http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-apologizes-vulgar-comments-about-women-recorded-2005-n662311
“
‘I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be a person I’m
not,” Trump said. “I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words
released today on this more-than-a-decade-old video are one of them.
Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.’
Trump
said his campaigning had changed him, and he pledged to ‘be a better
man tomorrow’ and ‘never let you down.’ He said the video was “nothing
more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today.’ ”
This
quote was taken from an article in the Atlantic, and showcases the
hypocrisy of Donald Trump. Saying you are sorry for the things you have
said in the past doesn’t ring true, because you have recently continued
to say the same things about women, Mexicans, Muslims—actually the list
is pretty extensive. This means you must have gotten real sorry in the
last few days, and I would bet your sorrow stems from the fact that you
got outed because you do not seem to see any moral or ethical wrong in
your current campaign statements. You say that actual evidence of your
values and behavior is but a distraction from important issues facing
us, but your entire campaign has been a distraction from the things this
country needs to address: health care, immigration, an epidemic of
shootings by criminals and police—again, this list is quite extensive.
We don't deserve as President a philandering, draft-dodging,
tax-evading, cheating huckster whose penchant for lying is only exceeded
by reviled leaders of nations that support terrorism and genocide. Your
moral character is a reflection on the old adage: Nothing is so bad
that it cannot be used as a wretched example.
"This communication is like a mirror—when a monkey looks in, no apostle looks out--G.C. Lichtenberg"
Saturday, October 08, 2016
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Talk about political bullshit...
I am not deserting my candidate on the eve of the Democratic Convention, but found some information I felt ought to be shared. It all started with this Tom Toles picture I found and then did some checking to be sure it was based on factual evidence:

Another link suggested itself as I was researching this claim, and came up with a far more horrific figure. The estimates from a number of sources indicate that three times that amount has been spent in investigating the private email server of Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. All the evidence I have seen appear to point out that other Secretaries of State had similar servers and, at the time she had her own server, the information in her communications was not classified as secret or even particularly sensitive. I did not see Dick Cheney under such scrutiny when he released the name of intelligence personnel, which is a felony.
What this means is that about $30 million of taxpayer money has been spent in an effort to indict someone, and it has as of now come to nothing.

Another link suggested itself as I was researching this claim, and came up with a far more horrific figure. The estimates from a number of sources indicate that three times that amount has been spent in investigating the private email server of Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. All the evidence I have seen appear to point out that other Secretaries of State had similar servers and, at the time she had her own server, the information in her communications was not classified as secret or even particularly sensitive. I did not see Dick Cheney under such scrutiny when he released the name of intelligence personnel, which is a felony.
What this means is that about $30 million of taxpayer money has been spent in an effort to indict someone, and it has as of now come to nothing.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Lion or Rabbit?
When Obama was elected in 2008. people asked what I hoped for in his presidency. I always replied that I hoped people would like him just as much after 4 years as they did to elect him in the first place. Then they elected him to serve a second term, but that in itself is not unusual as about 21 presidents have been re-elected to a second term, 12 of those since 1900. What is unusual about Obama is that though his popularity appears low among some polls, his overall approval rating was highest when taking the country through tough economic times (Gallup poll: 69% approval in January 2009), and lowest during the last year (Gallup poll: 40% during November 2014) when voter frustration about the gridlock in Congress combined with his seeming inaction in the face of some crises that arose during this last year, for example the Ebola epidemic and and the successes of the middle-eastern ISIS or ISIL group.
The response to the Ebola epidemic has varied from state to state, and the chief criticism of the federal response is that the Obama administration had done little to show that the measures undertaken to contain the disease were, or could be, effective. Taking matters into their own hands, governors of several states attempted to put into effect quarantine measures. On October 30, 2014, the Boston Globe's editorial entitled "Ebola quarantine rules should reflect science, not hysteria," reads in part:
"This patchwork response sows confusion and seems grounded more in politics and fear of the unknown than in science. It also has a troubling unintended consequence: punishing the altruistic health care workers who are contributing their skills to a global effort to stop the epidemic at its source. That global effort needs more troops and supplies, not fewer. ...
