Report: Trump Used Trump Foundation to Advance His Political Career
We are constantly told by the Trumpers that Hillary’s abuse of the Clinton Foundation is worse than Trump’s self-dealing with the Trump Foundation, because Hillary Clinton used her charity for political purposes, exchanging political influence for donations.
Guess what? It appears Mr. The Donald has done exactly the same thing in reverse: using his charity to buy political influence for a presidential campaign. The piece opens by describing how Trump, exploring a 2012 presidential run, was courting a “particularly vocal and influential critic” named Oran Smith:
During their meeting in Trump’s office, they discussed Christian faith and religious liberty. Smith was struck by “a different Donald Trump than I expected.” On his way out the door, Smith asked that Trump consider donating to the Palmetto Family Council.
“He was never heavy-handed about any quid pro quo,” Smith said.
But Trump delivered.
“It was a quiet donation that came with a simple cover letter,” Smith said. It read: “Great meeting with you and your wife in my office,” dated May 6, 2011. Enclosed was a check for $10,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
That check is one of at least several donations to suggest Trump used his private foundation, funded by outside donors, to launch and fuel his political ambitions. Such contributions, if they were made solely for Trump’s benefit, could violate federal self-dealing laws for private foundations.
Thanks to the intrepid work of David Farenthold at the Washington Post, we already know that Trump used his charity as a piggy bank to pay off debts incurred by his businesses. But now we know that he also raided the Trump Foundation to get coveted speaking slots that would raise his profile as a possible presidential contender:
From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation’s tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president.
Although sources familiar with the thinking behind the donations cautioned that Trump did not explicitly ask for favors in return for the money, they said the contributions were part of a deliberate effort by Trump to ingratiate himself with influential conservatives and brighten his political prospects.
Trumpers who claim to be concerned by Hillary Clinton’s political use of the Clinton Foundation can’t disregard this. Either using a charity for your political advancement is wrong, or it isn’t. (Hint: it is.)
Again and again I see the argument from Trumpers: has Trump abused his political power like Clinton has? And the correct answer is no . . . not yet. Because he hasn’t had the chance.
But everything about him shows that, if you give him that power, he will abuse it.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
and yet people would have us believe that sleazy sleazy Goldman Sachs did NOT buy any influence when they slathered up harvardtrash ted with a sweet sweet sacky loan
it’s very confuzzling
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 10:52 amReport: Trump Used Trump Foundation to Advance His Political Career
Report: Hillary Clinton Used Clinton Foundation to Advance Her political Career
“You say potato, I say potato…” ‘Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off’, George & Ira Gershwin, 1937, popularized by Fred Astaire Ginger Rogers
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:11 amSo if he becomes President he’ll continue donating his foundation’s money to political organizations?
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:14 amoh my goodness it turns out this Oran Smith guy of the Palmetto Family Whatever is a pretty slimy dude himself
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/19/cnn-busted-attempting-pre-scripted-ambush-of-donald-trump-during-live-town-hall-event/
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:18 amWhat? Hillary and Trump are quite similar? Knock me over with a feather.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:21 amhow are they even similar
this all happened in 2011 and Mr. Trump didn’t even run in 2012
this is all sleazy propaganda from amazon turdlord jeff bezos whose source is a hateful anti-gay christian bigot (Oran Smith)
there’s no quid pro quo to be seen anywheres!
whereas it’s completely documented how stinkypig clinton pocketed millions of dollars and sold russia all of our uraniums, to name but one of the more lurid examples
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:27 amAs far as I know the Clintons have not used their foundation to advance her political career. The entire premise of this is wrong. The purpose of this false premise is apparently to be able to equate her and Trump.
That doesn’t mean Trump’s not a sleaze in various ways, but this makes no sense. Patterico churns this stuff out continually now.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:30 amThe purpose of this false premise is
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:31 amapparentlyto be able to equate her and Trump.The Mysterious Case of Ted Cruz PAC’s $1/2 Million ‘Donation’ to Help Carly Fiorina
oh my goodness
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:33 amIt’s easy. Trump made a private foundation. He said it was for charitable purposes. He put some money in it and took it off his taxes. He got other people to put money in it and they took it off their taxes. Then he used that money to buy friends and influence people.
But the most important of argument is an audience who is willing to give it a fair hearing. That would not be Trump supporters. (Pats self on back for not saying “Trumpkins”.)
nk (dbc370) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:43 amyou have to really behold the amazon turdlord logics up close to really appreciate them
please to find me a source from 2011 to 2014 what suggests that Mr. Trump was becoming an increasingly “plausible Republican candidate for president” thanks to “this flow of money”
lol
even a savvy political juggernaut like Jeb Bush never saw Mr. Trump as a plausible candidate until mid 2015 at least, if not laters
this WaPo propaganda is stinky
like poop!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:47 amHillary is guilty of quite a bit more than using the charity to advance her political career.
She’s guilty of selling access while in office.
And of course, the magnitudes are completely different too.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 11:53 amplease to find me a source from 2011 to 2014 what suggests that Mr. Trump was becoming an increasingly “plausible Republican candidate for president” thanks to “this flow of money”
Lipstick on a pig. Ok, it didn’t take. That’s not the issue. The issue is the $286K of purported charity money he bought it with. The lipstick.
nk (dbc370) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:01 pmso Mr. Sleazy is the one what solicited a donation
then listen how slimy he is
“He was never heavy-handed about any quid pro quo,” Smith said.
Well of course not, sleaze-dork. *You* solicited the donation it wasn’t even his idea.
I can’t even belieber all these stinky propagandas!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:06 pmInteresting read. Clearly Trump is no saint and sleazy as well. However, I second Gabriel Hanna on distinguishing in terms of magnitude, and also that Hillary’s corruption was done while in office, which is undoubtedly worse. Also, we’ve had a long history of corruption from the Clinton’s, and also, Trump at least pretends to believe in certain conservative ideologies, such as wanting to lower taxes.
David Shawver (806c86) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:11 pmWrong.
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:14 pmoh. well the Oran Smith thing was 2011
i figured you cherry-picked your most compelling datum
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:17 pmPlease quote said false premise. Please explain how saying Trump is doing the same thing “in reverse” is equating the two.
One traded influence for cash to their charity. The other traded cash from their charity (other people’s money) for influence.
In terms of personal gain, Trump’s behavior seems at least as bad, but not the same. He used other people’s money to elevate his own stature.
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:20 pmi’m a good clicker but I don’t click on low credibility Washington Post poopy-twaddle
number one that’s not even my job number two i find it very dispiriting
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:22 pmYou didn’t bother to read the article, happypropagandist. You still think it’s from the Washington Post. You said that several times. But it is not.
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:22 pmwell shut my mouth
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:26 pmThe very same arguments I refute in the post. Standing O for the guy for not abusing a political office he hasn’t attained yet. Fine. The issue is: will he once he gets there — and will the potential profits skyrocket once he is in the Oval Office. And the answers are duh of course and hells to the yeah.
