According to the local news: Pulse gunman's father attended Clinton rally Monday | Local News - WESH Home

Heh. Feels like Trump is trying to bribe me. Now I'm not sanctimonious enough to claim that I can't be bought, but a deduction that only saves me a few grand a year ain't gonna do it, Big Donald. ;)

Joking aside, no, we don't have a nanny, but making it fully deductible would definitely cause us to reevaluate some of our child care decisions, and might put "private nanny" on the table a something to at least consider.

And then they turned around and endorsed Hillary 2016!

No.

Clinton expands battleground state map with push into Arizona, Georgia - The Washington Post

Even if she's unlikely to win there in November forcing Trump's campaign to spend time and money there instead of key seeing states should help.

Methinks that assuming the Trump campaign would understand focusing resources on states that are in question might be a bit much...

She also has an incentive to try and run up the score a bit. Trump is already talking about voter fraud. A best-since-Reagan type of win would do a lot to squelch any post-election talk of illegitimacy.

All states matter.

According to a friend Trump or a Trump PAC has been robocalling in NJ.

Trump did say his plan for victory included winning Minnesota, New York, and California.



Must have gotten some good internal pulling numbers to have them add New Jersey.

Good point.

I happened to listen to part of the speech on the radio and it was top-class pandering.


Would save me $12K/year. I've been bought for less. :)


If I paid a nanny what I paid in income tax (well, what we paid in income tax), they'd earn close to the U.S. median income. Everyone wins! :D Brilliant idea!

Wait, is it a deduction from gross income or a straight-up credit??? If the latter, then he might be getting into my price range. ;) (We are paying somewhere in the $10-$15K range.)

Uh....

California: The most recent poll (from just before the GOP convention) showed Clinton with a 16 point lead. Polls since May 3rd, when Trump became the presumptive nominee, show Clinton with leads from 10 to 30 points.

Minnesota: The most recent poll is from April, which shows Clinton with a 13 point lead.

New York: The most recent poll (from just before the GOP convention) showed Clinton with a 12 point lead. Another, from June, showed her with a 23 point lead.

This is what he said:


I assumed this meant credit.

"Grandpa, what were elections like before the candidates just dropped off bags of cash at each voter's doorstep?"

"Oh, Billy, it was horrible. You used to have to learn about places like Iraq and stuff and try and figure out what the hell a 'steel tariff' was."

We paid about 17 last year, and it'll be about that this year. We've paid as much as 24 (annual) in the past 5 years.

If it's implemented as a credit, I wonder if the subsequent colossal boom in child card services will be enough to offset the colossal drop in tax revenues. :D

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

The last two polls have Hillary up 4 and 7 in Georgia. The RCP map doesn't look good for Trump. Wisconsin and Michigan alone push Hillary over the top. I'd like to see her get 400+ electoral votes as a repudiation of everything Trump stands for so maybe that's why she might try to run up the score.

He basically needs to win every toss-up state or almost every toss-up state and Florida. They are (currently):

Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Michigan
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Wisconsin

I mean, I can see a path to victory. But it's also a pretty narrow path to victory.

No, deduct means you write it off and reduce that amount from your taxable income. It doesn't mean the government just pays for it - that's a credit.

To the extent the idea gets traction in the public debate, that has some weird consequences (all of which will be lost on the swing voters, I reckon). A deduction has a weird distributive effect - as the government subsidy ends up being in proportion to your marginal tax rate. So, since it sounds like it's based on average costs (wise), it means that a wealthy (high-bracket) person gets a much larger write off for the same expense as a poor (low bracket) person. And, if you want to make this really powerful at the lower end, it needs to be refundable... and that is surely not going to be in the plan,
either.

That said - I think it's a good political strategy for him to float this, even with its deep policy shortcomings.

I just can't imagine it being a straight-up credit without a low cap. That would literally change everything about child care, and open things up to absurdities.

