Hopefully Trump Is Self-Destructing Before Our Eyes

The lies and insanity coming from Donald Trump's daily coronavirus briefings is so overwhelming that a number of Republican elected officials are whispering that the briefings need to stop.  Daily, Trump provides Joe Biden and other Democrats with material for future political ads that underscore his utter incompetence.  Trump's latest off the charts batshitery was to suggest that injecting humans with disinfectants would be a cure for Covid-19.  Yes, it would be a cure alright, the patient would be dead and the virus thus defeated. As the New York Times reports, both manufacturers of disinfectants and health officials have rushed to urge people to NOT follow Trump's suggestions: 

[Maryland's] Emergency Management Agency had to issue a warning that “under no circumstances” should any disinfectant be taken to treat the coronavirus. In Washington State, officials urged people not to consume laundry detergent capsules. Across the country on Friday, health professionals sounded the alarm.

Injecting bleach or highly concentrated rubbing alcohol “causes massive organ damage and the blood cells in the body to basically burst,” Dr. Diane P. Calello, the medical director of the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System, said in an interview. “It can definitely be a fatal event.”

Even the makers of Clorox and Lysol pleaded with Americans not to inject or ingest their products.

The frantic reaction was prompted by President Trump’s suggestion on Thursday at a White House briefing that an “injection inside” the human body with a disinfectant like bleach or isopropyl alcohol could help combat the virus.

One has to wonder when my Republican friends will finally admit that the elected a lunatic to the Oval Office.  Not a day goes by without numerous lies and falsehoods being disseminated by Trump.  It's so bad that CNN now has a daily piece that reviews the prior evening's falsehoods.  A column also in the Times speculates that Trump is self-destructing before our eyes (although probably not in the eyes of his knuckle dragging, racist base, some of whom may try Trump's suggested "cure").  Here are column highlights:

Tens of thousands of Americans die; what does the president do? Spreads bad information. Seeds false hope. Reinvents history, reimagines science, prattles on about his supposed heroism, bellyaches about his self-proclaimed martyrdom and savages anyone who questions his infallibility. In lieu of leadership, grandstanding. In place of empathy, a snit. And he’s going to get re-elected.

With that refrain we perform a spiritual prophylaxis. We prepare for despair. . . . We began to treat a verbal tic as inevitable truth.

It isn’t. While Trump may indeed be careening toward four more years, it’s at least as possible that he’s self-destructing before our eyes.

Maybe a toasty beam of sunlight is all that we need to wipe out the coronavirus? What if we just injected disinfectant into our veins? He floated both of those fantasies on Thursday, when he might as well have stepped up to the lectern in a tin foil hat. They’re the ramblings of a dejected, disoriented and increasingly desperate man.

As Katie Rogers and Annie Karni reported in The Times, [Trump] the president feels isolated and embattled and is panicked that he’ll lose to Joe Biden in November. That state of mind, they wrote, prompted his executive order to halt the issuing of green cards, which is precisely the kind of base-coddling measure that he resorts to “when things feel out of control.”

He can read the polls as well as the rest of us can, and they show that while he stands there nightly in the White House briefing room and blows kisses at himself, Americans aren’t blowing kisses back. A month ago there was much ado about a slight uptick in Trump’s job-approval numbers. But the real story was the slightness: Past presidents had experienced greater bumps during crises, when Americans tend to rally around their leader. For Trump there was no such rallying — just a grudging, incremental benefit of the doubt. A fleeting one, too. His uptick quickly took a downturn, reuniting him with his anemic norm. According to the polling average at FiveThirtyEight as of late Friday afternoon, 52.5 percent of Americans disapprove of his job performance. Only 43.4 percent approve. Other numbers tell an even scarier story for Trump. In all three of the battleground states that enabled his Electoral College victory three and a half years ago, he’s currently behind Biden — by 6.7 percentage points in Pennsylvania, 5.5 in Michigan and 2.7 in Wisconsin, according to the averaging of recent polls by RealClearPolitics. That website also puts him behind by 3.2 points in Florida, a state he won in 2016 and must win again. According to monthly polling by Gallup, the percentage of Americans who indicated satisfaction with the way things were going in the country plummeted to 30 percent in mid-April from 42 percent in mid-March. Only twice before in the past two decades has there been a one-month decline that precipitous.