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:28 pmThe issue is: will he once he gets there
Will he throw plates at Bill Clinton’s head too? He has quite a temper. And the only reason he hasn’t thrown any plates at Bill Clinton’s head is because he hasn’t had any opportunity to, I guess, so he gets no credit for not having done it.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:31 pmWhy should I care that a candidate has a penchant for using other people’s money for their own benefit?
“I care deeply if it is the opponent of my preferred candidate. I will spin it if it is my preferred candidate.” — signed, Literally Almost Everyone
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:31 pmWhat a great analogy, Gabriel.
If the issue was whether he would throw plates in the White House, and a story showed he throws plates in his own house, that would be a) highly relevant to the issue and b) discounted by Trumpers with the compelling argument “well he didn’t throw them in office!”
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:34 pmBehavior revealing a deep character flaw that could result in misbehavior in office: relevant or no?
“First tell me whether you are talking about my preferred candidate and then I will answer the question.” — Literally Almost Everyone
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:36 pmI think the article describes the DIRECTION of Hillary’s corruption completely backwards. She has been using her political career to advance her net worth, including the pile of cash sitting in the Clinton Foundation that has been accumulated from donors who wanted influence in the State Department, but has net been used for charitable purposes.
Mike S (89ec89) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:38 pmShe’s despicable
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:39 pmThe Berg piece is a decent pre mortem and the rope sellers’ list will be useful in the future. The rope sellers couldn’t have hanged themselves without the help of both the infotainment and mainstream media.
The secondary objective of what is going to be a continuous media barrage is control of the Senate. Ayotte just gave a very clear example of not keeping sufficient distance from the the blast radius and may have cost herself her seat through lack of caution.
Rick Ballard (1aa129) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:40 pm@Patterico:Behavior revealing a deep character flaw that could result in misbehavior in office: relevant or no?
Is this at me? Relevant, but needs to be evaluated in context of a) severity and b) did it actually happen yet and c) in context with what else is on the table i.e Hillary.
We don’t have pre-crime units yet, Hillary’s got that slated for second term.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:43 pmIt’s a good thing you don’t care which one of them wins.
To Gabriel’s point, I’m sure he will pull over 800 FBI files on the #nevertrump bunch.
And his kids will jump on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Pinandpuller (42279a) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:45 pmSee that’s the thing, Patterico, you can spend all this time telling us what a horrible guy Trump is. Yeah, I know that.
But in almost everything Hillary doing the same thing but ten or a hundred times worse. And one of those two is going to win the election. So we have to figure out which one to live with.
The media is working around the clock to dig up anything on Trump and will if he’s elected. With Hillary, they won’t–we ALREADY know that. The bureaucracy will work around the clock to do her bidding and cover up for here–they’re ALREADY doing it now. Even the FBI.
So there’s where we are. A choice between 4 years of Berlusconi without the competence, or 40 years of PRI.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:47 pmyes yes!
getting a loan from a bank requires you do to their bidding!
everybody who has gotten a loan knows this! we are all out writing our reps and voting according to how our bank wants us to! we are slaves to the bank! poor Ted the man got caught up in that too
its a good thing this DON doesn’t have any connection to Goldy Sachies! I don’t want to hear about his finance chair being from Goldy Sachs nor that he wants a former Goldy Sachy as Treasurer Secretary! Because TRUMP obviously.
sadfeet (e04f50) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:48 pmMan its almost as if the Don was a liberal buying influence so that he could con conservatives in to voting for him. Nobody would ever be dumb enough to believe the he wasn’t anything but a liberal Democrat though, right? That the same man who donated to Clinton and Reid would be better than them and oppose what they supported, right?
We don’t have fools on the right, right?
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (dd9551) — 10/4/2016 @ 12:51 pmHelp me understand. IF Trump had not formally entered the presidential race would this be viewed as improper? Regardless, in hindsight it was cheap and not so smart but what’s new about that.
crazy (d3b449) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:09 pmApparently, Gabriel would not turn down an applicant for a position at company x on the basis that the applicant had stolen money at his last five jobs. After all, he never stole money at company x. What is this, the Precrime Unit?!?! IS THIS EVEN AMERICA?!?!?!?)!!!!1 n
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:24 pmI’m not just trying to convince you to vote for anyone, or not vote. I am just saying Donald Trump is a lowlife. And that his dishonesty relates to his fitness for office in my mind. You do what you want. I don’t care.
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:26 pmI don’t know how to convince you that Mr. Trump is a very good man that will be an altogether beneficent steward. I been trying to think of the right words but i just feel like no matter what I say you’ll be disdainful.
🙁
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:29 pmYes, character matters. Neither Trump nor Clinton have any. And it is becoming exceedingly apparent that their followers are just as character-deficient.
John Hitchcock (2dbce8) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:32 pmyeah way to keep an open mind Mr. Hitchcock
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:33 pmYou could try being honest, for a change, HF. There is nothing good about Trump. Not one iota of good about him.
John Hitchcock (2dbce8) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:33 pmDoes that help? You literally say he is doing the same thing. Sounds a lot like you are equating the two. You certainly seem to think that this is some sort of horrible sin, almost as if charitable organizations never gave to other charitable organizations.
A whopping $70K a year. The LA spends that much on new artwork for their DA offices, many times over.
http://da.co.la.ca.us/about/inside-LADA/embodied-sculpture
That’s some wonderful fortune telling there. Maybe you could get with Tom Cruise and find out how to set up a pre-crime division there in LA. Seems you need to do something better than you are.
http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-crime-stats-20151230-story.html
Besides, your prognostications during the primary (and now into the general) election cycle were so spot on!! I notice you don’t say “You can count on content from me” very much anymore.
You might, if they are sweetheart margin loans of $1,000,000 and unsecured lines of credit with your wife’s employer and another super-bank, CitiBank. That you didn’t bother to disclose as required by law. Because you always try to hide those things that are on the up-and-up.
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/14/463093708/the-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs-loan-explained
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:35 pmWonderful. Stealing at company A might seem a pretty good indication of stealing at company B. Most reasonable people will concede that.
But getting shaken down by those who control the levers and backrooms of political power in this country is a far cry from selling US uranium to Russia for your own financial gain. Because that is what happened here, no matter how much Mr. Frey needs to say otherwise to salve his wounds over the will of the people. And I guess he gets invited to more of those social events in LA now that he will run down Trump over the most silly and false things ginned up by Politico and Huffington Post. So yay for Pat, I guess.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:39 pmOh really?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/nh/new_hampshire_senate_ayotte_vs_hassan-3862.html
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:44 pmAyotte’s no prize
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:46 pmand you can tell her i said so
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:47 pmYou should probably point out an actual falsehood if you’re going to label something “false,” prowlerguy.
The fact that you don’t think something is important doesn’t make it “false.”
Leviticus (9d0fa2) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:49 pmThere is nothing good about Trump. Not one iota of good about him.
