Rubes Are Rubes

found online by Raymond

From tengrain at Mock Paper Scissors:


Meet the man siphoning money from Donald Trump

A 25-year-old with no Trump ties raises $1 million by dangling ‘dinner’ with the GOP nominee.

So essentially, Ian Hawes, some 25-year old dude, set up a website that solicits donations on the promise of having a drawing to win a dinner with Hair Furer and so far he’s raised over a million Ameros. Of course, it is deceptive, but in the small print he says:

– More –

Not The First Time ‘Dinner With Trump’ Has Fleeced Supporters

found online by Raymond

From Frances Langum at Crooks and Liars:

News broke this morning of a twenty-five-year-old man with no ties to the Trump campaign, raising over a million bucks with the promise that you can have “Dinner with Donald.”

There’s a sucker born every minute, and apparently several thousands of minutes ago a whole lot of suckers were born who these days are going to vote for Donald Trump. And they are happy to type their credit card number into a website in order to possibly “win a dinner” with the Republican nominee.

What the 25 year-old, Ian Hawes, was actually doing was giving away donor tickets to a Trump dinner event. Anyone with the right donation could buy those tickets themselves.

– More –

Donald Trump Please Shut Up

found online by Raymond

From The Big Empty:

I’m not a sports fan so I haven’t been closely following Colin Kaepernick’s ride into the 5th level of Right-Wing Nutjob Hell. While I totally agree with Kaepernick–his act, his right, and his intent–I personally think that, from a bottom line perspective, it’s oftentimes counterproductive for an athlete or a celebrity to express his or her views openly. Whether they are left, right, or center, it always seems to impact negatively their careers as both business owners, corporations and advertisers do not appreciate controversy of any kind.

But hey, it’s certainly their choice and I wouldn’t deny (how could I?) any famous person the opportunity to express his or her opinion especially in this case where creepy Donald Trump (as always) butts in like a crazy relative, and tries to focus the attention upon himself (as always) by saying something hypocritically stupid and nonsensical (as always).

– More –

Obamacare Has Reduced
The % Of Uninsured To 10.8%

found online by Raymond

From Ted McLaughlin at jobsanger:

The Republicans, and their current presidential candidate (Donald Trump), continue to claim that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has been a failure. As the chart above shows, that claim is ludicrous.

Before Obamacare went into effect in 2014, about 17.3% of all Americans had no health insurance — and many more had insurance plans that were grossly inadequate. Now all insurance plans must have a level of coverage that protects the insured, and the number of uninsured Americans has dropped to 10.8% in 2016. That means about 20 million Americans have insurance now over the number who had it in 2013. Those 20 million now have access to life-saving preventive care.

Obviously, Obamacare has been a big success. However, that does not mean it is perfect.

– More –

Obama’s ‘Best Investment’
Was Crony Socialism

found online by Raymond

From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara at Principled Perspectives:

The New Jersey Star-Ledger labeled the General Motors bailout “arguably Obama’s best investment”:

[H]istory will show that the industry is thriving because it had a government that trusted it could redefine itself back in 2009 – the year President Obama refused to let General Motors and Chrysler die by completing a $79.7 billion bailout that saved the two companies and their parts suppliers – along with the one million jobs that depended on them.

I left these comments:

It doesn’t take an economist to see the fallacy in the alleged “success’ of the GM bailout. It just takes some knowledge of basic economics, a proper moral compass, and the willingness to think.

