featured – Page 56

Monday Night Football … Or First Presidential Debate?

September 22, 2016 By John DeProspo 5 Comments

This coming Monday, September 26, the first presidential debate will take place at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. Americans will get to see the Democrat, Hillary Clinton, go mano a mano against the Republican, Donald Trump.

Well, that is what everyone was expecting until debate moderator, Lester Holt, announced the three debate topics he will be covering during the 90-minute event: (1) America’s Direction, (2) Achieving Prosperity and (3) Securing America.

Seriously? Could you come up with more vague or esoteric topics?

Why not just give the candidates paper and pen and ask for an essay on how they spent their summer vacation!

Each one of the subject areas leaves so much room for BS and allows the candidates to just offer up talking points that the event might just turn into one giant snooze fest.

This is made even more likely by having the mild-mannered moderator, Lester Holt, running the show. Don’t expect him to be tough on the candidates. It’s just not his style. Perhaps this was the price NBC had to pay to make Trump happy. It is a well-known fact Trump and Holt have been friends for years.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, a bipartisan organization that manages the events, has clearly dropped the ball, not only by picking the milquetoast Holt, but by not having a better debate format.

I’m afraid if you want two adversaries going at it with all they’ve got, you will have to opt for Monday Night Football on ESPN. If you want drama and excitement, the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints present a compelling matchup.

Photo | thehill.com

The Issue Of Trump’s Tax Returns Needs To Be Front And Center In Presidential Debates

September 20, 2016 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

President Richard Nixon gestures sternly during a press conference in Washington in 1973. (AP Photo)

Richard Nixon’s infamous 1973 quote, “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook” applies equally as well to today’s presidential politics.

In next week’s first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, if moderator, Lester Holt, does not press Trump on his hidden tax returns, Clinton needs to be ready to jump all over the issue.

Taking a page from the Republican playbook, where every Hillary question is just an opportunity to bring up “Benghazi” and “emails,” Clinton needs to insert the words ”Trump’s tax returns” into as many answers as she can.

Clinton needs to paint Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns as a disqualifying act for office.

Every Democratic and Republican candidate for president has released his or her personal tax returns since 1976. Trump’s own running mate Mike Pence has made 10 years of his tax returns public.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have continuously released their tax returns since 1977.

The issue of Trump’s returns is not even a partisan topic! Sixty-two percent of Republican voters want to see Trump release his tax returns, according to a Quinnipiac University poll in August (91% of Democrats and 66% of Independents say the same thing).

Without releasing his tax returns, Trump is showing his disdain for the American voter. He leaves too many questions unanswered about his wealth, his tax rate, his charitable donations and where he gets his funding for his real estate deals.

While the media has allowed Trump to keep insisting he cannot release his returns while being audited by the IRS, this is simply not true. The law does not prevent anyone from releasing their tax returns while under audit. In any event, Trump’s campaign confirmed to CNN that the GOP candidate is not under audit for 2008 or earlier. Trump could release those returns. But so far, he has not.

Hillary needs to remind the American voter of Nixon’s statement. She needs to inform the general public that, yes, even Tricky Dick released his tax returns while under IRS audit.

There’s nothing preventing Trump from releasing his tax returns right now. Not the IRS, not the law, not even precedent. The American people have a right to know if one of the two major presidential candidates is an actual crook, and not a bogus one like “Crooked Hillary.”

Photo | salon.com-AP

Trump’s Weight … What Difference At This Point Does It Make?

September 16, 2016 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

During an appearance on The Dr. Oz Show earlier this week, Donald Trump revealed he weighs 236 pounds and stands at 6’3” tall. As such, Trump is clinically overweight.

But many doubt both his weight and height.

There is strong speculation that Trump’s weight is greater than he claims. In fact, earlier reports, including an article in The New York Times, put his weight at 267 pounds.

What difference does an extra 31 pounds make? Big difference. It would move Trump for slightly overweight and into the obese category. Who wants that?

But here’s the fun part, even if Trump weighs 236 pounds but is not 6’3”, as he claims, he would still be classified as obese!

According to HowTallis.org and a number of other sites, Trump is 6’2”. Based on the Body Mass Index, a weight of 236 pounds with a height of 6’2” puts you into the obese category.

As with everything Trump, facts are hard to come by.

Why is the media making such a big stink over this issue? Trump’s true weight and height does not, and should not, have any bearing on his competency to occupy the Oval Office.

The reality is that Trump could be as fit as an Olympic athlete and he still would be unfit, temperamentally and in almost every other way, for the office of president of the United States.

As Hillary Clinton once famously said, “What difference at this point does it make?”

