The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

As Trump's World Turns: Suspect Tax Schemes In the 90s?




Have you ever heard Donald Trump claim he is a self-made billionaire?

Ha...... "a sucker is born every minute."   

The New York Times is reporting Trump is not a self-made billionaire. 

Image result for trump and father


CNBC also ran a segment on the New York Times story.

NY state reviewing NYT's tax fraud allegations on Trump from CNBC.

The New York Times

Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father

StumbleUpon

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Parkland: Political Pessimism


How Political Pessimism Helps Doom Tougher Gun Laws

Saying ‘nothing will change’ has empowered the NRA and ignores its declining punch.


by Alec MacGillis
Feb. 18, 8:40 p.m. EST

Examining the News

It’s predictable after every new mass-shooting horror: The political right’s reflexive call for “thoughts and prayers,” which is then mocked by people who favor more gun restrictions for lacking any accompanying ideas for preventing future killings.
But there’s an equally predictable refrain on the center-left and in the media, too: “Once again, nothing will be done.”
Barely had the death toll of 17 been announced last week after the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida than The Washington Post declared, “The gun debate is going nowhere quickly after Parkland.” CNN offered: “Amid continued string of mass shootings, gun control going nowhere in Congress.” After 59 concert-goers were mowed down in October, former Democratic congressman Steve Israel put to rest any hope for reform in a New York Times op-ed column titled “Nothing Will Change After the Las Vegas Shooting.”
This fatalism is borne of hard-won experience. Congress has failed repeatedly to pass any gun-control measures after past calamities, even the 2012 massacre of 20 first-graders and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
Yet this world-weary defeatism is self-fulfilling in its own way, and helps explain why Washington hasn’t taken action to address the killing.
For one thing, such pessimism demoralizes, and dismisses, those who are motivated to fight against gun violence, such as the network of angry moms that sprung up after the Sandy Hook massacre and the organization led by former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords, which have managed to achieve a series of state-level successes even as reform stalls at the national level.
For another thing, it lets off the hook those who are opposed to stronger gun laws. Declaring preemptively that any new effort at gun-law reform is doomed spares opponents from even having to make their arguments for protecting the gun lobby.
Most importantly, liberal fatalism on gun control overstates the strength of the opposition. The National Rifle Association’s influence depends heavily on the perception of its power. By building up the gun lobby as an indomitable force, pessimists are playing directly into its hands.



No doubt, the NRA is influential. Not so much because of the campaign contributions it makes to candidates, but because it can count on an energized grass-roots base of gun-rights supporters to turn out at the polls and badger elected officials with calls and emails. But that influence has limits, and there are plenty of reasons to believe that it is on the wane.
For one thing, the proportion of Americans with guns has been steadily declining, to its lowest level in decades, though there are recent signs that the decline has leveled off. (The reason why the number of guns continues to rise despite this demographic trend is that the remaining gun owners are buying more and more weapons.) Meanwhile, gun ownership is growing more heavily clustered in certain states. That limits the voting power of the gun lobby.
For another thing, the aforementioned notorious failure, to pass background checks following the Sandy Hook massacre, was a closer call than many people realized. It got 55 Senate votes, just five short of a filibuster-proof 60. Six senators with A ratings from the NRA voted for it. It would still have had to get through the GOP-controlled House, but that was not out of the question: there would have been tremendous pressure from Sandy Hook families on then-Speaker John Boehner to hold a vote, and unlike in the Senate, it would have required only a majority, which meant getting fewer than 20 Republicans to vote for it.
And consider what happened after that vote. Two of the four red-state Democrats who voted no, Arkansas’ Mark Pryor and Alaska’s Mark Begich, got zero NRA back-up in return for that vote and lost re-election in 2014, proving to other centrist Democrats that there’s no point in currying NRA favor. It’s hard to tell now, with Republicans in control of Washington, but the NRA’s decision to become a purely partisan organization, after years of courting Democrats as well, could come back to haunt it in the near future.
Meanwhile, one of the purple-state Republicans who voted no, New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, lost in 2016 in a race in which the pro-gun-law groups went after her hard for that vote. No longer is voting with the NRA the obvious safe tack for a self-interested politician.
There are other signs that the political winds are shifting on the issue. In Virginia, the NRA’s home state, Ralph Northam was elected governor by a wide margin despite his F rating from the NRA and outspoken calls for tougher laws, following in the footsteps of Terry McAuliffe and Tim Kaine, who both also won statewide election despite their staunch anti-NRA stance.
Meanwhile, the empirical case for reducing gun violence through tougher restrictions has been growing stronger, providing counter to the oft-heard claims that “laws wouldn’t make a difference anyway.” Missouri has seen a sharp rise in shooting deaths after eliminating in-person background checks for gun purchases. Connecticut, on the other hand, has seen a sharp decline in shooting deaths after it instituted stringent gun-permitting requirements following Sandy Hook.
Of course, with Republicans now in control of Congress and the White House, the odds are stacked against federal legislation. But that’s the case with plenty other issues that liberals still see reason to keep pushing forward on at all levels of government, from health care to climate change to the minimum wage, even if momentary prospects are not bright.
Bottom line, the widespread fatalism on guns is self-fulfilling. It inflates the power of the opposition, undermines activists, and gives off the air of defeat, never a good thing in a country that prizes winners.
But now a new generation may be showing a different way. A remarkable wave of student outrage and activism is spreading from Parkland, serving as a rebuke not only to conservatives who have blocked gun-law reform, but also to liberals who had given up the fight.
“When we’ve had our say with the government — and maybe the adults have gotten used to saying ‘it is what it is,’ but if us students have learned anything, it’s that if you don’t study, you will fail,” declared Emma Gonzalez, a Parkland student, in a speech that has gone viral on the Internet. “And in this case if you actively do nothing, people continually end up dead, so it’s time to start doing something.”
Such youthful determination will run up against plenty of hard realities. But in this she is right: The worst odds of all lie in declaring any effort hopeless.
Filed under:

