If You Need A Drink After Voting

If you are like me, you might want to celebrate the end of a shrill and divisive election season with a stiff drink or a strong coffee.

And our portfolio company Foursquare has the exact tool you’ll need to do that.

Go here and enter your home address and Foursquare will map your voting place and bars, restaurants, and coffee shops nearby.

Here is my map:


I plan to vote bright and early on Tuesday morning and then head to one of these many excellent choices for my morning coffee.

And, whatever your political orientation, I hope you go out and vote on Tuesday.


Comments (Archived):

  1. William Mougayar

    Well, the drama will end in a couple of days, but another one might unfold right after it, because both candidates are controversial in more ways than one.Interesting that I’ll be in Chicago on Nov. 8th. I don’t recall ever been in the US during an election day.

      1. pointsnfigures

        True. So we are reduced to Berlusconi vs Peron? Which one will do the most long term damage? I predict medical marijuana gets passed everywhere just because.

        1. Twain Twain

          The US is between a rock and a hard place.When there’s a Presidential candidate with no self-control who blurts out “You’d be in jail” during a televised debate, makes a mockery of US’ moral authority.How could a US with a President Trump discuss issues of human rights, the rule of law and democratic process with countries like China and in the Middle East?When that same Presidential candidate’s companies are $650+ million in debt to Bank of China and Goldman Sachs and he and his daughter both source and produce their goods in China whilst bad-mouthing about how the “Chinese have stolen our jobs,” what moral authority do they have to renegotiate better trade agreements on behalf of the American people?Berlusconi’s misogyny was also explained away as “boys will be boys”. He too strutted like a peacock full of hot air to EU meetings. He too pulled every media propaganda trick to sell the idea that he was fighting for the ordinary worker.His supporters also argued the case that he was only saying idiotic things but that, underneath, he must be a genius because he’d parlayed a few millions into $billions and so, if voters supported him, they too could become $billionaires and he’d fight their corner in Europe.What happened economically to Italy? Foreign direct investment PLUMMETED.Meanwhile, Berlusconi’s companies were earning more and more by churning out media content that objectified women and corrupting the judicial system.

          1. jason wright

            Do as I say and not as I do.It’s been the motto of most modern politicians for as long as I can remember. They almost all have a personal blind spot. That’s the only way they can function.

          2. LE

            When that same Presidential candidate’s companies are $650+ million in debt to Bank of China and Goldman Sachs and he and his daughter both source and produce their goods in China whilst bad-mouthing about how the “Chinese have stolen our jobs,” what moral authority do they have to renegotiate better trade agreements on behalf of the American people?Tell me why that matters at all? He was in business and that was a way to get the financing he needs and/or produce goods at the right price point. Quite frankly you sound like a politician talking to people who have no clue about business. Why do you need to stoop to examples that lower the bar like that? You know it’s legit and it’s like calling him out for his failed businesses while knowing that VC’s invest in a majority of failed businesses.And I had my best year ever last year selling to the Chinese. I paid so much in taxes that my refund for overpayment was larger than most people earn in a year. What should I have done? Not sold to them. Can I not now run for office?And China is eating the world. They are buying up all sorts of US assets using the money that we have given them by buying their cheap goods produced initially by peasant labor undercutting our workers here. Care to dispute that.Below, Dick Clark Productions (producer of many shows including New Years Rockin Eve) bought by the Chinese… https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          3. Twain Twain

            If Trump cared about the American worker, he’d have invested to build those production plants and the steelworks IN THE USA.No excuses, no “Oh I was using cheaper Chinese labor to line my pockets and now I need your vote I’m going to say the Chinese are terrible for stealing your jobs.”

          4. LE

            Oh you are being ridiculous. And what’s with this ‘line my pockets’ rhetoric. You sound blue collar or like a member of the media. Regardless of whether I would support him as a candidate I fully support almost all of what he did in business. And I think it’s unfair the way he has been portrayed as if he should not do a particular project because “he cares about the american worker” (forgetting that he does employ people here). More specifically I don’t remember when he was pitching any of his businesses that he said he cared about the American worker and that is why you should buy from him. And to me that doesn’t matter at all. We are not selecting a supreme court justice where how they ruled in lower courts matters as far as how they will act in the future.We all, Hillary included, buy products from China. We do it when the cost of the goods is favorable to us. Maybe here or there people don’t do that and they “buy American”. But in general price is the deciding factor.You know in the 70’s my father imported religious giftware from Israel. But then certain products could be made cheaper in Japan or Taiwan (this was before China when Japan was cheap). So he made those products in those countries. Just the way it is in business.Btw, build steelworks? You are thinking he should have built a steel factory or done the actual fabrication? Seriously?

          5. Twain Twain

            Ridiculous is when Trump uses a whole bunch of nonsensical rhetoric about other countries stealing the jobs of American workers when he should just have had the balls to be a MAN about how he also played his part in those lost employment opportunities.That would have been way more direct and honest of him.He should just have said, “Look, the terms were favorable for businessmen like me at the time so I used them. However, it’s become obvious they’re bad for US production and workers long-term so we have to change that.And here’s how …”

          6. LE

            Stolen jobs are the result of the population as a group making decisions on price as a deciding factor. The blame is squarely there. When buying commodity products it’s every man for himself. (Gasoline used to be marketed to get premium pricing for certain brands but that went out the window when prices went up because of Opec).He should just have said, “Look, the terms were favorable for businessmen like me at the time so I used them. However, it’s become obvious they’re bad for US production and workers long-term so we have to change that.But he did say that exactly actually. Same as he said a) I’ve given money to politicians I know the system and that’s why I can fix it and also b) how he admitted to taking advantage of the tax laws.

          7. Twain Twain

            Except he didn’t phrase it in that grown-up, owns his responsibilities way, did he, LE? https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          8. LE

            Well I think he is right for taking advantage of the tax code. He would be stupid not to. That makes him smart.Joe six pack likes the fact that he is honest in that way. Even if they don’t like that he did that he has a net gain.And he did it in a smart way unlike Leona Helmsley or Martha Stewart. He didn’t go to jail.

          9. JLM

            .’Nobody “takes advantage” of the tax code. Every element of a tax return is dictated by the Tax Code. It is not a voluntary compliance.You give your numbers to a tax acc’t. She asks you a few questions, fills out the forms, sends them to you to sign.You attach a check and drop it in the mail.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          10. JLM

            .The Bank of China bought its way into the US real estate markets — just like the Japs decades earlier — with insanely low rates.In the biz, they are known as “mullet money.”Anybody with a brain would use the mullet money. They also are the easiest lenders on personal recourse.Money is just a commodity and developers go where the terms are the best. Why not?When you owe someone a dollar, you have a problem. When you owe them $650MM, they have a problem.Much. Ado. About. Nothing.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        2. JLM

          .”Don’t cry for me, Jeff Carter?”<iframe width=”1280″ height=”720″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/emb…” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>I selected the Madonna version because of her wilingness to blow anyone who votes for HRC. Seems only fair, no?http://pagesix.com/2016/10/…JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. LE

            I wish all of these celebrities would just shut the fuck up. Like Jay Z and Beyonce out there for Hillary. In our country this is who people pay attention to. Ironic since they are part of the system that shafts the regular little people out there.

          2. JLM

            .The Bey-Z gambit was an awkward attempt to hook young folk. A huge amount of the audience left as soon as the concert was over suggesting they were not “with her.”I think it is a good strategy — WTF else is she going to do?She’s a chubby 70 year old woman in a nasty pantsuit ensemble, no?[That was just mean.]JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          3. LE

            And speaks volumes. They liked avuncular hair in ears Bernie but don’t like Hillary a grandmother. Bernie sounds like the Rabbi, Hillary reminds them of the school principle who put them in detention.I don’t think you will delete your comments however I liked them so much I will repeat them below to memorialize them:I selected the Madonna version because of her wilingness to blow anyone who votes for HRC. Seems only fair, no?She’s a chubby 70 year old woman in a nasty pantsuit ensembleShe really did gain a great deal of weight. So did Trump. Both are emotionally eating. Amazing that someone that age can keep up that schedule. You gotta really love people.

          4. JLM

            .Funny thing but I loved listening to Bernie speak. He was the only truly honest candidate.I love it when he said, “Why do you think Goldman Sachs paid her for a speech?”Honest. Bat shit crazy but honest.I was going to go back to college if the free tuition scam passed.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      2. Salt Shaker

        Trump’s extra-curricular activities suggest he and Berlusconi have commonality in other areas too. Wealth and privilege begets entitlement, sometimes ethical, sometimes not. The two can share pictures of their conquests, and call it a summit.

        1. Twain Twain

          As we all know, the culture and values of a company come from the top. People will need to think carefully about what message a misogynistic and entitled President Trump of USA Inc sends out to the world.Particularly given that China now has a better record for respect towards working women and mothers:* http://www.bloomberg.com/ne…* http://qz.com/207398/the-gehttps://uploads.disquscdn.c…How is the US going to compete with China if its leader has that type of mindset Trump has?

          1. LE

            People will need to think carefully about what message a misogynistic and entitled President Trump of USA Inc sends out to the world.And why should it matter to anyone who isn’t doing well here what the rest of the world thinks? We already know that the people who are doing well are going to vote Democratic and are willing to share their riches and help others. Just not others in the same country.

          2. Twain Twain

            Ok, let’s park aside what rest of world thinks.Here are two different versions of the American dream for the people in the country. https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          3. LE

            You and others are missing the secret sauce with Donald’s success. It isn’t the money his father lent him. It’s the education that he got from his father including hands on experience. Way more valuable than any school or any degree in the business that he was in.I don’t understand why people don’t recognize that it’s so obvious. How did Fred learn VC? Not at Wharton. I went to Wharton as well. How many times do I mention what I learned from my father (or from my own years when I started a business from scratch etc.) here vs. what I learned at Wharton? Can’t remember ever mentioning anything I learned at Wharton. I think I took the wrong courses.Also are you willing to take away from what anyone does in the startup community because they were given money by a VC who gambles on many startups? News flash. Getting money from Dad, especially a Dad like Fred Trump is much harder. They don’t get more SOB ‘prove yourself’ than that. Nick Woodman goofball of on the ropes GoPro was helped by his family as well. Let’s see if he is able to have a second act like Trump did.As far as the ‘family on the right side’ … wonderful that is because of affirmative action most likely. [1] And you are completely ignoring (perhaps you don’t know this) what Oprah did for Obama (and then he shits on her because Michelle had a fit). Without Oprah (who was in Chicago) we would not have Obama as President. This is not to say that he isn’t smart or deserving (regardless of whether you like him). And Hillary is only able to be President because of Bill coming before her (like Bush same thing).[1] Don’t like that? Fuck you it is a big reason. Many people are qualified to get into those schools, most don’t and it’s easier for some to get admission as a minority. Separately I am noting that you are buying into the entire notion that merely getting into a top University means that somehow you are special and have won some type of award and are set. That’s fine with me because I am one of those people who busted my ass to get that award.