Photo | sportingnews.com

House Republicans Set To Open New Clinton Investigation … “Lunghazi”

September 14, 2016 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

With the latest revelation that Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about her health, the House of Representatives has adopted H. Res 568 Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2016 Hillary Clinton collapse. (Roll Call Vote 209)

Heading the committee will be Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert.

“Hillary Clinton, candidate for president of the United States, lied to the American people when she and her staff told them it was heat exhaustion that caused her collapse on September 11, 2016,” said Gohmert. “We then come to find out Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia three days before. We need to get to the bottom of this issue … why did Clinton lie about the pneumonia and did she really have pneumonia.”

Questions about Hillary Clinton’s health have swirled ever since her coughing fit during the House Benghazi hearings in October 2015. Conspiracy theories have cropped up blaming her cough on everything except allergies.

“The American people need to know the health of their potential commander in chief,” said Gohmert.” We have medical information that suggests Hillary Clinton suffers from a serious medical condition which brings into doubt whether she can perform the duties of president.”

Among the theories being floated are that Clinton suffers form: multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, lupus, asbestosis, tuberculosis, lung cancer and syphilis.

There are only 54 days until the presidential election. With that in mind, Chairman Gohmert will call his committee into session this coming Monday. The first witness to be summoned is Dr. Lisa Bardack, Hillary Clinton’s personal physician.

The Trump camp, while trying to remain respectful of the former secretary of state, is thanking its lucky stars. It has seized on Clinton’s health issue and hopes to ride it to a resounding victory in November.

A new Clinton attack ad is already being prepared entitled “What Is Really Going On Under That Pantsuit?”

Photo | steemit.com

*Thank you Stephen Colbert for “Lunghazi”

Why It’s Almost Impossible To Fact Check Donald Trump

September 13, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

As I reported on this site not too long ago, Fact Checkers have shown that only 9% of what comes out of Trump’s mouth is true or mostly true. (If Prevaricating Were An Olympic Sport, Trump Wins Gold, Hands Down)

With numbers like that it is easy to see why the media is having a hard time calling out Trump on his my “equivocations and prevarications.” It’s like the game Whack-a- Mole … as soon as one lie is beaten back, three more pop up.

I actually took pity on poor Matt Lauer as he “moderated” the first ever Commander-in-Chief forum last week. Lauer got a lot of heat from almost every corner of the media world for not fact checking Trump. But with lies coming at a fast and furious pace, Lauer never had a chance.

Matt Lauer’s performance raises a fundamental question: is it the responsibility of the moderator to fact check a candidate?

Chris Wallace of Fox News will be moderating the third and final debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. He believes it is not the moderator’s place to call out a candidate on what he himself knows to be a lie.

“That’s not my job,“ said Wallace. “I do not believe that it’s my job to be a truth squad. It’s up to the other person to catch them on that.”

As much as I hate to say this, Wallace is right. In a debate setting, the moderator’s job is not to call out a candidate’s lying. It is his or her job to be a neutral referee: one who decides which questions to ask, makes sure candidates don’t go over their time, and keeps the conversation moving. That’s it.

The responsibility for correcting blatant falsehoods falls on the other candidate. If he or she fails to recognize the lie in real-time, the faux pas is not necessarily fatal. The odds are great that their campaign, professional fact-checkers, and reporters will catch the fabrication and blast it out on social media in the blink of an eye.

Matt Lauer’s questioning of Trump came not as part of a debate but as a set of separate interviews with the two presidential candidates. As such, there was no opposing party to fact check the lying candidate. That was Lauer’s job. In the forum setting, Lauer was the adversary and he failed in that role.

I believe any other moderator in Lauer’s position would have failed in the same way, especially in a time-sensitive format where each candidate had only 30 minutes of questioning. Safe to say, during his presidential run, Trump has gotten the better of many a seasoned interviewer.

Have you ever played Whack-a-Mole?

Photo | drspikecook.com

Clinton’s Description Of Trump Supporters Is Not A Mistake… It’s Spot On

September 11, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

The party whose candidate has dished out some cutting insults against almost every group of Americans, except for perhaps white males, is offended by Hillary Clinton labeling half of their presidential nominee’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.”

After Clinton’s remarks at a fundraiser this Friday, the aggrieved Trump team soon mobilized into full attack mode. Predictively, their fake indignation did not even come close to representing what Clinton actually said.

Vice presidential candidate, Mike Pence, said, “Hillary Clinton said last night at a big fundraiser in New York City that the American people, the millions of Americans who are supporting my running mate…[they] were described in the most deplorable of terms.”

Pence went on to say, “She referred to those people as irredeemable… [Someone who has] such a low opinion of people who support this campaign should be denounced in the strongest possible terms.”

Of course Clinton did not accuse “the American people” of being deplorable nor did she refer to them as “irredeemable.” But facts have never stood in the way of some good talking points for Republicans.

