|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a long, interesting and somewhat sad story fron the NYTimes: in which bewildered evangelicals plan to vote for Trump.
Hidden in there is a justification for voting Trump that is at least halfway intelligent: the prospect of the Supreme Court majority changing under an incoming Democrat.
Some thinking GOP voters may take the view that Trump, however unpalatable, is a price worth paying to keep various Dead Horse issues at bay from a legal perspective. Supreme Court justices can't be ousted as easily as presidents.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
OTOH this was the argument trotted out for voting against Obama, not once but twice. The Notorious RBG may be immortal, or at least a tough enough old bird to sit out 8 years of another President.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
On one of the links I have read, I think I saw that the only bank which would deal with him was Deutsche Bank.
Could something interesting be brewing?
Well, the only big bank. Which could be especially problematic in light of the current investigation of Deutsche Bank by the U.S. government:
quote:
The US government has charged that the German banking giant misled investors into buying bad mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, and it is demanding that Deutsche Bank pay $14 billion to settle legal claims. The bank is reported to have planned for a settlement of $2 billion to $3 billion, and negotiations between it and the Department of Justice are likely to be contentious and last for months — possibly well into the next administration. Should Trump take the White House, what Deutsche Bank ends up paying for its alleged misdeeds might depend on how tough Trump's Justice Department will be with the bank to which he owes so much money.
The conflict of interest in this possible scenario is obvious. His administration would have to render a decision greatly affecting a foreign commercial interest holding substantial leverage over Trump. A President Trump would have a strong disincentive to apply pressure on Deutsche Bank and risk souring his relationship with the institution on which he is so dependent. And would he want to tick off this lender? If Trump and his company ever were to have trouble repaying his Deutsche Bank loans, he would be at the bank's mercy.
Deutsche Bank is one of the only big banks willing to work with Trump these days and has provided financing for his various real estate projects. Trump has borrowed as much as $364 million from Deutsche Bank since 2012, and all four of the outstanding loans will come due before 2024 — the end of a potential second Trump presidential term.
There are allegations that Trump also owes money to Russian oligarchs (who typically aren't troubled by bank regulators), but in the absence of his tax returns this largely relies on extrapolation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OTOH this was the argument trotted out for voting against Obama, not once but twice. The Notorious RBG may be immortal, or at least a tough enough old bird to sit out 8 years of another President.
I ran some actuarial calculations on this in the parallel Dead Horse thread. Given the unlikelihood of Merrick Garland being confirmed before the inauguration of the next president, whoever gets the job will get to make at least one appointment. If the person making that appointment is Hillary Clinton it would mean the Supreme Court would have a majority of Democrat-appointed justices for the first time since 1969. That's not an advantage Republicans will want to give up.
So how many appointments will the next president get in addition to the one freebie hanging out there? I can't give a number, but I can give a probability spread on deaths among the current justices in the next four years.
- 0: 31.1%
- 1: 41.1%
- 2: 20.1%
- 3: 5.0%
- 4+: 0.7%
That last number is pretty much a "bus accident on the way to the Supreme Court's annual picnic*" kind of scenario. These numbers are based on the Social Security Actuarial Life Tables so they only take into account age and gender, not current medical condition. They're also only useful for predicting lifespan and can't account for things like voluntary retirement.
--------------------
* Purely hypothetical. I don't know if the Supreme Court has an annual picnic.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Purely hypothetical. I don't know if the Supreme Court has an annual picnic.
It must be time to read/watch The Pelican Brief again...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given the unlikelihood of Merrick Garland being confirmed before the inauguration of the next president,
I'd almost put money on him being confirmed if Hillary wins in November. Merrick Garland is significantly more conservative than any of Hillary's likely picks, so the Republican Senate might find itself doing a sudden and rapid about-face in order to minimize their losses.
It would be amusing to see what kind of spurious "justification" they could come up with for that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'd almost put money on him being confirmed if Hillary wins in November. Merrick Garland is significantly more conservative than any of Hillary's likely picks, so the Republican Senate might find itself doing a sudden and rapid about-face in order to minimize their losses.