          4. Twain Twain

            I’m not at all missing the secret sauce of Donald’s purported business success or his salesmanship “gift of the gab” or the “Oh, he’s such a rogue and tells it like it is” charisma.Berlusconi had that populist persona too and look what happened to Italy.I’m not at all saying that merely getting into a good university means someone is a “special snowflake” and that people who don’t have degrees aren’t equally as valuable.What I am saying is it’s about which American dream inspires this and future generations.For women, it’s the difference between being like a Michelle Obama and a Hillary Clinton and working your socks off to get a good education, get hands-on in public service and having the knowhow to write your own speeches and articulate your vision and commitment to others …ORBeing a Melania Trump.For guys, it’s the difference between the journeys Obama and Bill Clinton had to make to be elected into the Office of the Presidency compared with Donald Trump’s journey.For each voter, their interpretation of the ‘American Dream’ is what it is. One or the other of these two scenarios resonates with them.Forget about the rest of the world.

          5. LE

            For women, it’s the difference between being like a Michelle Obama and a Hillary Clinton and working your socks off to get a good educationI also take issue with this. There are many jobs out there that we need done that don’t require a traditional college degree. This whole idea is that (similar to ‘what we need is love’ – John Lennon shit) ‘all we need is more and free college’ is another problem in thinking. I can’t find a fucking handyman or good technical tradesman where I am and I think it’s likely the same for many people. It’s always been this way as well. Electrician says “I will try to get by to take a look in a week”. Ditto for a painter. And I pay well and don’t buy on price either.Donald’s purported business successPurported? Having the trappings of wealth the way he has is business success. So is turning around from bankruptcy. Prior to his run for President he could get a meeting with anyone. To me that is prima facie evidence of business success. Separately and once again w/o implying that he is fit to be President or for any particular job he did this mostly using his own brain and not, as a corporate executive would, with the help of an entire company and all sorts of paid consultants. Big difference. A few key people (including women) that he picked.Berlusconi had that populist persona too and look what happened to Italy.N=1.What I am saying is it’s about which American dream inspires this and future generations.That’s all popular culture hogwash. I grew up here. Nobody I ever knew thought anything about the ‘American Dream’. They just knew there were losers in high school (well not mine but the public ones) that wouldn’t go anywhere because they lacked discipline (more than intelligence) and those that would. Part of this comes from your family as well. So yes if your parents are losers it’s a bit tough.get hands-on in public service and having the knowhow to write your own speechesYou think they write their own speeches? Without major editing, discussion and input from others? Sure just like I write my own comments all by myself (or you do). No input. You know even Paul Graham requires multiple people to look over his essays. And he went to Harvard. Imagine that. Kind of lame the way I see it. I’d say there is a ton of input from others if not written by others in those speeches. Not that the couldn’t do it alone but they should be able to don’t you think?For guys, it’s the difference between the journeys Obama and Bill Clinton had to make to be elected into the Office of the PresidencyActually to me it’s about stop chasing unicorns and do something that has a realistic chance of getting you ahead. Stop wasting your fucking time trying to be the one person that wins an Olympic gold medal or even be in the games. Stop trying to be the one person that is the high school quarterback. Start by trying to just be a normal person who can earn a decent living and provide for yourself and pay for your health care. Most importantly stop needing to read inspirational “here is how I made it” written by others thinking you can apply the same pixie dust. It doesn’t work that way in life.

          6. Twain Twain

            You know what, LE? None of us have had any personal interactions with Trump so we don’t really know the man or his business success.Here’s someone who’s on the board of Nordstrom who has had business dealings with Trump.http://www.usatoday.com/stohttps://uploads.disquscdn.c

          7. LE

            I am missing something here. If someone earns enough money or is a good enough salesman to attain the level of attention that he has (and flies around on a 757 jet with a full time pilot) you are not going to call that ‘business success’? Further if they go to zero and bankrupt and then come back with greater success you don’t think that is success?If you want to take issue with things that he said that got him to that point then fine. But be aware that all people in business are bullshitters it’s only a matter of degree. [1] I can think “Trump is not as honest as I am” but that doesn’t imply that I am 100% honest.[1] You think Jobs and Musk aren’t full of shit?

          8. Twain Twain

            You are missing the point as you say.It’s not about comparing Trump with Jobs or Musk or my definitions of success.It’s about what PEOPLE WHO’VE ACTUALLY DONE BUSINESS WITH TRUMP have to say about him and his success and whether it was a win-win or a win-for-him-and-everyone-else-gets-punished-or-loses-out.

          9. LE

            By the way I apologize for some of my tone in replying to you.That said that ‘win win’ is way overblown and the fiction of the business press and people who write about business. It just means achieving an equilibrium where both parties are a bit short of feeling they got taken advantage of. Takes a bit of skill to pull off.There is a difference between screwing people (bad) and having a win win deal (money left on the table in many cases). I try to extract as much money as I can from a deal (for what I do). That is trying to reach a point where the other party doesn’t say ‘uncle’ and get their underwear in a wad or the deal collapses. And they are typically trying to do the same with me. And I run anytime I hear people with sayings like that I know they are full of shit or naive or both. “We want a win win deal”. Right then just tell me upfront honestly what your position is and we can avoid the games.As far as the punishment and bad stuff agree with you on that it’s bad. On the other had some feel comfortable with that style.I have dealt on a transaction level with people for a long long long time. Really thousands of transaction very small and pretty large (not big business large but large in that all the money goes to me and I handle the nuance). In some transactions your reputation matters so you operate one way. In others it doesn’t so you operate the other way. Honestly should I care if I sell something to a Chinese person who I will never deal with again that doesn’t even know they are dealing with me? Who cares? Should I care if I am dealing with a large corporation on a one time deal? No go for the gold. Do I operate differently with a small company or with a little guy? 100% yes I do. Even if only a 1 time deal. [1] Not everyone gets treated the same. I honestly suspect that Trump screwed people that in some way didn’t live up to their promises. Not sure of course but that is my theory. I even know someone that got screwed by them actually and have reason to believe their product or service was not up to par and that is why they are bitching now. (n=1 but I will mention).By the way this is the way the game is played in many construction projects. I knew that way back in the 80’s when I got ‘screwed’ by a developer. But in all honesty the quality of the project and the price we tried to charge meant he had a leg to stand on. This is why there are courts and judges, nothing is so simple from the outside.[1] And I pay really quickly and make sure the payment was received as well.

          10. JLM

            .In 33 years as a CEO, I do not ever recall exiting a negotiation and asking myself if it were “win-win.”That’s a fiction propagated by people who sell books on negotiation.You do your deal and move on.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          11. LE

            And you can always tell those people that read the books at the airport on negotiation. I have never read any of those books and refuse to do so. But I always know it when someone has by the way they phrase things and the way that they deal. So unoriginal and lack of any creativity in their approach.

          12. Twain Twain

            Apology accepted. :*).Everyone gets passionate about their political choices. It’s better not to take anyone’s rationale and position personally.After all, it’s about the suitability of the political candidates through the prisms of how they’ve presented their case, through the endorsements or criticisms of people who’ve interacted with them personally and through our own personal experiences of which candidate’s policies are better for each of us and wider society.We’re not the ones standing for political office. They are.

          13. JLM

            .You have to know two important facts:1. In 1992, a little guy with a buzz cut from Dallas named Ross Perot took 18% of the vote thereby putting WJC in the WH.2. In 1996, a little guy with a buzz cut from Dallas named Ross Perot took 8% of the vote thereby returning WJC to the WH.Bill Clinton was never a popularly elected President. Every night, when he goes to bed, he says a prayer of Thanksgiving to Ross Perot, the guy who made him President. Twice.The nonsense about WJC being such a great retail politician is just that, nonsense. He was a freak of arithmetic, nothing more.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          14. Twain Twain

            So maybe the freaks of arithmetic will be what elect the next President.The independents, undecided and disenfranchised of both Republicans and Democrats may cause the country to end up with the person they weren’t hoping for.

          15. JLM

            .I predict half of America will be happy at midnight Tuesday.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          16. Twain Twain

            LOL, quite.One of the paradoxes of human life that every N years each nation goes through a bruising, mean and cathartic election process that surfaces the best and worst in people’s different perspectives and choices.And we all get sucked into the maelstroms in the run-up to the big day…Before some form of “business as usual” returns.

          17. JLM

            .Thinking a little bigger, this has been a civilized revolution. What the country is angry about is much, much bigger than politics.It is about the seemingly fleeting availability of the American Dream, the fairness of life, the nature of our professional political class. Taken together, it is a rigged system.The sentiments at play here are as strong as the American Revolution.The problem is this — almost every allegation on every side is true.DJT is a boor, a churlish boor. I like his policies better and justify that solely because we are electing a President/Commander-in-Chief, not a Pope or Sunday school teacher.HRC is a crook of gargantuan proportions. Her policies, her track record are disastrous. Libya no longer exists as a sovereign nation because of her poor judgment.If elected, HRC will accomplish nothing and may, actually, manage to get her ass impeached which scares me more. Tim Kaine was over his head as Mayor of Richmond.All the while, the Russians and the Chinese are licking their chops to teach us a lesson in the Middle East, in Europe, and astride the sea lanes in Asia.We cannot defend ourselves with a 400K man Army. We need an Army three times that big to meet the accumulating threat.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          18. JLM

            .The Chinese have been operating on this premise for the last 8 years. They took Pres Obama’s measure quickly.They have spurred N Korea to continue to develop long range missiles and nuclear weapons. There is evidence afoot they have assisted NK in “miniaturization” — their last big hurdle to being able to nuke Hawaii. [It was during the Clinton admin we supposedly traded food for the cessation of their nuclear weapons development program. That worked out well, no?]The Chinese have built and fortified a dozen islands astride 50% of all of the sea lanes in the world while we have done nothing — well, other than losing the Philippines completely.I would be very concerned if I were Taiwan, Japan, S Korea.Right now, all that saves that part of the world is the US Navy. The US Navy which will be down to 272 ships and 3700 deployable planes (a criminally negligent force level). Luckily, the Chinese navy isn’t much to write home about.With twelve fortified islands, the Chinese have deployed missiles capable of hitting targets a thousand miles in any direction. This makes them the equivalent of aircraft carriers — more capable aircraft carriers than ours.This is going to get dicey.We are already at war with both Russia on the Internet and China on the Internet and in outer space.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          19. Twain Twain

            What Trump and his campaign has done has shown how weak and destructive to American democracy he’s seen outside of the US.“At the beginning of the election, Trump, a rich, narcissist and inflammatory candidate, was only treated as an underdog,” ran a commentary in the Global Times, which is published by the same group that prints the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s chief organ. “His job was basically to act as a clown to attract more voters’ attention to the GOP. However, knocking down most other promising candidates, the clown is now the biggest dark horse,” it said. The commentary points out how fist fights between voters from opposing camps is a common feature in developing countries, but how Mr Trump has brought such scenes to “one of the most developed and mature democratic election systems . . . Trump’s mischief has overthrown a lot of conventional norms of US political life.” The article then turns to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini through the electoral process, described as a “heavy lesson for western democracy”…In another commentary in the China Daily on Mr Trump’s plans to build a wall along the border with Mexico which would rival the Great Wall in China, Chen Weihua wrote: “His plan for a great wall has been perceived by the Chinese largely as a joke by a comedian-type politician.”

