Another Conservative Endorsement for Clinton as Trump Flails

The San Diego Union Tribune endorses Hillary Clinton. It's the paper's first endorsement of a Democrat in 168 years. The editorial is the least interesting one so far. I'm not linking due to auto-play video.

Shorter version: Trump is "vengeful, dishonest and impulsive" and Hillary is a safe choice.

In other Trump news, his latest campaign rally started really late (supposedly due to fog), he sounds like a crazy person, and (best news yet) people left early.

Two papers today say if Donald Trump loses North Carolina, he can't win -- and the state's not looking good for him.

As he swings more and more into desperation mode, I wonder at what point he just implodes.

< Saturday Night Trump Mocking and Open Thread | Kim Kardashian Tied Up, Robbed in Paris Apartment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    ... of an inoperable brain tumor, the late Lee Atwater lamented the things he did in the name of naked political ambition, and apologized to Michael Dukakis for the "naked cruelty" that he had inflicted upon the 1988 Democratic nominee with the blatantly racist Willie Horton ads.

    Fast forward 25 years, and we find GOP communications director Sean Spicer literally bragging to the media about "[launching] Willie Horton style attack" on Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine.

    Clearly, we're going to need a bigger basket.

    Update: Spicer's tweet has been deleted. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 06:43:28 PM EST
    But it's apparently still up on the GOP's own Twitter feed.

    Trump Foundation has just been ordered (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    to cease fundraising in New York, since they never field the necessary paperwork to collect donations after they converted it from a family-funded only foundation.

    Maybe they will also have to give the money back to donors...might have to sell a couple of life-size portraits of Trump to recover the cash.

    This is big (none / 0) (#4)
    by smott on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 03:19:13 PM EST

    This is the money Graf:
     "provide all the financial audit reports it should have provided in prior years" .

    To wit:
    In the letter, his office provided notice to Mr. Trump's foundation that within 15 days it must provide certain documents required to be filed by organizations that solicit contributions, including audited financial statements and annual financial reports. It also must file any "delinquent reports" for past years within that time frame.

    "The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports" with the charities bureau, Mr. Sheehan said, "shall be deemed a fraud upon the people of the state of New York."

    Trouble is, how can they provide audited financial statements when they've been set up
    all along to avoid audits? Have there been any?


    Thye will shut the whole Fraundation down before (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    they do any such thing. Believe me.

    It's not like they even really care about the charity. It was all just a scheme. Shut it down and move on to the next grift.  


    Well then they have committed (none / 0) (#6)
    by smott on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    fraud against the state of NY.

    Any tax lawyers about? What are the penalties?


    Probalby providing any paperwork would (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    only be proof of more fraud than we even know about yet.

    His whole "career"... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 04:56:07 PM EST
    has been a fraud against the people of NY, NJ, FL, the world. Moral definition, common sense definition, if not all by legal definition.

    What makes you think this will amount to any official admission of wrongdoing? Never mind a penalty, that's just a little off the top of these things anyway. Ask Wells Fargo.

    We should maybe thank Trump for shining a light on what passes for business as usual for multimillionaires and billionaires in this country...finally. I don't expect it to sink in, but if not now...when?

    Don't stone me but crooked corporate Dems are as culpable as anybody. This clown was a loyal Democrat for most of his life, working NY's Democratic machine to run his scams.


    Trump was never (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 05:00:35 PM EST
    loyal to any party. He just flipped back and forth to which ever one suited his needs at that time. In 2000 he was going to run for president on the Reform party ticket.

    I believe the minimum (none / 0) (#11)
    by smott on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 05:29:58 PM EST
    If found to have raised money in violation of the statute, is that Trump has to return the donations.

    Again, any one w knowledge of these laws please chime in.

    I think tha tax returns/parked debt may be the far bigger fish, but I am no expert.


    NY Atty General (none / 0) (#39)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Oct 06, 2016 at 06:28:42 PM EST
    may sue for restitution, penalties, damages, and costs in addition to canceling registration.  You can google: NY Charities Bureau Executive Law article 7A and EPTL - relevant provisions are in a pdf booklet. It's very long...

    NY Attorney General (none / 0) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Oct 07, 2016 at 05:55:50 AM EST
    Is taking a far different approach to this one?

    Different approach , nah, not political

    Clinton Foundation amended its annual charitable filing with the office of Eric Schneiderman "out of an abundance of caution," WSJ reports, citing an unidentified Clinton Foundation spokesman.

    Group will disclose more detailed financial data on affiliates
    An unidentified spokesman for Schneiderman say foundation's filings for at least one year, in 2012, were incomplete
    New York attorney general's office didn't immediately release new information provided by the foundation; it wasn't clear whether it included additional audited information about charity's foreign affiliates

    Apples and oranges (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 07, 2016 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    Different approach , nah, not political.

