Author: A.T.

I already posted once today — flying cars! [link now corrected] — but with the whole world at stake, here’s more.

Some short takes for your amusement and two really thoughtful long ones.

From @LOLGOP:

I’ve been waiting for 7 years for Obama to take my gun and all I got was a job, health insurance and marriage equality.

and

We’re a nation of people who fled guys like Donald Trump!

Also from Twitter, via the New York Times: The 282 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List.

Forward to every millennial you know (save the easily offended or faint of heart): these totally motivating three minutes.

The President schools Trump on civics — one minute.

The President through Trump’s lying eyes — one minute.

The Guardian — a totally absorbing must-read perspective on what government has done for America in 80 years, and a perspective, as well, on “The Big Con: What Is Really At Stake On Election Day.”

A relevant chunk:

. . . The New Deal saved capitalism – saved it from the big-time capitalists, though many of the big-timers didn’t see it that way. Fred Koch, the multimillionaire father of the future multibillionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, had this to say in 1938: “the only sound countries in the world are Germany, Italy, and Japan.” He found Germany to be a heartening counter-example to Roosevelt’s New Deal: “When you contrast the state of mind of Germany today [1938] with what it was in 1925, you begin to think that perhaps this course of idleness, feeding at the public trough, dependence on government, etc, with which we are afflicted is not permanent and can be overcome.”

The comparison is instructive. Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Five weeks later, Franklin Roosevelt was sworn in as US president. Two leaders, both taking office at the same time, both faced with the economic and social chaos of the Great Depression. To say that they took vastly different approaches, with correspondingly divergent outcomes, would be an understatement on the order of a piano falling on your head. History shows that Fred Koch was about as wrong as a human being can be, and Nazi Germany is only the half of it. By every measure – life expectancy, infant mortality, income, education, productivity, corporate profits, scientific and technological innovation – the mixed economy ushered in by the New Deal was a huge success. Within a generation, the United States was enjoying the fastest sustained growth in recorded history, and, moreover, the prosperity was shared broadly, with income rising faster at the bottom and middle of society than at the top.

By the 1950s, there was broad consensus in America that the mixed economy was “an established and useful reality”, to borrow a phrase from a Roosevelt-era president of the US Chamber of Commerce (he was referring to collective bargaining). President Eisenhower, Republican, five-star army general and no big liberal, much less a communist (though he was accused of being one by the John Birch Society, which counted Fred Koch – him again – among its founders) broadened social security, expanded federal support of science and technology, and pushed for major infrastructure programs. Such was the political consensus that his legislation initiating the interstate highway system passed Congress with one dissenting vote in the Senate, and by voice vote in the House. In private, he mocked the arch-conservatives who dreamed of dismantling the New Deal. “There is a tiny splinter group … that believes you can do such things,” he wrote in a letter to his brother Edgar. “Among them are HL Hunt … a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” . . .

And, finally (with permission), Kentucky-based Chris Browne’s monthly letter to investors, of whom — to my great good fortune — I am one.

I have received several questions recently regarding the U.S. Presidential election. My thoughts, which will take the entirety of this month’s letter, are as follows:

According to Nate Silver’s “Polls plus” model, Donald Trump’s chance of winning the election has recently risen from 12% to 34%. At the same time, the S&P 500 has slid for eight consecutive trading days. It is definitely not a coincidence; when news negative for Clinton prints, such as word of the FBI exploring Huma Abedin’s e-mails on her husband’s computer, the market falls immediately.

Donald Trump is the first Republican candidate in recent memory roundly disliked by the American business community. Zero of the Fortune 100 CEOs have donated to his campaign. Eighteen of the 100 donated to other Republicans during the primary cycle, and 11 have donated to Hillary Clinton. Trump also trails Clinton badly among college-educated white people, a group that usually strongly prefers the Republican candidate. A September WSJ/NBC News poll showed Trump trailing Clinton by 15 points in this cohort, a stunning reversal to last cycle’s 14 point advantage for Romney over Obama.

Why do the most educated voters and those with the most to lose dislike Trump? His policy and his person.

Trump has misrepresented the effects of free trade, has proposed a massive $7 trillion+ tax cut for the wealthy, and has put forth little substantive detail. He has a long history of unethical business dealings, failing to pay contractors on several projects and using legal bullying maneuvers to get his way. He is involved in new litigation on average once every 3 days, currently embroiled in dozens of lawsuits, and   has promised that after the election he will sue each of the 11 women who have come forward accusing  him of unwanted touching and/or sexual assault.

Trump’s foreign policy is confused and dangerous. His running mate confidently asserted in the Vice Presidential debate that we should bomb the Assad regime in Syria, while Trump declared five days later during the second Presidential debate that we should take decisive military action against Assad’s enemies. He has described NATO, our nation’s most important military alliance, as “obsolete.” He has repeatedly hinted at both using and allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, for example “Let me explain. Somebody hits us within ISIS—you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?”

On the environment, Trump has called global warming a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to destroy American business.

On public health, Trump said of American physicians and nurses, who helped to fight and contain the Ebola epidemic, “The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far away places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences! … They knew the risk when they went to Africa. They choose it freely.”  Imagine what our world and our country might look like now if the U.S. had failed to lead a massive public health response to stop the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Trump was the most famous and respected proponent of the “birther” movement, declaring “An extremely credible source has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.” He has energized White Nationalists and encouraged hate speech and violence. When Trump speaks of “taking our country back,” it is a populist refrain straight out of the book of Adolf Hitler’s collected speeches, which Trump used to read and keep handy in his bedside cabinet.