          20. cavepainting

            The evidence on this is far from clear. Exit polls from 1992 show that Ross Perot voters drew equally from Clinton and Bush (38-38) and the other 24% would not have voted.Please see attached the documentary film: The Ross Perot Myth.http://fivethirtyeight.com/

          21. JLM

            .Haha, you really are a naif, Cave.Who was doing “exit polls” in 1992? Who?You do know this bit of fluff was produced by ESPN and an MSNBC reporter with an eye toward toward bending the Clinton legacy into a shape that pleased him, right?He was hired to do it. This is propaganda, not journalism.One of the main characters is James Carville — he ran the guy’s campaign, for goodness sake. He’s been a Clinton acolyte since ………………. forever. He made his bones working for Clinton.Come on, you can do better than this. At least the film acknowledges that GHWB’s popularity was at 89% before the election.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          22. cavepainting

            Not before the election. In early 1991, just after the Gulf War, and 21 months before the election.I am just saying it is not a slam dunk conclusion.

          23. JLM

            .If you were going to produce some propaganda favorable to Bill Clinton, who would you add to the team beyond Carville, an MSNBC reporter, ESPN?It’s like a campaign video for goodness sake.Are you really that naive?Nobody was doing post election polling in 1992. Sorry.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          24. JLM

            .It was the apprenticeship.My Dad was a career soldier, the toughest, most principled son-of-a-bitch I have ever met. His moral compass was welded on true north.He gave me one bit of advice when I became a soldier:”Take care of your men.”Every time I ever faced a dilemma during my service, that bit of wisdom was the north star that guided me and got me through tough times.I had had four years at VMI, a number of elite schools and it came down to that simple thing.In the Army I learned everything I ever needed to know to found and run a business. It got down to one thing:”Take care of your people.”JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          25. Lawrence Brass

            Luckily, thankfully.. countries and nations are defined by its people, not their politicians.

    1. sigmaalgebra

      Yes, that’s Chicago, the US town with the easy, low cost, automatic, stand back, Second Amendment approach to the drug problem — just let the drug dealers kill each other off, 3000+ and counting!

    2. Donna Brewington White

      the drama will end in a couple of daysI wonder.

  2. Elia Freedman

    The beauty of being an Oregonian and only having vote by mail. I can drink straight from my own liquor cabinet while voting!

    1. ShanaC

      wait, what?

      1. Elia Freedman

        About a month before the election, we get a voter’s guide in the mail that outlines every person and ballot measure. For ballot measures, anyone can buy a page and write a description in it. I think it’s like $200.About two weeks before the election we get a ballot in the mail. We fill it out at our leisure, able to research the issues online and of course using the voter’s guide. Then we can either mail it back or drop it off at a local library or government building or other places set up around town.We have no polls. We have no lines. And for some stupid reason no other state has followed our lead.

        1. ShanaC

          The only bad thing is you don’t get a sticker. Otherwise this sounds amazing. I’d love this

  3. jason wright

    An admirable attempt at piggybacking.

  4. William Mougayar

    I think the drinking might be needed more after the results 🙂

    1. awaldstein

      Don’t even think about it!

      1. William Mougayar

        The results, or drinking?

  5. LE

    The NYT, in a final sendoff [1] to Trump (and to appear to be balanced in their reporting) puts Trump above the fold with a favorable picture [2] in the coveted Sunday paper. Not sure the same photo ran in all editions but most likely Hillary will be above the fold in Monday and perhaps even Tuesday papers.[1] As if to say “hope you’ve enjoyed it it’s now ending”.[2] Because of baby could also be saying “see he is like every other politician, don’t believe what he is saying”….. https://uploads.disquscdn.c

    1. Salt Shaker

      No Q the NYT’s anti-Trump coverage has been way over the top. It’s the print and counter equivalent of Hannity, but w/ a more intellectual bent. What I don’t understand is how with a shrinking sub base and weak financials the NYT doesn’t realize that it’s unbalanced edit could use some tweaking. The notion that they’re getting hammered solely by digital migration is very shortsighted. New ownership would move the paper a bit more towards the middle, but that’s not gonna happen anytime soon.

      1. LE

        Even the powerhouses in print are dying a slow death. WSJ is shrinking the paper (again) after changing the formula from a business paper to a general interest paper. The ownership family made a good decision to bail. NYT family should do the same and sell the jewel now and stop thinking they have a long term asset.One important reason the WSJ has issues is that people aren’t really buying stocks anymore. So business news of the type that they used to provide is of little importance if you are just putting your money in an index fund. [1] So they are just a right leaning paper of general interest with a business slant.[1] And yes there are ideas that you can get from the print edition that you can’t get online. I still get it in print (have actually made non stock investment money reading the WSJ with ideas that I get) so I am disappointed at what is happening…. https://uploads.disquscdn.c

      2. Matt Zagaja

        I don’t think the evidence supports that conclusion. NYT digital views and subscribers are up according to their latest financial report.

        1. LE

          Long term not going to work. News is entertainment and the quality doesn’t matter enough to people and there are a slew of competitors and there is a low barrier to entry etc. Costs big money to get print distribution and readership or to be a TV network which is where the profits came from. The pain caused the gain. Not so in digital. To much competition.

        2. Salt Shaker

          Could be wrong, but I think NYT print sub losses exceed the paper’s digital gains, w/ the latter at a lower annual sub cost. The other part of the equation is ad rev, which is also down trending. They need big data and also need to be bought.

          1. Salt Shaker

            Curiosity (and halftime of the NFL game I’m watching) got the best me. YTD NYT circ rev is up 3%, while ad rev is down 9%. They’re doing well with digital conversion, as you note, but not necessarily growing the base. A consumer pub can do well with flat or even declining circ as most rev historically is sourced from adv. They’re growing digital adv but not fast enough to account for overall declines. Nonetheless, still a great read IMO.

          2. LE

            No ‘low hanging fruit of opportunity’ here. They have made their money by having a near monopoly on selling advertising. This paid for a lavish business. Try as they might they are simply not going to be able to be the company that they want to be going forward.The best thing they having going for them is their brand. The only thing they can do is leverage that brand and find out ways for others to pay them for that brand name and sit on that money. In the end this is even what Trump did and why he let’s other people now do the heavy lifting. They are trying to do that but so in a sense the print edition just becomes a loss leader to support the other things they make money on.Noting also that this is what Ycombinator has done. Leveraged and hedged the brand they have developed.Most importantly they are not business people they are an organization of journalists. In the 80’s when phone companies were de-regulated the telcos had the same problem. They were filled with people who were raised being a monopoly. Took many years until they changed their mindset and business people took over. The Suzlbergs honestly don’t have a seat of the pants feel for this they have been born and bred into another world.

          3. Salt Shaker

            The NYT’s price/value is in decline not because there’s a drop in edit quality (though it’s getting skimpier and skimpier) but rather cause there’s just too much FREE high quality alternatives out there. Also, other than Goog and fb no one has really figured out digital adv in a big way, and mobile in particular. I think they’ll be sold, as they can’t do it alone. They need to be bundled w/ complementary assets. One of the probs is news skews old and is less attractive to a wide array of adv. Maybe someone like Bloomberg should buy them.

          4. LE

            Maybe someone like Bloomberg should by them.I think Bloomberg potentially has future problems of it’s own. Bloomberg (as I understand it I could be wrong so feel free to correct me) depends on people needing their info and terminals which they get paid huge dollars for. Total high margin low cost of goods pretty much all fixed cost rape and pillage $$. Now while their customers are not people buying stocks as only one use of the info (in other words not exactly the same as WSJ) they are part of that ecosystem. Therefore it’s certainly possible that they will take an impact going forward to the cash cow and can only make up for it by charging more for the info. How much is the market going to expand at this point? And the question is how valuable is that info to people that use Bloomberg. Now this is just from the outside I would be curious what people who use those high priced products think.So why does Bloomberg need to buy a dying horse like NYT other than to try and use the brand? People will not pay premium prices for the type of main stream information that the NYT has access to.Of course I could also argue that NYT has a great way to sell content since they are able to have access that others do not. So they can do interviews and do even video (which they already do) and then syndicate that and make money.

          5. Salt Shaker

            Bloomberg has a monopoly in the terminal market. That biz prints money! (As best I know, no one really has been able to make a major dent in their terminal SOM). That said, Bloomberg desires to become a bigger player in the media world as a news org. They bought Business Week and have done good things w/ that asset. They also have big data capabilities. The NYT’s benefits from an acquisition by a larger media org, while Bloomberg benefits from the NYT’s edit and brand imprimatur. Also, the NYT’s is consistent w/ Mike’s political sensibilities, not to be overlooked.

          6. Matt Zagaja

            I think that’s an important point. I have met and worked with journalists who are not at all reluctant to concede they simply need a sherpa to help them change for this new world. And also met some that have declined to do so.

  6. jason wright

    With these two candidates the outcome is guaranteed to be a glass half empty.Get your drinks order in nice and early. The bartender’s special is a Hillary on the rocks.

    1. Lawrence Brass

      Getting Donald to admit defeat will be a show on its own. He might have a deplorable zombie attack in the making. I am taking the day to watch it safely from here. I wish all this is over soon so we can get on with the usual stuff.I am with the bartender on this, he is on a winning streak, still wearing his Cubs cap.

  7. Tom Labus

    Lots of them. What a mess. Maybe the mess is prelude of something good.