For example, I work from home, and because our next-door neighbor Lindsay is a stay-at-home mom and their oldest starts kindergarten this year, this will be the first year that we are going to let my 2nd-grader take the bus home at 2:45ish. On days when I can't meet her at the bus stop because I'm on a phone call, Lindsay will be going there anyway and will make sure my daughter gets home safely. Further, Lindsay has agreed to keep her--with pay--on days when I am traveling. This is pretty much 100% a money-driven decision, as it saves us around $300 a month in after-school care costs, and we *think* she's old enough to handle the time on her own until I'm done with work. But there are still hoops to jump through with communicating with Lindsay, potential issues with when her kid is sick, and it's somewhat of an unknown how well my 7-year-old is going to do with over 2 hours at home with me where she's not supposed to engage Daddy. If you tell me I can get a full-on credit, then Lindsay's getting at least the standard babysitting rate around here--$15 an hour, 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, and the rest of y'all are paying for one upper middle class family to get free after-school child care while another upper middle class family makes an extra ~$1000 a month for 9 months. GOOD PLAN, DONALD!

Well, crap.

Many people are saying Trump is in favor of a nanny state...

Oh, by the way, my vote is totally for sale here too. If voting for this guy means I get Uncle Sam to pony up 100% for a Brazilian au pair of my "choosing" to...ahem... tend to various things around the house... then by all means... Make. America. Great. Again.

/thread

Right! Dumb. :)

That's a lot of au pairs.

LOL

This is an actual Trump "sentence" https://t.co/w221Er7THY pic.twitter.com/Fs9qNC0EFc

— Alex Leo (@AlexMLeo) August 9, 2016

That time a candidate for President Of The United States advocated for assassinating his opponent.

Guy behind Trump immediately realized what he said was a problem. https://t.co/F3mSP9GLqt

— Chris Vannini (@ChrisVannini) August 9, 2016

So he starts by saying he's very smart... but then ends with saying "the Persians" haven't figured out that women are smarter than men.

Therefore, Hillary is smarter than Donald Trump, and would negotiate with them better.

Sounds about right when you get through his logic.

Trump in some ways is running like a liberal parody of conservatives.

I don't like what he's doing to the GOP.

The grammar Nazi in me is appalled at how this quote has been disseminated. It was "Second Amendment, people" not "Second Amendment people." (If you think about it, the former is actually a bit more incendiary.)

Unfortunately Gary Johnson has apparently stepped on some Mormon 3rd rail Gary Johnson may have upset Utah Mormons, but here's how he still plans to win their votes | Deseret News

So Manaford "clarified" it.

Trump Campaign Statement on the Dishonest Media https://t.co/WXMo7T0yK6 pic.twitter.com/RlMWrqHcxP

— Paul Manafort (@PaulManafort) August 9, 2016

So basically, "The media don't understand!"

At the same time Katarina Pierson "clarified" it.

Katrina Pierson's long-awaited explanation: Trump was saying an assassination "could" happen, not that it "should" happen.

— Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) August 9, 2016

"2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power."

Are you sure that wasn't Reggie White being quoted?

He likes to give people hell for using a teleprompter, but reading prepared remarks keeps you from saying dumb shit like this.

edit: Michael Hayden said what I was thinking:

Well this is terrible optics for Hillary

Father of Orlando Nightclub Shooter Attends Hillary Clinton Rally

Anti-gay pro-Taliban man sits in your audience? Who just happens to be the father of one of the worst criminals in American history?

Not good. I'm surprised Trump isn't all over this yet.

Hey, could somebody tell me if anybody unsavory came to a Clinton rally?

Shit! Trump probably hired him to sit there.

Well, we can agree on this. :)

Anybody holding out hope that Paul Ryan would be Eric Cantor'd will have to wait another few years. His opponent tried to out Trump the Donald by saying that all Muslims should be deported, alas Ryan's district was never ripe for the picking and Ryan should cruise to victory with >80% of the vote.

Glenn Grothman already does a fine job representing Wisconsin's right wing lunatic fringe (Gwen Moore takes care of the left!), no need for another nut from WI.

Trump is only up 4% in Kansas. Romney won it by 21%.

He is tied with Clinton in Iowa though which I guess is a positive.

Is this an indictment on Clinton that despite Trump being a complete blowhard and gaffe-a-minute kind of guy and yet it's still a race?

Is it really?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ex_cid=rrpromo

I say this race is about a stoppable force meeting a movable object.