As a former clinician, I am certain that Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The Mayo Clinic explains, “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others… If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement, and when you don’t receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having “the best” of everything — for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care… At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection.”

“What about Trump’s opponent?” you may ask. Isn’t “Killery” awful? Hasn’t she done all sorts of terrible things that disqualify her from being President?

Perhaps the most intriguing poll of this election season is the one by Suffolk University that recently asked respondents which TV news source they trusted the most, followed by other more typical political questions. There were 1,000 people in the survey, and 270 said that Fox was their most-trusted TV news source. Of those 270, only 14% believed our country was on the right track.

When a media outlet presents a disproportionate weighting of stories which, again and again, paint immigrants as dangerous, crime as sky high, and civilization is fraying, after a while people are going to believe it. I personally had to stop reading ZeroHedge a couple of years ago, because I finally realized that it was biased towards doom to the point of being generally untrue. Economic data were reported by giving only the negative subscales and avoiding mention of the positive ones. If facts or events didn’t fit  into a narrative of decay and destruction and demise, they were not reported. I constantly expected the   next recession to be right around the corner, and ZeroHedge fed my expectation.

My own mom is the granddaughter of immigrants from the Middle East. She’s intelligent, and her dad was a Lebanese-American who served in World War II before becoming a Democratic politician in Ohio. She is also a watcher of Fox News, and a Trump supporter. She told me recently that a friend of hers was going to visit London, and how insane she was for taking that sort of a risk. “What do you mean, Mom?” She explained to me that there are all sorts of terrorist attacks over there. Telling my mom that the homicide rate in Louisville, where she lives, is 30 times higher than that of London, didn’t make a difference. Facts that didn’t conform to the narrative she had seen again and again—“the world is unsafe now thanks to Obama”—weren’t going to break through.

It’s not just Fox News that feeds the right-wing narrative. Drudge, WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Breitbart, The Washington Times, Jihad Watch, and so on carry the television narrative to tens of millions of readers online. A recent analysis showed that three-eighths (!!!) of the stories in the right-wing media contain serious factual errors. The net result is among those who trust Fox News more than other TV networks, 11% support Hillary Clinton, and 83% support Donald Trump. Among those who favor any other television news (730 of the 1,000 respondents), 62% support Hillary Clinton, versus only 22% for Donald Trump.

Alex Jones, who reaches six million people a month, recently had this to say on his show:

“I’m never a lesser of two evils person, but with Hillary, there’s not even the same universe. She is an abject, psychopathic, demon from Hell that as soon as she gets into power is going to try to destroy the planet. I’m sure of that, and people around her say she’s so dark now, and so evil, and    so possessed that they are having nightmares, they’re freaking out. Folks let me just tell you something, and if media wants to go with this, that’s fine. There are dozens of videos and photos of Obama having flies land on him, indoors, at all times of year, and he’ll be next to a hundred people and no one has flies on them. Hillary, reportedly, I mean, I was told by people around her that they think she’s demon-possessed, okay?

They said that they’re scared. That’s why when I see her when kids are by her, I actually get scared myself, with a child — with that big rubber face and that — I mean this woman is dangerous, ladies and gentleman. I’m telling you, she is a demon. This is Biblical. She’s going to launch a nuclear war. The Russians are scared of her.

[…]

Imagine how bad she smells, man? I’m told her and Obama, just stink, stink, stink, stink.

You can’t wash that evil off, man. Told there’s a rotten smell around Hillary. I’m not kidding, people say, they say — folks, I’ve been told this by high up folks. They say listen, Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur. I never said this because the media will go crazy with it, but I’ve talked to people that are in protective details, they’re scared of her. And they say listen, she’s a frickin’ demon and  she stinks and so does Obama. I go, like what? Sulfur. They smell like Hell.”

Wow. Is Hillary Clinton really that evil? What, objectively, are the worst things that she has done in thirty years of public life?

Let’s start with the commodity trading scandal. In the late 1970s, Hillary once made $99,500 allowing a close friend, who was also a very large commodity futures trader and an attorney for Tyson Foods, to trade a commodities account for her. At first, she said she made buy-and-sell decisions herself, but it later became clear that the friend was doing the trading for her. There are several issues surrounding these trades. The firm, REFCO, failed to supervise position limits (it is possible that her large trader friend was buying and selling more contracts than he was allowed to), failed to enforce margin requirements, and enabled trades to a bulk account to be allocated to individual clients after the trading day. It is entirely possible, although not proven, that the $99,500 she made at the time was some sort of a bribe from Tyson rather than money made honestly, trading alongside a friend who indeed happened to be a very well- known and successful trader

Next, there is Whitewater. This one is hard to summarize in a paragraph, but I’ll try. Hillary Clinton and her husband were minority partners in a real estate development venture led by campaign contributor Jim McDougal. The venture, called Whitewater, ultimately failed, after receiving a loan from a Savings and Loan company, owned in part by McDougal, which itself also failed, amidst fraud. McDougal had another real estate project, Castle Grande, which his S&L was illegally funneling loans to. Hillary Clinton, as an attorney at the Rose Law Firm, had done work for Castle Grande. During the investigation by independent Special Counsel Kenneth Starr, Hillary’s billing records from the Rose Law Firm disappeared for a time, only to magically reappear one day in the White House. McDougal’s wife Susan refused to answer questions about the Clinton’s involvement and was imprisoned for contempt of court charges. After a massive investigation, Starr did not find prosecutable evidence of wrongdoing against either of the Clintons. President Bill Clinton eventually pardoned Susan McDougal

During Bill’s presidency, Hillary was alleged by some Republicans to have conducted criminal wrongdoing in the White House FBI files scandal (“Filegate”), in which Craig Livingstone, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security, improperly retrieved FBI background reports on hundreds of past White House employees. She was also alleged by Republicans to have broken the law in conjunction with the firing of seven people in the White House Travel Office (“Travelgate”). The Clinton administration said the firings were due to financial improprieties identified in the office during the previous administration. Critics alleged the Clintons were trying to do political favors for their own people. Starr investigated both Filegate and Travelgate and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by either of the Clintons.