At the very least, state officials need to establish safe and habitable conditions and make sure that those in quarantine are afforded due process under the law."
I am sure that many feel that as President, Obama has the duty to insist on a workable and consistent response to this disease's possible spread. But I do not think it reasonable to lay the blame of a lack of timely response that offers solace to the population at large about a crisis that, a month later, has been superseded by the current pseudo-event conjured up by the media to capture public attention and sell ad space.
In addition to the problems in Syria, in the Ukraine and in other parts of the world, focus on the the newest radical group ISIS, or ISIL, has been made a benchmark for the Obama administration's lack of direction in dealing with these crises. Such pronouncements of inaction, not surprisingly by the same news agencies that whipped up public sentiment about the Ebola scare, are bolstered by pronouncements by McConnell & Boehner of Presidential inaction in the face of this threat, but who are also ever critical of Obama's overstepping his presidential authority.
In an abrupt about face, an article in the NY Post on September 28, 2014, "Boehner also said he believed that Obama had the authority under post-Sept. 11, 2001, resolutions to order the airstrikes that began inside Syria on Sept. 22, while Congress was out of session." Odd then that Obama's order should foment such a firestorm of protest among the conservative members of congress as well as conservative media pundits. The problem is that no one can decide if he is being too timid or too aggressive.
For example, George Will stated on Fox news during a morning show on September 1, 2014: "Well, yes, I mean, caution, which is what he's being criticized for, is a nice defect to have after the first decade of the century. On the other hand, the rhetoric has not been cautious. The president talked about rolling back ISIS, Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talking about the need to destroy ISIS. That means liberate large cities that have been taken, which you can't do with F-16s and F-18s.
"I think what the president is trying to do, and I sympathize with this, is to get the neighborhood to rally. I mean, look what's in the neighborhood. Saudi Arabia has 250 highly competent aircraft and an AWACS system to control it. You got Iran and Iraq, are enemies of ISIS, so is Syria, Jordan, and the Kurds who are, for all intents and purposes, a nation right now.
"So, you got six nations in the neighborhood. If they can't do it, we shouldn't."
The response to the Ebola epidemic has varied from state to state, and the chief criticism of the federal response is that the Obama administration had done little to show that the measures undertaken to contain the disease were, or could be, effective. Taking matters into their own hands, governors of several states attempted to put into effect quarantine measures. On October 30, 2014, the Boston Globe's editorial entitled "Ebola quarantine rules should reflect science, not hysteria," reads in part:
"This patchwork response sows confusion and seems grounded more in politics and fear of the unknown than in science. It also has a troubling unintended consequence: punishing the altruistic health care workers who are contributing their skills to a global effort to stop the epidemic at its source. That global effort needs more troops and supplies, not fewer. ...
At the very least, state officials need to establish safe and habitable conditions and make sure that those in quarantine are afforded due process under the law."
I am sure that many feel that as President, Obama has the duty to insist on a workable and consistent response to this disease's possible spread. But I do not think it reasonable to lay the blame of a lack of timely response that offers solace to the population at large about a crisis that, a month later, has been superseded by the current pseudo-event conjured up by the media to capture public attention and sell ad space.
In addition to the problems in Syria, in the Ukraine and in other parts of the world, focus on the the newest radical group ISIS, or ISIL, has been made a benchmark for the Obama administration's lack of direction in dealing with these crises. Such pronouncements of inaction, not surprisingly by the same news agencies that whipped up public sentiment about the Ebola scare, are bolstered by pronouncements by McConnell & Boehner of Presidential inaction in the face of this threat, but who are also ever critical of Obama's overstepping his presidential authority.
