americans, I believe that we can protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while still making sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands.
Finally, we need to continue our fight to achieve our goal of an AIDS-free generation. HIV and AIDS still disproportionately impact gay and bisexual men, communities of color, transgender people and young people. We need to increase research, expand the use of effective prevention medications like PrEP, cap out-of-pocket drug costs and reform outdated HIV-criminalization laws.
Like many, I’ve lost friends and loved ones to AIDS. We owe it to them — the people we love and miss, and the people whose names we’ll never know — to continue this fight.
As First Lady and Senator, I fought to significantly expand funding for AIDS research. As Secretary of State, I changed the rules so that State Department employees in same-sex relationships were treated the same as their colleagues and so that transgender Americans could obtain passports that reflected their true gender identity. So these fights aren’t new to me.
And as president, I’ll keep fighting for LGBT rights, because — as I told the world in one of the most important speeches I gave as Secretary — they are human rights. And I won’t quit until all our laws reflect that basic reality."
October 06, 2016 9:00 PM
"He would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn marriage equality and rescind many of President Obama’s executive orders"
thanks, Hillary, for reminding everyone why we might want to consider voting for Trump instead of you
"It’s not just Trump’s policies that reveal the kind of president he would be. So does his choice of running mate"
good point
choosing a VP is our first chance to see what kind of decision making skills a potential president has
Trump got an A plus
you got a D minus
really, you almost had to feel sorry for that nervous nelly you chose
he was trying so hard to Mr Tough Guy
it was pathetic
"Mike Pence is one of the most anti-LGBT public officials in America"
not true
he wants to help
he supports free reparative therapy, funded by the Feds, at mental asylums across the country
"As governor of Indiana, Pence supported a bill that legalized discrimination against LGBT people"
declining to participate in immoral sexual arrangements should not be considered discrimination
to do so is an abomination
"As a member of Congress, he voted against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity"
so he's a free speech advocate
good for him
"He opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” saying doing so would be “social experimentation.”"
you mean that policy your husband created to shut gays up?
Pence supports a Clinton policy and this is the thanks he gets
"And he’s said that homosexuality would bring about “societal collapse.”"
that's what seems to follow
the U.S. government has sided with a "right" to gay marriage and the result is that we have a choice between horrible you and horrible Trump as our next Prez
October 06, 2016 9:23 PM
"climate change? the classic non-verifiable hypothesis"
Um, no. There are a number of lines of evidence that provide verification of anthropomorphic climate change, including, but not limited to:
The C12/C14 ratio in the atmosphere which follows the burn rate of fossil fuels.
The sun cycle activity variation which does not correlate with the increasing temps.
Ocean acidification due to CO2 from fossil fuels.
Disappearing glaciers / rising sea levels.
Shifting seasons and migration patterns.
Continuing increases in global temperatures, more record highs, fewer record lows, and no end in sight for continued rise.
At this point, it can be reasonably argued that, though high, these are still statically possible, just very, very unlikely. But when we combine these facts with our knowledge of physics, and how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, we really can't be surprised these things are happening, in fact, we should EXPECT them.
If you want a "classic non-verifiable hypothesis," look for statements like this classic:
"you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground"
As for planting trees to solve this problem, it won't be nearly enough. There are some "order of magnitude" estimates we can look at to see why. Perhaps after my friends' wedding this weekend, I'll post them.
"the U.S. government has sided with a "right" to gay marriage and the result is that we have a choice between horrible you and horrible Trump as our next Prez"
You're not really much of one for "cause and effect" are you?
Trump is on the Republican ticket because for the last 3 decades Republicans have pandered to the most gullible portion of the electorate, namely those who have little capacity for analytical thought, and are easily swayed by catchy slogans like "Read my lips..." "You betcha!," and "We're gonna build a wall!" without regard to the long-term consequences of short-sighted Republican policies.
Republican politicians have cultivated this base for decades. They are now reaping what they have sown.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 07, 2016 12:56 AM
"At this point, it can be reasonably argued that, though high, these are still statically possible"
that's true, thanks for having the integrity to concede this
"just very, very unlikely"
as any gay afficionado of musicals will tell you, impossible things are happening all the time
it practically defines existence
"But when we combine these facts with our knowledge of physics, and how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, we really can't be surprised these things are happening, in fact, we should EXPECT them."
except "these things" aren't happening
that's the point
everything is "these things" to AGW adherents
every anomaly is considered proof of pending catastrophe
you would have thought the cessation of global warming from 1998-2014 or the unprecedented placidity of the Eastern seaboard for the last 11 years would have given these people pause but, to them, evidence is irrelevant
they just start adjusting data and making up theories why it doesn't fit their predetermined theories
and look at this:
"The sun cycle activity variation which does not correlate with the increasing temps"
talk about chutzpah
it doesn't correlate perfectly but it does so better than human caused carbon emissions, which have continued unabated while there are large swaths of time without temperature increases
"If you want a "classic non-verifiable hypothesis," look for statements like this classic:
"you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground""
while this could never be absolutely proven, there are many things to indicate it is so
it can be reasonably argued that, though high, these are still statically possible, just very, very unlikely
right?
"As for planting trees to solve this problem, it won't be nearly enough"
actually, if the alarmists are correct, nothing will be enough
combining it with a massive switch to nuclear power would indeed eliminate carbon in the atmosphere
"Perhaps after my friends' wedding this weekend, I'll post them"
is that a wedding or a "wedding"?
"the U.S. government has sided with a "right" to gay marriage and the result is that we have a choice between horrible you and horrible Trump as our next Prez"
You're not really much of one for "cause and effect" are you?
oh, OK, here you go:
there is nothing in the constitution that could be argued to produce this right
it was decided to appease certain elements
the same thinking has produced two ignorant candidates who both threaten the survival of our constitution
"Trump is on the Republican ticket because for the last 3 decades Republicans have pandered to the most gullible portion of the electorate, namely those who have little capacity for analytical thought, and are easily swayed by catchy slogans like "Read my lips..." "You betcha!," and "We're gonna build a wall!" without regard to the long-term consequences of short-sighted Republican policies"
there you go again
chutzpah
how about:
"it depends what your definition of is is"
"if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
"if you built a business, you didn't do that"
"I takes a village"
"never waste a catastrophe"
"elections have consequences so stop being so partisan"
"he MAY have paid no tax for 18 years"
"I was only joking when I said let's send a drone to take out Julian Assange"
Democratic politicians have cultivated this base for decades. They are now reaping what they have sown.
"Have a nice day"
yeah, don't have any unnecessary surgery
October 07, 2016 9:25 AM
"If you want a "classic non-verifiable hypothesis," look for statements like this classic:
"you're either in God's favor, or you're not
there is no neutral ground""
you're right Unnecessarily
it takes chutzpah to say something like this
these are the same people who always say "the arc of history bends toward justice"
they think that happens by accident?
October 07, 2016 9:41 AM
ut-oh, TTF
it looks like they're on to you:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-vs-clinton-on-obamacare-1475796795
October 07, 2016 9:48 AM
"these are the same people who always say "the arc of history bends toward justice"
they think that happens by accident?"
Of course it doesn't happen by accident. It happens through the persistent efforts of liberal minded people trying to better the lives of people by changing an unjust status quo - a status quo that is invariably kept in place by conservatives who bring up every excuse they can think of to justify everything from slavery, Jim Crow, keeping gay people from serving their country and getting married, "law and order" as a pretext for "stop and frisk" and others, including inter-racial marriage.
"there is nothing in the constitution that could be argued to produce this right"
Justice Kennedy pointed to both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. On constitutional matters, he has a whole lot more authority than a bunch of nameless, conservative internet trolls.