Except there is.
For starts, he’s not Hillary Clinton.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2016 @ 2:18 pm@Patterico:Apparently, Gabriel would not turn down an applicant for a position at company x on the basis that the applicant had stolen money at his last five jobs.
Way to refute an argument I didn’t make, which is in no way analogous to mine. Here are the points where it fails:
As a voter, my input into the decision is very small. As a hiring manager, it is very large.
An applicant for a position has typically many applicants and I can always choose to hire no one, but the Presidency will be filled by on of these two people.
I can quit a company and not be bothered by the personnel decisions, but I can’t easily quit the United States of America.
Here it is again, expressed a little more clearly. One of these two people will win, and you will have to live with the result. That is it right there. Vote for one, don’t vote. Talk down one ten times as much as the other, or strive for balance. Doesn’t matter.
One of them will win and you have to live with the result. I prefer the result that comes without a lapdog media and civil service. YMMV.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 2:31 pm@40.yeah way to keep an open mind Mr. Hitchcock.
You mean a U.S. Open mind: sucha putz.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2016 @ 2:43 pmso mr. smith, suggested his foundation was a worthy recipient, not vice versa, shirley,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 2:44 pmMaybe you should wait for me to label something as false before you get all self-righteous, Leviticus. Maybe you should have gone the extra yard and fabricated a quote out of whole cloth.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 3:19 pm“I guess he gets invited to more of those social events in LA now that he will run down Trump over the most silly and false things ginned up by Politico and Huffington Post. So yay for Pat, I guess.”
– prowlerguy @1.39 pm
“Maybe you should wait for me to label something as false before you get all self-righteous, Leviticus.”
– prowlerguy @3.19 pm
You do realize this isn’t SnapChat, right? Your comments don’t disappear ten seconds after you make them.
Leviticus (efada1) — 10/4/2016 @ 3:24 pmI mean, I wish they would, but they don’t.
Leviticus (efada1) — 10/4/2016 @ 3:24 pmthe top recipient, actually paid a 250 million dollar fine, back in 2009, I’m sure univision will be right on that,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-04/clinton-foundation-hacked-exposing-thousands-donor-databases-pay-play-folder
I mean if we’re going to focus on returns, from when I was in college,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 3:29 pmand it puts carolyn maloney’s high dudgeon over wells fargo in perspective
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 3:45 pmin the back of the book section,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/4/howard-stern-slams-cnn-i-never-confirmed-trump-bac/
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 4:16 pm“I think the article describes the DIRECTION of Hillary’s corruption completely backwards. She has been using her political career to advance her net worth, including the pile of cash sitting in the Clinton Foundation that has been accumulated from donors who wanted influence in the State Department, but has net been used for charitable purposes.”
DING DING DING DING!!!
An amount of money barely a quarter of Trump’s initial loan spent on fact-finding tours with Republican reps and THEIR ‘charities’ and ‘foundations’ during the political pre-season. Versus a woman who immediately grafts her private foundation onto her public office to sell access to the highest bidder!
“Charity” “misuse” is the oldest trap in the book and has a hundred nooks, crannies, fake precedents, and surprise exceptions for even the dumbest lawyer to give you the runaround forever.
Pat’s ‘moderate’ and ‘evenhanded’ act is super-transparent and the only amazing thing is that it took until post 27 for a sharp-eyed s***lord to catch the central con. STEP IT UP, LOSERS. You think the post-Trump era is going to be lacking in slippery criminals and their advocates to pin down and mock openly? Better start practicing now!
Dystopia Max (76803a) — 10/4/2016 @ 4:50 pmThis is the part where Gabriel Hanna requests evidence in support of the assertion that Clinton has “sold access to the highest bidder.”
Leviticus (03bf59) — 10/4/2016 @ 4:54 pmRight?
Maybe we should just EMBRACE the end of the Rule of Law, and choose a effing side.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:10 pmPlease quote where I said she has been using her net worth to advance her political career.
Ding ding for someone who made something up.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:14 pmFIFY
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:16 pmthe law is dead like the norwegian blue, as catherine herridge repeatedly apprised us yesterday,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:17 pmIt does not help because I literally do NOT say he is doing the same thing. The fact that you failed to bold the part that demonstrates you are distorting my point, does not make those words disappear.
One commenter said “As far as I know the Clintons have not used their foundation to advance her political career.” That is not what I said. It is never what I said.
You people need courses in symbolic logic. You’re truly incapable of the simplest logical distinctions.
Sad!
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:19 pmyou need a course in techniques for to avoid getting that pig all up in it
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:22 pmWow. I had no idea that it would be a controversial position to take that Politico and Huffington Post often publish false and/or misleading stories about Republican candidates for office. Who knew that the #NeverTrumpers would become full-throated defenders of these honest journalists, as well as defending Hillary?
But I seem to remember our host, citing a CNN story, stated definitively that Donald Trump was hiding something in his medical history (stated as a fact, not an opinion), despite not being able to point to any outward symptoms or signs of any chronic or serious diseases. He further stated that it was likely (based on nothing beyond comments at the sites I mentioned) that it was “a drug that sort of rhymes with the first word of Niagara Falls”.
And NOBODY except looney liberals think that a montage of Trump sniffles during the debate are worth a mention, let alone two mentions and a post of their own. And butthurt NeverTrumpers. Then it is high comedy and certainly points to some ailment of Trump (or drug use, as some posters here speculated).
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:24 pmIf I had to choose between Hitler and Satan, I would choose Hitler.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:24 pmHow applicable that is to the current discussion I guess is a question.
Let’s strip away the political content that interferes with your reasoning processes.
Candidate H uses x to promote y.
Candidate T uses y to promote x.
Blogger P says: “Candidate T is using y to promote x. He is doing the same thing as candidate H, in reverse.”
You are distorting Blogger P’s words, and totally missing Blogger P’s point, if you say:
“As far as I know candidate H is not using y to promote x, so Blogger P is wrong.”
or
“The article gets it backwards. In reality, candidate H is actually using x to promote y.”
Honestly. Reading is fundamental.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:25 pmWhat a weaselly worded defense, complete with personal insults. You did, in fact, equate them because you a) said “Trump is doing the same thing”, then b) you went on to say how both were disqualified by their actions. You made no distinction about who was soliciting “donations” for favors, and you in fact conflated them by stating “Trumpers who claim to be concerned by Hillary Clinton’s political use of the Clinton Foundation can’t disregard this. Either using a charity for your political advancement is wrong, or it isn’t. (Hint: it is.)”. So that is what you said, despite your attempts now to claim that you never said that. Of course, in your world, getting shaken down is EXACTLY the same as shaking someone else down.
Look, I know you are still hurting because you LOVED you some Teddie, and then he went and got beaten like a rented mule, and on top of that showed himself to be the craven, me-first narcissist, typical sleazy politician/lawyer that the rest of America knew him to be. That must hurt worst of all. But to become a full Hillary supporter is a bit of an overreaction, isn’t it? Got to protect the establishment though, don’t you?