Maybe this drop was less a referendum on Trump’s stewardship than a recognition of the coronavirus’s devastation. But maybe not: Surveys reveal that a significant majority of Americans believe that he acted too late to stem the virus’s spread. He’s also out of step with most Americans’ appraisal of what will and won’t be safe in the immediate future.

In a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, 65 percent of Americans said it could take until June or later for gatherings of 10 people or more to be safe. And in a Yahoo News/YouGov poll, only 22 percent of Americans supported the protesters who have been demanding an end to their states’ restrictions, while 60 percent opposed them. President Trump has egged those protesters on.

Is he following some gut instinct or just flailing? I vote for the latter. Lately he has contradicted himself at a whole new pace and to a whole new degree, and he has undercut his own party’s talking points.

Republicans have developed a strategy to evade any responsibility for Trump’s response to the pandemic by blaming and demonizing China. “But there is a potential impediment to the G.O.P. plan — the leader of the party himself,” Martin and Haberman wrote, noting that Trump has “muddied Republican efforts to fault China” by continuing to curry favor with President Xi Jinping. Also, Trump’s most optimistic pronouncements about imminent deliverance from the current misery represent a bigger gamble than the many others he has taken. If he’s wrong, there’s not going to be any hiding it. If he’s reckless, the toll is Americans’ very lives. There’s incessant talk of how fervent his base is, but the many Americans appalled by him have a commensurate zeal. For every Sean Hannity, there’s a Rachel Maddow. For every Kellyanne Conway, a George Conway. She and her ilk may be wily in their defense of the president. He and his tribe are even better in their evisceration of him.

And what of the diaspora of refugees from the Trump administration: people like Rick Bright, the government scientist who says he was just stripped of his leading role in the search for a coronavirus vaccine because he wouldn’t parrot Trump’s cockamamie talking points? I predict that as November nears, more and more exiles will speak out, sharing alarming accounts of life inside the president’s hall of mirrors. Trump in turn will mutter about the “deep state,” but the phrase won’t fly when he’s left with such a shallow pool of charlatans around him — and when he’s making such a repellent fool of himself.

Don’t tell me that his nightly briefings are just a new version of the old stadium rallies; their backdrop of profound suffering makes them exponentially harder to stomach. Americans who take any comfort from them were Trump-drunk long ago. The unbesotted see and hear the president for what he is: a tone-deaf showman who regards everything, even a mountain of corpses, as a stage.

I sincerely hope the author is correct.

Will the Government Shut Down Over Border Wall Funding?

Donald Trump is sticking with his "build the wall" con which his ignorant voters fell for during the election.  Missing, of course, from the carnival barker's calls is any serious recognition of (i) the true cost, or (ii) just how long any construction would take given the need to first go through lengthy and time consuming condemnation proceeds to acquire the needed land in many border areas. Seemingly, even some Republican members of Congress recognize the impracticality, true cost and time line of Der Trumpenführer's wall along the Mexico border even if his cretinous supporters do not.  Now, signs are that a federal government shut down may occur if Trump continues to demand funding for his exercise in placating racists.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the possible show down.  Here are highlights (don't believe Trump's 3.5 year construction schedule since condemnation cases, if appealed, alone could take longer):

President Trump and White House officials pressed congressional Republicans on Sunday to use the looming threat of a government shutdown to win funding for a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico, a top priority for the administration as it nears the symbolic 100-day mark.