Moving to recent years, my right-wing friends declare the word “Benghazi!” as if they have suddenly developed Tourette’s syndrome. In 2012, while Clinton was Secretary of State, members of an Islamic militant group launched an attack against a U.S. embassy and a CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans and injuring 10 others. A common refrain is “Hillary Ignored Pleas for Help and Let Americans Die.” There are thousands of right-wing Internet articles to the effect that Clinton could have imminently saved the lives of these Americans, but somehow chose not to. There are thousands of other articles alleging that it was obvious before the attacks that the security situation was poor and catastrophe was imminent. The reality is that this has been one of the most investigated episodes in American history, and Hillary did nothing wrong. The security situation was known to be challenging in the year leading up to the attacks, and decisions regarding security were handled in the normal way by the security staff at the State Department, in conjunction with other resources.

Blaming Clinton for Benghazi is akin to the Donald Trump TV ad that says Hillary Clinton has “been [in Washington for] 30 years. Taxes went up, terrorism spread, jobs vanished…” In reality, Federal taxes as a % of GDP were basically stable, the unemployment rate remained stable, the number of working Americans increased by tens of millions, and yes, terrorism spread, but mostly due to George Bush’s bloodshed in the Middle East. But what does any of that have to do with Hillary Clinton? Largely nothing, except perhaps for her husband’s excellent economic record as President. This commercial is laughable if part of you doesn’t already believe that Clinton is a nearly omnipotent demonic force.

In response to the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump, in which more than 10 women have accused him of unwanted groping, unwanted kissing, or attempted rape, the Trump campaign has developed a counter-narrative, recited in Trump’s speeches and by his surrogates, that Hillary has herself attacked women. Most of these allegations are false. There are, for example, widespread stories that Hillary Clinton “laughed at” a 12-year-old rape victim whose alleged attacker she defended in court. In reality, Clinton, who defended the man as his defense attorney, as part of the legal aid program at University of Arkansas, did not laugh at the victim at all. She laughed in a subsequent interview about the fallibility of polygraphs, and about how the prosecution in the case tried to hide key evidence from the defense team. In another case, Juanita Broddrick has been trotted out by Trump as a women who was “raped by Bill Clinton” at a political fundraiser. Broaddrick now claims that Hillary Clinton grabbed her hand in a way                 that was intended to be a threat, to tell her to keep quiet. Broaddrick, however, was subpoenaed in 1997  and wrote a sworn affidavit that Clinton in fact made no sexual advances towards her, and the rumors surrounding their encounter were untrue. In a 1999 NBC interview, when Broaddrick was asked “Did Bill Clinton or anyone near him ever threaten you, try to intimidate you, do anything to keep you silent?” She answered “no.”

The only documented truth supporting Hillary’s “attacks” against women appears to be comments she made in her staunch defense of her husband when he was accused of having repeated extramarital affairs. She said of Gennifer Flowers, who alleged a 12-year-long consensual affair with Bill Clinton, that she was a “failed cabaret singer who doesn’t have much of a resume to fall back on,” implying that Flowers was making the allegations only for a large financial payout. It’s also clear that Bill Clinton’s campaign staff hired a professional investigator in order to try to discredit the women who were accusing him of affairs or sexual harassment, although it’s unknown if Hillary played any role.

One particularly nasty attack is that Hillary stayed married to Bill even though he was once a frequent party guest of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Bill may have done things with trafficked, underage girls. We know that Bill Clinton hung out with Jeffrey Epstein and partied with him, but we  don’t know exactly what transpired. We also know, however, that Donald Trump was a frequent party guest of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. So I’ll call that “a wash.”

Very recently, Hillary has recently been investigated by the FBI for using a personal e-mail server for government business while serving as Secretary of State. I’ll be brief here, as the e-mail scandal is widely known and basically a Rorschach test. If you dislike Hillary, then she put our national secrets at risk            in a wholly disqualifying and unforgivable fashion. If you favor Hillary, you note that she used the appropriate government e-mail systems for messages marked “Secret” or “Top Secret,” and accidentally received or sent a grand total of three (3) emails on the personal e-mail server containing the marking of (C) for “classified.” [Actually, it stands for “confidential.” — A.T.]

As you’ve probably gathered by now, I don’t think Hillary is responsible for the mysterious death of over 100 Americans as “ClintonBodyCount” would have you believe. I also don’t believe she’s actually a demon.

I don’t think there’s illegal “pay to play” going on between foreign leaders and the Clintons, using the Clinton Foundation as a handy cover. The right-wing media looks at the e-mail leaks from the hacked emails of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, and sees vast evidence of wrongdoing. I look at the juiciest bits of those emails and am reassured. This is all that was going on? The hack has basically revealed that Hillary Clinton was campaigning for President. A few folks at the DNC favored Clinton over a democratic socialist? Of course they did. A journalist leaked a couple of town hall meeting questions to Clinton? Of course she did. That’s not illegality; that’s life.