It would be amusing to see what kind of spurious "justification" they could come up with for that.
Assuming Obama doesn't simply withdraw the nomination at that point.
Fun fact: Congress will be in recess on Election Day 2016 and won't return to session until November 14.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Sorry for the mis-type. The table should have read:
- 0: 33.1%
- 1: 41.1%
- 2: 20.1%
- 3: 5.0%
- 4+: 0.7%
Sorry for any alarm those two missing percentage points may have caused.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Wow. The New York Times.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alv es:
Wow. The New York Times.
Do the Angry White People who make up Trump's core constituency follow that paper or care what it says? To someone who is an outsider this is just a bunch of names preaching to the converted.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think that's the problem. Trump has a hardcore constituency with whom he resonates, reason or not.
Compled with, as I read somewhere else, the danger of an "up-yours", have-a-laugh Boaty McBoatFace voting bloc - a similar demographic perhaps to some of the Brexit Leave vote.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Purely hypothetical. I don't know if the Supreme Court has an annual picnic.
It must be time to read/watch The Pelican Brief again...
I really love that film. Well-done suspense; Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington; and some really wonderful nature photography.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that's the problem. Trump has a hardcore constituency with whom he resonates, reason or not.
Compled with, as I read somewhere else, the danger of an "up-yours", have-a-laugh Boaty McBoatFace voting bloc - a similar demographic perhaps to some of the Brexit Leave vote.
But the above listed people presumably are connected to others in a more significant way than simply being names on a list. If they are ready to sign, then they are ready to speak up-- to family members, colleagues, church members, who knows.
Of course not everyone reads the Times. My interest in this news item was more about how these people simply being who they are, where they are, might have an impact.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
On one of the links I have read, I think I saw that the only bank which would deal with him was Deutsche Bank.
Could something interesting be brewing?
rofl Oh, I really hope so. He's such a great businessman.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Is there any reason Trump is so fixated on Alicia Machado after 20 years?
Yes. Trump is fixated on Alicia Machado after all these years because H Clinton brought her up in the debate Monday night. He can't let something like that go; he has to try and show why his actions and comments were justified and the other person in question deserved whatever treatment he gave them. All of which, of course, the Clinton campaign knows and undoubtedly was counting on.
Oh man, that was a spectacular setup ("Just one more thing, Lester") and Dinky Donald fell for it hook, line and sinker. When Clinton was speaking about Machado, he kept saying "Where'd you get that? Where'd you find that?" and the answer, of course, as any fool other than Dinky knows, is oppo research.
As for all the lying ... we all know Dinky tells lots of lies. Clinton told a few as well. To me, though, they're different sorts of lies. I can imagine myself deleting embarrassing emails and trash-talking a woman my husband cheated with. I simply cannot imagine myself cheating people out of their money (Trump University) or pretending to be someone else (John Baron) so I can call a newspaper to brag about my sex life or asking other people for money so I can give their money away and take credit for it (Trump Foundation).
So to all the anybody-but-Clinton folks, all I can say is ... really? Clinton is really, truly, such a terrible person that you would rather put a lazy, obnoxious, ignorant, mentally unstable* amateur in charge of nuclear weapons and the biggest armed force in the world? Really?
*Yeah, I know it's the internet, and one shouldn't diagnose over the internet, but I believe ("Believe me!") Trump is genuinely mentally ill - probably borderline personality disorder, definitely a bit of sociopathy, and a whole lot of narcissism. The only reason he's not wandering the streets talking to himself and high on heroin is that he was born wealthy.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Supreme Court justices can't be ousted as easily as presidents.
No, they can just be stopped from ever getting in. If you can do it for 9 months, why not try doing it for another 4 years?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Seen on a friend's Facebook page:
quote:
A sitting U.S. President gives the eulogy for a former Israeli prime minister while a wannabe president is tweeting at 3 am asking the American people to look at sex tapes of a former Miss Universe.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Supreme Court justices can't be ousted as easily as presidents.
No, they can just be stopped from ever getting in. If you can do it for 9 months, why not try doing it for another 4 years?
Well yes.
My point is that like it or not, if people have conservative DH views they have a thought-out rationale for voting Trump even if they do so holding their noses.
