September 23, 2016

LA Times Calls Trump Presidency A 'Catastrophe' | Trump Foundation Exists For Trump

September 23, 2016/ Anne Enke

Tale of Two Cities: Trump's helps Trumps While the Clintons' Is the Real Deal The Daily Beast

Since 2001, Trump has given $3.8 million to charities, the very limited public record on his giving shows. That includes a recent $1 million gift to a veterans’ charity as part of his campaign to win votes -- and it's not clear that it was actually Trump's money.

Johnson says that Trump claims that over his lifetime, he's given $102 million to charities, but without tax returns he can make up any number he wishes. Work to validate these claims by contacting America's top charities and asking them to document a Trump donation have come up generally empty-handed. And we know that Trump has made almost no contributions to his own Trump Foundation since 2008.

Before commenting on the Clintons' charitable giving, I want to remind people that no only have they made public almost 40 years of tax returns, but they paid income taxes at the highest rates at a federal, state and local level. With all the false claims against the Clintons, they proudly pay their fair share of taxes and no entity has accused them of not doing so. The tax returns don't lie. ~ Anne

Since 2001 the Clintons have given $23.2 million to charity, their income tax returns reveal. The Clintons have released 39 consecutive years of tax returns.

Like Trump, the Clintons give primarily to a foundation bearing the family name, the Clinton Family Foundation.

Trump claims he is worth more than $10 billion. That means his verified gifts since 2001 come to less than four one-hundredths of 1 percent of his claimed wealth. Even if we accept his claim of $102 million—and count it as all being donated since 2001—his total giving would be just 1 percent of his claimed net worth.

The Clintons are worth no more than $62 million, their financial disclosure forms show. Their charitable donations since 2001 come to at least 37.6 percent of their maximum net worth."

Hillary Clinton would make a sober, smart and pragmatic president. Donald Trump would be a catastrophe. Los Angeles Times

She stands for rational, comprehensive immigration reform and an improvement rather than an abandonment of the Affordable Care Act. She supports abortion rights, wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour, hopes to reform the sentencing laws that have overcrowded American prisons, would repair the Voting Rights Act and help students to leave college without enormous debt. Abroad she would strengthen America’s traditional alliances, continue the Obama administration’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately defeat” Islamic State and negotiate with potential adversaries such as Russia and China in a way that balances realism and the protection of American interests. Unlike Trump, Clinton accepts the prevailing science on climate change and considers the issue to be “the defining challenge of our time.”

Perhaps her greatest strength is her pragmatism — her ability to build consensus and solve problems. As president, she would be flexible enough and experienced enough to cut across party lines and work productively with her political opponents. As first lady, she worked with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare coverage to more than 8 million children. As a senator, she was instrumental in persuading a Republican president to deliver billions of dollars in aid to New York after September 11. As secretary of State, she led the charge to persuade nations around the world to impose the tough sanctions on Iran that led to the landmark nuclear agreement, and she negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.

Hillary Clinton Headlines September 23, 2016

Clinton, hoping to reach millennials, submits to mockery on 'Between Two Ferns' Politico

Is Hillary's Wonkiness Wasted on a Polarized America? New York Magazine

Clinton has lead but is vulnerable on trust, connection with voters McClatchy DC

Wall Street Is Starting to Get Freaked Out About Donald Trump New York Magazine

The GOP's Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump FiveThirtyEight

Poll: Clinton has big lead over Trump among Hispanic voters Politico

Clinton's real millennial problem: young Americans are less loyal to Democrats VOX

'The West Wing' Cast to Stump in Ohio for Hillary Clinton Rolling Stone

Democratic liberals, moderates feud over public option Politico

Donald Trump, Sex Pistol The Atlantic

Anthony Weiner Reportedly Had an Online Relationship With a 15-Year-Old, and It Got Gross New York Magazine

September 10, 2016

Does Hillary Clinton Represent the Ultimate Emasculation of American Males?

September 10, 2016/ Anne Enke

Is Hillary Clinton Right About Trump Supporters? This Is What The Polling Data Says ThinkProgress

Hillary Clinton created major controversy speaking at a fundraiser in New York on Friday night. In a statement that she has since walked back, Hillary described half of her Republican opponent Donald Trump's supporters as a "basket of deplorables".

Arguing that large numbers of Trump's supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it -- Clinton said that the Trump campaign has given voice to the websites and Twitter account. Clinton then described other Trump supporters as "people who feel the government has let them down, the economy let them down, nobody cares about them." Hillary stressed that "those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

The polling data supports Hillary's argument. ThinkProgress digs into the views of Trump supporters specifically, compared not only to Democrats but to Republicans who supported other candidates.

The Male Perspective

Fear of a Female President by Peter Beinart The Atlantic

According to the Public Religion Research Institute, 52 percent of white men hold a “very unfavorable” view of Clinton. That’s a whopping 20 points higher than the percentage who viewed Barack Obama very unfavorably in 2012, 32 points higher than the percentage who viewed Obama very unfavorably in 2008, and 28 points higher than the percentage who viewed John Kerry very unfavorably in 2004.

{. . . }

Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obama’s election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.

To understand this reaction, start with what social psychologists call “precarious manhood” theory. The theory posits that while womanhood is typically viewed as natural and permanent, manhood must be “earned and maintained.” Because it is won, it can also be lost. Scholars at the University of South Florida and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reported that when asked how someone might lose his manhood, college students rattled off social failures like “losing a job.” When asked how someone might lose her womanhood, by contrast, they mostly came up with physical examples like “a sex-change operation” or “having a hysterectomy.”

The Subtle Misogyny in Matt Lauer's Interview With Hillary Clinton Was Appalling Slate

I am interested in the far more subtle variation of the misogyny illness, the one that lurks behind phrases such as “even-handed” and “fair-minded,” that low-grade fever that caused Matt Lauer to continually interrupt Hillary Clinton’s sharp, specific answers to his questions in the Commander in Chief Forum on NBC (thank god Clinton stood up and ignored him), and which also prompted him to allow Donald Trump to ramble on in incoherent sentence fragments about secret plans for defeating ISIS in thirty days, as if such nonsense were serious political discourse. Would our “fair-minded” journalist have treated a male candidate the way he treated Hillary Clinton? I ask you to search your souls, men and women alike. My answer is no.

Related: How Many Times Will Hillary Clinton Be Interrupted? Vogue.com

How Sexism Like Matt Laurer's Could Imperil the Nation The American Prospect

Trump, the Big Liar

Donald Trump's 'Big Liar' Technique by Paul Krugman The New York Times

Annoyed with a Trump-supporter comment on the HillaryWomen News FB page -- one calling Hillary a liar -- I have the Politifact info on who is more truthful, referenced by Krugman, right here.

One point that Krugman makes is that -- in the same way the media won't report that the AP took down their tweets on the Clinton foundation yesterday -- what Hillary Clinton said about Colin Powell advising her is true. The Powell email -- written three days after Hillary took office as Secy of State -- absolutely backed her up. So the media scoffed at her claim and reported it widely, but don't hold your breath that they will clean up their snorts. Journalists tend not to take that action.

Related: The Hillary Clinton email story is out of control The Washington Post