At its essence, this election is between an unpredictable narcissist with no relevant domestic or foreign policy experience, a working knowledge of Hitler speeches, a recent history of saying anything to foment populist fervor, and a long history of completely disregarding others in order to make himself one more dollar or grab one more handful of breast; or, the other choice, a Machiavellian with considerable relevant domestic and foreign policy experience, and a history of bipartisan accomplishment, who has likely consistently used her political career to grossly enrich herself financially.  [No! — A.T.]

That’s not a great choice, but it is an easy one.

I had expected Clinton to pull away from Trump after he looked a bit unhinged during the second Presidential debate. As there is a strong correlation between presidential margin of victory and the performance of the S&P 500 in the 30 days before an election, we spent some options premium (about 30 basis points) last month unsuccessfully betting on the large “Clinton rally” that never came

By last Friday morning, it seemed that the election was starting to tighten, and knowing that there is a possibility that some Trump voters are unwilling to tell pollsters that they plan to vote for Trump, and knowing that a Trump win would likely cause a large pullback in the U.S. equity market, I spent 15 basis points of options premium as “Trump insurance,” to hedge our fund against a possible Trump victory. We bought weekly S&P 500 puts, and some volatility index calls. The trade has helped us somewhat since we put it on, keeping us roughly flat month-to-date for November in spite of the market selloff.

I expect Clinton will win the election, but I believe she is only a slight favorite, something like 60/40, to do so. If she wins, in the very near-term, the S&P 500 will rally. If she loses, in the very near-term, it will fall. A drawn-out, highly contested election decided by the courts, like Bush v Gore, wouldn’t be great for equities, but it would probably be less bad than a clear-cut Trump victory. The key voices in the equity market aren’t Democrats; far from it. But the most important thing that has enabled stability in the financial system in recent years is faith in government support for financial stability. If there are doubts as to government’s willingness to allow the Fed to be independent, to honor our debts, to intervene in the case of a financial crisis, or to project American military power wisely, risk premia must rise.

There are, of course, certain stocks that would be helped by a Trump presidency. Hopefully I don’t get the chance to trade those. Honestly, though the thought of President-elect Donald Trump is, as a human, utterly alarming, in the narrow role of “trader” the thought of trading the volatility he will cause is exciting. Plus, he’s going to yugely cut my taxes. I’d rather just have reasonable domestic and foreign policy though.

I had second thoughts about actually sending this letter. Maybe I was being biased or unfair, etc. But any doubts were resolved this morning when my Twitter feed was full of a story, in the Washington Times and the other usual right-wing media outlets, about Hillary’s campaign manager John Podesta being invited to a dinner where the courses would be made from “blood, semen, and breast milk” and for which there had been “code for child sex trafficking.” This sort of ridiculous lie is just not okay. It’s not acceptable. Decent people need to stand up and say, “No.” This new culture of hurting anyone we disagree with in any way possible is the thing we need to “Take America Back” from. As the Kentucky state flag wisely declares, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.”

Thank you for you partnership!

And if any of you have gotten this far: thank you for your readership!

Things CAN get better.

As a species, we can DO it.

Imagine: We installed half a million solar panels every day last year; the Chinese installed two wind turbines every hour.  Renewable energy capacity has surpassed coal worldwide!

Imagine quiet, pollution-free electric buses running off power from the sun.  (Or hydro or any other electric power source, the cleaner the better.)  The first 300 begin going into service in just a few months, able to do the full 18-hour work load of today’s smelly diesel buses.

Imagine Uber’s electric-powered flying cars a decade from now.

Imagine a US government without gridlock 74 days from now — a government that boosts the economy by putting people to work at good jobs revitalizing our infrastructure; that boosts consumer demand and decreases inequality by hiking the minimum wage and refinancing student loans at today’s low rates; that enacts the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform the Senate passed 68-32 that economists agree would also boost the economy; that imposes the universal background checks even 74% of NRA members want to see.

All we have to do is vote tomorrow.  Reject the relentless Republican obstruction and get the country moving again.

We can do this, people.

Just vote.

Louis CK nails it.

Trevor Noah nails it.

Andrew Sullivan nails it.

And then there’s this 60-second spot.

Most persuasive to me: Republican/Libertarian Bill Weld’s urgent case for Hillary — even though he’s running against her.

Like the editorial boards of every newspaper in the country (save the National Enquirer) — including the most staunchly Republican ones (just think about that for a minute! every editorial board in the country!) — Weld “fears for thew country if Mr. Trump should be elected.”

And unlike many of the editorial boards, he goes a step further:

I have a lot to say about Mrs. Clinton that has not been said by others recently that I think needs to be said. I mean, I’ve known her for 40 years, I’ve worked with her, I know her well professionally, I know her well personally, I know her to be a person of high moral character, a reliable person, and an honest person — however much Mr. Trump may rant and rave to the contrary.  [In 2008, he thought she was terrific.] So I’m happy to say that, and people can make their own choices.

The LAST Clinton Administration saw 23 million new jobs, a minimum wage hike, a rising tide for virtually everyone, not just those at the top, a budget surplus, no military casualties, respect around the world, waivers for charter schools, respect for science . . . an Administration staffed by really bright, well-motivated, dedicated people — not thugs.

We can do that again.

Spread the word:  Break the gridlock, get America moving again for the middle class, put millions to work at good jobs revitalizing our crumbling infrastructure — the Republicans blocked that and so much else —  vote Democrat up and down the ticket and we have a shot at dissipating some of the – justified! — frustration and anger felt by tens of millions who’ve been hurt by Republican refusal to let government function . . . a shot at lifting up the lives of so many who have been struggling.  The Republicans have blocked this every step of the way.