  8. sigmaalgebra

    To get a drink at all of those places, maybe be sure to make that after voting! Walking to all those places would be some exercise, so might want to find the order to visit the places to minimize walking distance or time, and for that would want a traveling salesman solver program.But if JLM, some others, and I are correct and Trump wins, then don’t take it too hard: After all, VCs are used to having some of their bets fail!So many people in Manhattan are so against Trump, e.g., IIRC in the primary Kasich beat Trump in Manhattan and Trump got all the rest of NYS, maybe don’t drive on Wednesday due to all the depressed, drunk NYC Hillary supporters!If Hillary wins, then we will have record gridlock in Congress, <= 8 on the SCOTUS for Hillary’s whole term (all Hillary SCOTUS nominations will be DOA), an impeachment trial with Hillary either resigning or impeached (unless Obama’s pardon also gets her off from impeachment), continued open borders, a lot of ISIS attacks in the US, a rising trade deficit, more middle class workers out of a job and angry in 2020, and no respect overseas. Hillary’s buddies high in her administration will be a world-class example of corruption. Otherwise we will get by until we actually need a POTUS at which time we may lose the US or even the world.If Trump wins, then we will shovel out the barn, drain the swamp, flat out stop DC corruption now and for at least many decades, get the economy going, get rid of the trade deficit, clean up the mess at the VA, rebuild our military, stop ISIS (quickly), get the heck out of endless wars, start to get enough economic growth to get enough taxes to start to pay off the national debt, lower taxes on returning overseas earnings to 10% and bring back a few $T for investment, get some safety, education, and jobs in the poor areas, enforce our long standing laws, policies, and procedures on immigration, tell the EPA to focus on clean water and air, get rid of the renewable energy subsidies, stop funding the climate change hysteria, get rid of the criminal illegal immigrants right away, do something humane, not amnesty, for the other illegals, repeal ObamaCare, stop the Pelosi-Frank-Hillary dream of Canada style, single payer, socialized medicine, open up the market for health care insurance, e.g., greater variety of policy options, sold across state lines, have price lists, savings accounts, etc., do more on vocational education, pursue an all of the above domestic energy policy, keep radical Islamic terrorism the HECK out of the US, etc.Yes, NYS and CA will be devastated, NYS for the retreat from the old dream from Eastern Europe of socialism and CA for the retreat from the moonbeam life smoking funny stuff! Real estate prices within 100 miles of the Washington Monument will crash!

    1. Salt Shaker

      The notion that Trump is gonna be some kind of DC savior is laughable. The “swamp” is so deep, thick and ingrained it’s beyond fixing in it’s current iteration. Certainly Trump will have an easier time getting shit done, but to think he’s gonna have an easy slog is a bit shortsighted. Do you honestly think Paul Ryan wants him to succeed “for the good of the party?” I say BS. Ryan, and many other Reps, hate the man. Best way to end gridlock is with term limits, among other things.

      1. JLM

        .I am a huge proponent of term limits but I think you misinterpret DC.DC always aligns with the winner. They have no choice.Guys like Ryan will pass the President’s bills and if the President is President Trump, he will be smart enough to call in Ryan and McConnell and negotiate the first 100 days and the first 10 bills.A President Trump will let everyone win as long as he puts up a big of signature legislation.Guys who know how to build 100-story buildings, know how to conduct a ground breaking with an eye toward a grand opening. Trump will not allow any grass to grow under his feet. He will be assured of having a Republican Congress for two years and after that he has to earn it.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  9. Kirsten Lambertsen

    Clever! Here’s hoping we’re ordering champagne, not tequila.

  10. creative group

    CONTRIBUTORS:We are of the mind that Prohibition should have remained the law of the land.There are positive and negative effects in the majority of addictive substances or spirits.After reading the below facts on the effects of alcohol why is an alcoholic beverage being promoted? We realize you may require one after reading the effects. ——————-FACTS:Brain:Alcohol interferes with the brain’s communication pathways, and can affect the way the brain looks and works. These disruptions can change mood and behavior, and make it harder to think clearly and move with coordination.Heart:Drinking a lot over a long time or too much on a single occasion can damage the heart, causing problems including:Cardiomyopathy – Stretching and drooping of heart muscleArrhythmias – Irregular heart beatStrokeHigh blood pressureResearch also shows that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol may protect healthy adults from developing coronary heart disease.Liver:Heavy drinking takes a toll on the liver, and can lead to a variety of problems and liver inflammations including:Steatosis, or fatty liverAlcoholic hepatitisFibrosisCirrhosisPancreas:Alcohol causes the pancreas to produce toxic substances that can eventually lead to pancreatitis, a dangerous inflammation and swelling of the blood vessels in the pancreas that prevents proper digestion.Cancer:Drinking too much alcohol can increase your risk of developing certain cancers, including cancers of the:MouthEsophagusThroatLiverBreastImmune System:Drinking too much can weaken your immune system, making your body a much easier target for disease. Chronic drinkers are more liable to contract diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis than people who do not drink too much. Drinking a lot on a single occasion slows your body’s ability to ward off infections – even up to 24 hours after getting drunk.SOURCE: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/a

    1. JLM

      .I thought you were going to end with an endorse of Donald J Trump — because the old boy doesn’t drink.Celebrate with lemonade.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. creative group

        JLM:you are comical. It was comically sad but never the less comical.

  11. creative group

    CONTRIBUTORS:The American voters will either return the Deplorables back in their hole or request an overhaul of what has worked for the American political system. More of the same ora White Nationalist tilt. (Which isn’t going away)We are confidant after this spanking the Deplorables will Obstruct another four years. They will never regain the White House. The majority are not eating what they are cooking. (Racism, misogyny, xenophobia, 70% lies by Politicofact) The election can’t come soon enough.Trump can go create Trump TV and put FOX News out of business. Trump is going to make lots of money off his legion of Deplorables. It is going to be big, real big. Huge. Like never before. Thats is what they tell me. I don’t know. What do you think folks. (Trump speak)

    1. Salt Shaker

      Trump TV will never happen.Two reasons: 1) He’d never get ample carriage and 2) adv would stay away like the plague.Two possible scenarios: He gets a talk radio show on Sirius/XM (a la Stern, who delivers unprecedented value to the network) and/or he creates a paid subscription web site/newsletter written by Trump U graduates as part of a class action settlement….(only joking there).The guy has an unhealthy need to stay relevant, otherwise he’ll shrivel up and die. He CANNOT walk away; too much conflict between the ID and ego, with a light dusting from the superego.He’s now a junkie, and methadone just won’t cut it.

      1. creative group

        Salt Shaker:We may agree that Trump’s shtick may repulse educated and people with common sense. But there is a profit center in feeding the people who are sold on his shtick.Thirty plus million consumers is a revenue source that any entrepreneur would envy. Even if it is based upon a false bill of goods.We disagree on the Network. We think it would work and send FOX limping. If Murdoch could create the FOX Network with less than 100 Million there is without a doubt members of the Ult-Right who supported Trump could easily raise those funds in weeks. (OPRAH did it, ratings are suffering but it shows it could be done)

        1. Salt Shaker

          You may be right re: Trump TV, but I think the whole TV landscape and biz model is in flux, with cord cutting and networks by-passing cable distribution w/ streaming content DTC. I don’t see Trump seeking MSO affiliate deals, while whether adv would stay away is another legit concern. Devil in the details.I think we’re gonna see a pivot w/ Fox News now that Ailes is gone. Yeah, the network has printed money for Rupert, but he’s not part happy w/ the network’s positioning. Conservative yes, extreme no. More Megyn, less Hannity.

  12. Donna Brewington White

    Not so much celebration as medication.

    1. ShanaC


  13. Eric Gockel

    Did anyone commenting actually try to use the app? I plugged in a Chicago address and am getting recommendations for CA and MD?

  14. awaldstein

    Thanks for your thoughts.I prefer to not draw a long picture of doom even though some of the pieces of your forecast may be true,All is all, it will be a good day if your first line is true.

  15. JLM

    .I am bored waiting for someone to bring me something, so I am not my usual intent commenting personage. Please forgive me.If HRC wins, America will be locked in a doldrums for 4 years as the Republicans will not allow a single bit of legislation to find her desk. This is particularly true with any of her campaign promises — particularly the goofier ones like “free college tuition.”She will struggle to get her cabinet approved (requires a simple majority but requires a cloture vote to halt discussion).It will be a bloody mess.If DJT wins (my stated preference), he will invite Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell over to the White House for a cheeseburger to map out the legislative calendar — first 100 days and then the first calendar year.DJT, McConnell, Ryan will have the votes to enact that program just like Pres Obama was able to ram Obamacare through his similarly controlled Dem Congress with no subcommittee discussion, no committee discussion/votes, no floor debate, no amendments, no reading, no explanation.At the end of the day, that is the choice.A. Four years of acrimony of the most intense magnitude, perhaps, resulting in the only husband-wife team to ever be impeached in the history of the Republic.B. A two year spurt of the most productive legislative agenda in the last 50 years.The world — our allies, our enemies — will be impacted by the notion that the Americans are either open for business or not. If they sense weakness, they will pounce in the Ukraine, the Baltic states, eastern Europe, the South China Sea, and the Middle East.[Historic note: the last time the Russians teamed up with the Syrians and Egypt, they invaded Israel in a surprise attack during Yom Kippur in 1973. Now, you will have Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and, possibly, Turkey looking for a bit of mischief. They have very long memories in that part of the world.]It is really as simple as that.I will do my part at Brykerwoods School, Precinct 214, Election Judge (actually the alternate as it is the Dems turn to provide the chief judge). There will be no cheating on either side.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  16. JLM

    .Know why it isn’t?Cause the Dems like the idea that the Reps are headed to work and might not be able to vote.For many of the Dems, every day is a national holiday.I see this all the time as an Election Judge — when we open the polls at 7:00 AM, every voter in line is a Republican headed to work.At my polling point, it’s all doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs headed to work. Then the Dems start rolling out of bed at about 9:30. After work, it’s Republicans again. Even the Dem Election Judge laughs with me about this.[Please note this is an inflammatory, slight I admit, comment. Slightest bit of tongue in cheek.]JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  17. JLM

    .Medicine is just like politics — we get what we demand or deserve.Stay awake, AC.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  18. LE

    which is now averaging 2.15 hrs each wayI am thinking if you are spending 4 hours in the car each way you should be towing a small billboard and finding someone who wants to pay for advertising on that billboard. Not sure what car you drive or if that’s even possible but seems like there should be a way to turn that time in the car to revenue.The other alternative is to get your car wrapped but revenue wise that wouldn’t do as well as billboards which can be sold on a weekly or monthly basis.