My friends are two lovely people who have had to deal with a lot of difficulties in their lives, and it has affected them deeply. I am glad they found each other, as I think their strengths compliment each other and I think they will each be a positive force in each other's lives for very different reasons. It's great that they have the opportunity to find joy together. Their pastor is an amazing guy. He grew up as a missionary kid to Evangelical parents in Uraguay. He saw first hand how his father used "faith healing" as a trick to win converts to the faith and extract as much income as possible from them. He didn't grow up jaded and cynical though, even after being called out for execution. He found a deeper meaning for God, and a stronger foundation for his faith.
Thank you, Justice Kennedy, and four other justices, for making this possible.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
October 07, 2016 11:04 AM
Trump's lawyers testified they met with him in pairs to ensure he wouldn't lie about their meetings
"BuzzFeed and several other news outlets were able to obtain the court filings related to several of Donald Trump’s bankruptcies in the early 1990s. As news outlets begin to dig, Twitter user @nycsouthpaw immediately noticed something in the 1993 filing—Donald Trump’s lawyer admitted they had to meet with him in pairs because of his penchant for lying.
The key part can be seen here, but I’ve transcribed for easier reading. Check out this exchange in the deposition of Trump bankruptcy lawyer Patrick T. McGhan, key parts emphasized:
Q: You had a meeting on June 16, 1990?
A: Right. Same identical entry. Right. Okay. For three quarters of an hour with Donald, right.
Q: Did Mr. Miller always do everything together with you when he was active in this case?
A: Not everything, but we—it’s always been our practice to make sure two people are present, and we don’t have a problem of people lying.
Q: You are meeting with your client?
A: That’s right. Our client. Hey, Trump is a leader in the field of expert—he’s an expert at interpreting things. Let’s put it that way.
Q: That’s interestingly put. As I recall in your letter to Mr. Descantis, which we marked yesterday, you indicated the policy of your office was to have two attorneys present for meeting with public officials?
A: Correct.
Q: Here you are meeting with your client?
A: That’s right.
Q: Was it necessary for both you and Mr. Miller to always attend the meeting —
A: We always do that.
Q: Always?
A: We tried to do it with Donald always if we could because Donald says certain things and then has a lack of memory.
There you have it. Donald Trump’s own lawyers could not meet with him individually because of his history of lying to them."
October 07, 2016 1:22 PM
tsk-tsk:
http://nypost.com/2016/10/06/fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/
"There you have it. Donald Trump’s own lawyers could not meet with him individually because of his history of lying to them"
a far-fetched story
most lawyers' clients lie to them
certainly Hillary's lawyers are familiar with that
October 07, 2016 4:20 PM
fbi-agents-are-ready-to-revolt-over-the-cozy-clinton-probe/
That's actually three former FBI agents mentioned in an opinion piece, not exactly "news."
Oh sure, just like the military was supposed to suffer personnel losses in recruitment and retention when DADT was repealed according to Peter Sprigg
No such losses have occurred.
Instead of your opinion piece that mentions complaints of three former FBI agents, be sure to let us know if any current FBI agents actually do "revolt."
There is nothing to fear here but that doesn't stop you and your fear-mongering friends like Peter Sprigg from trying to whip some up.
You truly are deplorable and so is Trump. https://twitter.com/kellyoxford
October 08, 2016 8:25 AM
TOO LATE
YOU’RE SURPRISED?
Huntsman Drops The Hammer: LEAVE THE RACE
Utah Gov., Congressman Bail
Kasich: ‘Indefensible’
Jeb: ‘Reprehensible’
Kirk: Trump A ‘Malignant Clown’
Paul Ryan ‘Sickened’
No Complaints When Roger Ailes Joined Trump Train!
Grab Them By the P---y
UPDATE: Trump ‘Apologizes’ After Hours Of Silence — Then Attacks Clintons!
VILE
Repeatedly Calls Woman ‘It’
Textbook Rape Culture
Pence Boots Reporters After Audio Drops
Hillary: ‘Horrific’
Kaine: ‘Makes Me Sick To My Stomach’
‘GAME OVER’
‘There’s No Way To Spin This’
How The Shocking Tape Was Exposed
It’s Time To Bury Trump Once And For All
Trump offers brief, defiant apology for lewd 2005 remarks
‘Sickened’ by video comments, Ryan dumps Trump from event
'I SAID IT, I WAS WRONG': Trump says sorry for crude remarks about women, then slams Clintons as Republican lawmakers call for him to drop out
Political world reacts with outrage to Trump's comments about women
'THEY LET YOU DO IT': Tape captures Trump in crude rant with TV host
'I'VE SAID SOME FOOLISH THINGS': Transcript of Trump apology video
Trump Bragged About Groping Women: ‘They Let You Do It’
Trump’s Apology That Wasn’t
Editorial: The Sleaziness of Donald Trump
Trump plunged into crisis as GOP recoils from vulgar remarks
Trump apologizes for lewd comments about women: I was wrong
Ryan: Trump no longer attending joint event
Sen. Mike Lee calls for Trump to step down
Top GOP lawmaker withdraws Trump endorsement
Trump caught on tape making lewd remarks about women
RNC chair, GOP lawmakers unleash on Trump over leaked audio
'Nancy' in vulgar Trump tape identified
October 08, 2016 8:50 AM
I see your 3 former FBI agents and raise you 30 former GOP lawmakers sign anti-Trump letter
October 08, 2016 9:59 AM
The 6-year-old girl turned to her mother and asked, “What does it mean to grab somebody by the p---y?”
Rachael MacIsaac Parker thought she had misheard her daughter. “What?” she recalled responding. “What do you mean?”
Then she saw the television screen. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them,” Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, was saying in a 2005 recording. “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
Fame gave him power over the opposite sex, Trump was bragging to Billy Bush, then the host of “Access Hollywood.”
“Grab them by the p---y,” he said, caught on a hot mic. “You can do anything.”...
...The recording isn’t the first example of Trump employing language that has worried parents. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in March, Cokie Roberts pressed the candidate about how he influences young minds.
“There’ve been incidents of white children pointing to their darker-skinned classmates and saying, ‘You’ll be deported when Donald Trump is president,’ ” Roberts said in a reference to Trump’s promise to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants if he becomes president. “There’ve been incidents of white kids at basketball games holding up signs to teams which have Hispanic kids on them, saying, ‘We’re going to build a wall to keep you out.’ ”
She asked if he was proud.
“I think your question is a very nasty question,” Trump replied, “and I’m not proud of it because I didn’t even hear of it, okay?” [Head buried in dirt excuse]
Parker, an assistant principal at an elementary school in Louisiana, pulled her daughter close. “I told her we needed to talk about our bodies,” she said, “and that sometimes bad people touch our bodies without permission.”
She said her daughter asked if Trump was a bad guy. “What do you even say to that?” she remarked. [Yes, he is very bad!]
The decade-old footage of Trump has upended the presidential campaign since The Washington Post first published it Friday afternoon, prompting dozens of Republicans to call for the candidate to exit the race. But it also has presented parents nationwide with a vexing quandary: how and whether to explain the jarring remarks to their children.
Trump’s comments dominated television and the Internet on Friday night and all of Saturday — a digital universe open to any kid with a device and a connection.
Teddy Mott, a freshman at a high school in the District, first saw part of the transcript on Instagram. Curious, he Googled “Donald Trump” on his iPhone and the phrase “Grab them by the p---y” came up.
He thought, “What?”
“You hear guys at school talking about women, but you don’t hear them talking like that,” Mott, 14, told a reporter as his mother listened. “You hear, ‘Am I out of the doghouse?’ ”
Did the exchange affect his view of women?