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:37 pmBut Candidate H is NOT using y to promote X. Candidate H is using y to sell access to her political office, and promoting Candidate H’s financial status, not her X.
Honesty is more fundamental, but Cruzites seem to be short of that.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:39 pmAnd if you were honest, you would have said “Candidate T was shaken down and paid the bribe from y to allow him access to the power brokers he paid the bribe to.”
But you aren’t, and you are parroting CNN, NYT, and MSNBC talking points instead of using any semblance of critical thinking skills.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:42 pmNo need for you to be on a blog where you say the host is dishonest. Go ahead and leave. I won’t miss you.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:45 pmLie.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:46 pmMichael Bloomberg did this kind of stuff, only I think he gave personal checks, and deducted it on his income tax. Donald Trump may have taken the deduction some years earlier. Of course foundations have special rules, because the money no longer belongs to the donor.
Sammy Finkelman (57e37d) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:48 pmI don’t need liars commenting here. Nor do I need people who falsely claim I am lying. Bye, prowlerguy. If you don’t want to find the door, I’ll show it to you.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:49 pmso was romney was buying influence,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/romney-pac-donates-to-sc-groups/?_r=0
ironically smith endorsed nor laup
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:49 pmThere’s a vice presidential debate coming up in 11 minutes..
Sammy Finkelman (57e37d) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:50 pmNo Bob23. No prowlerguy. Smells better here.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:50 pmwell he’s a cheap date,
http://www.lifenews.com/2008/01/18/nat-3633/
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:51 pm67. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:24 pm <blockquote. If I had to choose between Hitler and Satan, I would choose Hitler. Winston Churchill said Satan. Or at least came close to that.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
It’s been known since much before 2007.
Sammy Finkelman (57e37d) — 10/4/2016 @ 5:53 pmJust removed Dystopia Max as well for some bizarre anti-Semitic comment.
As for prowlerguy, he was getting on my nerves with his fixation on the expenditures of the DA’s office even before he lied about what I was saying and called me a liar.
People need to tone it down. I have lost my patience and the bar for getting banned for rudeness etc. is lowering.
Patterico (b7c0f1) — 10/4/2016 @ 6:21 pmIf Dystopia was Christoph he’s actually getting worse and probably needs some adjustment to his medication.
Great post. As election day approaches I find it harder to accept voting for Hillary, even though I do think she is the lesser of two truly evil people. I may vote for that Johnson, who doesn’t represent my views but is not evil. I’d like to think there is a preference cascade possibility, and most Americans are deeply irritated with these two candidates, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think South Park has it right. Two groups of people are so fixated on hating the other team’s candidate that they have been manipulated into defending their own evil candidate. You can see how deranged the Hillary bashing is. Sure, Hillary is terrible, but some of the comments make her out to be absurdly bad because that’s the kind of deranged partisanship both sides need to maintain the system we’ve got.
The best thing we can do is start being honest about both sides. Start saying the emperor has no clothes. No, Hillary’s opponent is not good at all. Hopefully democrats admit that Trump’s opponent is not good at all. Solutions are hard to come by, but there’s no chance if we don’t admit the problem.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/4/2016 @ 7:30 pmI didn’t read it carefully. I imputed something to your post that wasn’t there.
You’re saying he did the same thing in reverse. Which is in fact something different.
The point of this is to predict something. You’re creating a linkage based on the fact that both involve foundations. The idea that therefore it’s likely that he’ll solicit donations to his foundation in return for favors is a non sequitur. It’s an example of a logical fallacy. Like Socrates and the dead cat.
Did he do something illegal? Quite possibly, though I don’t know if he knew that.
Logical fallacy which is becoming the sine qua non of the anti-Trump posts here.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/4/2016 @ 7:35 pmdidn’t oren smith first have the meeting, then came the contribution, it’s pay for play at all, in previous occasions, he pocketed the money and endorsed another candidate as in 2012,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 7:38 pm“I have lost my patience and the bar for getting banned for rudeness etc. is lowering.”
Alternatively, the Trumptanic is down at the bow to the point where it has become obvious the rejection of Trump by college educated white women in the suburbs is going to make the actual impact of #NeverTrump a very minor footnote in this election. The fact the outcome was obvious from the very beginning will never be a satisfactory explanation to innumerate Trump supporters and their ire increases as the bleeding obvious is hammered home over the next 34 days.
Rick Ballard (1aa129) — 10/4/2016 @ 7:46 pmwhat did you use to call them, Rick, the liebowitz sisters,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2016 @ 7:48 pmI think you need to assume that. I think it was you who said Trump would get less than 30% of the vote (maybe I’m confusing you with someone else like Kevin M). If he loses the NeverTrumps will be the difference.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/4/2016 @ 7:53 pmGive it a rest Patterico. I’m signing off until after the election. Both Clinton and Trump are weasels–albeit with slightly different stripes. One has orange hair; one wears orange pantsuits.
I’m deleting your blog. I’ll come back in mid November after the election where there’s a chance you won’t be unhinged. It’s a shame. I’ve enjoyed your blog for a long time.
Skeptical Voter (1d5c8b) — 10/4/2016 @ 9:55 pmSounds like we agree perfectly about Trump and Clinton. I can therefore see why you would be “deleting” my blog. I’m pretty much sick of people throwing rotten fruit from the audience, so if you want to leave, be my guest. I just don’t follow why you’re upset, given that we both appear to hate both of these candidates.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 10:00 pmI think you’re overthinking it. Both are using foundations in a manner that is not what most people think charities should be used for. Clinton appears to trade access an influence in return for donations to her foundation, which appears to be a crap charity that they use for perks at a minimum. I do not see it as a “logical fallacy” along the same lines as concluding “Socrates is a cat” to note that Trump, by abusing his own charity in a way that trades other people’s money for political prestige, demonstrates a flaw in his character that suggests he will use the presidency to benefit himself on a personal level. But you can call it a logical fallacy if you like, and run down the blog as a whole if you like, and you know what? If you don’t like reading the blog, I’m happy to invite you to find other places to leave your comments.
I’m not going to ban you, but you’re a one-note Johnny. “Stop bashing Trump. Stop bashing Trump. Stop bashing Trump.” The answer is no. I will bash who I like, when I like, and that’s inevitably going to be Trump sometimes and Hillary sometimes and other liars other times. If you don’t like it, why are you here?
I’m getting more than a little sick of feeling like I am paying money to host a party where people walk in, grab a giant handful of pretzels, stuff it into their maws, and then, as they chomp on them, with pieces of pretzel spewing onto the floor, they criticize my choice of decor or food or whatever. You don’t like it? Fine. Find another party.
Try not being RUDE, in other words.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 10:13 pmI don’t know if he is, but he is hateful and disgusting in the same way that Christoph is.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 10:15 pmThe answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going to a different blog because they can`t find praise for an orange con man here. And so we`re not going to round people up.