StumbleUpon

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Delusion, Pathological Lying; Tendency for Authoritarianism (Bad Recipe)




Haven't We Observed This Picture Before

MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL ...AGREED | image tagged in texas church,trump,nra,mental illness | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

No matter your politician inclinations, if you are a perceptive person and person who exercises any degree of rational thought, you know Trump is exhibiting behavior which is well outside of the norm for an adult. You should also recognize the behavior well outside the universe of acceptable for a US President.

The word "delusional" is increasingly floating around media and social media. Well, let's take a look at the word and how it may fit Trump.  Needless to say, the word sees to fit like a $2,000 pair of gloves. 




Psychology Today




Delusional Disorder

Definition

Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. Delusions are considered "bizarre" if they are clearly implausible and peers within the same culture cannot understand them. An example of a bizarre delusion is when an individual believes that his or her organs have been replaced with someone else's without leaving any wounds or scars. An example of a nonbizarre delusion is the belief that one is under police surveillance, despite a lack of evidence. 
Delusional disorder refers to a condition in which an individual displays one or more delusions for one month or longer. Delusional disorder is distinct from schizophrenia and cannot be diagnosed if a person meets the criteria for schizophrenia. If a person has delusional disorder, functioning is generally not impaired and behavior is not obviously odd, with the exception of the delusion. Delusions may seem believable at face value, and patients may appear normal as long as an outsider does not touch upon their delusional themes. Also, these delusions are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse.

Web MD
There are different types of delusional disorder based on the main theme of the delusions experienced.  
The types of delusional disorder include: 
Erotomanic: Someone with this type of delusional disorder believes that another person, often someone important or famous, is in love with him or her. The person might attempt to contact the object of the delusion, and stalking behavior is not uncommon. 
Grandiose: A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.  
Jealous: A person with this type of delusional disorder believes that his or her spouse or sexual partner is unfaithful.  
Persecutory: People with this type of delusional disorder believe that they (or someone close to them) are being mistreated, or that someone is spying on them or planning to harm them. It is not uncommon for people with this type of delusional disorder to make repeated complaints to legal authorities. 
Somatic: A person with this type of delusional disorder believes that he or she has a physical defect or medical problem.  
Mixed: People with this type of delusional disorder have two or more of the types of delusions listed above.



Alas, we offer the opinion of the non-medical professional. Yet, an opinion which is becoming very apparent.  