He paused to think.
“You respect them as people,” he said. “My mom taught me that. You look at them from afar. You look into their eyes first.”
For some families, the remarks have prompted emotional reactions. Keisha Robinson, an employee at a nonprofit organization in Arizona, said “grab them by the p---y” brought her 18-year-old daughter to tears.
“She came to me and said, ‘Oh, my gosh. Did you hear what he said?’ ” recalled Robinson, 38, a supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. “She’s terrified about what this means for women. She’s scared people think that behavior is okay.”
Michael Clifford, 37, an author who lives in Los Angeles, said he turns off the television when Trump is talking. “It’s a fatherly instinct to shield them from that negativity,” he said of his two boys, ages 2 and 4 months. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Oh, that’s just real guy talk,’ and that disgusts me. I’ve never hung around guys like that.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-six-year-old-asks-what-does-it-mean-to-grab-somebody-by-the-p----y/2016/10/08/57ebe6fc-8da4-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html
October 09, 2016 8:49 AM
"...The recording isn’t the first example of Trump employing language that has worried parents"
and, unfortunately, thanks to Hillary's husband, there's oral in the WH and residue on blue dresses and variations with cigars
but, then, thanks to TTF, those things would be in the school curriculum anyway
even if not made an indelible part of our presidential history
courtesy if the Clintons
October 10, 2016 4:43 AM
http://www.city-journal.org/html/trumped-outrage-14777.html
October 10, 2016 6:01 AM
Trump went where many begged him not to go: Diving into scandals, real or fake
This debate is one for the record books
DON IN FLAMES
Trump Vows ‘Jail’ For Hillary
Shrugs Off Sex Assault Brag: Just ‘Locker Room Talk’!
Admits To Dodging Income Tax
INTRIGUE: Pence Cancels Fundraiser
Earlier: Trump Throws Him Under The Bus
DONALD DIRTY: ‘Crudest Debate Ever’
‘Disaster’
Trump attacks Anderson Cooper over Clinton email controversy
REPORT: Paul Ryan May Revoke Endorsement
Trump Tried To Seat Bill’s Accusers In ‘Family Box’ — Thwarted By Debate Commission
Melania Trump sports 'pussy-bow' at debate
Backs Assad!
Lies About Iraq — Again
October 10, 2016 8:33 AM
How Many Times Did Donald Trump Sniffle In the Second Presidential Debate?
"...The number we tallied is 93 sniffles for Donald Trump. That’s about one sniffle per minute, as the debate went slightly over the allotted 90 minutes.
The density of sniffs decreased over the course of the debate — in the finale third, the rate at which Trump sniffled went down pretty significantly compared with the early goings. Just as we couldn’t guess at why he was sniffling in the first place, we also couldn’t guess about why the sniffles would come less often as the debate goes on.
So there you go."
October 10, 2016 9:14 AM
Eric Holder
@EricHolder
So @realDonaldTrump will ORDER his AG to take certain actions-When Nixon tried that his AG courageously resigned. Trump is dangerous/unfit
9:41 PM - 9 Oct 2016
October 10, 2016 10:37 AM
Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Trump's "President Day 1" checklist: 1 Jail opponent. 2 Media crackdown. 3 Support Assad. Coincidentally, that was also Putin's checklist.
12:03AM - 10 Oct 2016
October 10, 2016 11:04 AM
It’s all falling apart for the GOP. With his debate performance last night, Donald Trump may have managed to keep his own running mate from jumping a sinking ship, but for the rest of the party it’s a free-for-all. Speaker Paul Ryan effectively gave his troops license to abandon the nominee to save their own skins, declaring that his sole focus this November is “making sure Hillary Clinton does not get a blank check.” Ryan’s position is hardly a courageous one—indeed, he squandered what was probably his last chance to officially withdraw his endorsement for Trump. But there is no longer a pretense that, if Republicans band together, they can eke out a victory in November. Ryan is telling the rank-and-file in Congress that the presidential election is over, and it is now every man for himself.
A new, devastating poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal (Poll: After Trump Tape Revelation, Clinton's Lead Up to Double Digits) appears to bear this out. Conducted after the release of the now-notorious tape of Trump making casual remarks about sexual assault, it shows that Hillary Clinton has an 11-point lead over Trump in a four-way race that includes Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. (In a two-way contest, the lead expands to 14 points.) More polls are sure to come this week that will incorporate the public response to the debate, but if these numbers hold up come November, Clinton could win in a landslide.
October 10, 2016 1:33 PM
Max J. Rosenthal
@maxjrosenthal
You know who else marked C on papers?
Trump's management company in the 70s when black people tried to rent from them.
9:28 PM - 9 Oct 2016
October 10, 2016 3:34 PM
"More polls are sure to come this week that will incorporate the public response to the debate, but if these numbers hold up come November, Clinton could win in a landslide."
Could?
What also could happen is that people start reading the transcript of Hillary's banker speeches. And that further material Julian Assange is planning to release.
Trump is a boor but Clinton's problems are substantive, not just personal. Trump's no worse than another U.S. Grant. The Clintons have always saved stuff to cover their tracks. Do you think it's a coincidence this tape was leaked hours after Clinton's bank speeches were released? Doesn't that make you want to check them out? How stupid can you be? Do you think it was a coincidence that Bill would bomb a supposed bin Laden sighting every time a Monica revelation came out?
The Clintons represent no less a threat to our democracy than Trump. Get your head out of the sand. This is a sad time for America. And a plan needs to be devised to save our country.
Now.
October 10, 2016 9:22 PM
"Do you think it's a coincidence this tape was leaked hours after Clinton's bank speeches were released? "
A few hours huh? Is that what you imagine happened you poor little conspiracy theorist you?
Who needs facts when you have fears?
Here I'll let a journalist, Brian Stelter, tell you what he learned:
How the shocking hot mic tape of Donald Trump was exposed
"WARNING: This story contains graphic language.
The videotape of Donald Trump that is shaking up the presidential election sat forgotten on a shelf at NBC's "Access Hollywood" until just a few days ago.
On Monday, according to an NBC source, one of the entertainment newsmagazine's producers remembered Trump's 2005 taping session with former "Access" co-host Billy Bush.
Trump's offensive comments about Alicia Machado were still making waves. And the Associated Press had just published a detailed story quoting former "Apprentice" employees saying Trump "was lewd and sexist" while taping the reality show.
With that in mind, a producer dug up the tape.
By mid-week, executive producer Rob Silverstein and his producing team had taken a look at its contents, and discovered that among other things it included a moment in which Trump told Bush, "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
It also included Trump saying he once tried and failed to have sex with Nancy O'Dell, who was Bush's co-host at the time.
After reviewing the tape, "we were debating what to do" with it, an NBC source explained.
By Friday morning, Silverstein had decided to broadcast it, and a script had been written. The story was not slated to air on Friday night's edition of the show, however.
That means the earliest it would have aired is Monday night -- after Sunday's presidential debate.
Another NBC source confirmed that "Access" was working on a story, and that NBC News knew about it, but said that as of Friday morning the story "wasn't quite finalized."
That's when Silverstein was notified that David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post had come into possession of a
copy.
Fahrenthold, who has been reporting for months on Trump's charitable donations and the Trump Foundation, was contacted around 11 a.m. on Friday by a source who told him about the footage, according to a Post story about how he got this scoop.
Fahrenthold asked NBC for comment about the tape around noon Eastern time. The producers at "Access," which is based in California, were blindsided by Fahrenthold's call.
According to the Post, Farenthold knows the identity of the person who leaked the video to him, but will not disclose it.
Sources at NBC believe someone inside NBC downloaded the footage from one of the network's video servers. The tape was accessible internally since the "Access" story was already in the works.