– More –

Trump Campaign Hopes for Reverse “Bradley Effect”

found online by Raymond

From Jon Perr at PERRspectives:

When it comes to its electoral strategy, it’s not often that a presidential campaign gives the game away so easily. This week, new Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway did it twice. Last Sunday, she personally confirmed that Donald Trump’s laughable outreach to black voters wasn’t intended for African-Americans at all. “I live in a white community,” Conway explained, “I’m white. I was very moved by his comment.” Just three days later, she insisted her losing candidate was actually winning, all thanks to what she branded “the hidden Trump voter in the country.” Claiming their numbers are “very significant,” Ms. Conway suggested the campaign’s “Undercover Trump Voter” project would help these appalled or ashamed suburban whites overcome the social stigma of publicly backing the irredeemably racist Republican nominee:

“Donald Trump performs consistently better in online polling where a human being is not talking to another human being about what he or she may do in the election. It’s because it’s become socially desirable, if you’re a college educated person in the United States of America, to say that you’re against Donald Trump.”

These supposed undercover Trump voters, in other words, are simply too embarrassed to acknowledge they support The Donald. But while they feel compelled to lie to pollsters now, on November 8th their secret ballots will power Trump to a shocking upset victory.

– More –

Colin Kaepernick Stands
by Not Standing

found online by Raymond

From Darcwonn at The Intersection of Madness and Reality:

Usually, Colin Kaepernick becomes the chagrin for things that he doesn’t do. A lot of people don’t care for him because he has a knack of lacking fundamental quarterback skills. Or, there is some type of concern for his decision making. And there has yet to be a great return on investment in him as a player. Thus, much of Colin Kaepernick’s football criticism has been warranted.

In recent history, a lot of Kaepernick’s unwarranted criticism has arrived due to something beyond football. During the Friday night preseason football game against the Green Bay Packers, he sat during the national anthem. His reason? Well, he doesn’t appreciate the way African-Americans have been treated in this country:

– More –

Epi-Pens, Politicians and Free Markets

found online by Raymond

From Sal Monela at The Moderate Voice:

By now, most people have heard about the 600% price increase in a medication called an Epi-Pen. The Epi-Pen is a device carrying a drug used by people who experience severe, life threatening allergic reactions.

Needless to say, a number of people, including politicians, have been critical of the manufacturer, Mylan, and it chief executive, Heather Bresch for imposing such an astronomical cost increase on a medication on which the patent has expired. But don’t worry Heather; Kevin Williamson writing in the National Review has heroically ridden to your defense.

– More –

Sarah Palin Sad Trump to Let Illegals Have ‘Free Happy Meals’

found online by Raymond

From Tommy Christopher at the Daily Banter:

I’ve known all along that Trump would swing left on policy in the general, but Sarah Palin is very disappointed in Trump for wanting to keep giving illegals free healthcare, free college, free phones, free Happy Meals, free anything. Yes, she said “free Happy Meals,” because that is what qualifies as a joke to Sarah Palin:

– More –

Assessing Hearts and Minds

found online by Raymond

From Batocchio at Vagabond Scholar:

The old adage to avoid discussing politics and religion remains a wise social decision in plenty of situations. However, such discussions have to be held somewhere. (Alas, honest, intelligent discussion is fairly rare on the Sunday political shows – the good guests tend to be badly outnumbered by hacks and dolts.) The art of discussion, listening and persuasion isn’t dead in politics, and blogs, discussion boards and activist groups provide some good venues. Unfortunately, the quality of political discussion on social media platforms – particularly if one has a wide set of friends and acquaintances, going back years – can be pretty dreadful. It can be alarming to see someone who’s personally kind (and even fairly intelligent otherwise) uncritically blast the latest factually challenged, frothing bullshit from their political tribe as a self-evident truth.

In such situations, I find myself wondering how best to proceed or whether it’s worth engaging at all. How well do I know this person? How reasonable is he? What’s her background? What’s influenced his views? What frameworks is she using? How much energy should I (or do I possess to) expend? In my experience, some people simply aren’t persuadable; some have little substance to their views even if you politely hear them out. Trying to identify points of agreement and contention can be a useful exercise (and sometimes can de-escalate an argument), but ultimately it’s impossible to find common ground with someone on another planet. (Plus, trying to do so can be draining.)

In the interests of preserving sanity and lowering blood pressure, I’ve been playing with some categories to assess these dynamics and where someone falls.

– More –