And one last thought, in case there’s chaos of one sort or another this weekend, or Monday or on Election Day:  Our democracy is fragile.  KGB thug Vladimir Putin is actively — and brilliantly — working to destabilize it and weaken the NATO Alliance.

Newsweek‘s report leads off:

In phone calls, meetings and cables, America’s European allies have expressed alarm to one another about Donald Trump’s public statements denying Moscow’s role in cyberattacks designed to interfere with the U.S. election. They fear the Republican nominee for president has emboldened the Kremlin in its unprecedented cybercampaign to disrupt elections in multiple countries in hopes of weakening Western alliances, according to intelligence, law enforcement and other government officials in the United States and Europe.

While American intelligence officers have privately briefed Trump about Russia’s attempts to influence the U.S. election, he has publicly dismissed that information as unreliable, instead saying this hacking of incredible sophistication and technical complexity could have been done by some 400-pound “guy sitting on their bed” or even a child. . . .

Read the rest.  Don’t let him get away with it.

Louis CK nails it.

Trevor Noah nails it.

Andrew Sullivan nails it.

And then there’s this 60-second spot.

Most persuasive to me: Republican/Libertarian Bill Weld’s urgent case for Hillary — even though he’s running against her.

Like the editorial boards of every newspaper in the country (save the National Enquirer) — including the most staunchly Republican ones (just think about that for a minute! every editorial board in the country!) — Weld “fears for thew country if Mr. Trump should be elected.”

And unlike many of the editorial boards, he goes a step further:

I have a lot to say about Mrs. Clinton that has not been said by others recently that I think needs to be said. I mean, I’ve known her for 40 years, I’ve worked with her, I know her well professionally, I know her well personally, I know her to be a person of high moral character, a reliable person, and an honest person — however much Mr. Trump may rant and rave to the contrary.  [In 2008, he thought she was terrific.] So I’m happy to say that, and people can make their own choices.

The LAST Clinton Administration saw 23 million new jobs, a minimum wage hike, a rising tide for virtually everyone, not just those at the top, a budget surplus, no military casualties, respect around the world, waivers for charter schools, respect for science . . . an Administration staffed by really bright, well-motivated, dedicated people — not thugs.

We can do that again.

Spread the word:  Break the gridlock, get America moving again for the middle class, put millions to work at good jobs revitalizing our crumbling infrastructure — the Republicans blocked that and so much else —  vote Democrat up and down the ticket and we have a shot at dissipating some of the – justified! — frustration and anger felt by tens of millions who’ve been hurt by Republican refusal to let government function . . . a shot at lifting up the lives of so many who have been struggling.  The Republicans have blocked this every step of the way.

And one last thought, in case there’s chaos of one sort or another this weekend, or Monday or on Election Day:  Our democracy is fragile.  KGB thug Vladimir Putin is actively — and brilliantly — working to destabilize it and weaken the NATO Alliance.

Newsweek‘s report leads off:

In phone calls, meetings and cables, America’s European allies have expressed alarm to one another about Donald Trump’s public statements denying Moscow’s role in cyberattacks designed to interfere with the U.S. election. They fear the Republican nominee for president has emboldened the Kremlin in its unprecedented cybercampaign to disrupt elections in multiple countries in hopes of weakening Western alliances, according to intelligence, law enforcement and other government officials in the United States and Europe.

While American intelligence officers have privately briefed Trump about Russia’s attempts to influence the U.S. election, he has publicly dismissed that information as unreliable, instead saying this hacking of incredible sophistication and technical complexity could have been done by some 400-pound “guy sitting on their bed” or even a child. . . .

Read the rest.  Don’t let him get away with it.

Pay taxes — free rides off yours.

Give to charity — yet shows up to take credit!

Release his returns (and no, his 2015 return can’t possibly be under audit; not that it would matter if it were).

Tell the truth.  He will “absolutely” release his returns (didn’t); saw thousands of Muslims cheering (didn’t); had foolproof plan to defeat ISIS (didn’t); sent birther investigators to Hawaii (didn’t) and “can’t believe what they’re finding” (nothing); climate change is a hoax (isn’t) and he never said that it was (did).

There’s so much more. . . he tells 71 lies per hour (and has become party to a new legal action over the last 30 years at the rate of more than one every three days, including weekends and holidays) . . . but perhaps best of all, if you had to pick, is his repeated assertion that “no one” has more respect for women than he.

OK?

Meanwhile, not one of the 45,000 Hillary emails thus far examined (including 15,000 discovered elsewhere) contained a Secret or Top Secret communication. Not one.  All the Secret and Top Secret emails were handled properly on separate government servers in secure facilities.  Three did have little “c’s” (for confidential) buried in the text . . . so let’s hand over leadership of the world – and the nuclear codes — to “a national disgrace” (Colin Powell’s words) so unprecedentedly unqualified that not a single editorial board in the country, save the National Enquirer, has endorsed him.

The last Clinton Administration brought us 23 million new jobs, rising prosperity at all levels, a budget surplus, and not a single American killed in combat.

This Clinton is considered by some to be even smarter – and would indisputably be entering office with vastly more experience at home and abroad.

So compelling is the case not to vote for Trump — or the libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson/Bill Weld — that even one of Hillary’s opponents makes it.

Here is Bill Weld on Rachel Maddow last night: “I fear for the country if Mr. Trump should be elected. It’s a candidacy without any parallel that I can recall. It’s content-free and very much given to stirring up envy and resentment and even hatred. And I think it would be a threat to the conduct of our foreign policy and our position in the world at large.”

