Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[San Antone]

Of all the norms Trump has broken, including notably the expectation that nominees will provide tax information, his contempt for the democratic process may be the most dangerous.

Considering the damning spin the media and the Clinton campaign made of his entirely legal business loss deduction I am not surprised Trump does not wish to volunteer any information to the Clinton campaign.  Information that they will twist and distort and with a willing press use to inflame public opinion against his ordinary tax practices.

Yeah, no mystery there - but of course The Atlantic wishes to spin that as yet another "disqualifying" attibute of Trump's candidacy.  Blah, blah, blah.

[Herman]

There is nothing wrong with advocating for aggressive oversight of elections and enforcement of voting requirements in order to preserve the integrity of an election.  I am surprised that my Democrat friends seem willing to believe the elective system requires no safeguards.  But then again, dead people always seem to vote for Democrats.

The elective system is guarded on all sides by safeguards. Try it yourself. Try voting at different places in a row.

The "election fraud" your friends are always talking about is black people voting.

It's comparable to 'black guy running' or 'black guy driving a car at night' etc ad inf

[Herman]

True, but that reversed after the conventions.  The negative coverage during the pormary was mainly about her refusal to meet with the press and of course all the stuff Bernie Sanders was saying, and that's when the email server story was getting the most coverage with the IG report.

What may have changed things, too, for people was the tone and the (absent) substance of the GOP convention. Trump's endless screaming speech; the "Lock Her Up" chants; the constant threat of violence.

There are people who do not like to be reminded of Weimar all the time. Some people in the media have a sense of history.

Democrats aren't perfect, but at least they tried to present an optimist, forward-looking picture at their convention; the speeches made sense; some of 'em even had humor and / or uplift.

There comes a point when the press has to face the facts. The media have always (and I mean 25 years) been hard on Hillary Clinton, but what can you say about a GOP convention that says We Need to Get Back to 1950, Now?

[Brian]

I am sure that any damning evidence will only come out after the election, you know, you can't rush these investigations - even if the voters do not have the information they need in order to make an informed choice.

Everyone knows FBI investigations only take 6 business days!

[Brian]

BTW this new FBI thing is very confusing - FBI is now saying that the emails they've discovered 1. were not on Clinton's server, and 2. were not from Clinton, so it's quite unclear what the angle is. May be something entirely new. Or maybe it's aides talking about Clinton's server.

[Karl Henning]

Everyone knows FBI investigations only take 6 business days!

(* chortle *)

[Karl Henning]

The media have always (and I mean 25 years) been hard on Hillary Clinton [....]

And this has both been the mainstream press doing its job, and the alt-right-ish anti-Clinton industry which has flourished for decades.

But the media aren't being fair to El Tupé! "Democrat media machine!"

[Brian]

NYT reports the new emails being investigated were discovered while they investigated Anthony Weiner. Huma's phone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Karl Henning]

I just want to point out how smoothly it trippeth over the tongue: the FBI's October surprise . . .

The FBI's October surprise just made Hillary Clinton's awful week even worse

[Karl Henning]

Well, and when even Bill O'Reilly thinks you've crossed a line . . .

Bill O'Reilly thinks media coverage of Donald Trump is often unfair and agrees that there are "severe problems" with the political and justice systems. But O'Reilly is clearly uncomfortable with the Republican presidential nominee's warning that the Nov. 8 election could be "rigged."

[(poco) Sforzando]

We should really keep our eyes on the ball, that is, the actual policy of the candidates and not speculations or getting too deeply into character foibles.

Further evidence if needed of Zamarabyrd's highly principled keeping her eyes on the ball and not getting too deeply into character foibles:

Some people already have seen behind Hillary's fakey mask, like Secret Service and Bubba's victims.
If she becomes president, the circus so far will be nothing compared to what's ahead.
She will NOT be able to conceal her true self because she will not be in control as she barely is now.

The dust has already settled. There is far more evidence that Shillery Rotten is a foul mouthed harridan equal or worse than anything that might come out of "locker room talk". Project Veritas and Wikileaks came at the right time, a month or so earlier might have been better but the subject is hot right now.

Bleedin' obvious she would have been finished politically if she dumped Billy-boy. Divorce doesn't have the same censure it did decades ago. Instead, she would have been applauded to have freed herself from the jerk. Actually, doing just that would have earned some respect from me.

You missed the part of a "champion of women" harassing his victims. Maybe it's too complex for you to understand the meaning of "enabling" an addict. If sexual acting out (including Lolita parties at his friend Epstein's island) was going on for decades, it shows a wife is not just standing by her man but is complicit, like supplying dope to a druggie. Without knowing anything else about the person (like she has quite a sewer mouth), this is not only a serious character flaw but psychologically unsound. It's a heightened form of lying to herself and everyone else so should not be trusted AT ALL!!! She is Lady Macbeth and Jezebel put together and it confounds me why you don't see it.

Hee.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Considering the damning spin the media and the Clinton campaign made of his entirely legal business loss deduction I am not surprised Trump does not wish to volunteer any information to the Clinton campaign.  Information that they will twist and distort and with a willing press use to inflame public opinion against his ordinary tax practices.