Silverstein told Page Six on Friday afternoon, "I don't know who leaked it. I have no idea."
After the Post called NBC for comment, NBC News staff hurried to finish a story about it. So did the "Access" staff.
On Friday night's edition of the newsmagazine, co-host Natalie Morales reported on the tape, linking it to Monday's investigation by The A.P.
Morales also noted that Trump has appeared on the show "hundreds of times" over the years.
"In the course of reporting on Mr. Trump, we have reviewed much of our own footage," she said.
So does "Access" have other tapes of Trump speaking in vulgar terms? One of the NBC sources said, "Not that I know of."..."
October 11, 2016 7:41 AM
WaPo journalist Paul Farhi reported:
A caller had a lewd tape of Donald Trump. Then the race to break the story was on.
"Reporter David Fahrenthold got a phone call around 11 a.m. Friday from a source with a tip about Donald Trump. The source asked: Would Fahrenthold be interested in seeing some previously unaired video of Trump?
Fahrenthold didn’t hesitate. Within a few moments of watching an outtake of footage from a 2005 segment on “Access Hollywood,” the Washington Post reporter was on the phone, calling Trump’s campaign, “Access Hollywood” and NBC for reaction.
By 4 p.m., his story was causing shock waves.
The recording, of course, was of Trump’s vulgar comments about women as he rode on an “Access Hollywood” bus with the show’s then-host, Billy Bush. With Bush’s encouragement, and an open microphone recording him, Trump describes in crude terms his unsuccessful attempt to seduce a woman named Nancy and brags that his celebrity status enables him to grope women...."
I find it interesting that Assange planned to release his Russian-hack-acquired emails intended to damage Hillary Clinton before the debate but you have nothing to say about that, indicating you are fine with foreigners trying to change the outcome of this election.
You should practice saying "Madame President," which will be much preferable to waking up on November 9th to find the USA has become Trump's Banana Republic.
"...Trump said that if he became president he would “instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.”
When you are threatening to investigate and then jail your political opponent in a presidential debate you have crossed an exceptionally dangerous line.
This is Trump saying that the director of the FBI and the US attorney general are corrupt because they cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing in the investigation of her emails. This is Trump saying that he will order his attorney general and the Department of Justice to investigate and jail the runner-up in the presidential election. This is Trump suggesting that if he becomes president he would simply throw people in prison, because he “alone” determines that they are guilty of a crime. This is an abrogation of the rule of law in America and a fundamental violation of the democratic norms that allow for the peaceful turnover of power from one political party to the other.
And you know the absolute worst part about this? When Trump said it, his partisans in the crowd cheered. This is banana republic territory. This is what fascism in America looks like...."
I bet Putin was cheering too.
October 11, 2016 8:06 AM
"This is Trump saying that the director of the FBI and the US attorney general are corrupt because they cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing in the investigation of her emails"
no, it was because they offered immunity to key participants in the crime, allowed the destruction of evidence, and had a private meeting with the alleged perpetrator's husband
further, the FBI director announced there was evidence of crimes but he wasn't going to pursue "in the context", in other words because she was a major party presidential nominee and not an ordinary employee
"This is Trump saying that he will order his attorney general and the Department of Justice to investigate and jail the runner-up in the presidential election. This is Trump suggesting that if he becomes president he would simply throw people in prison, because he “alone” determines that they are guilty of a crime."
actually, he said he would appoint an special investigator, which is what the corrupt Obama should have done, considering the obvious conflict of interest
"This is an abrogation of the rule of law in America and a fundamental violation of the democratic norms that allow for the peaceful turnover of power from one political party to the other."
not really, he is talking about delegating to an impartial party
however, it is a concern and to prevent it Obama should pardon her before leaving office
I'd support that
btw, all this trivial tape of locker room talk is obscuring some very substantive developments
yesterday, wikileaks released disclosures that most Clinton Foundation money comes from foreign powers
and she has the nerve to talk about Putin
October 11, 2016 10:30 AM
THE SCOOP
DEAR DONALD TRUMP AND VLADIMIR PUTIN, I AM NOT SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL
Updated | I am Sidney Blumenthal. At least, that is what Vladimir Putin—and, somehow, Donald Trump—seem to believe. And that should raise concerns not only about Moscow’s attempts to manipulate this election, but also how Trump came to push Russian disinformation to American voters.
An email from Blumenthal—a confidant of Hillary Clinton and a man, second only to George Soros at the center of conservative conspiracy theories—turned up in the recent document dump by Wikileaks. At a time when American intelligence believes Russian hackers are trying to interfere with the presidential election, records have been fed recently to Wikileaks out of multiple organizations of the Democratic Party, raising concerns that the self-proclaimed whistleblowers group has become a tool of Putin’s government. But now that I have been brought into the whole mess—and transformed into Blumenthal—there is even more proof that this act of cyberwar is not only being orchestrated by the Russians, but that they are really, really dumb.
The evidence emerged thanks to the incompetence of Sputnik, the Russian online news and radio service established by the government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya.
The documents that Wikileaks unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the Wikileaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal.
The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal, Podesta and the topic of conservative political fevered dreams, Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton bore total responsibility for the terrorist attack on the American outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign.
To understand the full importance of the story—and how much Putin and his Kremlin cronies must have been dancing with delight—I have to quote the top few paragraphs:
In a major revelation from the second batch of WikiLeaks emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta it was learned that Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal believed that the investigation into Benghazi was legitimate because it was "preventable" and the result of State Department negligence.
In an email titled "The Truth" from Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the adviser writing to undisclosed recipients said that "one important point that has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable" in what may turn out to be the big October surprise from the WikiLeaks released of emails hacked from the account of Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta...."
October 11, 2016 11:18 AM
"Then came the money quote: "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate," said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton's management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.
Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.
The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000 word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the terror attack and by the former Secretary of State herself. But that was hardly the point of the story, “Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages.” The piece is about the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans, and the article slammed the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation—the tenth inquiry into the tragedy.
Here is the real summation of my article, which the Russians failed to quote: “The historical significance of this moment can hardly be overstated, and it seems many Republicans, Democrats and members of the media don’t fully understand the magnitude of what is taking place. The awesome power of government—one that allows officials to pore through almost anything they demand and compel anyone to talk or suffer the shame of taking the Fifth Amendment—has been unleashed for purely political purposes. It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party’s leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America’s past are rare. Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army…The consequences, however, are worse than the manipulation of the electoral process. By using Benghazi for political advantage, the Republicans have communicated to global militants that, through even limited attacks involving relatively few casualties, they can potentially influence the direction of American elections.”
Of course, this might be seen as just an opportunity to laugh at the incompetence of the Russian hackers and government press—once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down. But then things got even more bizarre..."
October 11, 2016 11:18 AM
"...This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?
At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”
“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.
“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”
The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”
This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?
The Russians have been obtaining American emails and now are presenting complete misrepresentations of them—falsifying them—in hopes of setting off a cascade of events that might change the outcome of the presidential election. The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump? That is a topic for another time.
For now, though, Americans should be outraged. This totalitarian regime, engaged in what are arguably war crimes in Syria to protect their government puppet, is working to upend a democracy to the benefit of an American candidate who uttered positive comments just Sunday about the Kremlin's campaign on behalf of Bashar al-Assad. Trump’s arguments were an incomprehensible explication of the complex Syrian situation, which put him right on the side of the Iranians and Syrian,s who are fighting to preserve the government that is the primary conduit of weapons used against Israel.
So no, Mr. Putin, I’m not Sidney Blumenthal. And now that you have been exposed once again, get the hell out of our election. And Mr. Trump—you have some explaining to do.