He calls Trump unstable and incapable of a competent presidency.

Do you hear that, Johnson/Weld voters?  Even Gary Johnson’s running mate wants you to vote for Hillary if you live in a battleground state.

Sound the alarm, boys and girls.  We have six days to keep our country from going off a cliff.

Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute.

I listened to one of Trump’s speeches broadcast in full on MSNBC Saturday.

Powerful!

His oratory “stirs hatred and feeds self-vindication, and whether on paper it bears inspection for consistency, logic or soundness is immaterial.” 

• For example: He says we have absolutely no idea who is coming in from Syria.  That “60 Minutes” has shown this to be utterly false is immaterial.

• For example: He says Hillary will raise your taxes.  That she won’t — unless you make more than $250,000 a year — is immaterial.

• For example: He promises the largest tax cut in history even as he decries our $20 trillion debt.  That cutting taxes for the rich is inconsistent with curbing deficits — as George W. Bush so painfully proved in a real-world test — is immaterial.  (That his heirs would get a $4 billion tax break, if his net worth is really $10 billion, goes unmentioned.)

• For example: He says he’ll bring back millions of high-paying jobs from China and Mexico. That this defies logic — because these are no longer high-paying jobs, they pay a dollar an hour, and if the Chinese and Mexicans don’t do them for us they’ll do them for our competitors and consumers will buy their products instead of ours — is immaterial.

• For example: He says “believe me” and “100 percent” and “if you want to know the truth” — yet rarely tells it.  That he said he would “absolutely” release his tax returns if he ran but hasn’t; that he would release them if they weren’t under audit when, in fact, his 2015 return can’t possibly have yet been selected for audit — it’s all immaterial.

And the list goes on.  And on. He spews falsehood after falsehood, but has learned he could “go into the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot people” and his supporters would stand firmly behind him.

Donald Trump is the wrong answer to the right question.  Tens of millions of us are right to be frustrated and angry.  But it’s not “the government” that should be blamed, it’s the Republicans who’ve determinedly prevented it from confronting our problems.

You want change?  You want to break the gridlock?  Just give us two years.  Two years of a Democratic Congress and we’ll put Americans to work revitalizing our infrastructure – the Republicans blocked that.  We’ll boost the economy and cut government subsidies by hiking the minimum wage – the Republicans blocked that.  We’ll let you refinance your federal student loans at today’s low rates – the Republicans blocked that.   We’ll enact the comprehensive immigration reform Marco Rubio crafted that passed the Senate 68-32 and that economists say would boost the economy – the Republicans blocked that.  Just give us two years to get America really rocking!

Just give us two years.

By the way — that highlighted quote I led off with?

As regular readers of this column will recognize, it comes from the introduction to a 1941 book of Hitler’s speeches Trump long kept by his bedside.

It continues:

To use constantly and untiringly the same arguments, and to pound into the heads of his listeners the same formulas, is part of Hitler’s oratorical technique.  . . .  [He] is past master at throwing up verbal smoke screens . . . He knows equally well the effectiveness of massive oratorical assaults that shake the nerves of his victims or opponents . . . he knows how to give pledges that will be broken later . . . he uses insults and lies in the same manner as his generals use Stuka planes and tanks to break through the respectable but often weak front of his adversaries. . . . His crudity frequently borders on downright vulgarity.

Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute.

Check it out:

Once Again, “Bombshell” Clinton Revelation Fizzles As Facts Come Out

You absolutely need to read (and share) that if you (or someone you know) has been demoralized by the so-called October surprise.

If you have more time, there’s this, sent in just now from one of your fellow readers, Alex B.:

I am a life-long Republican who has been a “neverTrump” person since he announced his candidacy.  I believe Hillary can do an excellent job and that she will work with Republicans more successfully than Pres. Obama.  Country over party!

Most of the media stories that have been written or broadcast about Hillary Clinton’s email practices have been variously incomplete, inaccurate, or wrong; examples of inexcusably sloppy reporting and journalistic malpractice.

The folks who write about this know little about classification or the State Department’s procedure for handling classified documents and emails.  Because the outcome of this election will have profound effects on stock market prices, I have spent a great deal of time studying this subject since FBI Director Comey announced the results of the FBI’s year-long investigation of the Clinton emails on July 5 and testified about the investigation before the House Oversight Committee on July 7.

I would be happy to send you a multi-page email I’ve written arguing that widespread misunderstandings and misreporting of the Clinton email practices have made a mountain out of a molehill, including many false statements about what was on Clinton’s server by none other than the New York Times, including the very first sentence of their very first story.

That initial March 2, 2015 article began with the following totally false phrase: “Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state….”   That phrase should have said: “to conduct unclassified government business….”

To omit the word “unclassified” likely misled all but the most knowledgeable readers to think Secy. Clinton routinely received emails and documents marked or designated Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential on her private server, which FBI Director Comey said on both July 5 and July 7 she decidedly did not do.

This past Friday, the Times continued to make the same mistake – here — saying that Clinton exclusively used her private server for government business, when she clearly used the State Department’s separate SIPRNet and JWICS email systems for any material marked classified.  There is no mention of SIPRNet or JWICS in the article

Because the media virtually never does mention SIPRNet and JWICS, most people, including the media and most pundits, wrongly think Clinton routinely received, sent, and stored emails and documents marked classified on her private server.  That belief is totally wrong!  In his speech to the GOP convention in July, Rudy Giuliani said she had “tens of thousands” of documents marked classified on her server.   She had NONE.