Five points if you got the reference.
I think Haiku self-deported. Anyone looking for Trump boosterism here is welcome to do the same. Truly, I welcome it. This is not my job, I don’t need masses of eyeballs to put food on the table, and I don’t wake up every day looking forward to more abuse from my commenters. Get it through your heads: I’m not going to start genuflecting to either of these crooks running for office, whether people try to make me to or not. If you’re still reading and you haven’t figured that out, and you just can’t stand the lack of cheering for this buffoon, flounce away. There’s plenty of people who DO make their living from blogging who have gotten on their high horse and gone the full Trump, and that may be a more comfortable home for some of you.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 10:34 pmI view this as a beautiful time of cleansing. I have found a large group of conservative pundits whom I will never watch or listen to again. I have found a number of commenters who have gone full Trumpkin and if they are alienated from the site, fine. And then we have the ones who are so wrapped up in hatred for Hillary that, while they know in their heart of hearts that Trump is a piece of shit, they can’t bear to have that spoken aloud for fear it might help this woman they have so demonized that they see her as Satan incarnate. I can live without those people for 30 days, at least. And if my adamant opposition to this lowlife orange asshat is so unbearable to them that they can’t bear to read me, then hey. Be careful that the door doesn’t catch your rear as you walk out. Sayonara. So long. BUH-bye.
Self-deportation, baby.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/4/2016 @ 10:40 pmI remember saying a few things like this the other day. Glad to see our host agrees with me.
@ Gabriel Hanna, #49:
I think it’s actually a little more analogous than you think it is. As a hiring manager, wouldn’t you refuse to hire someone who had behaved badly (in a relevant way) on previous jobs? The smart move would be to hire neither Clinton nor Trump. Maybe dig a little further down in the pile, look at that weird application that was mailed in from Santa Fe.
Oh, but wait, I forgot:
That is ultimately the crux of your whole argument, right? “I don’t like Trump, but I think he’s a better risk than Clinton, and those are the only two people with a chance to win.”
Here’s my response. You have one vote. The rest of the country has a hundred million votes. Your vote is not going to matter. Even within your state…well, I don’t know what state you live in, but let’s say it’s somewhere like California (deep blue) or Texas (deep red). Enough other people are going to vote in a deep-blue or deep-red way that your vote will probably not swing your state, or have any meaningful impact there either. So unless you live in Florida or somewhere similar, why don’t you stop pretending like it matters at all for whom you cast your vote, find a candidate you like (or at least can live with), and cast it for him or her instead? Heck, if you don’t like anybody, write in Mickey Mouse. Disney (through Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, ABC, and ESPN) is going to own the entire country in a decade or so anyway. You might as well establish your support for the Magic Kingdom now.
I am living this line of reasoning right now. I voted for McCain, despite his many departures from conservative orthodoxy, because at least I knew he would be a good natsec president. I voted for Romney, despite his work on MassCare, because at least I knew him to be a man of good character whom I would not be ashamed to call my president. I didn’t mind the party duopoly, as long as it produced at least one candidate whom I couldn’t smell when I held my nose. But these two? They reek, and not even industrial-strength noseplugs will change that. I figure Clinton will win the election, and Trump will win my state, and my one vote will not change either of those two things. (Even if I’m wrong on the national election, my vote would not help Trump in any state but mine,and — because he’s going to win said state anyway — it won’t help him here either.) So I might as well give my vote to someone I don’t despise.
Would I be reasoning differently if I lived in Florida? Maybe. If I knew my one vote were going to swing my state and the whole country, maybe I’d have to try and figure out which of Clinton or Trump I thought would do less long-term damage to the country. But thankfully, I don’t live in that world. And I bet you don’t either. So c’mon. Vote for Gary Johnson. Or if you don’t like him, vote for Castle or McMullin. Or, again, there’s always Mickey Mouse — if he won and turned out to be a tyrant-in-waiting, at least I’d go into the Happiest Gulag on Earth.
Or, if you so choose, cast your vote for a cronyist liberal and against America. Because all you’re doing is playing the world’s worst game of “Would You Rather?” Your vote won’t make a bit of difference to either one of them. We will both have to live with the result, but at least I’ll be able to live with my vote.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/5/2016 @ 4:39 am“I think it was you who said Trump would get less than 30% of the vote (maybe I’m confusing you with someone else like Kevin M).”
Your memory is consonant with your logic. Trump has a solid floor at 36-38% and an apparently solid ceiling of 42% in the four way. The spread of Clinton over Trump of 4-8% which Gallup has very consistently reported via their approval/disapproval surveys has never varied beyond the margin and absent a major event is highly unlikely to do so in the next 34 days.
Rick Ballard (1aa129) — 10/5/2016 @ 5:13 amWell, now it is official. Agree with Pat or be gone. No need for discussion or alternate viewpoints. Enjoy the wilderness. You and the rest of the Crux supporters can spend the next 40 years kvetching about how great and brilliant and moral you all are.
Amused Observer (c9efed) — 10/5/2016 @ 12:24 pmWe can’t miss you if you don’t leave, dirtbag.
John Hitchcock (2dbce8) — 10/5/2016 @ 2:04 pm“87. If he loses the NeverTrumps will be the difference.”
No problem. If he loses, the NeverTrumpers will throw all the Trump supporters out of the Republican party.
Added bonus: The next RNC convention can be held in the back room of the local Ponderosa Steakhouse with room to spare. No rent and good food cheap.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 10/5/2016 @ 3:01 pmAbout a month ago a poll showed Trump getting 73% of Republicans while Romney got 93%. I don’t know what it is now but it probably hasn’t changed much. If we assume Republicans are at least 35% of the electorate that equates to a 7% loss due to NeverTrumps – assuming none of them vote for Clinton. Few if any polls are showing Trump behind by that much – especially in a four way contest. If we assume half of NeverTrumpers are voting for Clinton, that means that NeverTrump actually accounts for a swing of 10.5% in Clintons favor.
I don’t know why you’re basing it on some approval disapproval comparison rather than Presidential preference, but if we use the upper end of that range you quoted, it still comes out that NeverTrumpers are Clinton’s margin of victory.
It is virtually certain that if Trump loses the differential will be NeverTrumpers.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/5/2016 @ 3:23 pmI guess you’re right he might do that.
I’m guessing I’ve disputed less than 10% of your anti-Trump posts. And I believe this is the first one that you responded to my disagreement, so it seems like you must not have been able to find anything obviously off target in my others.
So characterizing me as “Stop bashing Trump. Stop bashing Trump. Stop bashing Trump” makes no sense.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/5/2016 @ 3:35 pm@Gerald A:I don’t know what it is now but it probably hasn’t changed much
I do. I read that notorious pro-Trump rag National Review:
“Trump is a little off Romney’s level of support from his own side in 2012 (93 percent among Republicans and 82 percent among conservatives). But Clinton is trailing Obama’s support as well (92 support among Democrats and 86 percent among liberals).”