Hrs after Trump says something dumb during a nuclear standoff, his last living staffer will send a clarification to the last living reporter

— Daniel Powell (@danieljpowell) August 10, 2016

Some emails recently surfaced showing some sketchy connections between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

Did you hear about it?

Probably not, because right about when that was happening, Trump was threatening to assassinate his opponent.

If you were unimpeachably correct on the delivery, I'd join you in the ire. But I went back and listened two more times... I don't think the comma is particularly clear. And context doesn't really help us, as you pointed out how both work fine.

Hmmmm...haven't we seen this movie recently? That sounds awfully familiar...


Oh yeah, that.

*shurg*

Fair enough. When I re-listened, I realized that he didn't pause like I thought he had. That said, he was talking about *after* she was elected, so his claim that he meant "2nd Amendment people" holds no water with me. (Yeah, that probably feeds into why I read the comma into it.)

Yeah and I read a few articles about it - each of which had a lot of innuendo backed up only by a few lines from an email which were hugely redacted to the point of being meaningless ... or more accurately could be interpreted at anything with a bit of effort.

(in contrast Trump cleverly made himself headlines ... again ... by clearly stating something outrageous with just enough of a 'get out' to keep his supporters indignant about the press jumping on him ... ho hum ;) )

Y'know, the other thing that occurs to me in these last few gaffes of his is how ironic it is that the "tell it like it is" candidate is having to have his words "clarified" so frequently lately.

"Race" being a loosely defined term - but even 538 is predicting (with their polls plus) 48.1% to 44.3% for Hillary.

And, even 11 days ago, the polls-only had Trump in the lead.

I still don't understand the purpose of the media and forums to quote national polls (or poll of polls) when they are irrelevant to the election. They may indicate a trend or national mood (if that is a thing) but the only polls that matter are the contested states. I saw that Georgia is in play and if that is the case, then my prediction of Trump of not winning any battleground states would be true.

Source.

And the national polls are pretty good indicators of what will happen at the state level. Almost always, the national winner is the state level winner.

A couple of weeks ago the agenda of the media was to retain interest in the election by making it appear it would be a close run race.

More recently they seem to have shifted instead into the story line that its a disaster for Trump and promoting that viewpoint, i.e. Republicans backing away from him etc.

I think the main reason for this is simply that it was becoming less and less credible that they could believably promote the election as a close run thing when one candidate is so obviously off the rails.

Was this about a donor having been placed on some nuclear task force/policy group despite having no background in that field (then quietly resigning when someone asked about it)? If so I heard that reported weeks ago. If it's something new, then carry on. :)

(That's something that media on the right will do too - they will circulate old stories again, hoping that they will stick this time or just add to the feeling that this is a constant thing with the Clintons.)

I liken it to the attorney to deliberately says something that is immediately disallowed by the judge. The judge then orders the jury to "disregard" what they heard. The jury, being made of human beings, is only able to do so to a certain extent.

Here, it seems like a nice way to have it both ways. Candidate issues call for something repellant to many (especially the cognoscenti) but attractive to others (the intended base). Then apologist lackey goes forth and speaks (in cognoscenti-laden venues) about the intended effect, seeking to walk the substance back.

The base gets its red meat. The larger audience gets some plausible deniability. And now we're on to the next chapter of the same story. Rinse. Repeat. Vomit.

My pet dog could get 40% of the vote if he was labeled a Democrat or Republican. The country is just so divided.

I would only vote for a cat. Dogs are so needy and un-Presidential!

No way! Cats are selfish and only in it for themselves. Dogs are for the people!

Dogs are communists and cats are libertarians.

What's the most pragmatic left of center animal?

platypus, because it's something that defies categorization and probably shouldn't exist.

Giuliani: Trump Supporters Would’ve ‘Gone Wild’ Had Trump Really Called For Clinton’s Assassination

This has got to be the absolute worst defense of Trump's Second Amendment People comments.

So some moron is trying to climb Trump Tower today and he has been at it for at least two hours thus far. Supposedly he left this video.


Toys in the attic he is crazy...


Live Stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QobWf20dXs

Well the police got him.