  19. awaldstein

    indeed.we stumble forward.this has been just really ugly shit

  20. LE

    Honestly I don’t remember what you are driving 4 hours a day to do but I hope you have figured out that it’s better for you than painting houses and immediately earning money. Thing is you can paint houses (or do similar) and still pursue something else later or even part time. Only downside is if you paint houses (or similar) you will find that you will make enough that you probably will end up doing it for a long long time.Plenty of tax advantages to working for yourself as well. You can get work immediately by hooking up with realtors who will feed you work for people selling their houses. Only thing is that work will not get a premium but you have to start somewhere and then you can go for better work. You can also do light woodworking, baseboards and chairrails. And if you print up business cards that say “painter” nobody will ever ask you how long you have been doing it for.Get an old school business card that seems like you have been around for a long time.

  21. Donna Brewington White

    I’m not a businessman, I’m a business, man! -Jay-Z (and LE)

  22. cavepainting

    Painting a grim picture of your opponent’s potential presidency by threatening to impeach her and obstruct everything she would do is not a winning message. It is a shameful attempt at fear mongering.This is not a banana republic. I lived in one and this is the type of messaging I used to hear. “if you select me, I will put my opponent in jail. If you select my opponent, he / she will bring nothing but scandal and plague upon the country”.If Trump loses, as he looks likely to, the country deserves its chance at unity and coming together around Hillary. If you lose, be graceful and move on.

  23. cavepainting

    JLM, The FBI did a review of all the emails on Weiner’s laptop and just sent a letter to Congress clearing her. So much for all the innuendos and speculation. And for all your claims that there was something very incriminating. Shame on all of you for jumping the gun.The FBI should have never sent the letter to Congress and inserted itself into the election before being sure of what was in the e-mail.Hillary Clinton deserves constructive opposition, not pig-headed obstruction for everything she does based on unjustified hatred.Just FYI, I am not a liberal, and have voted as many times for a republican president as for a democratic one. But, I am not a fan of Republican Obstructionism, and the unending pouring of hatred towards Obama and Clinton.For you and others, it is time to move on. Clinton will likely win and I hope you learn to act as a responsible Republican party, not a renegade one.

  24. LE

    God I hate this type of stuff. Obama, Springsteen, Bon Jovi donate their time for Hillary. Her influence spans all sorts of legacy illegitimate ‘royalty’ in our country.http://www.philly.com/phill

  25. Pete Griffiths

    “They have very long memories in that part of the world.”They have very long memories everywhere. 🙂

  26. ShanaC

    Russia is making nice with Israel right now. Bibi is a bit crazy

  27. Salt Shaker

    Like your style; you’re certainly no caveman:)

  28. awaldstein

    Nice.So tired of this negative hateful bullshit from people so otherwise smart.Thanks!

  29. JLM

    .This is what liberals do — they make the election about a cult of personality and if one doesn’t worship at the feet of their goddess, they characterize it as grim or dark.In reality — a good place to keep one’s head — this is a cold, sober assessment of the legislative environment which the country will find itself in.It is exactly the legislative environment the country has found itself in since 2010, which was a measured reaction by the electorate as a result of two years of Dem control of the White House and the Congress.What will indict Hillary’s legislative program is the policies themselves. They are bad policies — as an example, NAFTA and TPP (two programs she used to support and now has somehow come to “oppose”) are not good trade agreements.Immigration is broken and HRC wants open borders (her private stance which is in conflict with her public stance and her previous stance of wanting to build the “wall”) and her desire to increase Middle Eastern immigration while not being able to pin down how she intends to ensure that flow of immigrants is not polluted with ISIS members.These are not policies which are going to be passed by a Republican Congress for reasons that honest folks will understand are genuine.This standoff is the direct result of the checks and balances written into the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. The Congress is supposed to be a “check and balance” on the Executive branch of the gov’t — not by accident but by design.As a check and balance, it is their job to oppose goofy legislation, oppose bad policies, question and conduct hearings on Executive Branch actions, investigate wrongdoing in accordance with their general oversight powers, and to “represent” the interests of the citizens who sent them there.This is their Constitutional duty.When Barack Obama took office, the first thing he did was to remind the Republicans he’d “won the election.” Then, he rammed through Obamacare — no regular order: no subcommittee meetings/votes, no committee meetings/votes, no floor debate, no amendments, on the floor for 72 hours before calling the vote, no chance to actually read its 2500 pages.The process was inartful and the resultant, legacy-defining, legislation has been a disaster. The Congress is understandably wary.Since 2010, he has not passed a single piece of legislation. He did this to himself. When he had the majority, he could have used that time to build coalitions (like LBJ did) and use those coalitions when he no longer had a majority in the Congress.No, this is reality. The reality may be grim but that will because of who the President is and how she conducts her business and whether she can get anyone to believe her — perhaps her toughest task. [I am only playing along with the premise that HRC wins on Tuesday for the benefit of the discussion.]JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  30. JLM

    .Yeah, you and me both. I even tire of the hateful bullshit from the dumb ones.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  31. JLM

    .Uhhh, may all be true in some places but not Pemberton Heights and Brykerwoods in the ATX, Sage of L.Besides, those jobs are moving and never coming back.Unless, you vote for DJT, CC.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  32. JLM

    .As it relates to the legislative environment (not really an agenda, an assessment of the environment only), the Dark Ages, here we come!On that we agree but then, that’s that “checks and balances” business at work.As to bigots, they don’t spend time rejoicing, too busy at their Klan meetings, no?As we all know, if one doesn’t agree with the President, one is a racist. No room for any intellectual disagreement, just a racist.If one doesn’t agree with HRC, one is a bigot. Again, no room for sincere, principled disagreement, just a bigot. [This is a tougher one to understand but you said it, so it has to be true, no?]Some of us deplorables are both.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  33. JLM

    .WTF does that even mean?A bigot is a person who treats a group of people with intolerance or who refuses to accept them.Disagreeing on ideas — which is different from burning down churches or conducting a lynching — is not evidence of bigotry (well except for liberals).People of good intent can disagree about the immigration policies of the US based on the economic impact of low skill, low wage expectation illegal aliens flooding the job force without being bigots.People can disagree on the subject of the right size of our military, given an assessment of the threat in the world, without being bigots.Those are called policy disagreements.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  34. JLM

    .I liked the Beckett version better, CC. I thought you were channeling Irish authors. He’s one of my favorites. The guy could write in both English (Irish) and French.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  35. JLM

    .So, Dir Comey is now batting .667? We don’t have to remove him from office?As to the issue of “constructive opposition” — is it going to be OK to send some thugs to her rallies? Or some mentally challenged folks? I want to make sure I get the rules right.[OK, I’m just screwing with you but you’re so damn easy. Sorry.]JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  36. cavepainting

    No, he made a really bad call to release information when he should have known a lot better. And his organization is leaking like a sieve and has clearly become more political and partisan.I would leave it up to you decide what “constructive” opposition means.

  37. LE

    Then, he rammed through ObamacareThis is as a result of his lack of seat of the pants feel for negotiating and getting things done. So his advisers tell him that the only way to get it done (and not end up failing like Hillary did) was to jam it through. But since he is relying on to others to think (just like Hillary will) he is completely blind to the fact that there will be payback for that type of behavior. And payback there was.This is a common newbie mistake and people do it in all sorts of professions. Inability to see the nuance of things and thinking something that works in one situation will work in another the same way. And not fully understanding personalities. This is a mistake that well educated people make. Street smart typically not as much. That said it’s entirely possible that his advisors told him about the pitfalls and he ignored them. Won’t know until they start writing books and saying where bodies are buried.

  38. sigmaalgebra

    > increase Middle Eastern immigration while not being able to pin down how she intends to ensure that flow of immigrants is not polluted with ISIS members.You seem to be assuming that she WANTS to so “pin down”.Sorry, but I have to entertain that Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform America” was to weaken America, make it no longer the leader of the free world, to use massive immigration to dilute and overrule the majority of Western European descent, i.e., stick-it to Whitey, also stick it to the Jews, set up Israel to be overrun and destroyed with all its Jews killed, and greatly increase the power and influence of Islam in the US.Uh, Obama just invited illegal aliens to vote:https://www.youtube.com/wat…That should violate the Constitutional requirement that the POTUS enforce the laws, right, and be impeachable, right?Okay, I’ll look it up: It’s in the duties of the POTUS: Article. II.Section. 3.he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed And Hillary is a bought and paid for tool of the Saudis and the Sunnis. Our founding fathers clearly saw the danger of such a Hillary:Article. I.Section. 9.No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. BTW, ISIS is Sunni. The Saudis are Sunni. Huma is Saudi. The Saudis are supporting ISIS. Assad is essentially Shia. The Sunnis and Shia hate each other, have been in a 1000+ year war. Hillary, the Saudis, and ISIS all want to kill Assad.So, it appears that Hillary wants more of the Saudis, Sunnis, and ISIS in the US. So, ISIS will promise Hillary, as they basically hold a terrorist threat, by then maybe a nuke, to her head, to behave if she will let them grow in power in the US.Islam and ISIS are not just a religion guys.Let’s see, one of the cases of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, right? And a violation in the Constitution is officials taking money from foreign countries, e.g.. as I quoted above. Hillary’s actions look like treason and otherwise a violation of the Constitution to me.Looks that way to me: Hillary has a lot of hate, for traditional marriage, for any traditional role for women, for men, and for the US, and a big thirst for money and is willing to sell out the US to the Saudis, other Sunnis, and ISIS for a few $B. Looks that way to me.Or, in simplest terms, that’s why both Obama and Hillary want to import so many Muslims, nearly all Sunnis, from in and near Syria and the areas of ISIS and won’t say “radical Islamic terrorism” and instead, what was it, “workplace violence”?It’s right in front of us, guys, hiding in plain sight. It’s so obvious we refuse to see it. How obvious do you want it to be before you do see it? Want to wait until the US is destroyed before you do see it?A key to our blindness and willingness to let our country be destroyed? Sure, political correctness that won’t let us criticize a Black, a woman, or, now, a radical Islamic terrorist. Look, guys, Islam is no more just a religion than Soviet Communism was. As I’ve guessed here at AVC before, political correctness looks like a wildly brilliant sabotage of US power by some genius Soviet.You’ve got ’till polls close on Tuesday to start to see it and do your part to save the US.

  39. Pete Griffiths

    Do you think the Republicans in Congress should block Supreme Court nominees?