Of course, Harwood isn't a psychiatrist, nor are we, with skills in diagnosing conditions of the brain. We are, however, intelligent human beings and we recognized over-the-top abnormal behavior which should have been kept far from the US Presidency and responsibilities as Commander-In-Chief. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly obvious Trump's mental state requires deep scrutiny and discussion with associated conversations about where we go as a nation or how we fix the electoral mess. Trump will not change, and his mental state will never reverse to that of a simple real estate mogul and reality TV celebrity.

While we are reading reports of mental health professionals commenting on Trump's behavior, MSNBC hosted a discussion towards the end of November which warrants an embed. The segment is eleven minutes long and laced with opinion oriented less than complimentary Trump comments, but the comments from the psychiatrist are relevant. 

MSNBC The Last Word, November 29, 2017
Psychiatrist Lance Dodes

Psychiatrist: Trump's mental state an 'enormous present danger'



Suffering any stage of delusion is a problem for a national leader.  Suffering what seems a case of "mixed" delusion can be a nation killer when coupled with another psychological malady. Trumps pathological lying, when coupled with what could be mixed delusion, is a clear and present danger.

We only have to visit Trump's impromptu to interview with the New York Times. While Trump's talking heads are accepting invitations to appear on CNN with sweet icing comments about the 30-minute talk, the interaction is proving to be yet another indication of an unstable mind.

We past linked, below a few articles related to the interview (which actually was a non-interview). 


Esquire

Trump’s New York Times Interview Is a Portrait of a Man in Cognitive Decline

I don’t care whether Michael Schmidt was tough enough. We’ve got bigger problems.


The Washington Post

CNN
The 47 most outrageous lines in Donald Trump's New York Times interview

Delusion and pathological (serial) lying is not a healthy state of being for a President of the United States.







StumbleUpon

Friday, December 29, 2017

CNN 2; The "Presstitute" Zero (Fails)



Image result for janet porter roy moore If you have been on the International Space Station for a couple of years; if you have no access to electricity which facilitates viewing television, or if you are a deep and chronic Trump supporter who also cares nothing about political decency, you may never have been exposed to what we call the hired presstitute.

 "A person or media entity that misleadingly tailors news to fit a particular partisan, financial or business agenda". For more explanation refer to the following link.


The presstitute is a hired word-slinger (as was gunslinger of the old West) who receives a paycheck based on spewing totally biased or inaccurate oratory in favor of their employer. While Trump and the GOP have many such demagogues, Alabama's Ray Moore managed to find the ultimate presstitute (a top-level word-slinger with a terrible TV effect). Janet Porter is a prime example of the reality of GOP politics and a reminder of past demagogues who supported despots, the deranged national leader or dictators.

Take a look at the Alabama vote via the New York Times.

CANDIDATEPARTYVOTESPCT.
Doug JonesDemocrat671,15149.9%
Roy MooreRepublican650,43648.4
Total Write-Ins22,8191.7
100% reporting (2,220 of 2,220 precincts)

Note Moore lost the election by close to 21,000 votes.  Moore requested the vote not certify based on allegations of voter fraud in Jefferson County Alabama.  We should state, Jefferson County has the highest number of African-American voters in the state. Wonder why Moore would pick-on the votes in Jefferson County? If we consider a 21,000 vote loss, imagine the number of the 21,000 who would have to be counted as votes for Moore to reverse the reality of the vote.  Now, imagine a count in which not one of the 21,000 switched over to vote for Moore's opponent. Outside the realm of reality, correct?  Not in Roy Moore's world.

Watch sit for on-camera duty with two CNN show hosts.  The segment is a bit long bit relevant.


Another long segment later in the day with John Berman. Notice voter fraud was at the forefront of the Berman segment.


Are there any words beyond "shameful?" People like Porter are integral to politicians like Ray Moore. Trump has KellyAnne (Alternative Facts) Conway and Sarah (lie machine) Huckabee Sanders at the front line of his Cadre of Demagoguery. So, the presstitute will take their pay and serve well. The critical issue is are there actually so many Americans who subscribe to their zany lies and misrepresentations they presstitute will thrive and manifest as we move towards the middle of the 21 Century.  

StumbleUpon

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Baltimore Has Few Republicans?



Fact Check dot org      Share The Facts

Donald Trump
President of the United States


Suggested Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein may be biased against him because Rosenstein “is from Baltimore” and “there are very few Republicans in Baltimore.”

Trump misleadingly suggested Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein may be biased against him because Rosenstein “is from Baltimore” and “there are very few Republicans in Baltimore.”