#NeverTrump is nowhere near costing Trump 7% of the vote.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/5/2016 @ 3:53 pmEventually, our #NeverTrumper friends may discover that a Presidential election is not about what you’re for, rather it’s about slowing down the left wing train just a little bit.
And of course, enabling illary to win only speeds up the train.
Wait until her Supreme Court nominees invoke their decrees upon Texas.
Then, maybe people will wake up from their nap.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/5/2016 @ 4:04 pmMaybe…
@102 Cruz Supporters
The question is, does Hillary’s train run on Reardon Metal?
Pinandpuller (27569f) — 10/5/2016 @ 4:11 pmTrump’s current support among GOP LVs is 89% versus Clinton’s 92%.
Your assumptions are as fallacious as your use of month old data to support them. The Gallup approval numbers show Trump’s miserable performance to have pre-existed the emergence of #NeverTrump.
He was a dead loss from day one.
Rick Ballard (1aa129) — 10/5/2016 @ 4:13 pmEXACTLY.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 10/5/2016 @ 5:10 pmUnder likely voters I see two different numbers, 84% and 87% based on two different ways of wording it. So the average of those two is 85.5%. I don’t see 89%. Again assuming that R’s are 35%, that’s a difference of 7.5%. The average lead of those two polls for Clinton is 6.5%. If we assume half the 7.5% are voting for Clinton that’s a net loss of 4%, close but not quite at the level of Clinton’s lead.
However, according to that poll, only 24% of the respondents identified as Republicans. In 2012 32% of voters identified as Republicans. So we’re missing around 8%. If we assume a large chunk of the people who said they were Republicans in 2012 but are not calling themselves Republican now are NeverTrumps, that implies a net loss of in the same ballpark as my original estimate or maybe more.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/5/2016 @ 7:47 pmAgain assuming that R’s are 35%, that’s a difference of 7.5%.
Should have just said: “that’s a difference of 7.5%”.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/5/2016 @ 7:52 pmI’m pretty busy, Gerald A. Let’s please not assume that I agree with every comment posted on this blog that I do not specifically debunk.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/5/2016 @ 7:55 pm“Democrats and NeverTrumps think alike.” — Gerald A
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:03 pmLie.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:04 pmi don’t wanna sit still look pretty
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:05 pmpickle, notable spicy
jess taste it
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:09 pmhappyfeet,
Do that thing where you talk like a real person. Remember? Like you did in 2007. Come on. Act normal. Just for one comment. To prove you can.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:13 pmjust click the link dawg
this queen don’t need a king
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:14 pmI earlier dubbed him christian slater after his persona in ‘pump up the volume’ a dalton and stanford educated everyman,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:16 pmwe found a bar tonight downtown what made pegu clubs
singapore slings
and grasshoppers
yeah
these times is ephemeral
ENJOY
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:17 pmYou might try looking on page 34. I managed to find it. Among likely voters, Clinton actually seems to be capturing 94% of Dems, not 92%. But Trump is indeed at 89%. The question for which that data was complied, by the way, explicitly assumes a two-way race with no third-party options. I think that’s fair of Rick, though, as the Trumpers have repeatedly assured me there are only two choices this fall.
Oh, dear. Where to start?
First, just because 24% of the respondents to a poll identified as Republicans, that doesn’t mean they’re weighted that way. The actual numbers for the final poll for that question, with all weights factored in, have Clinton beating Trump 51-45. But if you examine the data solely along party lines, and do some simple proportions based on the listed data, the raw numbers have it at Clinton over Trump by 52.5 to 43.3 percent. In other words, with weights factored in, Clinton’s lead narrows from 9 to 6.
Second, where do you get your 2012 stat from? Is it from the same poll, run by the same people? Because if not, then you’re comparing today’s apples to the oranges of four years ago.
Third, obviously your statistics are wrong. NeverTrump cannot be having that much of an impact on the election. We were told we didn’t matter, and that the Donald didn’t need our votes to win. I know that, because I heard the Donald himself say it. So if he says he doesn’t need our votes to win, how can it possibly be our fault if he loses?
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:44 pmSorry. My comment at #117 was directed to Gerald A, in response to his comment at #106.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/5/2016 @ 8:45 pmThe 34% figure came from the Roper poll. The idea that GOP party ID could have deviated that much between any post election polls is absurd. As it happens, CNN uses Pew. In this NY Times article using Pew it says 38% or 39% ID’d as R in 2012 if you look at the graph.
So new we’re missing 14% instead of 8%.
Even if we grant the larger unweighted lead for Clinton of 9% and grant the 89% R vote for Trump, my previous conclusion is reinforced. Assuming the bulk of the missing 14% are NeverTrump, and even 25% them are voting Clinton, NeverTrump easily accounts for Clinton’s entire lead.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/6/2016 @ 2:27 amYes that’s one of the posts I disputed. It seemed reasonable to infer from your claim he would try to distract attention from it (which he didn’t) that he did something wrong on his taxes. I could imagine a partisan Democrat making that same statement, meaning that “Wow this is pretty bad!”. But you never said that explicitly and I guess that wasn’t your intent. My mistake.
In any case, as I said I believe I’ve disputed less than 10% of your posts. I recall arguing with a Trumper in your post about his proposal on paid leave. He said something to the effect that “Corporations should be run for the benefit of the people”. I recall disputing with Trumpers and taking the anti-Trump side of the free trade issue (since it became apparent Trump was going to be the nominee). I don’t remember if you had done a post on that but it came up in a thread.
During his acceptance speech I said his anti-free trade theme was “baloney” IIRC but I agreed with just about everything else.
But if I have to keep making it clear that I’m not always in favor of what Trump says in order to somehow legitimize my defenses of him then I guess I’ll end up moving on like some others.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/6/2016 @ 3:02 am#119
Another thing to remember about the latest polls is that Trump’s had a bad couple of weeks. My guess is that the polls will narrow. If I was a betting man, I’d bet she’ll win by less than 5% margin. I believe NeverTrump will account for her entire margin of victory.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/6/2016 @ 3:12 am@ Gerald A, #119:
No, it does not say that. If you look at the very clear caption labeling the graph that you yourself have chosen to enter into evidence, it says that the numbers being tracked are of those people who “identify as…or lean” toward one party or the other. I do hope I don’t have to explain why adding that additional category defeats any point you’re hoping to make.
So yes, you’re comparing apples and oranges, as I thought you were. And another thing I love about the article that you chose to cite: if you were actually right (which you’re not), it would be far more worrisome for a Hillary supporter than for you. I mean, in the poll Rick Ballard cited at #104, 27% of the sample self-identified as Democrats. But in your New York Times article, 48% of their sample “identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.” In other words, you say Trump is missing 14% of the electorate. Yet by your own rules, Hillary is missing 21% of the electorate.
Good Lord, man! According to your interpretation of the numbers, nearly half the Democrats from four years ago may have gone #NeverHillary! Trump should be running away with this thing! And yet he’s not. The only possible explanation is that it’s a conspiracy by our “betters” to install President Shrillary!