Trump wants funding to be included in a spending measure that would keep the government open past April 28, a determined effort that has prompted a possible standoff with lawmakers in both parties, who hope to avert a federal closure next weekend.

Trump’s push for fast action on his pledge to build the border wall is part of a mounting and, at times, tense scramble inside the administration to kick-start the president’s agenda, even if it risks dire political consequences.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said in an interview Sunday with The Washington Post that the president and his advisers remain “strong” in their commitment to securing funding for border security and a wall.

“This is what the president ran on,” Priebus said. “We want to get to a place this week where ­border-security money is being directed to the Department of Homeland Security so that we can begin surveillance and preliminary work, and then we will keep working on getting DHS what it needs for the structure.”

The Senate returns Monday night, and the House returns Tuesday from a two-week recess, leaving just three days when both chambers will be in session to wrangle out a funding agreement. Negotiators worked throughout the break, but thus far a deal has not been struck.

The wall, which experts say would cost $21.6 billion and take 3½ years to construct, has emerged as a crucial sticking point for the White House, with the president insisting privately and publicly that progress toward its funding and eventual construction must be showcased this week.

It remained unclear Sunday whether moderates within the GOP could persuade the White House to avoid a shutdown. Democrats have insisted that they will not vote for any spending bill that gives the White House money or flexibility to begin construction of a border barrier. They believe that the GOP will have to either abandon Trump’s demand or assume political responsibility if a shutdown occurs.

“The burden to keep it open is on the Republicans,” House ­Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Building a wall is not an answer.

The tweets did little to assuage concerns created earlier in the day when White House budget director Mick Mulvaney suggested that Trump might not sign a spending bill that does not meet his demands.

Democrats believe that voters will blame Trump for a shutdown, particularly if congressional leaders omit wall funding from a spending deal. Democrats and GOP leaders appeared to be nearing a spending agreement last week before Trump ramped up his demands.

Democrats and Republicans maintained common ground. One clear area of agreement was not to include border funding in the stopgap budget. Democrats agreed to include other border-security measures, including money for new drones to patrol the border, but it was agreed that the wall itself should be debated separately, after the government is kept open.

Mulvaney’s hard-line stance is also odds with a White House faction convinced that a government shutdown would be cataclysmic for an administration already struggling to prove its ability to govern, according to GOP aides in the White House and Congress who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks.

Republican leaders have signaled that they will concentrate this week on keeping the government open, even if that means ignoring White House calls for action on other major priorities, such as rewriting the tax code and overhauling the ACA.

If federal workers end up staying home next week, the blame will be on Trump and the GOP.  The GOP controls all branches of the federal government and still cannot get anything done.  Mexico may be laughing loudly this time next week. 

The Ugly Societal Antecedents That Gave Rise to Trump

Much as is occurring in France under the toxic candidacy of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump rose to power from a combination of factors, including some of the long standing undercurrents in American society and the failure of America's political process to unmask an amoral, narcissistic, charlatan/ carnival barker  for what he is in fact.  The media with its misdirected desire for "balance" and false equivalency mindset bears much of the blame for the latter element of Trump's rise.  Of course, so too do the countless Republican "leaders" who put opportunism ahead of principle, morality and decency. As for the former element, it in many ways relates back to currents long present in America's history: racism and hatred toward those who are different be it in terms of skin color, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.  Sadly, "traditional American values" carry many elements that are dangerous and repellent to anyone who truly believes in the Gospel message.   Many do not want to face this truth - e.g., I was lambasted on Facebook for calling out the ugliness and hypocrisy of Christian Fundamentalists - due to either (i) their own prejudices or (ii) their lack of knowledge of accurate history.  A column in The Atlantic looks at both the historic antecedents of Trump and the need to correctly identify the elements of his rise to protect against it going forward.  Here are excerpts;

Perlstein’s three books—about Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan—depicted an American right that was morally and intellectually repellent: reactionary, racist, and rapacious. The election of Donald Trump, however, forced Perlstein to rethink and to realize that he had dangerously understated the case, and that the truth was even more appalling than anything he had yet dared to think or write.