To be brief, of roughly 44,500 emails that were on or had been on Clinton’s server, the FBI has found NONE marked classified when sent to her server.  When the FBI asked the SENDERS of those emails or the government agency “owners” of the information in those emails years after those emails had been sent, if there was any material in those emails that SHOULD have been marked classified when sent, the senders came up with 113 about which they said, in effect: “Ooops, these should have been marked classified when we sent them.  Our mistake!”

What was the proper place for those 113 emails?  Had they been properly marked, they would not have been sent to Clinton’s server!  If marked classified, those emails would have been sent through one of the two State Department closed and secure systems for classified emails and documents, SIPRNet for Confidential and Secret emails and documents or JWICS for Top Secret emails and documents, both of which have to be accessed through a closed and secure room called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), from which nothing can be forwarded to a unclassified system like NIPRNet or Clinton’s server.

Clinton would have accessed those 113 emails through one of three SCIFs installed in her office and her residences in Washington D.C. and Chappaqua.

But, because those 113 emails came in unclassified through an unclassified system like NIPRNet, and because in government, it is the SENDERS’ responsibility to assign and be responsible for the classification, Clinton assumed those 113 emails (an average of one every two weeks) were UNCLASSIFIED (if she even read them).

And the 33,000 that were deleted?  Clinton turned over roughly 30,000 of her emails to the State Department and deleted another 33,000 that her lawyers concluded were personal.  In its investigation last year, the FBI recovered 14,500 of those 33,000 (The New York Times says the number is 14,900) and found nothing marked classified.  And there’s no reason to think they will find any such emails on the laptop Huma Abedin shared with her husband (from whom she has since separated).

Regarding the new batch of emails disclosed by the FBI yesterday:

1. If any of those emails were marked classified, it would be immediately apparent.  There would be large headings and probably footers to indicate whether those emails are Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret.
2. Had they been so marked they would NOT have been sent through NIPRNet and forwarded by Abedin to her shared laptop or to Clinton’s server, but would have been sent through SIPRNet or JWICS to be viewed and answered in one of three SCIFs installed in Clinton’s office and in her residences in Washington D.C. and Chappaqua.

Donald Trump is the wrong answer to the right question.  Tens of millions of us are right to be deeply frustrated and angry.  But it’s not “the government” that should be blamed, it’s the Republicans who’ve determinedly prevented it from solving our problems.

You want change?  You want to break the gridlock?  Just give us two years.  Two years of a Democratic Congress and we’ll put Americans to work revitalizing our infrastructure – the Republicans blocked that.  We’ll boost the economy and cut government subsidies by hiking the minimum wage – the Republicans blocked that.  We’ll let you refinance your federal student loans at today’s low rates – the Republicans blocked that.   We’ll enact the comprehensive immigration reform Marco Rubio crafted that passed the Senate 68-32 and that economists say would boost the economy – the Republicans blocked that.  Just give us two years to get America really rocking!

Just give us two years.

Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute.

But first, your weekend entertainment:

• In case you missed Trump lavishly praising Hillary — watch and share.  Two minutes.
• Have you seen the dinosaur clip? Amazing.
• How about vice presidential candidate Bill Weld more or less endorsing Hillary?
• And — OMG! — Samantha Bee on partial birth abortion.

Also: In case yesterday’s “Truth About Obamacare” was too long, here it is in a tweet: The “25% Obamacare rate hike” Trump is alarming everyone about will actually bite just one-half of one percent of us. And while there are major things to be fixed and improved, Hillary’s the one to fix and improve them, not Trump.

Donald Trump is the wrong answer to the right question.  Tens of millions of us are right to be deeply frustrated and angry.  But it’s not “the government” that should be blamed, it’s the Republicans who’ve determinedly prevented it from solving our problems.

You want change?  You want to break the gridlock?  Just give us two years.  Two years of a Democratic Congress and we’ll put Americans to work revitalizing our infrastructure – the Republicans blocked that.  We’ll boost the economy and cut government subsidies by hiking the minimum wage – the Republicans blocked that.  We’ll let you refinance your federal student loans at today’s low rates – the Republicans blocked that.   We’ll enact the comprehensive immigration reform Marco Rubio crafted that passed the Senate 68-32 and that economists say would boost the economy – the Republicans blocked that.  Just give us two years to get America really rocking!

Just give us two years.

Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute.

During an event at his Florida golf course, the former reality TV star suggested that all of his “employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare.” However, the club’s general manager later clarified that at least 95 percent of employees are insured by the company. — Raw Story

Well, not all his employees — 5%.  See the difference?

If you didn’t cheat yesterday (What Trump Really Thinks About Hillary) and click the “tomorrow” link, then here it is again, from the Washington Post:

Obamacare has some problems.
Here’s how we can fix them.
By Paul Waldman

“All of my employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare,” Donald Trump said today, which is odd because under the law, Trump should be providing health coverage to his employees, at least the full-time ones. That means that the actual problems with the Affordable Care Act don’t affect them.

But it’s fair to say that the Republican presidential nominee is not the only one laboring under misconceptions about what the ACA is, how it works, what its genuine problems are, and how they might be fixed. In fact, most people don’t understand the law, and given how complicated the topic of health insurance and health policy is, you can’t blame them. So I’m going to try to offer a little context and perspective on the latest news about the ACA, in an attempt to get us all on the same page.

As you may have heard, the Obama administration announced yesterday that premiums for certain plans on the ACA exchanges will rise in 2017 by an average of 25 percent. This is a serious problem, and in a moment I’m going to talk about how it can be addressed. But before we get to that, it’s important to understand that almost everything you’ll hear about this news from Republicans is either completely false or misleading.