Or, you know…maybe you just need to learn how to read polling data.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/6/2016 @ 3:56 am@ Gerald A, #120:
I would never presume to speak for our host. But this would hold more weight with me personally if I hadn’t been told a bunch of times on this board that not voting for Trump was basically a vote for Hillary. Including by you, this morning: “NeverTrump easily accounts for Clinton’s entire lead”…”I believe NeverTrump will account for her entire margin of victory.”
I’ve had to keep saying that not voting for Trump is not the same thing as voting for Hillary. Turnabout, meet fair play.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/6/2016 @ 4:02 amOn my part, I would be very proud to be responsible for Trump’s loss. But credit where credit is due. I am also proud of the vast majority of my fellow Americans who do not want a casino owner and a “model” in the White House.
nk (dbc370) — 10/6/2016 @ 5:03 am“But credit where credit is due.”
White women with college degrees
White men with college degrees are certainly doing their part but white women with degrees also have a 10% higher electoral weight.
Rick Ballard (1aa129) — 10/6/2016 @ 6:33 amI believe that the CNN poll he linked to is also based on leans R or D. It doesn’t say exactly what that party identification number represents in his link. However, this article on an August Pew poll says:
A majority of those who support Johnson are independents (62%) and they are divided roughly evenly between those who lean toward the Republican Party (28%) and the Democratic Party (24%), while 14% decline to lean toward either party. Just 7% of all registered voters – and just 3% each of Clinton and Trump supporters – are independents who decline to lean.
It doesn’t make sense that Pew would suddenly change the methodology for determining party ID right in the middle of the election, so I assume they did it that way in the latest one.
As far as lots of Democrats leaving Hillary, I believe that phenomenon is in fact occurring. I believe Trump is attracting a bunch of white Democrats. Many of those probably didn’t vote 4 years ago. They probably account for much of the widely noted drop in white voters in 2012. Otherwise Clinton would be way ahead.
It’s also known that Clinton voters are unenthusiastic so they may be declining to ID as a Democrat but are still showing up in Clinton’s column. The obvious conclusion is that that accounts for a large part of the drop in Democrat party ID. In fact that is a big worry for Clinton – whether they will show up. There is no equivalent NeverHillary phenomenon of normally reliable Democrats voting for Trump.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/6/2016 @ 6:40 amI have never said not voting for Trump was a vote for Hillary. Saying that NeverTrumps will account for Clinton’s margin of victory is either true or it isn’t. In my opinion it is. Maybe you agree that if that does happen then not voting for Trump was a vote for Hillary. But if you don’t agree then by your logic I’m not saying you’re voting for Hillary by not voting.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/6/2016 @ 6:44 amOh, I guarantee you he’s done something wrong on his taxes — or at least, that there is something in there that is embarrassing to him.
But not because he had a loss and almost certainly carried it forward. That’s standard and (as you finally concede) I never said otherwise. I believe happyfeet elsewhere accused me of accusing Trunp of having done something wrong by carrying forward a loss, and I have asked him to substantiate his claim by quoting my alleged accusation, because I don’t think it exists. But Trumpers making shit up is nothing new.
How do I know he did something wrong or stands to be embarrassed? Because he won’t release them, so he’s hiding something. And the story about the obtaining of the limited info from state returns rekindled attention on them, and would put pressure on him to release them. And he doesn’t want to do that. And what does he do when he wants to change the subject? Outrageous shit. So I speculated that he would do something outrageous to distract attention from this subject.
A perfectly reasonable observation. And then you accused me of thinking like a Democrat. And I thought: this guy always seemed reasonable in the past. Why is he being a dick to me now?
Now you explain that you had just been a careless reader and jumped to an illogical conclusion. OK. If that’s an apology I accept it. But you have been doing a lot of sneering about how *I* have been illogical lately. And generally acting like you’re unhappy with me, seemingly because I happen to criticize a man who is objectively the shittiest candidate for the GOP in my lifetime.
I’m kinda tired of listening to that kind of crap. I have always liked you, but now even you are threatening to “move on.” If you’re going to jump to poor conclusions and attribute opinions to me I didn’t say because you’re mad I like Trump, then go ahead. Move on.
But I think you’re better than that.
Patterico (f4072c) — 10/6/2016 @ 6:48 amAnd no, Gerald A, you don’t have to repeatedly explain you’re not always on board with Trump. Again, it was the snark that seemed to equate criticizing Trump with being a Democrat that primarily caused me to mentally put you in the “people who apparently can’t abide any criticism of Trump” camp. I think that was a reasonable conclusion for me to reach given your comment, but you have explained your error in thinking and I understand it.
Let’s try a little more charity in reading each other from both sides going forward. I’ll do my part.
Patterico (f4072c) — 10/6/2016 @ 6:54 amI think the tough part here, Patterico, is internal to people.
Trump is without doubt a horrible candidate.
Not because of his odious personality. Nor his bullying style. Not because of bankruptcies or bad business deals. Not because of his personal life.
All of these are bad. But I am well aware that my preferences in a candidate do not necessarily comprise natural law. So whatevs.
I think he is a horrible candidate because of how he is dealing with the current election process. In situation after situation, he messes up big time. From not preparing, to 3AM Twitter nonsense, to class-free personal attacks, to a weird inability to stay on task.
HRC is an awful candidate. Pence would be kicking her behind. Cruz would be kicking her behind. Rubio would have a ten point lead now, in my opinion.
But the primary process produced Trump. Why? He is a walking upraised middle finger to political correctness. And many people on the Right hate PC. I know I do.
I get that, but it will not result in votes for the President.
So what we have are people who really don’t want HRC to win. So they support Trump. And then, because they support Trump, they get to “own” all of his peculiarities. So they must defend him. And it gets childish fast…sort of like Trump gets when he is criticized. Trump shouldn’t care if people disagree with him; he has a long history of being overly sensitive (short fingers, anyone?). And Trump supporters shouldn’t care. But I think they do, because they know he is an awful candidate.
But then, it’s an awful election. The result will be worse, no matter who wins.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/6/2016 @ 7:00 amAlso, Patterico, I admire the way you engage with people. I don’t mind you banning people on your own site. Those people were itching for it. But when you engage with folks with whom you disagree, as you did above, that interaction is what makes your blog the fine read (and place) that it is.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/6/2016 @ 7:03 amThe username Dystopia itself already didn’t sound too good.
Sammy Finkelman (6e331b) — 10/6/2016 @ 7:16 amSimon Jester (c8876d) — 10/6/2016 @ 7:00 am
And then, because they support Trump, they get to “own” all of his peculiarities. So they must defend him.
I don’t own any of his peculiarities and I don’t defend them. Maybe you think you would own them if you voted for him and that’s a blocker for you.
