Dems Leading in NC

 Posted by at 1:16 pm  Politics
Sep 232016

Let me begin with the caveat that I consider it too early to be predicting outcomes, and with that said, Rachel Maddow has brought us a very small sample of raw data from early voting in NC.  I’m certainly not going to call it definitive, but it does give some cause for hope.


Rachel Maddow broke some huge good news for Hillary Clinton, as Democrats have an eight-point lead in the early balloting in North Carolina…

…It is a small sample, but this is why Republicans are freaking in North Carolina and nationally:

Maddow said, “Democrats always expect to do better in the early vote. Republicans expect to do better in terms of votes cast on election day, but even given that, that margin, that eight-point margin for the Democrats is really good. According to the Associated Press, Republicans were on this measure at this point in the race four years ago, not Democrats. They had a 43%-38% lead on early ballots at this point in 2012.”

Mitt Romney went on to win North Carolina in 2012.

If Donald Trump loses North Carolina, he loses the election. It doesn’t matter what happens in Ohio or Florida or any of the other swing states. If Clinton flips a red state and maintains her “blue wall,” she will win the election…

From <PoliticusUSA>

Here’s the video from the Rachel Maddow Show:

If Democrats flip NC, that could mean a landslide, but we can’t bank on it.  As I said, it gives some cause for hope.

Sep 222016

Although I tired myself out yesterday, I still could not sleep last night or this morning, so I need to rest today.  This is today’s only article from me, and I won’t be sending link messages on Care2.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 2:51 (average 4:21).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From KP Daily Funnies: That Darn Trump! Episode 2: What Do You Have To Lose?

Animated Barf Bag Alert!!


I’m not sure about its value as humor, but it sure is accurate.

From YouTube: Warren Presses FBI On Financial Crisis Case | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC


Lizzie raises some great points. I also want to know why the Banksters that caused the crisis were not prosecuted.

From Daily Kos: …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…

LOL!! If you believe that, then I blew the fart, because holding it in would have looked like I ate Chile.



Republican Supply-side Jesus and Jesus are exact opposites.

Sep 102016

I’m running way late today.  After a sleepless night, I had to take a nap this morning.  Then I needed to scan some documents, and my scanner won’t work.  I’ve been trying to solve the problem for the last three hours without success.  Tomorrow I’ll be late too because it’s a Wendy day and a Holy Day in the Church of the Ellipsoid Orb.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 4:26 (average 5:07).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From MSNBC: Rachel and I disagree.

I don’t believe him.  She does.  If I’m right, Trump is a criminal seditionist, and is not fit to be President. If she’s right, Trump is an idiot, and is not fit to be President.

From Daily Kos: David Farenthold has done a brilliant job of exposing Trump’s grandiose lies about his charitable giving. Now it appears that multiple charities are telling him they never received donations the Trump Foundation claimed on IRS submissions.

Claiming deductions for funds not donated is criminal tax fraud.

From The New Yorker: In an appearance Friday on CNN, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Presidential nominee, promised that as President he would get tough on East Korea.

“This behavior is unacceptable,” he said. “The East Koreans are making us look like idiots.”

While stressing that he remained, for the most part, an isolationist, he said, “I will do everything in my power as President to support our allies in West Korea.”





The Forum Failed to Inform

 Posted by at 1:03 pm  Politics
Sep 082016

Last night’s political forum between Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, and Donald Trump, the Republican, had two distinct halves.  In the first, Matt Lauer pilloried Hillary.  In the second, he showcased Trump.  Don’t take my word for it.  See for yourself.  You can watch the forum here, but you’d better pack several cases of barf bags.


Hillary Clinton still selfishly insists on breathing. Donald Trump heroically maintained a form of consciousness. Trump wins. Signed, the media.

The idea for the Commander in Chief forum seemed decent, but two things utterly wrecked the evening: the half-hour slice given each candidate was inadequate to discuss substantive issues; and Matt Lauer.

Most of that fault? Matt Lauer.

It’s easy enough in any situation to feel that the ‘ref’ has not been fair. A moderator hitting both sides equally may seem like they’re attacking your candidate, and not going hard enough against the opposition. That’s not the problem here.

Lauer started his interview by sandbagging Hillary Clinton, interrupting her first answer with a lengthy “question” about the email server that was both unrelated to the supposed topic of the evening, and weighted with built-in scorn up to and including the idea that Clinton’s non-crime was “disqualifying” of her candidacy. Before Hillary could complete her answer to this are-we-really-going-to-do-this zinger, Lauer interrupted her again. With another email question. Then he did it again.

Watching a replay of the affair, it’s not that Matt Lauer interrupted some of Hillary Clinton’s answers. It’s that he interrupted all of HIllary Clinton’s answers. Repeatedly, he leaped in mid-sentence, first to spew out ‘questions’ that were actually lengthy position statements allowing no obvious response, then to break in and remind Clinton that they were running out of time when she tried to beat Lauer’s words into an actual question. Lauer displayed a level of disrespect and antagonism to Hillary Clinton that wasn’t just unprofessional, it was punchable.