What Clinton said was that “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

About the only thing in her statement you could quibble about is the percentage that occupies that basket of deplorables. Is it less or more? One thing that can’t be argued is that a significant number of Trump supporters gleefully revel in their hatred of fellow Americans not like them.

In this basket of deplorables you will find those supporters Trump boasted would still love him even if he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue. They are what some might call a solid base or others, a lost cause.

But Clinton also talked about the other half of Trump supporters who actually might be redeemable.

“But the other basket … of people,” said Clinton, “ are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different … Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

While Clinton was right to recognize this group of desperate Trump supporters, it is unlikely many will abandon their revered savior. Trump, like all good snake oil salesmen, is offering up his secret elixir called “Hope” and that shiny bottle has them all mesmerized.

Photo | latimes.com

Trump’s Greatest Con? … “Man Of The People”

September 10, 2016 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

From the moment he entered the presidential race, Trump has bragged about his great wealth. “I’m really rich,” said the real estate mogul and reality TV star the day he announced his presidential bid in the lobby of his swank Fifth Avenue Trump Tower.

While few financial experts believe Trump is as rich as he claims to be ($10 billion), there is no doubt he enjoys an opulent and glamorous lifestyle. He owns his own plane, helicopter, multiple homes, golf courses and his gilded Trump Tower penthouse – estimated worth $100 million – is rumored to have a gold crapper.

A look a Trump’s support base shows mostly white blue-collar Americans occupying the opposite end of the wealth chart. Back in December, a Washington Post analysis found that Trump’s support skews male, white, and poor. The male-female gap was 19 percentage points (47 percent support among men vs. 28 percent among women). He won a whopping 50 percent of voters making less than $50,000.

How did a very rich businessman, who may or may not do his business on a gold toilet, attract such strong support among low-income voters? What makes them think Trump is a “man of the people?” What causes them to believe a billionaire can not only relate to them, but also be their voice?

Ah, but therein lies the genius of the con man.

Playing mostly on people’s social fears and economic anxieties, Trump is offering the one commodity all great con men traffic in … hope. In this case it is not the hope that a secret elixir will cure your illness, but the hope of defeating what Trump calls a “rigged system.” It is the hope only a wealthy political outsider like Trump can offer.

Corporate greed has given us globalization that has taken away our jobs, says Trump. Illegal immigrants are scooping up work that should rightfully go to Americans, he tells his marks. Only an independently wealthy, successful businessman like himself, declares Trump, can reverse these trends thereby making America, and his supporters’ lives, great again.

Trump’s faux populism extends to “powerful corporations, media elites, and powerful dynasties,” who, as he said a few months ago in Pennsylvania while channeling his best Bernie Sanders, have “rigged the system for their benefit, will do anything and say anything to keep things exactly as they are.“

It doesn’t matter that Trump is himself an outsourcer of jobs. Most of the suits, ties and cuff links he peddles are made in China; his luxury line of furniture comes from Turkey; the crystal for his Trump Home line is produced in Slovenia. It also doesn’t matter that as a wealthy businessman he has personally benefited, and continues to benefit, from the very “rigged system” he rails against. His followers believe because they want to believe. They are blinded by the shiny bottle of magical potion Trump holds before them.

The con man Trump offers his elixir (hope) for a better tomorrow through a simple three-part narrative: America is losing; Donald Trump is a winner; and if Trump becomes president, America will become a winner, also.

George W. Bush, a man like Trump born into great wealth, also sold himself as a man who cared about the common folk. He was the kind of guy you wanted to have a beer with. But unlike Trump, at least Bush looked the part of an average Joe when he was clearing brush on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Trump is more the kind of guy you might want to have champagne and finger sandwiches with. But, attesting to his great skills, the man who stiffs his workers as a matter of course has convinced a great many desperate Americans he is a “man of the people” who actually cares about their plight.

Photo | independent.co.uk

North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un Praises Donald Trump as “Most Excellent Leader”

September 8, 2016 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

At last night’s Commander-in-Chief forum in New York City, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump went out of his way to heap praise on Russia’s strongman, Vladimir Putin.

Speaking of the former KGB spy, Trump said, “Certainly … he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.” Trump continued his reverence for Putin by noting, among other things, the Russian president’s “82 percent approval rating.”

Trump told forum moderator, Matt Lauer, he appreciated some of the kind words Putin has had for him. “Well, I think when he calls me brilliant, I think I’ll take the compliment, okay?”

And just now, we are getting breaking news out of North Korea that its enigmatic leader, Kim Jong-Un, has joined the Trump fan club.