This story has been updated to include information about Donald Trump's speech in Pennsylvania.
October 11, 2016 11:19 AM
"Comparisons from America’s past are rare. Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army…"
how about when Obama won the last election by harassing political enemies using the IRS?
October 11, 2016 11:33 AM
You and your conspiracy theories are a hoot!
No wonder the GOP is falling apart at the seams!
”WikiLeaks
@wikileaks
RELEASE: the first 2050 of well over 50000 email from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Pedesta wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...#Podesta #imWithHer
2:01 PM -- 7 Oct 2016
-- https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784498891936915456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"David Fahrenthold
@Fahrenthold
"I just start kissing them..Just Kiss. I don't even wait,' Trump said. "And when you're a star they let you do it."
Video
Video Caption: Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005: On soap opera set, the GOP nominee bragged about grouping and trying to have sex with women
washingtonpost.com
1:05 PM - - 7 Oct 2016”
--
https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/784484724131717124
"Do you think it's a coincidence this tape was leaked hours after Clinton's bank speeches were released? “
The videotape of Donald Trump talking about sexually harassing women was posted to twitter an hour BEFORE Assange dumped a small portion of the Russian-hacked Clinton Campaign emails he plans to release drip, drip, drip.
October 11, 2016 1:27 PM
The Apprentice tapes will be drip, drip dripping soon enough and we'll be able to confirm Trump's apology and claim that "Anyone who know me knows they words don't reflect who I am," was just another of his gold-plated lies.
Trump is a successful businessman as this closing makes clear:
10/10/16
Trump Taj Mahal closes its doors in Atlantic CIty
"Donald Trump called it the Eighth Wonder of the World. Now it's just another failed Atlantic City casino…”
Oh, and speaking of great and successful businessmen, Donald Trump tried to call out Warren Buffett. He probably didn’t expect this response.
”…“I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944, when I was 13. (Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year,)" Buffett wrote. “I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carryforward.”…”
October 11, 2016 1:41 PM
Warren Buffet is an investor, not a businessman. So, he likely wouldn't have any NOLs. If he's saying he's never had a capital loss carryforward, he's lying.
Today's wikileaks include the revelation that Hillary told bankers she supports fracking and is partly responsible for creating it
October 11, 2016 1:45 PM
look, kids
it's sixteen times Democrats have tried to jail their opponents
SIXTEEN TIMES!!
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/10/16-times-democrats-tried-to-prosecute-their-opponents/
October 11, 2016 2:36 PM
" Right now, RCP has electoral at 188 for Hillary, 165 for DJT, rest is a toss but DJT has the momentum in most of 'em. What a relief! The MSM not long ago said the Democratic electoral lead was insurmountable. Thankfully, it looks like the life-long antigay Clinton clan will be stopped.
September 28, 2016 11:29 AM"
How's that momentum thing working for the Orange One now?
Not so great.
Observe:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Hillary has climbed to 260 Electoral College votes while The Orange One is still at 165.
I guess that "September momentum" didn't carry him very far.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And Hillary trumps Trump in the RCP averages of polls by 6 full points
Even The daily Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds Clinton still holding a five point lead - 44% to 39% - over her Republican rival.
October 11, 2016 4:00 PM
"it's sixteen times Democrats have tried to jail their opponents
SIXTEEN TIMES!!"
And how many of those SIXTEEN TIMES involved a Democratic Presidential candidate trying to jail their opposing Republican Presidential candidate?
None.
How many of those SIXTEEN TIMES involved a Democratic President directly.
None.
Compare that to The Orange One's desire clearly stated for all the world to hear.
August 2016: Trump calls for special prosecutor for Clinton
Trump renews call for special prosecutor for Clinton
Kellyanne Conway is still trying to clean up Trump’s threat to politicize the criminal justice system and have Clinton thrown in jail...UNLESS...
October 11, 2016 4:21 PM
"And how many of those SIXTEEN TIMES involved a Democratic Presidential candidate trying to jail their opposing Republican Presidential candidate?"
how many times has a Presidential nominee been under investigation for crimes by the FBI and the FBI director said there was evidence to indict but he advises against it?
how many times has the FBI allowed the preferred presidential candidate of the current administration to destroy evidence?
how many times has the attorney general met with a presidential candidate of the same party's husband while felony charges were being considered against that candidate?
obviously, only the CLintons would not have resigned under all the scandals thus far
amazing to think that in our lifetime Gary Hart dropped out of the race because he had an affair
the corrupt and vile Clintons would have doubled down
October 12, 2016 9:07 AM
"director said there was evidence to indict but he advises against it"
This did not happen, you liar.
Comey did not give advice on his own. As he told the nation, "we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization."
You Trumpsters are fact free opinion givers only, completely useless to getting a job done properly.
"how many times has the FBI allowed the preferred presidential candidate of the current administration to destroy evidence?"
Comey reported the FBI "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."
Trump, on the other hand, has a long history of deleting emails. Here, check out what the Hill and Drudge Report have had to say about that fact.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283331-lawsuit-accused-trump-organization-of-deleting-emails
http://www.drudge.com/news/202575/trump-destroyed-years-emails-before-court
And don't forget:
THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS
"how many times has the attorney general met with a presidential candidate of the same party's husband while felony charges were being considered against that candidate?"
Ah yes, and how soon they forget Bush sent his then White House Counsel and future Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales to kneecap then Attorney General John Ashcroft's deputy, Acting Attorney General Jame Comey:
Bush Personally Intervened To Arrange Ashcroft Hospital Visit And Kneecap Comey
FBI Director's Notes Contradict Gonzales's Version Of Ashcroft Visit
An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006
After long controversy, Attorney General Gonzales resigns
October 12, 2016 12:47 PM
Great job Good Anonymous!
Great job Cynthia! I especially liked your explanation of how Trump borrowed 1 billion, stuck the lenders with the loss, and then claimed the tax deduction for himself.
October 12, 2016 1:25 PM
"This did not happen, you liar.
Comey did not give advice on his own"
OK, to be clear, you are saying it was a lie to say "he" and not "we"
hmmmm, I don't think most will agree with you
"Comey reported the FBI "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them"
it's a little hard to establish intent, for obvious reasons
but it's not necessary in such cases
negligence and carelessness in handling government secrets is prosecutable and there are many who have been prosecuted for less than Hillary's felonies
"Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."
he didn't say that was the only time she deleted e-mails
she did so after being asked to produce them
"Trump, on the other hand, has a long history of deleting emails"
he was in business, not a trusted government official of a representative democracy
there is nothing improper or illegal about that
October 12, 2016 2:31 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 12, 2016 2:33 PM
"....3+4. Scott & Steve Leader
When the Leader Brothers encountered a sleeping, homeless immigrant in Boston, they called him slurs, punched him, whacked him with a metal pole and then urinated on him for added insult. Oh, and then they high-fived each other, proud of their despicable actions.
Scott’s defense of the attack is straightforward. He said, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.”
In a press conference, Trump referred to the savagery as a “shame,” then immediately followed up with, “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again.” That sounds like way more of an excuse if not an endorsement than a condemnation.
Fortunately, the Leaders later pleaded guilty to multiple felonies.
5. John McGraw
Who can forget McGraw, the 78-year-old man who sucker punched a black man exiting a Trump rally? Probably feeling emboldened by Trump’s previous pledge to pay the legal bills of his supporters who attack his protesters, McGraw socked an unsuspecting Rakeem Jones.
If punching a man on camera wasn’t shameful enough, McGraw then participated in a filmed interview where he said the next time he saw Jones, “we might just have to kill him” because he may be a terrorist.