  40. JLM

    .I would love to know what is really going on over at the FBI. I think former Ass’t Dir James Kallstrom is probably right. The FBI is at a boil and ready to explode.I agree completely that Dir Comey should not have taken any role in the matter. He should have sent his info over to the DOJ with a recommendation it be submitted to a grand jury and left it at that.He should have demurred to the Congress and said, “I have sent the evidence to the DOJ and they will decide the further disposition of it. I recommended/did not recommend it be sent forward to a grand jury.”That would have been the cleanest procedure for his institution. Now, the FBI is tainted and has become suspect.The top 5 at the DOJ are political appointees but the FBI Dir serves for 10 years and he’s only 3 years in on his 10-year term.The FBI is likely neither political nor partisan — they are law & order guys. They act like law & order guys whose inclinations are impacted by the presence or absence of crime.The Bureau did the investigation for Patrick Fitzgerald on both the Scooter Libby (Rep Chief of Staff to Cheney) in the Valerie Plame case and in the Dem Gov Rod Blagejovich cases as well as a bunch of Mayor Daly assistants in Chicago.Those cases involved the DC and Chicago offices and they had no problem putting both Republicans and Democrats in jail. I mention these cases because they were high profile and complicated with enough political pressure to create a leak but they did not.I suspect we have not heard the end of the FBI and HRC saga.The next AG will have a tough job.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  41. cavepainting

    Obama felt strongly enough about providing healthcare for the millions who cannot afford it that he decided to take the nuclear route, fully knowing he was ruining his chances of a second term. I saw an article that claims that he told Rahm Emmanuel who advised against ramming it through, “If this means, I will be a one-term president, so be it”.The republican congress was dead set against any kind of negotiation, so why do you think they would have agreed to any compromise ?I am very convinced that Obama is less motivated by self-interest and more by the need to have a positive impact on the vulnerable and needy. You can disagree with the policy prescription, but is hard to argue that he wants to do right by the people.

  42. JLM

    .Pres Obama had been Sen Obama which suggests he knew Obamacare might be a bridge too far for his former Senate colleagues. I suspect (not an original thought, something I heard Karl Rove say) he was afraid that the legislation would fail if given the chance to be openly debated on the floor of the House and Senate. That’s why no regular order, which really is incredible in retrospect.If the legislation was a winner, it would have required no lies or speed to pass. If it were so great, it would have been a trophy for him and set his legacy. Now, it has set his legacy but not in the manner he’d hoped.When one sees the logic used by the Dr Gruber’s of the world and how well it treated insurance companies, it is not difficult to embrace the idea it was Pres Obama and Valerie Jarret v the entire world.He was never particularly close to either Sen Harry Reid or Congresswoman Pelosi and many Senators and Congressman paid the price for their vote. Obamacare delivered the Senate to the Republicans and cost Harry Reid his majority leader position.If Obama had been clever, he’d have thrown the Republicans in the Senate a bone — national insurance contracts or tort reform — in return for their support. The Republicans would have given him 15-20 votes, easily. That was bad “whipping” on his part.Regardless who wins on Tuesday, Obamacare will have to be fixed and quickly as it is financially imploding.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  43. awaldstein

    Ha!You know my friend I have done my home work these past six months.Forced myself to listen to those I respect and don’t agree with to learn. Embraced the nuance of every position as nothing here is black and white.Agreement. Disagreement. They are everywhere on all sidesSmart. Not so. Opinions run amuck.What I know is that hate and disparagement simply lowers the bar. It is all wrong regardless of the source by it’s very nature.I can’t play that way. Not in my nature.

  44. JLM

    .Not to be too precise but the Republicans did not control the House or the Senate during the Obamacare passage. The Dems did.There was no Republican opposition of any kind whatsoever because the bill was not presented to “regular order” meaning there were no subcommittee meetings/discussions/votes, no committee meetings/discussions/votes, no floor debate, no amendments, no chance to read the thing before the vote was called.Two thousand five hundred pages available for less than three days before the vote and no administration or Congressional explanation of what it contained or meant.Nancy Pelosi, famously, said: “We have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it.”Not one Republican voted for the bill. The bill was passed only with Dem votes. The Dems own this POS and many of them lost their Congressional seats over it.The President, famously, lied that America could keep its doctors, insurors, and the costs would be reduced by $2500 per year for the average family.One of the reasons it was rammed through was because it would never have passed if the bill had actually been examined and debated. This is why regular order is so critical. It allows ideas to be tested and poked and prodded to find the truth of them.Had Obamacare been so presented, it never would have passed.Now, it is the worst piece of eponymous legislation in the history of the US.Other than that, you nailed it.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  45. LE

    I saw an article that claims that he told Rahm Emmanuel who advised against ramming it through, “If this means, I will be a one-term president, so be it”.I think that’s probably a made up story actually. Just sounds to perfect. I don’t believe that it happens like that. Honestly I don’t.The republican congress was dead set against any kind of negotiation, so why do you think they would have agreed to any compromiseYou are saying it was like gun control. It’s not. And he could have negotiated and returned some favors in exchange for having something that resembled a better obamacare. That is the art of politics. It wasn’t gun control the people were not dead set against it and a deal could have be cut.I am very convinced that Obama is less motivated by self-interest and more by the need to have a positive impact on the vulnerable and needy.I just don’t believe it. And actually it doesn’t even matter to me. Nobody gets to that position in life by having that attitude. For god’s sake he shits on his own half brother and for that matter when his wife whines he does the same to Oprah.Look anything is possible but it’s very hard for me to believe.

  46. LE

    If Obama had been clever, he’d have thrown the Republicans in the Senate a bone — national insurance contracts or tort reform — in return for their support.Exactly. Read my comment to @cavepainting:disqus which I made before reading this.Actually here it is:And he could have negotiated and returned some favors in exchange for having something that resembled a better obamacare. That is the art of politics. It wasn’t gun control the people were not dead set against it and a deal could have be cut.Amazing how obvious this is. What happens when you have a Harvard educated book smart lawyer who doesn’t understand negotiation and compromise. His wife probably told him he was right as well. Crooked Hillary would have done much better I hate to say it but it’s true. (The ‘crooked’ is the key ingredient here..) My god even the fucking mythical mafia tries to not use force on the first try.

  47. sigmaalgebra

    To me, ObamaCare has been such a disaster, from the first town halls trying to get support for it to the present, I can’t believe that ANYONE expected it to be successful.For Obama, he didn’t try to make ObamaCare good and apparently didn’t care: E.g., at one of the town halls he shot his mouth off about the cost of amputations, didn’t have even a clue what the heck he was talking about, got it badly wrong, and got a big slap down by the American College of Surgeons. After that mostly Obama just shut up about any of the details of ObamaCare.Obama didn’t need to care about getting the details of ObamaCare right because he knew it was going to pass, and that was enough for him.Obama did want it passed. Why?(A) As in myhttp://avc.com/2016/11/if-y…above, Obama wants to hurt the US, and ObamaCare was a good way to do that.(B) Obama wanted to claim for at least the rest of his time in office that he had done something good. He hoped it would last until the end of his term and then wanted the next POTUS to take the heat of trying to fix it.Pelosi just wanted to be the big swinging bitch although no telling what she wanted to be swinging! Maybe give her a strap-on!So, she wanted GIRL POWER!Barney Frank knew ObamaCare would flop but saw it as a first step to what he really wanted, single-payer,http://www.youtube.com/watc…that is, what Hillary now says she wants, Canada style socialized medicine.So, net, ObamaCare was never expected to work.Everyone knew that ObamaCare would flop and would have to be fixed. The people for ObamaCare believed that the fix would be single-payer. The people against ObamaCare believed that the fix would be to repeal it and return to something like we had before but better, say, with competition in medical insurance from the ability of medical insurance companies to sell across state lines, etc.Net, ObamaCare was a shot in the gut of the US and of US health care for reasons of political dirt and nonsense.If we keep shooting the US in the gut, we will begin to feel the pain.

  48. Pete Griffiths

    “If the legislation was a winner, it would have required no lies or speed to pass”I think Obama was naive but I don’t buy this idea for a second.

  49. creative group

    JLM:”something I heard Karl Rove say”.Self admitting you listen to a fool who is still awaiting a precinct of votes to arrive and who lost over a half billion dollars selling a false bill of election goods.Real winners you two.Will chalk it up to you actually losing your damn mind. That could have begun a couple of light years ago. Change the tin foil.

  50. LE

    Noting that nobody has explained how that shit ended up on Weiners computer and what the implications of that are. You know email wise you can’t just suck in some info you end up getting everything. Why was it there?And as I am sure you are aware if a laptop is stolen or comprised it’s trivial to get at deleted files as well. Not like it was wiped almost for sure. They didn’t answer the question of how many work related emails were on Weiner’s computer (high security or not).Have they spoken to Weiner to get his take? Where is that info and interview? Isn’t it important to know that?

  51. cavepainting

    LE, you seem to operate from a mode that everyone in the world succeeds only by being an asshole and looking out for themselves.This is simply not true. Some are motivated less by self and more by bringing about a tangible difference to other people’s lives.The story about Rahm Emmanuel is true and was quoted by several people including Biden. Have you read Obama’s books – Dreams from my father and audacity of hope ? May be you should to get a better sense of what drives him.Your read of the Republican Congress is inconsistent with the polarization in the country and how they have acted in the last 8 years.

  52. Pete Griffiths

    Everything I have seen about negotiations on health care suggest to me that it is like gun control. The real problem is that the only real solution is single payer and that is unacceptable to a powerful faction.

  53. LE

    Exactly. And “treats” is not the same as language anyway for that matter.

  54. LE

    So you are claiming that what someone writes in a book is entirely representative of what they think and isn’t done for some other purpose or to achieve another goal? We know for example that many of the things that Donald says are entire bullshit with no basis. Why do you feel that what someone writes in a book is entirely true as far as the way that they feel.LE, you seem to operate from a mode that everyone in the world succeeds only by being an asshole and looking out for themselves.Didn’t say that. Don’t think that. Specifically ‘everybody’. And yes Jobs was an asshole by most accounts. And Apple as a business had a history of crapping on customers to achieve their goals.

  55. JLM

    .There is a reason why they are going all in in Philadelphia only two days from the election. They must be looking at their numbers and sweating.The Dems own Philadelphia — the Walking Around Money Capital of Christendom.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  56. LE

    Meanwhile public transit is on strike in Philly. However the union won’t go back even for election day. And a judge won’t decide until Monday whether to send them back. He has already denied it the other day. Now we know that the union and union workers support Hillary and want her to win. And we know that Philly is very important as well. And they know it obviously. So the question is why does the union not end the strike for one day? Because they (when it’s in their direct self interest) won’t give in an ounce for the better of others. Do as I say not as I do. Or is it “a liberal is a conservative that hasn’t been mugged”.