I quote intermittently and in some cases a little out of context, but the cumulative effect gives an idea:

·        "America’s anti-liberal traditions were far more deeply rooted in the past, and far angrier, than most historians would acknowledge.”
·        "By reaching back to the reactionary traditions of the 1920s, we might better understand the alliance between the “alt-right” figures that emerged as fervent Trump supporters during last year’s election and the ascendant far-right nativist political parties in Europe.”
·        “Far-right vigilantism and outright fascism routinely infiltrated the mainstream of American life.”
·        “'Fascism had a very real presence in the U.S.A., comparable to that on continental Europe.”

Perlstein does himself one injustice in his essay. It’s not quite right that the rise of Donald Trump jolted him into a new appreciation of the Republican Party’s underlying fascism. He has been edging toward that accusation for years, to the increasing consternation of those who praised his first book.

It’s certainly true that the United States has noteworthy traditions of illiberalism and political violence. The 1920s suffered terrorist violence not only at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, but also those of anarchist bombers who maimed and killed hundreds of people from 1919 to 1921. From the Civil War to World War II, American labor relations were more violent than those of most other industrialized countries. Four presidents have been assassinated; four others—Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan—only narrowly survived or escaped a bullet. Race riots have ripped apart American cities for almost as long as there have been American cities.

Donald Trump’s campaign for president certainly drew much energy from this long tradition of political violence. . . . . So Perlstein is talking about something real. 

When conservatives want to rebut accusations of racism, they often deploy the talking point: The Ku Klux Klan—meaning the Klan of the 1860s and 1870s—was founded by Democrats. Rand Paul built a speech at Howard University on the claim; Dinesh D’Souza produced an entire documentary to illustrate it.

The “Democrats founded the Klan” talking point is, of course, literally true. But it’s not deployed in the service of truth. It’s designed as an excuse and an attack, not an explanation.

It’s an important question whether the success of Donald Trump—and the rise of similar authoritarian populists in France and elsewhere in Europe—is the recrudescence of something old or the appearance of something new. The more worried you are about Trump and Trumpism, the more urgent this question should be to you—because only the correct answer will lead to a wise response. . . . There’s little question that inter-ethnic animosity explains much about the 2016 vote. But it seems simply blind to pretend that these animosities straightforwardly carry over into 2016 the attitudes and patterns of almost a century ago.

The Second Klan of the 1920s originated in the Deep South, then rapidly spread after 1919 into the then most dynamic regions of the country: New York and Long Island; Detroit and Pittsburgh: Philadelphia and the anthracite Belt; the Pacific Northwest and Los Angeles. The Trump vote, by contrast, is concentrated in the least dynamic areas of the country. The 2,600 counties won by Trump produce only about one-third of America’s wealth. Trump did well where people suffer most from diabetes, and where opiate overdoses take most lives. The Second Klan offered a defiant cultural counter-revolution; the Trump vote could be seen as the despair of defeated people—something more like the William Jennings Bryan candidacies.

If this analysis is correct, then the appropriate source of concern for the American future is not Trump’s duped voters, but the politician who did the duping—and the story to tell is not that of the remorseless rise of fascism in the people, but the failure of popular institutions to resist and contain the ambitions and impulses of a charismatic authoritarian without a popular mandate.

A Closing Argument for Voting for Hillary Clinton

There are so many reasons not to vote for Donald Trump.  For some, that is all the motivation needed to guarantee their vote for Hillary Clinton.  For others who have heard the GOP's manufactured "Clinton scandals" for years, hesitancy remains about Clinton.  Personally, I do not know why, when Trump is such a horrific and dangerous individual, anyone moral can support the man.  Other than racism, ignorance, male chauvinism and/or bigotry towards others that Trump has fanned so well, I don't understand the attraction.  I truly wish some of his supporters would take a long look in the mirror and admit which of the former motivates them to support Trump.  A column in the New York Times makes a closing argument of why voting for Hillary Clinton is the right thing to do on Tuesday.  I agree with the author.  The piece is worth a full read.  Here are highlights:

[I]n this last column before the election I want to pitch you the reasons to vote for Clinton and not just against Donald Trump.