Trump might get away with inciting this kind of violence, but McGraw was charged with assault and battery, as well as disorderly conduct.
6. Henry Slapnik
Twenty-year-old Timothy Stewart was visiting his grandfather, also named Timothy Stewart, at his apartment when a neighbor, Slapnik, approached with a knife. Slapnik seemed to be upset that there were black men at his apartment complex and attempted to stab the grandfather and grandson.
What might have been casual racism seemed amplified due to Trump’s popularity. After being arrested, Slapnik told police, “The RNC will take care of them. Donald Trump will fix them because they are scared of Donald Trump.”
October 12, 2016 2:49 PM
Corrected links:
Tavella grabbed him by the throat and threatened to shoot him.
and
encountered a sleeping, homeless immigrant
October 12, 2016 3:19 PM
Thanks, Priya Lynn, and welcome back!
October 12, 2016 3:21 PM
Interesting developments as we watch the GOP implode thanks to its presidential nominee's political incorrectness.
Major GOP Donors Are Asking Trump for Their Money Back
Excerpts: "Trump has been unable to keep up with Hillary Clinton's $400 million campaign operation (not including the well-funded super PAC backing her). While August was Trump's best fundraising month yet — he took in $41 million — Trump has struggled to gain the support of major Republican donors. Aides at four of the five super PACs backing Trump have repeatedly told NBC News that fundraising for Trump is a struggle."
And
"The bundler said that the videotape pushed him over the top, but his dissatisfaction had been building. He pointed to other insults to women, including attacks on Fox News host Megyn Kelly and smears of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. He also noted Trump's attacks on federal judge Gonzalo Curiel based on his Mexican-American heritage was disconcerting."
The Religious Right’s Devotion to Donald Trump Will End the Movement As We Know It
Excerpt: "The religious right isn’t dead yet. But after this election becomes history, the movement will be forced to reckon with the consequences of its quest for power. Young adults, who overwhelmingly oppose Trump, are already leaving conservative churches, and the religious right’s Trump moment will surely only fuel this trend. If it had maintained a consistent public morality, maybe it could have retained some countercultural appeal. Now that its most visible leaders have sacrificed that authority, it has nothing left."
October 12, 2016 4:19 PM
looks like Bill Clinton's assessment of Obamacare is emboldening other Dems to state the obvious:
Obamacare is a failure
just like Obama
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/minnesota-mark-dayton-obamacare-not-affordable-229690
October 12, 2016 6:40 PM
Oh sure. Twenty-million more Americans are now covered with health insurance, there are no more preexisting condition cancelation games, no more kicking kids off parents' policies until age 26 and you call that a failure.
Go post your whiny comments over at InfoWars. You'll fit right in.
October 12, 2016 9:02 PM
He's right but he doesn't know it
by Digby
"Rush seems to think what he's saying is some kind of indictment of "the left."
"RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left."
Yeah, all those liberals insisting on "consent" is what's wrong with this world.
I think he means this. So, apparently, does Donald Trump."
October 12, 2016 9:58 PM
"Oh sure. Twenty-million more Americans are now covered with health insurance, there are no more preexisting condition cancelation games, no more kicking kids off parents' policies until age 26 and you call that a failure."
both the pre-existing condition and age 26 came into effect before Obamacare
insurance companies were always happy to do it if they could get away with charging more
since Obamacare made it illegal to not pay for insurance, they could get away with it
as for covering more people, it was a temporary gain mad by shuffling things around basically making everyone else pay for it
gig's up, and everyone is realizing it won't be economically feasible over the long around
don't believe me, believe Bill Clinton
he says it was always a crazy scheme
meanwhile, most in the FBI wanted Hillary charged with a felony:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html
October 12, 2016 10:16 PM
"Thanks, Priya Lynn, and welcome back!"
yes, you are welcome to mumble to yourself
you continue to be subject to shunning
October 12, 2016 10:21 PM
CNN was giving Hillary questions in advance
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/james_rosen_wikileaks_reveals_evidence_dnccnn_collusion.html
Hillary is more dangerous than Trump
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html
October 12, 2016 10:27 PM
SEX ASSAULT SPREE ACCUSATIONS PILE UP
Dozens of Republican former federal prosecutors condemn Donald Trump for his threat to jail Hillary Clinton
Women, independents flee Trump, propelling Clinton in polls
Groped In First Class
Kissed Receptionist On The Mouth
Grabbed Woman During A Photoshoot.
‘PEOPLE’ Mag Writer: He Attacked Me
FLASHBACK: ‘Grabbed’ Miss Washington’s ‘Ass’
‘92 VIDEO: Don Points To 10-Year-Old, Says He’ll Be ‘Dating Her In 10 Years’
Multiple women accuse Trump of forcibly groping, kissing them
Trump’s stumbles present challenge to GOP turnout
Liberty University students protest school president's defense of Trump
Trump Goes Nuclear On Clintons
Drafts Lawsuit Against New York Times
Rudy Giuliani Falsely Claims Clinton Lied About Being In NYC On 9/11
Even Students At Liberty University Are Turning On Trump
Not Even Bill O’Reilly Believes Mike Pence’s Nonsense About Women
#RepealThe19th: Donald Trump supporters tweet new anthem after Nate Silver’s poll shows he’d win if only men voted
Could the House really flip?
Frenzy Surrounds 'Apprentice' Tapes
October 13, 2016 7:44 AM
two national polls out this morning
Ramussen had Trump ahead
LA Times has a tie
despite revelations about how despicable Trump's personal qualities are, despite the entire media/Hollywood complex arrayed against Trump, despite the enormous amounts of money Clinton has spent in excess of Trump, this is where we are
isn't clear that America really, really, really doesn't want President Hillary?
October 13, 2016 10:42 AM
Trump groping story by NY Times is a hoax. Who saw that coming?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/ny-times-gets-punked-fake-groping-victim-used-velvet-underground-song-describe-trumped-attack/
October 13, 2016 11:49 AM
NBC is working to get Hillary elected. Shameful lack of journalistic ethics
http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/nbc-trump-tape-billy-bush-plan-election-debate/
October 13, 2016 12:17 PM
e-mails show Clinton called Hispanic leaders "needy Latinos", called Sanders supporters "self-righteous whiners", mocked the Catholic faith
this is scheduled to go on daily
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinton-campaigns-wikileaks-emails-reveal-/
October 13, 2016 12:23 PM
Trump Likes to Spy on Miss Universe Contestants Naked
After he bought the Miss Universe pageant, Donald Trump made it quite clear in an interview with Howard Stern why he did so: Because it would allow him to go into dressing rooms while these very young women were in various states of undress.
On an April, 11, 2005, airing of “The Howard Stern Show,” Donald Trump bragged about some of the special perks he enjoyed while he was owner of the Miss USA pageant. They came not in a locker room but a dressing room.
“I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said. “And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it.”
Stern replied, “You’re like a doctor.”
Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
He did the same thing with the Miss Teen USA pageant, which he also owns, using that to peep on 15 and 16 year old girls in the buff:
Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing.
“I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA.
Trump, she recalled, said something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”
Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it “shocking” and “creepy.”
October 13, 2016 1:16 PM
And this guy is widely supported by the same people who lose their damn minds at the idea of a trans person using the bathroom that fits their gender On an April, 11, 2005, airing of “The Howard Stern Show,” Donald Trump bragged about some of the special perks he enjoyed while he was owner of the Miss USA pageant. They came not in a locker room but a dressing room.
“I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said. “And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it.”
Stern replied, “You’re like a doctor.”
Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
He did the same thing with the Miss Teen USA pageant, which he also owns, using that to peep on 15 and 16 year old girls in the buff:
Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing.
“I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” said Mariah Billado, the former Miss Vermont Teen USA.