“To great man, Mr. Donald J. Trump, I wish to offer much praise and support in journey to win election. You would be most excellent leader,” said Jong-Un. “You are wise man and understand how weak and corrupt your country leaders. You understand all nations having right to defend selves. All nations be armed with nuclear weapons you say so righteously.”

Political analysts are scrambling to understand the young dictator. Why has he decided to get involved in American politics?

A source close to the North Korean leader, who would only speak on condition of anonymity, shed some light on the mystery.

“Our Dear Leader very proud jealous man. He not feel he get enough world respect like Putin. Putin get 82% love of his people; Kim Jong-Un loved by 110%.”

The source went on to say Jong-Un’s decision to praise Trump might have been influenced by the backward country’s fifth nuclear test the other day which went mostly unnoticed by the world.

“Our Dear Leader know Trump media savvy,” said the anonymous source. “Everything he say do get big coverage. Maybe Jong-Un doing for publicity.”

Undoubtedly Jong-Un picked up on a line from last night’s forum. Speaking of Putin, Trump said, “If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him.”

By praising Trump, the shrewd North Korean dictator is betting on a reciprocal embrace and some much needed media buzz.

Photo | deathandtaxesmag.com

Commander-in-Chief Forum’s Biggest Loser … Trump or Lauer?

September 8, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

08assessweb1-master768

What had been billed as a forum on foreign, military and veteran’s affairs, the first ever Commander-in-Chief forum instead turned into an embarrassment for two of the three forum participants. Both NBC moderator Matt Lauer and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proved they were clearly out of their league.

That NBC would pick Matt Lauer, the host of the network’s Today Show, to moderate the first onstage meeting of the two main presidential candidates was also a major embarrassment for the network itself. Trying to pawn off a TV personality more adept at interviewing the Kardashians as a serious journalist makes one wonder whether the network looked at the forum as a political event or simply a one-hour entertainment special.

In a limited time format, where each candidate had roughly 25 minutes to answer questions, Lauer spent nearly half of his time with Clinton on an issue that the FBI has put to rest … the Clinton “email scandal.” Even as she tried to give detailed answers to Lauer’s questions, Clinton was continually cut off by the moderator.

When it came time to question Trump, Lauer lobbed one softball after another at the former reality TV star and purported billionaire. Lauer did not fact-check Trump and never once called him out for his outrageous falsehoods during the town hall event. Specifically, Trump insisted that he never supported the war in Iraq and pointed to an Esquire interview from 2004 to prove that he was against it from the beginning.

The Iraq War began in 2003. Trump is on record as having been in favor of what turned out to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history.

Trump was given free reign by Lauer to trash our President, our generals and our armed forces while singing the praises of Russia strongman, Putin. Instead of calling Trump out on such shockingly traitorous remarks, Lauer teed-up the next softball question.

A moderator, as a ref, has every right to be tough on his people. But a good ref knows to be fair to both sides of the contest. Lauer never asked “email” level questions of Trump. Lauer should have asked Trump to explain his attacks on a Gold-Star family, or the five deferments that kept Trump from serving his country.

Matt Lauer was not a good ref. He may be a good interviewer of celebrities but last night’s forum had only one television celebrity … the other participant was a qualified candidate seriously looking to be our next commander- in-chief.

Photo | Doug Mills/The New York Times

Commander-in-Chief Forum … Good Idea But Needs Some Work

September 7, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

The first ever Commander-in-Chief forum between the two presidential candidates was held this evening at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America sponsored the one-hour event.

The format called for each candidate to separately answer questions by a moderator for a measly 25 minutes. And therein lies the problem with what is otherwise a great idea.

The short questioning period did not allow for any in-depth answers on the many important topics covered. The format clearly favored the less prepared and less knowledgeable candidate. And it showed.

Matt Lauer, the moderator, was forced to cut off many of Hillary Clinton’s detailed answers, undoubtedly due to time constraints. Lauer found no need to ever interrupt Trump’s pointless ramblings.

Trump was allowed to bob and weave by Lauer. The Republican presidential candidate spoke but his words didn’t amount to anything resembling answers.

Asked what experience has prepared him to be commander-in-chief, Trump said, “Well, I built a great company, I’ve been all over the world.” When asked what kind of preparations he was doing to brush up on policy, Trump answered he had been studying. But Lauer let Trump get away with “I’m campaigning, I’m running a business, I’ve got a lot of hats right now.”

Besides improving the forum by lengthening the question and answer period, asking each candidate the same questions would also improve the format. The public could then compare the two candidates’ answers.

Hopefully this forum becomes an annual tradition. But it needs some tweaking if it is going to be more than a cursory, superficial one hour news special.

The 25-minute Q&A was like a nice appetizer. It still left you hungry for the main course… in this case, one that never came.

Oh, but we do have the debates coming up, don’t we!

Photo | cbsnews.com