I’ve known Clinton a bit for many years, and I have to say: The public perception of her seems to me a gross and inaccurate caricature. I don’t understand the venom, the “lock her up” chants, the assumption that she is a Lady Macbeth; it’s an echo of the animus a lifetime ago some felt for Eleanor Roosevelt.

In fact, what makes Hillary Clinton tick has always been a 1960s-style idealism about making the world a better place.

Clinton has made thousands of compromises and innumerable mistakes, her pursuit of wealth has been unseemly and politically foolish, and it’s fair to question her judgment on everything from emails to Iraq. But understand this, too: At the core she is not a calculating crook but a smart, hard-working woman who is profoundly concerned with getting things done for those left behind.

Aside from shattering the glass ceiling for women, Clinton would bring three particular strengths to the presidency:

First, she knows the world exceptionally well and is essentially a very bright, disciplined nerd who traveled to more countries as secretary of state than any of her predecessors.

Second, Clinton had a history of playing well with Republicans when she was in the Senate and secretary of state, so there’s some small hope that we could inch back to governing.

“She is extremely well respected throughout the world, handles herself in a very classy way, and has a work ethic second to none,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said in 2012.

Third, Clinton cares deeply about impoverished children and others who are voiceless. In Arkansas, she started an early childhood program. In Washington, she helped establish CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which supports more than eight million needy American kids.

One of America’s foremost needs is to address inequality and cycles of poverty. These are issues that Clinton has wrestled with for more than 40 years.

Some of you are thinking: But the emails! The foundation! Benghazi! So let’s look at the standard accusations.

Benghazi has been examined by at least eight panels, and not one uncovered major wrongdoing by Clinton. The Clinton Foundation created conflicts of interest — and saved countless lives from AIDS. Yes, Clinton appears to have set up her own email server to evade FOIA searches, which was sneaky and wrong, but State Department officials for many years routinely have conducted business on their own email accounts.

Of course, for many, the greater appeal of Clinton is that she’s not Trump. He simply falls outside the norms: A fraudster who seems a racist, who has cheated people not only at Trump University but regularly through his career, who boasts of sexual assaults and whom 17 women have publicly accused of improper behavior, who has flip-flopped 138 times by one count, who lies every five minutes by another, and who has less public service experience than any incoming president in history.

But my point is that this election is not just a weighing of two scoundrels; Clinton is better than that, and she is in politics because she cares about something larger than herself.

[T]oday’s widely held caricature of an avaricious, selfish and manipulative crook is to me just plain wrong. Sure, she compromises, she sometimes dissembles and at times her judgment has been flawed. But fundamentally she is a morally serious person whose passion for four decades has been to use politics to create a more just society. That’s her real conviction.

Economists: A Trump Win Would Tank the Financial Markets

As some - who in my opinion are delusional - continue to claim that Donald Trump is a good businessman, there's one test that they utterly ignore: Trump's numerous bankruptcies and the fact that no American bank will make a loan to him and/or his entities. Trump has gamed the system, screwed over lenders and bond holders and other investors with abandon, always making sure that he flees the sinking ship, saving himself as others perish financially.  It's as if he were Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon leaving the Titanic in a lifeboat with only 12 people in it, he and his wife's luggage included, leaving dozens to die who might have lived had the lifeboat been even remotely filled to capacity. The financial markets and bankers know Trump well, and economists predict that should he somehow win, the world's financial markets will tank, wiping out Americans' savings, IRA's and retirement funds.  A piece in Politico looks at the likely wreckage.   Here are highlights:  

NEW YORK — Wall Street is set up for a major crash if Donald Trump shocks the world on Election Day and wins the White House.