This is a different bunch of people from the "post-truth" constituency Trump also appeals to.
I don't know how one talks people out of post-truth, but I'd like to think people might be persuaded there's more to sensible governance of a nation than DH issues.
The evangelical constituency's willingness to overlook Trump's sexual mores in the face of their obsession with all things sexual is puzzling, though. I suppose not a few OT kings set some kind of precedent...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The evangelical constituency's willingness to overlook Trump's sexual mores in the face of their obsession with all things sexual is puzzling, though. I suppose not a few OT kings set some kind of precedent...
What's to overlook? He's not expressed any same sex attraction. Heterosexual serial monogamy (with occasional parallel monogamy) and heterosexual soft-porn is perfectly fine and all in the bible.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What's to overlook? He's not expressed any same sex attraction. Heterosexual serial monogamy (with occasional parallel monogamy) and heterosexual soft-porn is perfectly fine and all in the bible.
Brilliant description of really bad theology. 'Look, I've got that woman up the duff but no worries. I can get her husband killed off because that's what King David did, and hey, didn't he write the psalms?'
And I really like the phrase 'occasional parallel monogamy'. Do you mind if I take it and use it?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
To be serious for a moment, anyone flirting with the idea of progressive human enlightenment and rationality in society only has to look at Trump. Trump can be as angry and erratic, flip around on a dime over whether he will recognize the election, as misogynistic, racist and prejudiced as he likes and simply deny he said something that's on twitter for all to see and it makes very little difference to his supporters. These are people who have turned their backs on rationality and civilization and gone to the dark side.
These are the same forces of populism that elected a guy in the Philippines who compares himself to Hitler in his penchant for extra-judicial killing and probably part of the rise of the guy he compared himself to as well.
Livingstone, when facing Boris, once said quote:
It’s a simple choice between good and evil. I don’t think it has been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.
He was being daft as usual. But it does seem to apply this time around. Clearly Clinton has her faults and "Good" might be overstating it, but it does seem a very stark choice of values. Either you care about civilized behaviour or you don't. If you don't then there's only so much that debates, ads, letters of generals and learned commentators can provide.
And if enough people don't care about civilized standards and embrace the darkness then we'll have Trump. Like the Philippines have Duterte. And the cause of civilization really will go back a bit. The Goths are at the gates.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know how one talks people out of post-truth
Ain't that the truth. Despite the habits of the last 70 years, I'm close to giving up trying. The Goths are at the gates, as mdijon says. The definition of sanity appears to be shifting, and not in favour of the sane.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
May I - as an outsider - ask a question.
I believe that Congress tends to be predominantly Republican; and that is has often stymied the reforming efforts of Democrat Presidents.
To what extent do you think the Republican members of Congress will frustrate and moderate Trump's plans, if he should get elected. (We can take it for granted that the Democrats will oppose him).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Oh! I was going to say that the Philippines was different because of the crushing poverty and long-term separatist movement in the south. Then I remembered driving through Baltimore.
I think Obama had a friendly Congress in his first term, and Clinton, W. did too.
[ 01. October 2016, 10:51: Message edited by: simontoad ]
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh! I was going to say that the Philippines was different because of the crushing poverty and long-term separatist movement in the south.
Nice one.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
... Clearly Clinton has her faults and "Good" might be overstating it, but it does seem a very stark choice of values. Either you care about civilized behaviour or you don't. If you don't then there's only so much that debates, ads, letters of generals and learned commentators can provide.
And if enough people don't care about civilized standards and embrace the darkness then we'll have Trump. ...
Bang on.
There seems to be a sick madness that is wild in the world, and particularly the Anglophone part of it, at the moment. As the appalling José Millán-Astray said:-
quote:
"¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!" ("Death to intelligence! Long live death!")
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know how one talks people out of post-truth
Ain't that the truth. Despite the habits of the last 70 years, I'm close to giving up trying. The Goths are at the gates, as mdijon says. The definition of sanity appears to be shifting, and not in favour of the sane.