In an abrupt about face, an article in the NY Post on September 28, 2014, "Boehner also said he believed that Obama had the authority under post-Sept. 11, 2001, resolutions to order the airstrikes that began inside Syria on Sept. 22, while Congress was out of session." Odd then that Obama's order should foment such a firestorm of protest among the conservative members of congress as well as conservative media pundits. The problem is that no one can decide if he is being too timid or too aggressive.
For example, George Will stated on Fox news during a morning show on September 1, 2014: "Well, yes, I mean, caution, which is what he's being criticized for, is a nice defect to have after the first decade of the century. On the other hand, the rhetoric has not been cautious. The president talked about rolling back ISIS, Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talking about the need to destroy ISIS. That means liberate large cities that have been taken, which you can't do with F-16s and F-18s.
"I think what the president is trying to do, and I sympathize with this, is to get the neighborhood to rally. I mean, look what's in the neighborhood. Saudi Arabia has 250 highly competent aircraft and an AWACS system to control it. You got Iran and Iraq, are enemies of ISIS, so is Syria, Jordan, and the Kurds who are, for all intents and purposes, a nation right now.
"So, you got six nations in the neighborhood. If they can't do it, we shouldn't."
Friday, March 02, 2012
Rush Limbaugh, the Vicodin addict, suffers from verbal diarrhea...
By NBC News and msnbc.com staff
"Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, already under fire from
Democrats over his language in discussing a Georgetown University law student
who testified about contraception, ratcheted up his rhetoric on Thursday,
saying the student should post an online sex video if taxpayers are forced to
pay for contraception.
Limbaugh on Wednesday had referred to student Sandra Fluke as a 'slut' for supporting a requirement that health insurance cover contraception. On his
radio show Thursday, Limbaugh went a little further:
'So Miss Fluke, and the rest of
you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives,
and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post
the videos online so we can all watch.'
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had called on Limbaugh to apologize
Thursday about the 'slut' comment, made after Fluke testified recently about
contraception before an unofficial Democratic committee.
Here's what Limbaugh
said on Wednesday’s edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush
Limbaugh Show:
'What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes
before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to
have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a
prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
'She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She
wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make
us? We're the pimps.
"The johns, that's right. We would be the johns -- no! We're not
the johns. Well -- yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.'
Fluke had been turned away in
February from testifying before the Republican-controlled House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee on the Obama administration's policy requiring that
employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance
that covers birth control.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Romney's Tax Plan, mentioned in prior posting...
Table
T12-0004
|
|||||||||||
Mitt
Romney's Tax Plan
|
|||||||||||
Baseline:
Current Policy
|
|||||||||||
Distribution
of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2015 1
|
|||||||||||
Summary
Table
|
|||||||||||
Cash
Income Percentile2,3
|
Tax Units
with Tax Increase or Cut 4
|
Percent
Change in After-Tax Income5
|
Share of
Total Federal Tax Change
|
Average
Federal Tax Change ($)
|
Average
Federal Tax Rate6
|
||||||
Change (%
Points)
|
Under the
Proposal
|
With Tax
Cut
|
With Tax
Increase
|
||||||||
Pct of Tax
Units
|
Avg Tax
Cut
|
Pct of Tax
Units
|
Avg Tax
Increase
|
||||||||
Lowest
Quintile
|
13.2
|
-126
|
18.7
|
927
|
-1.4
|
-3.8
|
157
|
1.4
|
3.4
|
||
Second
Quintile
|
29.3
|
-298
|
18.1
|
932
|
-0.3
|
-1.7
|
82
|
0.3
|
9.4
|
||
Middle
Quintile
|
46.2
|
-491
|
11.1
|
792
|
0.3
|
2.6
|
-138
|
-0.3
|
15.6
|
||
Fourth
Quintile
|
65.4
|
-903
|
6.6
|
862
|
0.7
|
8.2
|
-532
|
-0.6
|
18.8