New research out on Friday suggests that financial markets strongly prefer a Hillary Clinton presidency and could react with panicked selling should Trump defy the polls and deliver a shocking upset on Nov. 8.

“Wall Street clearly prefers a Clinton win certainly from the prospective of equity prices,” said Dartmouth College’s Eric Zitzewitz, one of the authors of the new study along with the University of Michigan’s Justin Wolfers. “You saw Clinton win the first debate and her odds jumped and stocks moved right along with it. Should Trump somehow manage to win you could see major Brexit-style selling.”

Stock prices around the world tanked over the summer when British voters surprised pundits and voted in favor of pulling the country out of the European Union. Trump himself now talks about his own upset prospects as “another Brexit.”

The report also shows where investors around the world are making big money on the 2016 campaign. Traders betting on the Mexican peso to take a beating under a President Trump, who has promised a trade crackdown, have lost big following debates in which Clinton did well.

The Trump effect also shows up for traders betting on market volatility. Futures contracts for the VIX index, which tracks market volatility, fell sharply during the first debate, suggesting investors expect much less volatility under a Clinton White House than a Trump White House.

Oil prices rose during the first debate and gold fell. Gold tends to be a safe haven when investors are worried about possible economic and financial instability. And oil tends to go up when investors expect stronger economic growth and more demand for energy.

Michael Obuchowski of Merlin Asset Management has watched every move in the campaign closely— including all the WikiLeaks email dumps on Clinton — and made two calls based on it: that Clinton will win and that she won’t go as far left as some investors initially feared.

“I always assumed Trump would eventually collapse so that meant staying in equities and going away from certain high-dividend stocks assuming Clinton is going to win and try and tax those dividends at a higher rate,” he said.

The new report suggests that the stock market is worth 11 percent more under a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency. This is a highly unusual circumstance because markets historically prefer Republican policies on taxes, regulation and trade to those of Democrats. . . . . Current market action is the direct reverse of what happened in 2012 when President Barack Obama was running for reelection against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. 

Investors now clearly back a Clinton presidency and by a large margin.

The Trump effect is also global.  Britain’s FTSE 100 traced U.S. stock prices higher following the first debate. Currencies in Canada, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand — all major U.S. trading partners — tend to rise when it appears Clinton is doing well and headed to victory.

“All told, these movements suggest that financial markets expect a generally healthier domestic and international economy under a President Clinton than under a President Trump,” Wolfers and Zitzewitz write in their new paper.

This also suggests that a shock Trump victory next month could crush stock prices, perhaps by as much as 10 percent, and send the peso and other currencies sharply lower while ushering in a period of intense market volatility as investors try and discern how Trump would govern and whether he would make good on his pledge to start trade wars with Mexico and China and deport 11 million current undocumented immigrants.

“You would see incredible pressure on stock prices if Trump wins and everyone flooding into rare metals like gold and into bonds” in the U.S., Germany and the United Kingdom, said Erik Jones, professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

Overall, the authors of the new paper envision a massive global market shock should Trump win. “Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%,” they write and “would reduce the oil price by $4, would lead to a 25% decline in the Mexican Peso, and would significantly increase expected future stock market volatility.”

Bottom line?  By supporting Trump, many of his followers will be voting against their own financial best interest, falling once again to the GOP ploy of suckering them in by calls to their racism and xenophobia.  

Is the Trump Tax Story Finally Swaying Voters?