The definition of sanity is always shifting. Go back 100 years to see the Major World Powers of that day locked in a massive mortal conflict, eating up both man and resources, which no one knew how to end.
Yet strangely enough, just when we took sanity for granted and thought politics had become boring, here we are having unwittingly entered a new period of cynicism. Something I believe allowed Brexit an unexpected victory by means of an anti-establishment vote and now, probably as the result of hegemony, a political struggle in the US that looks to have a highly uncertain outcome.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Just a thought this morning. Trump continues to harp on how Hillary thinks half his followers are deplorable. Depending on which national poll you are following, Trump has about 37 to 42% of the voters. Half of that would be 18 to 21% which is close to the averages for the Alt Right movement as it is.
Trump has also said a number of disparaging things about American voters--that they're stupid. No one seems to want to bring that to the fore, it seems.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The evangelical constituency's willingness to overlook Trump's sexual mores in the face of their obsession with all things sexual is puzzling, though. I suppose not a few OT kings set some kind of precedent...
Hey, watch your terminology there, dude.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Supreme Court justices can't be ousted as easily as presidents.
No, they can just be stopped from ever getting in. If you can do it for 9 months, why not try doing it for another 4 years?
Exactly. The anybody-but-Hillary crowd seems to have forgotten about the 3rd branch. It's possible for Hillary Clinton to become president and for the GOP to control both houses of Congress and stymie her as they did Obama.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
May I - as an outsider - ask a question.
I believe that Congress tends to be predominantly Republican; and that is has often stymied the reforming efforts of Democrat Presidents.
Sort of. For a lot of the post-war period the U.S. Congress was nominally under Democratic control, but the reality was that it was controlled by a coalition of conservative (typically Southern) Democrats and Republicans. This started breaking down when enough former Dixiecrats jumped ship to the Republican party.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To what extent do you think the Republican members of Congress will frustrate and moderate Trump's plans, if he should get elected. (We can take it for granted that the Democrats will oppose him).
I think it's more important to look at it from the other direction. Trump shows no real interest in policy beyond a few very specific issues (build a giant wall, ban Muslim travel) so he's likely to sign whatever crazy laws Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan put in front of him.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
simontoad--
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think Obama had a friendly Congress in his first term, and Clinton, W. did too.
If you're serious:
Obama did *not* have a friendly Congress. The Republicans there decided, from the very beginning, not to pass anything that he was for.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think Obama had a friendly Congress in his first term, and Clinton, W. did too.
If you're serious:
Obama did *not* have a friendly Congress. The Republicans there decided, from the very beginning, not to pass anything that he was for.
Actually both houses of Congress wer in the hands of Democrats for the first two years of Obama's first term. That's when the Affordable Care Act was passed, though even that was a struggle.
[ 01. October 2016, 20:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Obama did *not* have a friendly Congress. The Republicans there decided, from the very beginning, not to pass anything that he was for.
Obama was inaugurated President in January 2009. At that time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi commanded a majority in the House of Representatives, with 255 Democrats to the Republicans' 179, And in the Senate, 59 Democrats or Dem-voting Independents vs 41 Republicans was almost a filibuster-proof majority.
For the first two years of his presidency, Obama had Democrats in control of both houses. Granted, there was only a 4-month period in the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60:40 lead (and when Obamacare passed) (although the rules that allow filibusters are passed by simple majority at the start of the Congress, so at some level they did it to themselves. In fairness, they hadn't yet seen quite how much the Senate Republicans were going to be dicks...)
(xpost with the King of Lydia.)
[ 01. October 2016, 20:30: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Well this is interesting:
quote:
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.
The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.
Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.
In an extra twist of the knife, the envelope in which the documents arrived at the Times claimed to have been mailed from Trump Tower.
One blogger's analysis seems right on the money:
quote:
Rich people laws confuse and disturb or ordinary voters. Imagine I put all my money on a bet that blows up in my face. It is not hard to explain what happens next: I lose all my money. In a month Ex-football players pull up in a truck and carry away my stuff. The rules are different for rich people. It is like you simply cannot lose as long as you can pay the right accountant. Everyone more or less knows that, but having it rubbed in your face like this is viscerally galling.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
That is significant, I sincerely hope. In the debate, when Hilary suggested that Trump paid no tax, he didn't issue his foghorn denial "wrong", he said "That's because I'm smart."