Gerald A (a48c32) — 10/6/2016 @ 7:59 amBut not because he had a loss and almost certainly carried it forward. That’s standard and (as you finally concede) I never said otherwise. I believe happyfeet elsewhere accused me of accusing Trump of having done something wrong by carrying forward a loss, and I have asked him to substantiate his claim by quoting my alleged accusation, because I don’t think it exists. But Trumpers making s**t up is nothing new.
There’s real loss and there’s appraised loss. It’s one thing to buy a building for $100 million, have it sold at a bankruptcy for $50 million, and claim a NOL of $50 million. It’s another to get an appraisal that says it was worth $200 million and claim a NOL of $150 million.
nk (dbc370) — 10/6/2016 @ 8:14 amnk (dbc370) — 10/6/2016 @ 8:14 am
That’s not a loss, unless he paid $200 million for it, whether he used his own money, or borrowed money, although maybe if it was included with some other things, he might maybe attribute $200 million of what he paid to the buiulding or the business that was written down. One particuarly aggressive tactic, the New York Times noted is to write things off as a total loss.
The real problem is that there might be ways to take a loss, where he never put up the money in the first place! “Joe” here said there was a law from 1982 till 1994 that had the effect of permitting that. * And it might happen a few different ways.
Also, if at any time he declared himself insolvent (to the IRS – it doesn’t have to be in bankruptcy court) he might have been able to have loans forgiven without counting that as income even if, in some other tax year, he took a personal loss on the borrowed funds.
* Such an interpretation of the tax code was upheld in a famous Supreme Court decision authored by Clarence Thomas, because that’s in fact what the law allowed. Congress then changed the law.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlitz_v._Commissioner
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16783263203995134056&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
I’m not sure I understand this, or if this is something Trump could have done. I’m thinking of just having forgiven debt not counted as income.
Sammy Finkelman (6e331b) — 10/6/2016 @ 9:28 amI have been simpatico with your opinions most of the time I’ve spent here. On rare occasions, I’ve been diametrically opposed, and even felt unwelcome. One of those times is when I refused to reject out of hand the idea that there might be a good reason why then-President-elect Obama, after his historic victory, still refused to release his contemporaneous birth certificate in response to many lawsuits.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 10/6/2016 @ 1:35 pmNo one in their right mind would release their federal tax returns in this day of computer fraud and identity theft. I would be disappointed if he did. Similarly, there is no requirement to release that information and to do so can potentially harm third parties and/or harm ones ability to earn in the future. However, there is a requirement to prove oneself eligible in both birth and age to be president. Proving the obvious, that you live, is not a compromise of privacy nor a vulnerability to fraud.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/6/2016 @ 2:05 pmHuh? You redact.
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/6/2016 @ 5:57 pm@ Gerald A, #126 and #127:
Your post at #126 doesn’t really deserve a response, but I’ll give you one anyway. Here it is: It either takes an amazing amount of ignorance, or an equally amazing amount of chutzpah, to imply (as you do) that the numbers from the poll in Rick Ballard’s post can be meaningfully reconciled with the ones you cited from the New York Times. I’ll let you decide which characteristic you’d like attached to your person, but those are your only two choices.
Again, those 2012 NYT numbers were 48% Democrats and 39% Republicans (including leaners). The numbers from the recent 2016 poll Rick Ballard cited? 27% Dem and 24% Rep, self-identified. These two sets of numbers are so different that they cannot be reconciled. Partisan identification simply does not change that much, anywhere, in just four years. The only logical conclusion is that they must have been constructed in different ways — that only one tries to incorporate leaners, for example, while the other simply stops at whatever self-identification the person being polled wants to give. Yet you have attempted to use these numbers to show the influence of the NeverTrump movement (!), and then, when I gave you a deserved mocking for it, suggested that the mere presence of long-presumed nominee Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket must have driven tons of Democrats to refuse to ID with their own party (!). Apparently the double down isn’t just a KFC sandwich.
Also, your comment at #127 is disingenuous at best:
What is meant by the phrase “Not voting for Trump is voting for Hillary”? Obviously, it means that if you would otherwise cast a vote for the Republican nominee, but are refusing to do so because you won’t vote for Trump, then you are helping Hillary win — because your refusal to vote for Trump is a de facto help to her. This is, of course, also the logic behind your statement that “NeverTrumps will account for Clinton’s margin of victory.”
So, if you want to say that you never said the words “Not voting for Trump is voting for Hillary,” then fine. I will concede that you never said those words. But yes, you essentially mean the same thing as the people who do say those words. So my sympathy for your having to defend Trump is muted at best — now, more so than before.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/7/2016 @ 10:02 amGallup Party Affiliation
Huffington Post Party Identification Averages
The
Rick Ballard (1aa129) — 10/7/2016 @ 10:42 amhypothesisDolchstoßlegende regarding #NeverTrump causing the conman to lose cannot be falsified because no data will be collected to verify or disprove the hypothesis. It will remain an assertion made by cheap sophists and believed by many of the same innumerate, credulous and gullible suckers who make up the core of Trump supporters. Those who feel it necessary to lay the blame on a specific demographic segment should look to college educated white women who wholeheartedly rejected the sleazy con man from the beginning. The true responsibility falls on the innumerate, the gullible and the credulous Trump supporters, of course, but they are much more difficult to identify with any precision and we really wouldn’t want to increase the level of their confusion.L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 10/6/2016 @ 1:35 pm
I think it might have been a concern that the proof he had wasn’t good enough, and also because it would be a lot of work to get the state of Hawaii to release the long form birth certificate. They actually had to make a special exception for him to release it.
What he finally released was printed on April 25, 2011. It says so right on the birth certificate. It is date stamped APR 25 2011.
Now it is pretty obviously a printout/photograph of a genuine contemporary document, that was date stamped AUG -8 1961 because it has got all kinds of touches in it that scream authenticity, that nobody would think of, or, if they would think of it, they’d point it out, because why else would you put it in if it was fake, and nobody pointed anything out.
Like what? Like his mother first signing her name Ann Dunham Obama and then having to sign above the rest of her name, “Stanley” or his name being BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II – and not JR. – and his father’s race being African, and not Negro – and the dates it was signed and stamped – the doctor signs a day later – and finally, on the left side you can clearly see the original was curved because it was bound in a book.
Barack Obama was probably very embarassed that the original birth certificate that had been in his family’s possession – that lsot all legal standing sometime in the late 1980s so they weren’t keeping track of it – was no longer in his family’s possession, because it had either been discarded or shredded.
Sammy Finkelman (6e331b) — 10/7/2016 @ 11:35 am@ Rick Ballard, #140:
I know. As someone who has already proven that he will twist the data to say whatever he wants to, and then try to handwave away what he can’t explain, Gerlad is beyond convincing. So I’m not really trying to convince Gerald that he has no evidence about Never Trump. I’m trying to convince any reasonable person who runs across this thread.
That may be wasted effort, but what the heck. I have a day off, and nothing better to spend it on.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 10/7/2016 @ 12:29 pm