Trump, she recalled, said something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”
Three other women, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm, also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing. Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it “shocking” and “creepy.”
And this guy is widely supported by the same people who lose their damn minds at the idea of a trans person using the bathroom that fits their gender identity. They’re voting for and support an admitted sexual predator.
When you've publicly admitted to sexual assault and women come forward and say you've done exactly that your subsequent denials that you've done so aren't believable.
October 13, 2016 1:17 PM
Sexual Consent: The Evangelical Blindspot
October 10, 2016 by Neil Carter
The American public is still reeling from the election drama that escalated over the past weekend. One breaking story after another kept blowing up our newsfeeds every half hour or so, straining our collective capacity to process so many outlandish moments, it makes us numb.
“Oh, look, now he’s invited all the alleged former mistresses of his opponent’s husband. To a nationally televised debate. To sit on the front row. This, too, is normal for this election cycle.”
At this point, virtually nothing can shock us anymore. It’s become absurdist political theater. Watching the Donald pace and scowl behind Secretary Clinton in last night’s town hall style debate seriously made me worry that the man would lose his cool and do something violent. The moment he grabbed the chair in front of him, I could only think of his days putting on a show for the WWE, shamelessly manufacturing a display of unhinged violence just to get the crowd riled up and boost the ratings. You couldn’t help but wonder if he might get so worked up he could grab that chair and threaten to hit her with it. His body language was unnerving.
Can you imagine having to watch the debate, with him walk around the way he did, hovering over her while she talked, if you yourself were previously a victim of abuse? A number of my friends can tell you exactly how that feels, and I can assure you that dynamic did not escape their notice.
“It’s Just Locker Room Talk”
This particular debate reached the tension level it did because, just 48 hours before the debate, a tape was released capturing a “hot mic” moment in which Trump bragged to (now suspended) talk show host Billy Bush about how easily he can have his way with beautiful women. He used crude language and joked about needing a tic tac before greeting their beautiful host since he wasn’t sure when the impulse would strike him to reach out and kiss her. As if she had any interest.
October 13, 2016 1:38 PM
But interest on her part never entered the equation. In fact, that is the one missing element in every part of what we heard on that recording this past Friday: When Trump is around friends joking about sex, he never seems to factor in whether or not the targets of his advances really want him to make a pass at them.
I’ve been a party to many a locker room brag fest, and I’ve heard plenty of grandiose claims from guys who probably aren’t capable of a third of what they want their buds to think they can pull off. But I don’t recall any friends of mine joking about making things happen . Actually, that’s not entirely true. I can recall one or two occasions, and in both cases, the other guys were creeped out and they either spoke up, or else they just learned not to “go there” with that particular guy anymore. It made enough of us uncomfortable that we quietly decided to avoid getting caught “out and about” with that one.
What bothered us this past weekend wasn’t that Trump used a “four-letter word” (technically it was five) in describing his escapades. It wasn’t that he was joking in private conversation about his own virility and love of beautiful women. It was his utter lack of regard for consent in his joking, and his unabashed reveling in the imbalance of power that allowed him as a rich and famous celebrity to take whatever he wants from women whether or not they want him in return. That’s what made us all sick to our stomachs about the kind of man we heard in that recording.
A Blind Spot for Evangelicals
Quickly, evangelicals came to Trump’s defense. Or rather, they defended what they see as his enduring superiority over Clinton in the race to the White House, despite this latest revelation (e.g. Ralph Reed, Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and Tony Perkins to name only a few). Over the last three days, I’ve heard any one of the following from multiple sources:
“You do it, too! Everybody plays along with locker room humor. Your talk is just as coarse.”
“You have no room, since you look at porn, and you watch movies with language that’s even more foul!”
“You can’t say a word, since you yourselves celebrate lasciviousness, immorality, lewdness, and impropriety!”
“What you do is no better than what he did.”
October 13, 2016 1:38 PM
First of all, in the list of logical fallacies, this is what they call a tu quoque fallacy, which diverts attention from the thing under consideration by deflecting the conversation back to the speaker. It’s judged a fallacy because it’s bad argumentation, even if psychologically effective among the easily diverted.
In effect, we are saying “This man’s attitude toward women is deplorable,” and they are responding with, “Well, you people regularly celebrate the very things you’re now trying to denounce.”
No, actually, we don’t.
Because, you see, it’s not just that this guy brags about trying to have sex with married women. And it’s not just because he uses “dirty words” in private conversation when he’s alone with the boys. If that were all that was happening, we wouldn’t all have a lot of room to judge him (although you’d think church leaders would see this as a deal breaker, and yet they don’t).
What crossed the line for us, making this more than just crude humor behind closed doors, was that the way he spoke about women in that recording indicated that he feels his money and celebrity entitles him to take advantage of women who haven’t even shown a hint of interest in being propositioned by him. His words were “rapey,” plain and simple. And frankly, it’s equally disturbing to realize that so many Christian friends can’t tell the difference. They’re too worked up that he said a dirty word to notice that the absence of consent is by far the larger issue at stake, here.
This is a blind spot among evangelical Christians.
Why? Because consent has never been very high on the priority list of biblical Christianity, especially where women are concerned.
October 13, 2016 1:40 PM
In the Bible, for the most part, women are viewed as property. Granted, by the time the New Testament era rolls around, the surrounding culture has evolved enough to see women gain a bit more power and influence in society. But that development originated with the rest of the world, not with the nation of Israel or even with the church that followed thereafter.
In a number of places, we are informed that we are all property. “You are not your own. You were bought with a price.” In the minds of the writers of the Bible, consent just isn’t really a thing.
"Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"
Granted, this is talking about the divine authority over his creation, but notice the point of the analogy: You don’t get a say in what happens to you, according to the apostle Paul. Ultimately, you are a pawn for him to move and direct wherever he pleases. The notion of self-ownership, autonomy, and “free will” just didn’t seem to come up in the pages of the New Testament.
With source documents like that, where would conservative Christians ever pick up a notion that a woman owns her own body, and can determine for herself what happens to it? Does their preferred legislative agenda indicate they have done so? Obviously not.
October 13, 2016 1:41 PM
Wyatt/bad anonymous is the perfect bad example of an alleged christian who doesn't believe that people have an ultimate right to decide what happens to their bodies. In trying to justify his god killing all the Egyptian first born children after his god made Pharoah refuse to let the Israelites go Wyatt's ultimate "defense" was that god created these people and thus owns them and can do whatever he wants with them, even kill the innocents and its somehow moral.
Wyatt will tell you "We are all god's children" and believes that because of that it is somehow moral for god to do whatever he wants with his children, even kill them because he owns them. But few of us would ever accept that a parent's children are his or her property, that a parent can do whatever they please with their children up to and including killing them merely because they created them. We have an inate sense of justice, a belief that although a woman gave birth to a child neither she nor the child's father have a right to do whatever they want whenever they want to that child. We have an innate sense of justice that forces us to understand that a child is a person seperate from their parents and has rights that a parent cannot morally take away from him or her.
Once again, we can see that Wyatt/bad anonymous's morality is subjective, what's right and whats wrong don't depend on the action but rather on who's doing the action, that its okay for god to kill his innocent children, but not okay for a parent to kill their innocent children. For Wyatt/bad anonymous morality is whatever he wants it to be at the moment regardless of whether or not that contradicts what he previously claimed to be moral.
October 13, 2016 1:53 PM
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "e-mails show Clinton called Hispanic leaders "needy Latinos", called Sanders supporters "self-righteous whiners", mocked the Catholic faith".