|
||
Top
Quintile
|
83.8
|
-8,641
|
5.2
|
1,569
|
3.1
|
94.4
|
-6,899
|
-2.3
|
23.4
|
||
All
|
42.4
|
-2,890
|
13.1
|
938
|
1.7
|
100.0
|
-1,064
|
-1.3
|
19.6
|
||
Addendum
|
|||||||||||
80-90
|
75.2
|
-1,706
|
8.8
|
1,624
|
1.0
|
7.9
|
-1,143
|
-0.8
|
21.2
|
||
90-95
|
87.6
|
-3,075
|
2.8
|
1,255
|
1.6
|
8.7
|
-2,599
|
-1.2
|
22.0
|
||
95-99
|
96.7
|
-8,067
|
0.4
|
1,311
|
2.7
|
20.5
|
-7,477
|
-2.0
|
23.2
|
||
Top 1
Percent
|
99.1
|
-86,535
|
0.1
|
693
|
6.1
|
57.3
|
-82,188
|
-4.3
|
25.9
|
||
Top 0.1
Percent
|
99.9
|
-482,940
|
0.0
|
0
|
8.3
|
33.2
|
-464,005
|
-5.6
|
27.6
|
||
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax
Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 0411-2).
|
|||||||||||
Number of AMT Taxpayers
(millions). Baseline: 6.1 Proposal: 5.8
|
|||||||||||
* Less than 0.05
|
|||||||||||
** Insufficient data
|
|||||||||||
(1) Calendar year. Baseline
is current policy, proposal implements Mitt Romney's tax plan. For a detailed
discussion of TPC's interpretation of Romney's plan, see
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Romney-plan.cfm. For a description
of TPC's current law and current policy baselines, see
|
|||||||||||
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/T11-0270
|
|||||||||||
(2) Tax units with negative
cash income are excluded from the lowest income class but are included in the
totals. For a description of cash income, see
|
|||||||||||
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/income.cfm
|
|||||||||||
(3) The cash income
percentile classes used in this table are based on the income distribution
for the entire population and contain an equal number of people, not tax
units. The breaks are (in 2011 dollars): 20% $19,342; 40% $39,862; 60%
$69,074; 80% $119,546; 90% $169,987; 95% $242,597; 99% $629,809; 99.9%
$2,868,534.
|
|||||||||||
(4) Includes both filing
and non-filing units but excludes those that are dependents of other tax
units.
|
|||||||||||
(5) After-tax income is
cash income less: individual income tax net of refundable credits; corporate
income tax; payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare); and estate tax.
|
|||||||||||
(6) Average federal tax
(includes individual and corporate income tax, payroll taxes for Social
Security and Medicare, and the estate tax) as a percentage of average cash
|
|||||||||||
Romney's campaign focus & tax plans
02/01/12
CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Romney
about perceptions that he doesn't understand the needs of average Americans. In
response, Romney said:
“This
is a time people are worried. They're frightened. They want someone who they
have confidence in. And I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in
the American people. And, by the way, I'm in this race because I care about
Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net
there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.
I'm
not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about
the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now
are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.”
When O'Brien followed on Romney's
I'm-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor comment, the presidential candidate
responded:
“The
challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the
poor, and – and there’s no question, it's not good being poor and we have a
safety net to help those that are very poor.
But my campaign is focused on middle
income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on
the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my
focus.”
(In fact, according to the non-partisan
Tax Policy Center, the largest benefits of Romney's tax plan
go to the wealthy, not the middle class.)
Romney's comment about not being
concerned about the poor is his latest statement that his rivals -- either
Democratic or Republican -- could use to portray Romney as being out of touch
with average Americans. Other examples:
·
his $10,000 bet with Rick Perry (at December GOP debate)
·
"I like being able to fire
people," even though he was referring to insurers (at speech in New
Hampshire)
·
"There were a couple of
times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New
Hampshire)
·
saying that questions about
economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in
January)
·
and the ultimate release of his
2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than
15%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