  57. JLM

    .’I suspect a transit strike actually helps turnout for Dems as they will be home where they live and vote, no?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  58. LE

    When when I had a business in the city and there was a Septa strike we had to do all sorts of things carpooling wise to get people to work. People with cars picking up people or some other things even picking up workers. Some people (say hospital nurses) have to get to their jobs. It’s a big mess. So timing wise it presents a problem to get to the polls. Plus people are exhausted as well since it’s not their normal routine.Ok QED:http://planphilly.com/artic

  59. JLM

    .Fair play to you. Interesting article.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  60. cavepainting

    I did not claim that. What people write in books does not always reflect what they think and yes, many like Trump are highly manipulative. But some people like Obama are different, speak from their hearts and genuinely want to effect change. I believe in his authenticity and his desire to do good. You can choose to not believe that, and it is your choice.I hate the Steve Jobs example. Just because he was an asshole and succeeded does not mean it justifies being an asshole. I would also say that he wanted the best for Apple and for his team to produce the best work vs. best for himself. There is a significant difference between the two.And yes, the apple of today does take customers for granted and it will eventually boomerang on them.

  61. cavepainting

    It needs changes for sure. But let us acknowledge that 20 m people have insurance today that they did not have before.Where is the republican alternative to Obamacare ? Where are the tangible and specific suggestions to make it better without taking away the benefits for the 20 m people?

  62. JLM

    .Let me dissect that 20MM number for you.First, it takes credit for babies born who are covered by their parents policies. They are “new” persons and they are covered.Second, it takes credit for people who became eligible for and were enrolled in Medicare — 65 years old. They may have cancelled a private or employer plan and then enrolled in Medicare.Third, it takes credit for indigents who were newly covered by Medicaid.Fourth, it takes credit for Millenials who are able to stay on their parents’ policies through age 26.Fifth, it takes credit for persons who got a job and are now covered by their new employer’s policy.Sixth, it takes credit for college students who were covered by college plans and who are now covered by any other plan — parents, new employer, military.Seventh, it takes credit for people who lost their coverage — their insuror pulled out of a state as an example, which happened to me — and who subsequently were covered by another insuror.Some of these numbers are difficult to get a handle on but the net is that somewhere around 5-6MM persons, who did not have insurance, were able to receive a quote through an exchange.Then, you have the actual performance of the exchanges themselves which are failing at a wholesale rate.The 20MM number comes from a CBO estimate which has been updated to 11.1MM (which includes all the categories I have enumerated above).http://www.nationalreview.c…It is questionable whether there has been any real net gain at all that would not have occurred by normal functions.What is true is that a great number of persons are uninsured because they cannot afford the premiums, the deductibles, the cost of service.The same CBO which estimated 20MM says there are about 11.1MM who are actually paying their premiums with the likelihood that will dip below 10MM shortly when the increased premium shock hits.Remember, Obamacare was supposed to provide a subsidy which was supposed to make insurance affordable when, in fact, what has happened is the rate of premium growth has far exceeded the level of subsidy.The state sponsored exchanges themselves are going bankrupt — 13/23 as of Jan 2016 with another eight likely to close by the gov’t FY of 1 Oct 2017.http://freebeacon.com/issue…What is true is that nobody got to keep their doctor, insuror, or that premiums went down $2500. What has happened is chaos, dramatically increased premiums, huge deductibles with no co-pays, and an increasing cost of actual care.The gov’t has done everything possible to cloak this disaster in a silk dress when it is not even on life support — can’t afford it.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  63. JLM

    .Let me try to explain it to you.First, HRC is not a possibility for me. Consider it a job interview w/ two candidates. I interviewed HRC first and sent her on her way for a number of reasons — chief amongst them her failures as Sec of State, her missing legislative record, her lack of integrity, her strained relationship with the truth. Track record and character.Second, in a binary election, I get two choices. I got rid of one and am left with only the second candidate. That’s what binary means. Two. The job has to be filled, so your description of my being an “advocate” is not terribly accurate.I was never electing a Pope. I was always electing a Commander in Chief and a President.Having said that, even in a direct comparison I prefer one over the other even if I hadn’t eliminated the first applicant.Third, let’s talk about the implications of the article you noted. Trump put a corporation he managed into bankruptcy, Federal bankruptcy. It was a corporate bankruptcy and not a personal bankruptcy.It was a Ch 11 which resulted in a court ordered restructuring which required the joinder of a majority of each class of creditors (secured, unsecured, wages).In general, secured creditors collect 100% of their money or get their collateral. The unsecured creditors (many of whom are unsecured because they failed to file the appropriate mechanics and materialmens liens on real property thereby losing their rights of attachment) get a percentage of what they are owed but only if a majority of their class of creditors approves the plan and the Court then orders it so.The plan of reorganization, as they always do, gave everybody a haircut. Nobody got stiffed. Everybody got some portion of what they were owed paid. The secured creditors got a small haircut and the unsecured creditors got a big haircut.The alternative was to convert the Ch 11 petition to a Ch 7 petition which is a liquidation as opposed to a restructuring. In a liquidation, the secured creditors get the full value of their collateral up to the limit of the indebtedness.The unsecured creditors get what’s left after everything is sold off. They always get pennies on a dollar.[You know who always gets paid 100%? The lawyers.]I go to the trouble to explain this because you want to leave the impression that Trump did something either unethical or against the law. He did not. The company was insolvent, he was the manager of the company, he put it into bankruptcy to buy the time to reorganize the financial structure.Let’s be clear, the manager of an enterprise has a fiduciary duty to the owners to maximize the value of their ownership. He had no choice if he thought taking it through bankruptcy was the path to maximum value for the owners.One may fairly discredit his business acumen for having managed the corporation into bankruptcy but that would require one to ignore the fact that gaming, industry wide, was struggling and contracting.All perfectly lawful. All under Court supervision. All approved by the creditors by class. All approved by the Court.I have been a creditor in bankruptcy court and I have bought some assets from bankruptcies. It is very well organized and supervised.I really do not hate Hillary or Obama — I’d like to think I don’t hate anyone — but I do disagree with their policies. When I complain of them, I complain of their utterances and their policies, not them personally. I am totally indifferent to them as persons.The opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. I am totally indifferent to Hillary and Obama. As they say, “I would not piss on their faces if their hair was on fire.” [OK, that’s a little harsh.]Know your shit before you start judging people, Charlie.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  64. cavepainting

    No question it needs to get fixed as the underlying mechanics and assumptions have not worked as expected.But the problems it was trying to solve (pre-existing conditions, insurance access for the self-employed and the unemployed, more protection for the consumer to not get screwed by the insurance companies, etc. ) are very real.I have a friend who is a startup CEO whose wife’s life was saved by Obamacare, and I know many self-employed who see it as a blessing. Before we repeal and replace, we need real solutions on how these problems can be addressed. It is clear that open and free insurance markets optimize not for the consumer, but for the suppliers. Government controlled markets on the other hand are bureaucratic and ineffective. People need to work together to find a real solution that can hit the sweet spot.

  65. JLM

    .”…not worked as expected…”It is a huge financial failure. It is not a matter of dusting off some bird shit and putting a coat of wax on this. It is a disaster and is costing so much money, we could afford to provide free medical care to the original intended customers.The greatest beneficiaries were the insurance companies and insiders who wrote the legislation. Look at their stock prices during the applicable period of time.The pre-existing conditions was a great idea but it was simply priced in by the insurance companies at full boat and could have been accomplished by different legislation.The failure to allow an insurance company to write policies nationwide and to, conversely, not cherry pick which states it wanted to do business in was a fatal flaw. It destroyed competition.The wholesale failure of the state exchanges — a trillion dollar mistake — proves this.The absence of tort reform was a blunder. It made the lawyers and the personal injury bar into sweepstakes winners when their cost has no impact on customer service, coverage, or quality of care.Using anecdotal information to justify a plan for 320MM Americans is not useful. Nobody in the US can be denied health care. That is the law. They may be ruined financially — that is the harsh reality of personal finance.”People need to work together…” which means legislation that is written by the industry, which is rammed through without regular order (subcommittee meetings/discussion/votes, committee meetings/discussions/votes, floor debate, amendments, plenty of time to review/read the legislation before voting on it) always ends up a mess. This was completely Obama’s fault.Even Nancy Pelosi admitted she had no idea what she was voting for.This was a monumental jug fuck and should have a bullet put in its head before it drowns under its own weight.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  66. creative group

    cavepainting:If OBAMA was the version of white (Having no recognizable melanin) that settled correctly with the Right Wing they would have accepted a quarter of his positions.Here are ten ideas Republicans loved until Barry wanted to adopt them.http://www.eclectablog.com/

  67. JLM

    . It is the duty of the Senate as a whole to “advise and consent” as it pertains to the President’s Supreme Court nominations, not the Congress.The Senate has no Constitutionally prescribed deadline by which to respond to a President’s nominations. So, the burden to convince the Senate to undertake the consideration of a nominee is really the President’s to meet.Part of the “advise” duty can be to inform a President on specific nominees before they are formally nominated. The Senate has historically been quite emphatic on this matter such as in the Bork and post-Bork nominations.The President has a valuable tool in gathering advice from the Senate Judicial Committee. Not to be overly obvious but that is their core duty and a President unnecessarily complicates the fate of a nomination by failing to use this tool.I don’t think a smart President nominates someone without knowing whether it can get out of the Judicial Committee before making a nomination.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  68. Pete Griffiths

    Good stuff. But it doesn’t directly address the question.Let’s bear in mind that the Republicans in Congress just blocked (I think it is unprecedented) a Presidential nominee. And this nominee was not seen as anything other than centrist.So let’s for a moment imagine HC wins. Do you see it as legitimate do block anyone she suggest for her term? For two terms?

  69. JLM

    .You do not know your SCOTUS nomination history. Go research Bork, et al.Asked and answered.Whether a nominee is centrist or a ventriloquist is not germane. A President has to get his nominee a hearing by the Senate Judicial Committee. No hearing, no referral to the entire Senate. No vote.It takes a cloture vote and a simple majority to get a confirmation so the President either has to control the Senate or otherwise please the Senate.That is exactly the way the Founding Fathers set up the “advise and consent” check and balance. It requires the President to consult with the co-equal branch of gov’t.I would expect any Senator to vote in the Committee or on the floor of the Senate as he sees fit.If I were a conservative Senator and a nominee was a danger to the conservative (strict constructionist) view of the law, I would vote against the nominee forever.If the shoe were on the other foot, such as Bork, I would expect to be similarly treated.It is the President’s duty to nominate persons who can be confirmed. It is not the Senate’s duty to rubberstamp nominations.Go study Bork.Just for the record, I think Kagan and Sotomayor (Obama appointees) are token appointments and second rate legal scholars and legal minds. Merrick Garland is hardly a centrist. I suspect his Second Amendment views will make it impossible to win confirmation.I harken back to unanimous votes such as Steven’s when the President put forth a legal scholar who garnered a 98-0 vote. It came out of committee unanimous.JLM http://www.themusingsofthebigredca...