They want everyone to believe two things: First, that the administration just announced that premiums — your premiums, everybody’s premiums — will rise by 25 percent. Second, that this is proof that the ACA is a disaster and must be repealed. Both those ideas are false.

Here are some key things to understand:

This 25 percent average premium increase only applies to fewer than 2 million Americans. If you have employer-sponsored coverage, this isn’t about you. If you have Medicare or Medicaid, this isn’t about you. If you got your insurance on the exchanges but your income was low enough to qualify you for subsidies, this isn’t about you. It only concerns those people who get individual coverage on the exchanges but don’t qualify for subsidies — 15 percent of those on the exchanges. According to the government’s figures, that’s fewer than 2 million people, or about one half of one percent of the American population.

The exchanges are only one part of the ACA. The ACA’s supporters often point out all the good things that the law includes, and for their part Republicans will try to assure people that they support those things too. But one of the ironies in this debate is that because everyone says they’re in favor of a provision like the ACA’s ban on insurance companies denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, there’s no controversy or argument about it, and it gets ignored. As Michael Grunwald recently observed, “The perks of Obamacare — insurance protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, a ban on insurer caps that limited payouts to expensive patients, delivery reforms that have helped produce the slowest cost growth in half a century — have been mostly uncontroversial and undiscussed.”

But if Republicans were to succeed in their goal of repealing the law, all that stuff would disappear too, and we’d be back where we started — not to mention the fact that 20 million Americans would lose their coverage.

We can address this problem if we’re willing to. The exchanges are not working as well as we had hoped, but there are changes we could make that would bring more insurers in and restrain premiums. This morning I asked Paul Starr of the American Prospect, one of the country’s foremost academic experts on health policy, what kind of changes would help bring down premiums on the exchanges. He offered this list:

• Require all insurers who want to sell in the individual insurance market to offer their plans through the exchange, so they couldn’t cherry-pick individuals outside the exchange (this is an idea championed by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution).
• Reduce the waiting period for those on disability insurance to get Medicare coverage from two years to six months to move some of the very high-cost enrollees out of the individual-market pool.
• Require any insurer that wants to offer a Medicare Advantage plan in an area also to offer a plan in the marketplace for under-65 enrollees.
• Have the federal exchange adopt the procedures used by California in actively bargaining with plans instead of acting as a passive clearinghouses.
• Create a public option for those aged 55-64 clearly identified as an early buy-in to Medicare.
• Create a second federally run public option for enrollees from 18 to 54.
• Restore the risk corridor and reinsurance provisions that have expired that were intended to protect exchange plans against adverse selection.

These kinds of changes are meant to expand the risk pool to include both healthy and sick people, keep as many insurers in each marketplace as possible, and further increase competition via a public option — all of which might help to keep premiums down and make the exchanges work better. You might disagree with some of them, and some might have a greater effect than others. But the point is, the problems the exchanges are having aren’t so intractable that we just have the throw up our hands and toss the whole thing in the trash.

There is a difference between large rate hikes that affect just half of one percent of us — and can be fixed — and large rate hikes that affect everybody, as Trump claimed.

From the White House:

• Open Enrollment on the Health Insurance Marketplace begins on November 1 and ends on January 31; the deadline for January 1 coverage is December 15. Consumers can visit healthcare.gov to window-shop and compare health insurance plans for 2017.
• We have made tremendous progress thanks to the ACA. The law has improved coverage and lowered costs for the more than 80 percent of Americans already insured before the law was passed. And, it has expanded and improved coverage options for another 10 percent of Americans, dropping the uninsured rate to the lowest level on record.
• In 2017, 72 percent of Marketplace consumers will be able to find a plan for less than $75 a month. Financial assistance blunts the impact of premium increases for most people.
  • Shopping around can save Marketplace consumers money. If every returning consumer nationwide selected the lowest cost plan within the same metal level they picked last year, average premiums paid would fall by $28 per month – 20 percent – compared to 2016.
• Marketplace consumers will be able to choose from an average of 30 insurance plans.
  • Around 80 percent of Marketplace customers can choose from two or more issuers. Before the ACA, millions of Americans had no choices because of pre-existing conditions.
  • And for those with employer-sponsored health insurance, plan choice is typically narrower; in 2015, 30 percent of people with employer coverage had one plan option.
• For the roughly 150 million Americans who get coverage through their employer – nearly 10 times more than the number of people in individual market coverage – premium growth remains much lower than in the past.
  • Had premium growth since 2010 matched the average rate over the preceding decade, the average premium for family coverage would have been nearly $3,600 higher in 2016.
• Still, there’s more we can do to help, especially if Republicans stop obsessing over repeal. As the President has always said, we are open to working across the aisle on common-sense ways to strengthen the ACA, and the President has put forward his own ideas:
  • The remaining 19 states should expand Medicaid, extending coverage to four million more Americans.
  • Congress should increase financial assistance for young adults and middle-class families.
  • Congress should act to offer a public health insurance plan in parts of the country still lacking in competition.
  • Congress should continue to address increasing drug costs, for example by acting on the ideas put forth in the President’s budget.
  • States should use the ACA’s innovative tools to design structures that work best for their residents.

Give us a Democratic Congress and we’ll get this done.

Take two minutes to watch. And share.

Amazing.

He thinks she’s terrific.

He’s right!

Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute.  With your help, we just might get turn-out high enough to take back Congress, break the gridlock, and move the country into high gear.

Tomorrow: The truth about Obamacare. Plenty of room for improvement, but not NEARLY what Trump has been claiming.  (Surprise, surprise.)