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not clear what's going on here. First and foremost I'm not clear as to whether they are discussing Trump's personal finances or those of his company or a holding company.
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that it's not unusual for a company to offset operating losses against future income for tax purposes. The figures quoted don't tell us anything about Trump's personal income; neither do they prove he engaged in tax avoidance as opposed to the tax planning usual for any business venture.
The article further muddies the waters by damning the poor business decisions by Trump that led up to the losses, but as far as I can see he must have had enough cash to cover them, and his abilities in business are a separate issue to his tax doings.
In other words, it looks like a smear rather than an exposé to me.
[ 02. October 2016, 06:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
If you want to understand Trump's and Hillary's background, watch an episode of PBS' investigative "Frontline" show:
"The Choice 2016"
It goes from their childhoods to the present: crucial influences, decisions, mistakes, things the viewer probably didn't know, etc.
I just watched it. Really good. Both had rough childhoods, mostly in different ways.
Examples:
--Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. Taught the kids to be absurdly competitive, and only cared about them if they won. If T's mom was mentioned, I missed it. T has been acting out since he was a little kid; and both he and people who knew him, at various times, say he's never really changed. He was sent off to military school--the only kid in the family sent away. He reportedly liked it, but it also shaped him.
--Hillary had a rough time, too. Per the show, her father was "verbally abusive and dismissive". (At the convention--in the video, I think--H cleverly and delicately put it as "he was a chief (?) petty officer at work, and also at home".) Her mom came from 16 year old parents who neglected her and didn't want her. (Mentioned at the convention: when H's mom was very young, her parents decided to go away overnight or more. They gave her coupons for a nearby deli (?), and told her to go get food there. Then they left her alone.) H's mom survived, and was tough. When H was a kid, her parents had horrible verbal fights, and H would go hide in her room. Didn't bring friends home. So secrecy already. When she was in college, she became famous via "Life" magazine--for some political work, IIRC. *She* was the one who was expected to do great things. She worked on a committee related to Watergate. More secrecy. She was assumed to be movin' on up. Then she shocked everyone by going to Arkansas to be with Bill.
Interesting thing: she, Bill, Robert Reich, Clarence Thomas (...and maybe someone else...) were at law school together. Reich colored in a lot of details, and seems to still be very emotionally invested in the Clintons.
The above link has both audio video--almost two hours long. And there are related interviews, further down the page, and a trailer.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think Obama had a friendly Congress in his first term, and Clinton, W. did too.
If you're serious:
Obama did *not* have a friendly Congress. The Republicans there decided, from the very beginning, not to pass anything that he was for.
Actually both houses of Congress wer in the hands of Democrats for the first two years of Obama's first term. That's when the Affordable Care Act was passed, though even that was a struggle.
I think maybe you and LC and I are using different definitions of "friendly". Yes, the Democrats were powerful, initially. But you can rarely do anything with just the folks on one side of the aisle. (I.e., one party.)
OTOH: "Biden: Mitch McConnell vowed no cooperation with the Obama administration from the get-go" (Daily Kos).
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've managed to find the rest of the NYT article now. It seems to confirm my above suspicions. If anything, it's a criticism of the tax system in place rather than a revelation of any misdeeds by Trump.
He (or his cunning tax advisers) exploited the provisions of tax law to the max, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of him breaking the law. It comes across as crass, and certainly nothing to crow about in a presidential debate, but I think his own self-assessment that it makes him smart (in this respect) is not in actual fact too wide of the mark. Who goes out of their way to pay more tax than they have to?
I find two phrases in the article particularly disingenuous. One is quote:
the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth
Taxes don't help build wealth. That is post-truth talk. Exploiting tax law can minimise the amount of tax paid on the wealth one builds. There's a difference.
The second is quote:
the degree to which he spun all those years of red ink into tax write-off gold
Again, on a superficial reading this suggests that Trump somehow converted debt into income ("red ink into gold").
This simply isn't true. The worst one can say is that he offset business losses against future taxable income.