    "Just asking a question", Nan, not another silly, specious accusation.


    Anyone can amend a filing (none / 0) (#42)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Oct 08, 2016 at 08:16:10 PM EST
    Just as one can amend an SEC or tax filing. That's different from failing to file.

    Latest Daily Newspaper Endorsement Tally (none / 0) (#1)
    by hilts on Sun Oct 02, 2016 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton    21
    Gary Johnson    6
    Donald Trump 0

    h/t Wikipedia

    Michael Reagan unendorsed (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    Trump over Trump's comments about Hillary not being faithful to Bill.  He also said Nancy would vote for Hillary.  FWIW.

    And Michael Chertoff, who was lead lawyer for the Republicans investigating Hillary over Whitewater, and former head of Homeland Security, has endorsed her.

    Strange turn events in this election.

    This is one of those elections (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    where the old paradigms don't apply.

    Every time I see a ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 06:52:31 PM EST
    ... photo of Michael Chertoff, he reminds me of Max Von Sydow's Ming the Merciless from the campy 1980 film "Flash Gordon.

    One of the truly evil/shameless people foisted (none / 0) (#15)
    by pitachips on Mon Oct 03, 2016 at 08:05:16 PM EST
    upon us by Bush.

    Shilled for the airport scanning machine manufacturers while at Homeland Security. Continued to do so after he left and was forced to admit that his "security consulting" group counted among its biggest clients, yup you guessed it, the company that ended up supplying our airports with the essentially worthless machines.


    All these right wing endorsements... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 10:37:38 AM EST
    do Hillary no good in getting out the hardcore liberal vote or the youth vote...I think she'd be better served if all these trickle down war-monger mother*ckers would keep their mouths shut and their voting plans to themselves.

    ... based upon Michael Chertoff's public statement, then those liberals are quite frankly too stupid to recognize when their own self-interest and well being are at stake. Fortunately, their numbers are such that they're not worth worrying about in a general election campaign. Most progressives tend to see the bigger picture.

    Campaigns which play solely to their own primary base's lowest common denominators have effectively capped their support. To be sure, it's an easy strategy which can sometimes pay off if the electorate's demographics are right, but it's also intellectually risk-adverse and potentially counter-productive over the long term. It's always best for Democrats to cultivate and develop a broad-based appeal. An enduring and successful candidate enjoys a diversified base of support.

    While many voters may indeed be ignorant and self-absorbed, that should not lead a candidate and campaign brain trust to therefore cynically conclude that a lot of those same voters are also too stupid to realize when they're being played for fools. Some marks may be slower than others to catch on to the game you're playing, but go to the well one time too many and they'll catch on soon enough. The rise of Trump can be greatly attributed to that very sort of disingenuousness on the part of the GOP establishment.



    I'm pretty sure these endorsements (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    are not intended to attract liberals or youth. They are aimed at the moderate (or even conservative), traditional Republicans who are repulsed by Tr*mp but having trouble seeing themselves voting for HRC.

    Probably true, and it will be interesting to (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    see how it works out. I think most of those people will suck it up and vote for him anyway, or else stay home. Maybe these endorsements will encourage the latter course.

    Anecdotal straw poll... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    Republicans in my social/family circle are abstaining or getting down with the sickness that is Trump. Nobody is crossing the aisle.

    It might be a thing in establishment/beltway circles, but in the rest of country I just ain't seeing it.


    Well if they (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 02:08:17 PM EST
    are sitting home then they are helping Hillary by default because that kind of thing can have a lot of impact down ticket.

    Wait a minute... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    I thought that any vote that is not cast for Hillary is a vote cast for Donald???

    The Stein votes, the Johnson votes, the Mickey Mouse votes, the abstainers...all for Trump...isn't that the Machiavellian meme?


    Abstainers (none / 0) (#26)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    ...don't count.  A Republican who doesn't vote is a vote for Hillary.

    Where's my abacus? (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    So that means a Republican who votes for Clinton is really two votes for Clinton? Such a convoluted equation Machiavelli weaves!

    P$ker Room Poll (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    P$ker players tend to lean Libertarian, especially in the mid south which is part of the bible belt that says gambling is evil.

    About a month ago the general trend was that Trump was just another politician, despite his lack of experience, and that they would just stay home.

    Since then the group has drifted towards Trump. Most by the "Better Trump than Hillary" meme.

    I have no idea as to why this hasn't been reported more widely.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    I have no idea as to why this hasn't been reported more widely.

    I do.  Just ask.


    Well, you are welcome to whatever opinion (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    you want to flog. But I had no idea you were even close to being a Libertarian much less up to date on p$ker player tendencies.

    But for me I think it is indicative that Trump's main support group is people that aren't happy with Washington. Either Demo or Repub Washington.