Rosenstein, who has testified that he is not a member of any political party, was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush to serve as U.S. attorney for the district of Maryland and elevated to deputy attorney general by Trump.

And he is not from Baltimore. Rosenstein grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia. As the U.S. attorney for Maryland, he worked in Baltimore, but lived in Bethesda, Maryland.

In a New York Times interview on July 19, Trump expressed frustration with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from any federal investigation involving the 2016 presidential campaign. Sessions was the first U.S. senator to endorse Trump and served as a senior adviser to his campaign.

Trump said that after Sessions told him about the recusal, he asked Sessions, “Who’s your deputy?” Trump announced his intention to nominate Rosenstein to be deputy attorney general on Jan. 31, and Rosenstein was overwhelmingly confirmed 94-6 by the Senate on April 25.
Trump, July 19: Yeah, what Jeff Sessions did was he recused himself right after, right after he became attorney general. And I said, “Why didn’t you tell me this before?” I would have — then I said, “Who’s your deputy?” So his deputy he hardly knew, and that’s Rosenstein, Rod Rosenstein, who is from Baltimore. There are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any. So, he’s from Baltimore.
When Sessions recused himself on March 2, it fell to Rosenstein to oversee any matters involving the 2016 presidential campaign. Just a few weeks later, FBI Director James Comey confirmed at a congressional hearing that the bureau was investigating “whether there was any coordination between the [Trump] campaign and Russia’s efforts” to influence the 2016 presidential election.

The first crack in Rosenstein’s relationship with the president surfaced shortly after Trump fired Comey on May 9. Rosenstein contradicted the White House’s initial contention that Trump’s decision to fire Comey was based on a recommendation from Rosenstein.

Rosenstein did, in fact, write a two-and-a-half page memo that laid out a case for Comey’s removal, citing Comey’s “handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary [Hillary] Clinton’s emails.” Rosenstein criticized Comey for holding a press conference on July 5, 2016, to publicly announce his recommendation not to charge Clinton, and for announcing on Oct. 28, 2016, that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Clinton.

But Rosenstein later told Congress that he knew of Trump’s decision to fire Comey a day before he penned the memo. (In the New York Times interview, Trump continued to insist the letter played a role in his decision to fire Comey, though Trump acknowledged that even without it, “perhaps I would have fired Comey anyway.” See our story, “Why Did Trump Fire Comey?”)

Rosenstein further drew the ire of the president due to his decision to appoint a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials attempting to influence the election in Trump’s favor. Trump told the New York Times, “A special counsel should never have been appointed in this case.”

But Trump’s insinuation that Rosenstein may be politically biased against him — based on being “from Baltimore” — is misplaced.

Rosenstein grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, as did Trump. He then went on to Harvard Law School and became a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice. In the mid-1990s, Rosenstein was tapped by Kenneth Starr to help as a prosecutor with the Whitewater investigation involving Bill and Hillary Clinton’s business dealings in Arkansas.

In 2005, George W. Bush appointed Rosenstein to serve as the U.S. attorney for the district of Maryland. Two years later, Bush nominated Rosenstein to a federal appeals court, but the move was blocked by Maryland’s two Democratic senators. He continued to serve as a U.S. attorney under Democratic President Barack Obama.

It’s true that while Rosenstein served as the U.S. attorney for Maryland, he was based in Baltimore, which is an overwhelmingly Democratic city. In fact, Democrats outnumber Republicans 10-to-1 in the city, according to the Baltimore Sun.

But Rosenstein resides in Bethesda, Maryland. Montgomery County, Maryland, which includes Bethesda, is strongly Democratic — with registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans more than 3-to-1 — but there are plenty of Republicans in Bethesda.

Thiru Vignarajah, who once worked as a federal prosecutor under Rosenstein at the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland, described Rosenstein as a “rock-ribbed Republican” in a column he wrote for Vox in May.

But a 2011 profile of Rosenstein in the Washington Post noted, “Colleagues say he keeps his politics out of the office.” The profile said: “He is one of only three U.S. attorneys — out of 93 nationwide — appointed by then-President George W. Bush who has been kept on by the Obama administration.”

In his written testimony for the Senate judiciary committee, Rosenstein stated, “I have not been a member nor held office in or rendered services to any political party or election committee.”
StumbleUpon