I'm on record here as arguing that Trump is in my view the worst possible candidate for the presidency by a long way, but this piece seems to me to be in the same vein as the stuff put out by his campaign against Clinton rather than revealing any damning facts.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... --Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. ...
What does PITA stand for please?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... --Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. ...
What does PITA stand for please?
Pain in the arse.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Latest from 538.
The most conservative 538 prediction has Hillary as a two to one on choice (twice as likely to win as Donald); apparently, the bookmakers think she is more like 3 or 4 to 1 on.
While I think Eutychus is right about the NYT article, I think it might give just a few of the red-neck brigade pause for thought. It looks sneaky, tricky. Should the idea ever catch hold among a proportion of them that they are being "played", that would finish things off for the Donald.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As I understand it, the Trump electorate basically does not intersect with NYT readership. It's really hard to get any discussion beyond each side pandering to its own constituency (cf the echo chamber thread).
After this election the US will be more bitterly divided, there will be more mutual distrust, and there will be even less mutual understanding across partisan lines, no matter what the outcome. And where America leads, the "free" world looks largely set to follow.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I find two phrases in the article particularly disingenuous. One is quote:
the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth
Taxes don't help build wealth. That is post-truth talk. Exploiting tax law can minimise the amount of tax paid on the wealth one builds. There's a difference.
Yes, but that protection from taxes gives more usable assets to then build wealth. Tax law allows protection of assets that also translate to tools to build wealth. So the comment isn't complete, but it is not inaccurate at heat.
And the laws that allowed Trump to do this are not easily available to all economic levels.
Had one of his typical supporters had a similarly bad year, they would be in debt with bad credit, no home and difficulty finding employment. They would not have continued living lavishly.
The rich live by different rules and this is yet another reason why electing a person because of their perceived wealth is stupid.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've managed to find the rest of the NYT article now. It seems to confirm my above suspicions. If anything, it's a criticism of the tax system in place rather than a revelation of any misdeeds by Trump.
He (or his cunning tax advisers) exploited the provisions of tax law to the max, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of him breaking the law. It comes across as crass, and certainly nothing to crow about in a presidential debate, but I think his own self-assessment that it makes him smart (in this respect) is not in actual fact too wide of the mark. Who goes out of their way to pay more tax than they have to?
I find two phrases in the article particularly disingenuous. One is quote:
the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth
Taxes don't help build wealth. That is post-truth talk. Exploiting tax law can minimise the amount of tax paid on the wealth one builds. There's a difference.
The second is quote:
the degree to which he spun all those years of red ink into tax write-off gold
Again, on a superficial reading this suggests that Trump somehow converted debt into income ("red ink into gold").
This simply isn't true. The worst one can say is that he offset business losses against future taxable income.
I'm on record here as arguing that Trump is in my view the worst possible candidate for the presidency by a long way, but this piece seems to me to be in the same vein as the stuff put out by his campaign against Clinton rather than revealing any damning facts.
I think you're right re the law. With a different candidate, especially a Republican, it wouldn't be an issue. But the thing is Trump has campaigned hard on his record of business success and this makes clear he's a pretty lousy business man who turned a large fortune into a small one.
This too is a pattern-- raising issues re Clinton that reflect his own foibles in high def TV-- eg adultery, birtherism, temperament. Then there was the ridiculous conspiracy theory spinning re Hilary's health, after which he shows up at the debate sniffing like a coke fiend. Which wouldn't be a big deal if he acted like every other human being and just said "I've got a cold". But no, he's gotta claim he never sniffed and someone sabotaged his mic
Donald Trump is candidate Trumps worst enemy
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not clear what's going on here. First and foremost I'm not clear as to whether they are discussing Trump's personal finances or those of his company or a holding company.
These are (allegedly) his personal taxes. More specifically they're three pages of his state income taxes from New Jersey for 1995.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The article further muddies the waters by damning the poor business decisions by Trump that led up to the losses, but as far as I can see he must have had enough cash to cover them, and his abilities in business are a separate issue to his tax doings.