Strictly as shown here -- absent any context or expansion or anything else -- I can't really argue with what's attributed to Giuliani.

Anybody who thinks there isn't a VERY sizable contingent that would like nothing better than the chance to piss on HRC's grave is kidding themselves.

was pretty funny when they yanked him up at the end.

No real surprises here, but fairly humorous on two main points that an analysis reveals:

1. It's very likely that Trump himself writes the mean/angry tweets while the generic ones with hashtags, links, and photos are written by campaign staff.
2. It's very likely that Trump's personal activity on the account has decreased dramatically in recent weeks.

Text analysis of Trump's tweets confirms he writes only the (angrier) Android half – Variance Explained

Is Trump's Campaign Locking Him Out of Twitter? - The Atlantic

Uh....


I wonder which slice of Trump's current support this will alienate.

He's actually very left-wing on his economic ideas. His supporters don't care about policy so I don't think it's going to alienate anyone.

Some of his economic policy. He's also for huge top income tax cuts, repeal and cessation of regulations, and more freedom for the financial industry.

Practically, he's an orthodox economic GOP President (going back to Reagan): cut taxes, increase spending, use leverage, let the Democrats fix it later.

He's really anti-free trade though. Reagan was the opposite.

I was listening to that interview live and thought "You know what, this would be a lot of really good stuff...if he had any actual plan to pay for it". From the interview he seems to think it would be paid largely through corporate repatriation even though there is no chance he actually taxes it to a meaningful amount.

He wants to tax repatriation at 10%. That's not bad.

+1 "Spend more to improve our nation's crumbling infrastructure" should be a bipartisan idea. Even back when Bush and Obama were pushing their respective stimuli packages I was hoping they'd create a new (less regionally specific) TVA. Actually create blue collar jobs, invest in our nation's economy and future, and give every congressman a chance to get a slice of pork? Seemed like a no brainer then and even more so now.

(Of course I also thought we should push for improving the technological infrastructure too, but maybe that was best left to the private sector as new technology fights it out. If Google, err Alphabet, can actually pull off their wireless fiber idea that's a much more efficient solution than any government extension, which would necessarily be slanted towards the last milers. But I don't see any potential massive leaps in how to build roads or bridges on the horizon ;) )

Solar roads, baby!

In spite of all the white nationalist spew, Trump def has some good ideas(on trade, etc). I won't vote for him, but i think a more level headed Republican with a bit of charisma should co-opt a lot of his better ideas for a 2020 run.

Yeah but that goes back to my comment about him actually following through. Then you have the issue of how the money must be/can't be spent once it's back. Think I read somewhere the last "holiday" under GWB was supposed to have the money spent on R&D and workforce development but then the vast majority of it was actually used for executive comp and stock buybacks.

I don't exactly trust Trump to hold a hard line on that.

Hillary voted for the last "holiday" and her husband signed one himself while in office. Trump's asking for 10%. On this issue Trump is much further to the left than Hillary.

I wasn't making an argument between Hillary and Trump.

Trump has laid out a "plan" for trillions in infrastructure spending and the closest he has come to explaining how it will be paid for is through this repatriation. Do you think he will actually get it covered through that and not just send ramp up the deficit by a few trillion?

Fundamentally correct logic. Politically toxic, but absolutely sound.

Trump is an absolute clown and shouldn't be anywhere near a Presidential race, but you can't argue with this, agreed.

Stopped clock, once a day, etc....

Yup.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...23771022129888

So some of the first polls have come out for South Carolina, and my home county, which I have not seen a single Hillary sign and is very Republican..has Trump ahead 41-39. The state is apparently a battleground state now too. That's just crazy bad for Trump is accurate.

PPP poll of South Carolina:

Trump 41, Clinton 39, Johnson 5, Stein 2

Well, it was PPP.

That said, this thing really seems like it has the potential to fall completely off a cliff for teh Donald. I'm not taking a Mondale-esque loss off the table.

PPP, despite being a partisan firm, has been very accurate.

Heh. "Breaking News" from Fox: "Trump losing support from Hispanic voters."

If Trump were to lose SC, it would be the first time the state went Democratic since Jimmy Carter in 1976. I was about 10 years old then. (50 now)

FTFY