Yeah, no mystery there - but of course The Atlantic wishes to spin that as yet another "disqualifying" attibute of Trump's candidacy.  Blah, blah, blah.

Now of course there's no sign of bias in any of the above.

But the legality of Trump's deductions is not in dispute. What the poster overlooks is that these tax laws - for net operating loss carryforwards, depreciation, capital loss carryforwards, and the like - were made by the rich to benefit the rich. They sure don't help you or me. And for Trump to blame Hillary - as he has done - for not doing anything about these tax provisions is either disingenuous or just plain ignorant, as if a single senator can on her own change the tax code which requires full votes in both houses of Congress.

[Parsifal]

Now of course there's no sign of bias in any of the above.

But the legality of Trump's deductions is not in dispute. What the poster overlooks is that these tax laws - for net operating loss carryforwards, depreciation, capital loss carryforwards, and the like - were made by the rich to benefit the rich. They sure don't help you or me. And for Trump to blame Hillary - as he has done - for not doing anything about these tax provisions is either disingenuous or just plain ignorant, as if a single senator can on her own change the tax code which requires full votes in both houses of Congress.

Exactly. I cannot blame Trump for taking advantage of the tax code. But a tax code which allows someone to boast of accumulating a net worth of $10 billion and simultaneously report no income has clearly been "rigged" to favor the wealthy. We can depend on Trump to "fix" this?

[Turner]

Seems to summarize today´s series of breaking news (which had lots of echoes over here in Europe too):

"Jon Favreau ‏@jonfavs   
After a DEFCON 1 freakout, we now know the emails in question were:
1) Not from Hillary
2) Not from her server
3) Not from her investigation"

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/792080910464065536
http://defconwarningsystem.com/

[(poco) Sforzando]

Seems to summarize today´s series of breaking news (which had lots of echoes over here in Europe too):

"Jon Favreau ‏@jonfavs   
After a DEFCON 1 freakout, we now know the emails in question were:
1) Not from Hillary
2) Not from her server
3) Not from her investigation"

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/792080910464065536
http://defconwarningsystem.com/

Lock 'er up!!!!!

[Gurn Blanston]

Now of course there's no sign of bias in any of the above.

But the legality of Trump's deductions is not in dispute. What the poster overlooks is that these tax laws - for net operating loss carryforwards, depreciation, capital loss carryforwards, and the like - were made by the rich to benefit the rich. They sure don't help you or me. And for Trump to blame Hillary - as he has done - for not doing anything about these tax provisions is either disingenuous or just plain ignorant, as if a single senator can on her own change the tax code which requires full votes in both houses of Congress.

And I would point out that she was not a senator for "30 years", as has been said, but for 1 six-year term, during which the only topics open for discussion were '9/11' and 'Hurricane Katrina'. And messing with GW Bush, of course. 

[BasilValentine]

Considering the damning spin the media and the Clinton campaign made of his entirely legal business loss deduction I am not surprised Trump does not wish to volunteer any information to the Clinton campaign.  Information that they will twist and distort and with a willing press use to inflame public opinion against his ordinary tax practices.

Yeah, no mystery there - but of course The Atlantic wishes to spin that as yet another "disqualifying" attibute of Trump's candidacy.  Blah, blah, blah.

As poco sforzando has observed, legality isn't at issue with respect to the deduction. The issues are:

1) Trump's business acumen. Trump made it an issue with exaggerated claims about his personal fortune and his alleged business success, touting these attributes as qualifications for office. Even a cursory examination of his dealings in Atlantic City shows him to be a fool. He dumped a billion dollars into a casino that would compete with his other casinos and drove himself out of business.

2) Trump's character. Selling junk bonds to investors, extracting the assets from the corporation through an exorbitant salary, and loading it with debt he knew others would have to eat was the work of a class A scumbag. Then there is the hypocrisy of criticizing his fellow Americans for not paying their fair share of taxes, a complaint he has made in several interviews and speeches.

Are ineptitude, stupidity, rapacious greed, sleaziness, and hypocrisy disqualifying attributes of his candidacy? That's a judgment call. But I don't think it would be unreasonable to answer yes.

[Parsifal]

Hey, BasilValentine. You're biting my style, with the Malevitch painting as your avatar. I was here first, you know!   

[zamyrabyrd]

Further evidence if needed of Zamarabyrd's highly principled keeping her eyes on the ball and not getting too deeply into character foibles: Hee.

In the back of my mind I knew someone would seize upon that point. Hillary started these low swipes. Tit for tat.
But really, they can be put aside in the spirit of truce and concentrate on the important issues.
She will just continue another 4 years of spend and tax like there's no tomorrow Obama.

[(poco) Sforzando]

In the back of my mind I knew someone would seize upon that point. Hillary started these low swipes. Tit for tat.
But really, they can be put aside in the spirit of truce and concentrate on the important issues.
She will just continue another 4 years of spend and tax like there's no tomorrow Obama.

"Hillary started it?" What are you, three years old?

You dig your own hole, don't blame others for burying you in it.