Why do you think that? Donald Trump is notorious for stiffing people.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've managed to find the rest of the NYT article now. It seems to confirm my above suspicions. If anything, it's a criticism of the tax system in place rather than a revelation of any misdeeds by Trump.
He (or his cunning tax advisers) exploited the provisions of tax law to the max, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of him breaking the law. It comes across as crass, and certainly nothing to crow about in a presidential debate, but I think his own self-assessment that it makes him smart (in this respect) is not in actual fact too wide of the mark.
As with a lot of similar behavior during the recent financial crisis, the scandal isn't lawbreaking. The scandal is what's legal.
From a political standpoint these revelations are disastrous. Trump's campaign is based on two main points:
- Donald Trump is a very smart and effective businessman, and this talent can be translated into presidential performance.
- - A bunch of lazy freeloaders are taking advantage of "the system" at the expense of good, hardworking (white) Americans.
Instead what this excerpt from his taxes show is that:
- Donald Trump is terrible businessman, who managed to lose about a billion dollars in a single year, during one of the biggest economic expansions in American history.
- - Donald Trump is a lazy freeloader taking advantage of "the system" at the expense of good, hardworking Americans.
So no, Donald Trump did nothing illegal. But this does completely undermine the supposed justification for a Trump presidency.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... --Trump's dad was a real PITA, and then some. ...
What does PITA stand for please?
Pain in the arse.
Thank you. I've not encountered that abbreviation before. I might adopt it for future use. Would you mind?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not clear what's going on here. First and foremost I'm not clear as to whether they are discussing Trump's personal finances or those of his company or a holding company.
These are (allegedly) his personal taxes. More specifically they're three pages of his state income taxes from New Jersey for 1995.
Following further reading of the Cyber, it seems to me that like other con artists, he freely conflates business assets in his own name and his personal assets. I expect he writes off a lot of his bling-bling lifestyle as company expenses (the larger-than-life version of putting a tiny business sticker on your personal car and writing it off as a business expense).
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The article further muddies the waters by damning the poor business decisions by Trump that led up to the losses, but as far as I can see he must have had enough cash to cover them, and his abilities in business are a separate issue to his tax doings.
Why do you think that? Donald Trump is notorious for stiffing people.
I meant that if he still had enough working capital to not go bankrupt, he must have done something right (in terms of surviving financially, not in terms of ethics).
However I have read that what he actually did (I may not have got this exactly right, but this is the gist of it AIUI) was write down the value of outstanding loans on his casino properties and was able to claim this in tax credit - due to an exceptional piece of IRS legislation for corporate real estate enacted by none other than Bill Clinton. I'm not sure such a piece of chicanery reflects well on either side.
quote:
As with a lot of similar behavior during the recent financial crisis, the scandal isn't lawbreaking. The scandal is what's legal.
I agree, but that's not really what the election's about, is it?
The big problem appears to be not that you can offset certain items as tax credits over several years, but how easy it is to conflate personal wealth and business assets. But that's a separate debate and probably a separate thread.
quote:
From a political standpoint these revelations are disastrous.
I'm not sure. His core supporters, even if they suffer as lilbuddha has suggested, may just think he's got guts for sticking it to the system. Have you never been conned? And not been able to shake off a grudging sense of admiration for the guy who took your money?
They may also see him as a fighter who has overcome a huge loss - 20 years ago - and is still "winning".
quote:
Donald Trump is terrible businessman, who managed to lose about a billion dollars in a single year, during one of the biggest economic expansions in American history.
It can certainly be spun this way, but if what I relate above is true, it tends more to demonstrate that he cunningly exploited a loophole, put there by Bill Clinton, to the max.
It's hard to see how else one could lose $1bn in a year in casinos unless one was skimming off all the cash.
[ 02. October 2016, 14:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
From a political standpoint these revelations are disastrous.
I'm not sure. His core supporters, even if they suffer as lilbuddha has suggested, may just think he's got guts for sticking it to the system.
The reactions of "core supporters" are irrelevant - the question is whether the contents of Trump's tax returns could sway uncommitted or weakly attached voters. His reluctance to release them suggests that he thinks it would hurt his chances of being elected.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