    That group will come home. Whether or not, especially with the elitist Repub defections, that will be enough to elect him I just don't know.

    Either way both major parties are changed beyond reversal. The Democrats have become flat out Socialists on the European model and if Trump wins the Repubs move towards populism. If he looses they are dead because they won't be able to win a national election. Assuming that the Demos don't establish Madame President For Life and outlaw opposition parties a new party will arise. Just kidding....of course???..lol.


    Let me help you (none / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 05:57:01 PM EST
    But for me I think it is indicative that Trump's main support group is people that aren't happy with Washington. Either Demo or Repub Washington.
     (My emphasis)

    Mr. Obama's popularity is soaring, around 60% approval.  Hillary Clinton is hitting 50% approval.  Congress, which has been useless since the Republicans took over, meets your description, around 9 or 10% approval.  Nobody likes them, for obvious reasons.  They are lazy, corrupt and unpatriotic.

    So actually, it's pretty one-sided.  You will have to modify your statement if you want it to reflect reality.  EVERYBODY hates Republicans in Washington, but the Democrats are pretty popular.  As evidence let me point out that the two Democratic front-runners and the eventual nominee came from the ranks of Washington regulars, and it didn't seem to have cost them votes.

    Trump OTOH, ran against the establishment and won.  So the "anti-Washington" crowd are the losers who nominated Trump, a small minority of the electorate.


    Obviously everybody (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 05, 2016 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    doesn't hate Repubs in Washington just as everybody doesn't hate Demos.

    Why do you make such claims?

    Oh well, let's move on.

    Yes, the Demo power structure did nominate Hillary. Bernie could not overcome the super delegates. And the base appears to have come home.

    The Repub power structure said that it was Bush's turn. The base said no and made it stick.

    Both sides are stuck around the 40% number.

    The election will be decided in the middle.


    No - they didn't (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 05, 2016 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    Yes, the Demo power structure did nominate Hillary. Bernie could not overcome the super delegates. And the base appears to have come home.

    The Super Delegates didn't choose Clinton.  The Democratic voters did.  She received over 15.8 million votes to Bernie's 12 million.  The Super Delegates just followed the will of the Democratic voters.



    C'mon (none / 0) (#34)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Oct 05, 2016 at 06:03:46 PM EST
    The fix was in from the beginning.

    And the Bernista's feel that way as well,

    Madame Sec has not yet brought them into the fold


    "C'mon"' - heh (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 05, 2016 at 06:25:56 PM EST
    When someone's reduced to "c'mon", you just point and laugh at their tinfoil claims.

     And the Bernista's feel that way as well,

    Madame Sec has not yet brought them into the fold

    Heh - someone should let them know that.


    You may want to stop trying to speak for others.  It never seems to work out for you.


    ... of millennials, and is currently beating Trump amongst that demographic by well over a 2-to-1 margin. Amongst white millennials, she's even with Trump. But Trump is losing very badly among black, Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander millennials for very obvious reasons, and that accounts for huge overall disparity of support in Clinton's favor.

    Yes she is (none / 0) (#37)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Oct 05, 2016 at 07:55:20 PM EST
    In 2012, voters younger than 25 accounted for about 9 percent of the electorate, a slightly larger share than Latinos did.1 That same year, according to the American National Election Studies, they favored President Obama by 29 percentage points over Mitt Romney.

    Without good data, you might assume that Hillary Clinton is doing just as well with this group. She is essentially running for a third Obama term, after all. But new SurveyMonkey data (shared with FiveThirtyEight) suggests that Clinton is winning under-25 voters by half as much as Obama did. And, moreover, the data suggests that these voters should be solidly Democratic.

    Just a massive drop off from the Obama support.

    The Bernista's have not returned to the flock


    "The Bernistas" (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 05, 2016 at 08:31:19 PM EST
    The Bernista's have not returned to the flock

    ... are not just people under 25, and "the Bernistas have - in the real world - "returned to the flock".

    90 percent of unwavering Sanders supporters plan to vote for Clinton in November

    You really should try to make it harder to debunk your false, fact-free, evidence-free claims.

    Not to mention the fact that her numbers with college-educated voters (particularly white, college-educated voters) are waaaaaay higher.

    But you guys re still winning the white, lower-educated vote.


    That's easy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 07:32:26 PM EST
    I have no idea as to why this hasn't been reported more widely.

    "Poker room polls" aren't polls.  They're just anecdotal stories - worthless.

    Real polls are the ones that matter.


    It's rare for politics to intrude... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 06:04:29 PM EST
    on the sanctity of the poker table, but Trump was being talked about at my new monthly game this past week too.

    5 more weeks, just 5 more weeks...


    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 04, 2016 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    It's a mixed blessing at best.