  70. Pete Griffiths

    i am familiar with Bork’s nomination but we are here discussing something of a quite different kind.The democrats fought against the nomination of Bork.The current republicans are pledging to fight against the nomination of any of HC’s choices, just as they blocked Obama’s.This is different in kind. Bork’s reject was a specific individual.You’re right; “It is the President’s duty to nominate persons who can be confirmed. It is not the Senate’s duty to rubberstamp nominations.”But neither is it the senate’s duty to block all nominations just because they are out to humiliate the president and frustrate him/her at every turn. And let’s not pretend this has not been an explicit and oft stated strategy.

  71. Twain Twain

    So here’s where Trump doesn’t make sense, JLM …You wrote: “One may fairly discredit his business acumen for having managed the corporation into bankruptcy but that would require one to ignore the fact that gaming, industry wide, was struggling and contracting.”The US economy is struggling and contracting. That can’t be ignored.Trump proved, time and again, that he does NOT have the leadership, judgement, experience or management skills to manage his entities so that they could avoid debt default risks and bankruptcy in difficult times.So WHY+HOW would he have the leadership, judgement, experience or management skills to turn around USA Inc?———I’m with @ccrystle:disqus : Trump should have paid those contractors on a timely basis BEFORE they got anywhere near a Chapter 11 situation.If he was economically competent, he’d have budgeted to pay his creditors on a timely basis.So, aside from the simple principle of “Be reciprocally respectful to people you do business with,” the fact that Trump MISMANAGED his companies so that they defaulted on their debt risks and needed to file for bankruptcy protection not once, not twice but SIX times … are red flags.If he couldn’t manage his own companies well and took on too much debt risks, he can’t be trusted with the balance sheets of USA Inc.Moreover, let’s examine the economic policies rather than the personalities.1. American Action Forum, a right-leaning think tank, projects:Trump’s tax and spending plans would add nearly $6.8 trillion to US debt over the next decade.Clinton’s would be an additional $1.5 trillion to US debt over the next decade.2. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects:Trump will add $5.3 trillion to the debt in the next decade.Clinton will add $200 billion to the debt in the next decade.3. The Tax Policy Center projects:Trump’s tax plan alone will add at least $7 trillion in the next decade.Clinton’s tax plan alone will reduce the debt by $1.5 trillion in the next decade.——-In October, Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton “lost as much as $6 billion in taxpayer money while she was running the State Department. Now, some people say it was misplaced. Oh, billions of dollars misplaced.” He then repeated it at one of the presidential debates.According to the Washington Post: “The $6 billion was not lost or misplaced; it’s that $6 billion in contracts had missing paperwork. On top of that, the majority of contracts with missing or incomplete paperwork stemmed from the Bush administration, before Clinton became secretary of state.”https://www.washingtonpost….Meanwhile, Trump mismanaged his company finances: high debt default risks, 6 bankruptcies and $1 billion loss of his own money.Even if we were to overlook his non-Pope-like words and actions, he’s a risk to the US’s economy.

  72. Twain Twain

    There are folks who use their smarts and hard work to become $billionaires legally AND morally, creating wealth for others alongside their own successes.As Warren Buffett pointed out, he should not pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. He’s been paying federal income tax since he was 13, never used a carry forward from a loss on any of those 72 tax returns and doesn’t have any investments that let him take advantage of tax provisions on carried interest.Trump’s version of “capitalism without consideration for others” has resulted in fiscal bankruptcy 6 times. It’s an example of moral bankruptcy leading to fiscal bankruptcy.To enable him to do that and play with the US’s economic and political system would just be insensible.

  73. JLM

    .I am not aware that Trump has a “long list” of others he stiffed.I am aware he bought Doral in Florida out of bankruptcy and that was a bloody mess as he terminated a lot of contracts — all approved by the bankruptcy court as part of the approved sale.You insult me with your comment. It is one of the reasons I have championed the return of dueling in the US.http://themusingsofthebigre…I am having a lot of difficulty gaining traction on my campaign. Maybe a Kickstarter?In other circumstances, I would have to challenge you to a duel to defend my honor.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  74. JLM

    .I don’t know where your are getting the intel that the Republicans are “pledging to fight against the nomination of any of HRC’s choices, just as they blocked Obama’s.”Obama put forward two nominees, both of whom were confirmed. Both were inferior legal minds and smacked of tokenism.Obama put forward Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia and the leader of the Senate and the Chair of the SJC said they did not intend to consider this nomination for a variety of reasons including the “lame duck” nature of Pres Obama’s tenure and the pendency of the election.Those appear to be specific reasons for not acting upon a nomination. You may not agree with that reasoning but that is not the criteria upon which the Senate is required to act.The President knew this sentiment before he even began to put his Christmas list together.The Senate could have alternatively simply held a vote and turned the nomination down which would have doomed the nominee as there are no second chances w/ the SCOTUS nominees.Pres Obama did not consult with the Senate before forwarding his nomination.It is the President’s job to seek the advice of the Senate as part of their duty to advise and consent. If he chooses not to follow that advice, then he goes down a path of his own choosing.I can’t see much for the President to beef about as it relates to his SCOTUS nominations.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  75. JLM

    .TT, do you give the chap any credit for having built a huuuuuuuuuuuuge company and having made a bloody fortune in the real estate biz?Does he get any credit for captaining that ship?To clear up a point, Trump used Ch 11 four times, not six. Two had multiple properties in them. All four of them were approved by both the creditors and the court.One of the reasons that the contractors were not paid was they had not finished their work. The vast majority of them had not reserved their materialmans and mechanics lien rights and became unsecured creditors as a result.None of these contractors had a direct contractual relationship with DJT or the corporation controlled by DJT — they were subcontractors to a general contractor.The general contractor can be fairly criticized for not having created a “trust fund” which is created by obtaining a representation from a lender that he has allocated sufficient funds for the completion of the project. This is required to set up the M & M lien rights.Be fair. You sound like a lunatic.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  76. JLM

    .WB owns stock in a corporation — Berkshire Hathaway, a C corp — which is a holding company for a disparate array of wholly owned companies. It is a public company and, as such, is not a “pass through” entity.His wealth is in his stock ownership.As such, there is no pass through of the results of BH or any of its companies to its shareholders just as there is no pass through of Exxon’s results to your tax return should you own 100 shares of Exxon.BH is the tax paying entity, not Warren Buffett.He is not structurally in a position to receive any losses of BH or any of its wholly owned corporate subsidiaries as a matter of the Tax Code and his form of ownership and the legal entity in which he owns shares.WB’s income is the product of capital gains which are taxed differently than ordinary income.WB has capital gain income — only if he sells shares and has a gain in the sale. If he were to take a capital gain, he’d pay taxes at capital gain rates.WB’s secretary has ordinary income (salary) and pays taxes at ordinary income tax rates.Several of BH’s subs have had bloody years (the insurance and reinsurance subs during the derivatives crisis) and have lost massive amounts of money. They used those losses to offset past, current, and future income IAW the provisions of loss carry backs and carry forwards.In certain instances, they may be able to pass these losses along to their mothership, BH, and use them to offset gains — again, past, present, future.Again, this is where the taxes are paid in the instance of “C” corporations.Trump conducts his business through the use of “pass through” entities such as general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability corporations which do not pay taxes, but rather, allocate gains and losses to their partners or members (the term to identify owners of an LLC).These partners and members receive Form K-1s (allocation of partnership gains or losses) from the entity and are liable for the taxes thereon.The losses attributed to Trump and Berkshire Hathaway or its wholly owned subs are identical. Where the tax liability lies is different and how it is reported is different.WJC/HRC have used pass through entities and have reported similar losses which they used to offset past, current, and future income. Their numbers are just much, much smaller than DJT’s.Real estate developers — of which I was once one — use pass through conduits to be able to tap into depreciation, interest, and operating losses in order to minimize their tax liability.This is not “free” as these losses must be made whole when a property is sold. You can take losses for years thereby lowering your cost basis and then when the entity is sold your lowered cost basis means you pay taxes on a higher gain and thereby are impacted by “recapture.”There is no free lunch, there is just a long time to the day of reckoning.Since 1986, developers, as active partners, are the only persons who can take such deductions.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  77. Twain Twain

    Lol, Trump is the one who sounds like a lunatic.If he presented his case in the way you do, trying to parse through the facts rather than the hyperboles of his ego and/or victimhood (“I’m rich and have used the system to get rich, but now everything’s rigged against me”), he’d have stood a better chance of people taking a chance on him.Instead, he alienated people across party lines, across classes and across the world with his lunacy.Parking that aside, I do really appreciate that you explain the contract arrangements in real estate development and WB’s set-up compared with Trump’s.I can understand your admiration and support of Trump. His persona and policies persuade some people and not others.

  78. JLM

    .I do not really “admire” Trump but I do support his candidacy — by my vote only — because I find him to be the better of a binary choice which I made by eliminating the other candidate.He is a bit of a churl.But, we are not electing a Pope; we are electing a President. I do not care about whether my surgeon is a mysogynist. Only whether he can make a go of MY operation. Nothing else really matters.I honestly fear that HRC will lead us into a shooting war with the Russians and/or the Chinese. She did vote for the Iraq war. She did destroy Libya. She did totally misjudge Syria. She has made a cock up of the Middle East when she had plenty of advisers around her.She is also as crooked as a corkscrew and she will not get a single piece of legislation through Congress during her first term.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  79. JLM

    .Now, I’m going to have to shoot you twice, Alexander.It is rich being prodded about matters of honor by an HRC supporter, no? Very rich, indeed. The most crooked woman in the history of politics — the Eva Peron of the US.That’s who you’re sleeping with, Bread Boy. << I like that.Be well but beware.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  80. Pete Griffiths

    For example:http://www.politico.com/sto…There are many many more.And btw Ted Cruz may be an odious scumbag but he is unquestionably a fine legal mind.

  81. JLM

    .And here I thought you were a charm school grad.Light years are a measure of distance, not time, Einstein.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

  82. creative group

    JLM:you prove you have lost your mind. The distance between your brain and ears. Jeez