Even when Trump was producing a running stream of non-connected thoughts, Lauer sat back until Trump had come stumbling to a halt. He didn’t challenge Trump’s flat-out lies, and several times handed the Republican candidate open-ended questions with an intellectual challenge between “what’s your favorite color” and “how cool are puppies?” Lauer never hit Trump with anything remotely equivalent to emails—nothing about his taxes, his failed business deals, his 3,500 lawsuits, or the handy bribes that made some of those lawsuits go away. Since this was ostensibly a forum on military issues, Lauer might have asked Trump to explain his attacks on a Gold-Star family, or the five deferments that kept Trump from ever having to come near service of his own. Nope.

Overall he treated Trump like a respected businessman, while addressing Clinton as if she was a PA assigned to warm up his coffee between floats in the Macy’s parade… [emphasis added]

From <Daily Kos>

The only people that provided a shred of equal treatment were the vets.  Rachel Maddow discussed one issue they brought up,

Truthfully, I don’t think Lauer actually prefers Trump.  The media have their own corporate agenda.  Covered honestly, this election has the potential to be a media disaster, because it matches a well qualified, albeit imperfect, candidate against a buffoon, who lacks the qualities to be elected to clean septic tanks.  Yawn!!  Change the channel!  The only way they can keep raking in the profits is to keep the race close, and they bias their coverage to do it.  The problem is that they are also having an impact on a pants load of very stupid sheeple, and in the process, they put our nation at risk.

Sep 072016

There is a story that has gotten far too little media attention, except for MSNBC, regarding an "unproven" but still obvious example of quid pro quo, between a presidential candidate’s foundation and an elected official.  The Clinton Foundation scandal lacks any concrete examples of favors done for anyone who donated to the foundation, but the media keeps going back to it.  On the other hand,  the virtually ignored Trump Foundation scandal has a conspicuous quid pro quo.

0907trump-bondiIn light of the suspicions hanging over Donald Trump and Pam Bondi, the Florida attorney general, this opening quote from her Republican National Convention speech is particularly rich. “Nov. 8 is a day of reckoning for all those who have abused their power,” she said. “Winning this election means reclaiming something to which I’ve dedicated my entire career: the rule of law.”

While it hasn’t been proved that Mr. Trump or Ms. Bondi violated bribery law, there’s little doubt that they abused the public trust in 2013, when Ms. Bondi received a $25,000 campaign contribution from Mr. Trump four days after her office announced that Florida was “reviewing the allegations” in a lawsuit filed in New York against his Trump University. Attorneys general in New York and California are pursuing separate class-action suits alleging that Trump University bilked consumers of tens of thousands of dollars they each paid for a worthless real-estate investment course. In the end, Ms. Bondi’s office did not take any action against Trump University.

Mr. Trump’s contribution from his family foundation to Ms. Bondi violated federal tax law barring tax-exempt charities from engaging in political activity. The Washington Post reported last week that Mr. Trump paid a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for the violation…

From <NY Times>

Both Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow covered this last night.

Bondi’s lies became even more transparent when she claimed her office had only one complaint against Trump, when she had thousands of pages of complaints.

Rachel clearly defined the quid, the pro, and the quo.  Now if only more media would only cover this scandal that does exist like it covers the one that doesn’t.

Sep 012016

I spent the morning collecting the data and preparing the graphics for tomorrow’s Monthly Report.  That part actually takes considerably more time than writing the article.  I’m feeling quite tired, as I’ve been unable to nap.  When the weather started to cool, the city began a street repair project right below me.  For the last four days the noise has been deafening almost continuously from sunup to sundown.  Often there have been multiple jackhammers going at once.  ARGH!

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 3:10 (average 4:55).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From Daily Kos: Donald Trump’s immigration speech on Wednesday night was described here as “fascism in it’s [sic] purest, most vile form, slathered in an unbroken stream of lies,” while most in the media tip-toed around, trying to explain it all away. So, who was praising the speech? 

There was the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan:

A noted white supremacist and the founder of American Renaissance:

The editors of the white supremacist website VDARE:

In addition, Trump lied about his conversation with Peña Nieto. The Mexican President told him that he would not pay for Trump’s wall!

From NY Times: A deadlocked Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to revive parts of a restrictive North Carolina voting law that a federal appeals court had struck down as an unconstitutional effort to “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

The court was divided 4 to 4, with the court’s more conservative members voting to revive parts of the law. The court’s brief order included no reasoning.

North Carolina’s law, which imposed an array of voting restrictions, including new voter identification requirements, was enacted by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2013. It was part of a wave of voting restrictions enacted after a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision that effectively struck down a central part of the federal Voting Rights Act, weakening federal oversight of voting rights.

Challenges to the laws have met with considerable success in recent months, and Wednesday’s development suggested that the current eight-member Supreme Court is not likely to undo those victories.

We so need to dump Reichsfuhrer Roberts, Scalito, TEAbag Thomas, and Ku Klux Kennedy, all of whom voted against the Constructional right to vote.

From The Rachel Maddow Show: Trump anti-immigrant speech follows dark pattern of US history

Rachel Maddow shows how throughout American history, when normal politics breaks down, fringe voices gain prominence scapegoating immigrant groups. Duration: 16:12


After the Whig Party disappeared, a new progressive party sprung up to the left of the Democratic Party, and that Republican Party was wonderful, until it was coopted by Banksters, shifted right, and began the long slide to become the vile Reich it now is. It is my hope that the Republican Party disappears, and afterwards, a new progressive party will spring up to the left of the Democratic Party.



Republicans cheered!