That's a lie. Even the alleged emails themselves say people other than Hillary said those things. In some cases its already been proven that at least portions of these "emails" have been faked. One email assigned statements to Hillary's campaign manager Sydney Blumenthal but a Newsweek reporter came forth and posted an article he wrote showing it was the newsweek reporter himself that made the statements, not Blumenthal.
There is no confirmation that all, or even any of the emails are authentic and there's no equating someone other than Hillary saying insulting things with Trumps admitted sexual assaults.
October 13, 2016 2:02 PM
Never forget, Wyatt/bad anonymmous is the person who said:
"There are many situations where its appropriate to lie."
And his long and sordid history of constant deception shows he wholeheartedly believes that - there are far, far too many situations where Wyatt thinks its appropriate to lie.
October 13, 2016 2:09 PM
And we haven't even touched on the fact that Trump is alleged to have raped a thirteen year old girl and will be going on trial for that in December.
October 13, 2016 2:42 PM
"two national polls out this morning
Ramussen had Trump ahead
LA Times has a tie"
Clinging to two polls looks good on you as you swirl around the drain.
WSJ reports Trump Campaign Withdraws From Virginia
October 13, 2016 5:10 PM
they were the two out today, asshole
continue to dwell on polls taken between the Trump tape and the debate
burble along obliviously as daily e-mail leaks show that everything about Hillary Clinton is a lie
and the point stands
that Hillary isn't blowing out Trump by double digits shows how much trouble America is in
we have two despicable individuals as the most feasible next leaders
it's all because this country has abandoned its moral compass
the turning point was when a bipartisan coalition pressured Indiana to abandon morality and forsake religious freedom
not long after, Trump announced for president
the last two debates were conducted by media organizations now revealed by the leaks to have been coordinating with Hillary's staff
the next one will be Fox and Hillary won't get a free pass by her personal media tag team
October 13, 2016 7:31 PM
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All
New Study Finds That Fox News Is Brainwashing Viewers And Hurting The Republican Party
October 13, 2016 9:28 PM
How do you Trumpsters explain your support for this man to your daughters?
"When it comes to alleged victims of sexual assault, Trump seems to have a double standard: The women must be believed, unless they’re accusing Trump.
For most of this past week, Trump advocated for accusers of Bill Clinton. He said it was “very beautiful and very sad” to hear their stories. He blamed Hillary Clinton for attacking the women and discrediting them — even though her criticism was directed toward the “vast right-wing conspiracy” by Republicans, whom she said started rumors about Lewinsky, rather than against Lewinsky herself. He made no reference to how the allegations were made in the 1990s, or that some of the alleged attacks date as far back as four decades — and that the women waited years to make their claims.
Yet when four women accused Trump of making unwanted sexual advances, Trump flip-flopped. He called them “horrible, horrible liars.” He blamed Clinton for orchestrating the attacks with the media, similar to how Hillary Clinton had blamed the right-wing conspiracy for starting rumors of the Lewinsky affair. And suddenly, Trump cared that eight, 12 or 30-plus years had passed since the incidents that the women alleged."
Theresa? Anon? Wyatt? Anyone?
October 14, 2016 9:47 AM
TRANSCRIPT: Michelle Obama's Speech On Donald Trump's Alleged Treatment Of Women
October 14, 2016 9:56 AM
Interview with VP Candidate Mike Pence
"....There was a Girl Scout troop, came to our station the other day for a tour, and afterward, there was an 11-year-old girl who told our staff, and she said this completely unsolicited. She was talking about Donald Trump’s words in campaign commercials. She said this: “When I hear those words and look in the mirror, they make me feel bad about myself.” Again, she said that totally unsolicited. What would you say to that 11-year-old girl?
Pence: “Well, I would say to any one of my kids and any children in this country that Donald Trump and I are committed to a safer and more prosperous future for their family. The weak and feckless foreign policy that Hillary Clinton promises to continue has literally caused wider areas of the world to spin apart, the rise of terrorist threats that have inspired violence here at home, and we’ve seen an erosion of law and order in our streets. And we’ve seen opportunities and jobs evaporate and even leave Ohio and leave this country. I would say to any of our kids that if Donald Trump and I have the chance to serve in the White House, that we’re going to work every day for a stronger, safer and more prosperous America.”
October 14, 2016 12:56 PM
https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpDrSeuss?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
October 14, 2016 2:40 PM
"How do you Trumpsters explain your support for this man to your daughters?"
I, for one, don't support him
you won't find his signs in my yard
I just recognize that Hillary is as bad
I think both are dangerous to our constitution
Hillary is probably more dangerous, although it is, admittedly, not an easy call
also, the media is working closely with Hillary
Trump is a political Johnny Rotten
he's not a nice guy and that's the least of the problems with him
but his appeal to some is understandable
he's a vessel for voters to say eff you to a venal and unresponsive political establishment
and, finally, I think he's going to win
October 14, 2016 2:45 PM
"I, for one, don't support him"
Then my question was not to you.
Here I'll bold it so you don't miss it this time.
I asked "How do you Trumpsters explain your support for this man to your daughters?"
"and, finally, I think he's going to win
I disagree, and so do most voters.
The 2016 electoral map is collapsing around Donald Trump
October 14, 2016 3:43 PM
A Shrinking Trump Mocks His accusers to Shrinking Crowds
"Greensboro, North Carolina— At 2 pm on Friday, as Donald J. Trump was supposed to take the stage, his surreal rally soundtrack struck up Elton John’s “Funeral For a Friend”—for the second time in about 20 minutes. Apparently his team plays it before every rally, but here it seemed a portent.
The White Oak Amphitheatre, which President Obama packed to excess of its 7,700 person limit Tuesday night, leaving another 1,500 supporters stranded outside, wasn’t even half full on Friday. A listless crowd occasionally chanted “Trump, Trump, Trump,” but it never got momentum. As we sat waiting, yet another woman came forward, this time to The Washington Post, and claimed that Trump forced his hand up her skirt and “touched my vagina through my underwear.” A former Apprentice contestant also made abuse allegations against Trump within hours. As I predicted on Thursday, Trump is on track to provide every major news outlet with its own victim of his reported sexual abuse. Or maybe more than one.
About a half-hour behind schedule, a swaggering Trump took the stage, and continued his crusade to demonize and deride the women who’ve accused him of sexual abuse this week, with the audience egging him on. The embattled GOP nominee seemed to notice the smallish crowd. “Lots of room!” he remarked, as though that’s a good thing at a political rally. But he plowed ahead with his defiant campaign, with a little less dark talk about “international” cabals and “bankers” than on Thursday and more talk about the “corrupt media” and the “failing New York Times”—and many more insults toward his accusers...
...And yet he didn’t categorically deny all of the abuse charges, leaving some legal wiggle room: “In just about all cases, it’s nonsense, it’s false.” That would seem to suggest that there are some “cases” out there that are true....
...Trump attacked President Obama for criticizing him, and then mused a little bit threateningly: “Why doesn’t some woman maybe come up and say what they say falsely about me, they could say about him. They could say it about anybody. He better be careful because they could say it about anybody.”...
...If the difference in the size of the Obama and Trump crowds here means anything at all, Republicans have an enthusiasm gap, at least here in Greensboro, and it could threaten Senator Richard Burr and Governor Pat McCrory, not just Trump,"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5951.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/governor/nc/north_carolina_governor_mccrory_vs_cooper-4096.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/nc/north_carolina_senate_burr_vs_d_ross-5693.html
October 15, 2016 8:38 AM
It's Saturday, October 15, Day 244 since Justice Antonin Scalia died and Mitch McConnell decided no nominee would get any Senate attention: No meetings, no hearings, no votes. It's also Day 213 since Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama to fill that vacancy.
October 15, 2016 9:28 AM