Personally, I find it difficult to understand how any sane and decent person can be supporting Donald Trump who I view as little better than a con-man who has payed a rigged system to better himself, typically at the expense of others.  Thankfully, the release of a part of his tax return that suggests that he may not have paid federal taxes for years seems to be doing two things in the minds of some voters: (i) showing Trump to be a parasitic freeloader, and (ii) dispelling the myth that he is a consummate businessman.  Skilled businessmen do not lose $900 million in a good economy.  A piece from the Washington Post looks at some of the reverberations in Ohio, a swing state, and Pennsylvania.  Here are excerpts:

The revelations about the Republican nominee’s taxes gave Clinton a fresh opportunity. In conversations around Toledo, many voters said they were offended by Trump.

“It’s disgusting,” said Steve Crouse, 65, the owner of Toledo’s downtown Glass City Cafe and a separate printing business. “As a businessman, he’s got that right to do that. It’s the way the laws were set up. But it’s not right. I would feel guilty if I didn’t pay anything. It’s flat-out cheating the government. You’re using all the roads, the fire department, the police, so you should pay for that.”

On his way into church, at the suburban parish he shares with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Fred Glynn, 63, said that Clinton’s support of abortion rights made her impossible to accept. But the tax story, which he had just seen on CNN, added to the reasons he would have to reject Trump.

“How can he not pay income taxes?” he asked. “He talks about helping people, but he doesn’t pay income tax? That’s helping everybody. It’s like the situation in Florida, where he didn’t pay taxes on his golf course. The school suffered from that.”

Separating Trump from his rhetoric by casting him as a dishonest and bumbling tycoon had been key to Clinton’s fight back, but for months, it didn’t penetrate. A TV spot that showed David Letterman revealing the China labels on Trump’s branded clothing didn’t move poll numbers. Clinton got little lift from a rally at the failed Trump Taj Mahal casino at Atlantic City.

[T]he tax returns gave Clinton an argument that would not have worked against Romney: that Trump’s swagger covered up a record of business failure. In the 24 hours since the tax leak, the $916 million loss has proven the toughest aspect for Republicans to spin.

“He ain’t that good,” said Alex Pickett, 52, while waiting for a bus that would take him to a downtown church. “Can’t be that good if he lost that much money.”

On Sunday afternoon, at a bar near Toledo’s resilient Chrysler complex, the size of Trump’s loss was a punch line. As the Cleveland Browns blew a game against the Redskins, Ron Amborski, 57, marveled at what he had just seen on Sunday talk shows.

“Rudy Giuliani called Trump a genius at least 12 times,” Amborski said. “Talk about overcompensating. ‘He’s a genius businessman! He made a genius comeback!’ I thought, ‘Man, if this was a drinking game, I’d be hammered.’ ”

Wall Street Begins to Freak Out About Donald Trump

With some polls showing a tightening in the presidential race, Wall Street, which seems to have never believed Trump could be actually elected, is beginning to freak out at the thought of a Trump presidency and the disaster that it would unleash on the financial markets, international trade and a host of other issues.  The irony is that Trump claims incessantly that he is such an amazing businessman, yet by many reports he is being propped up by Russian monies from questionable sources and Wall Street sees him as not being up to the task of the presidency.  A scripted reality TV and running a super power are vastly different, not that the narcissistic Trump seem able to grasp the difference.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at the growing angst and fear on Wall Street.  Here are highlights:

The U.S. stock market, seven years into an almost nonstop bull run, went on a wild ride last week: The Dow Jones Industrial Average swung between 100 and 200 points — up one day, down the next — on four separate days. There hasn’t been such a bout of volatility since late June, when the U.K.’s surprise vote to exit the European Union sent markets on a roller-coaster ride. Volatility is not just apparent in the stock market either. Wall Street strategists say it’s also cropping up in the bond and foreign-exchange markets.

Global markets are jittery about many things right now, but one fear seems to override all others: The polls in the presidential race have suddenly tightened, and Donald Trump might actually become president of the United States of America — with unknown, but possibly very negative, implications for everything from trade policy to foreign relations to monetary policy.

In short, a Trump presidency is the very definition of what markets hate: uncertainty. “Trump is widely considered to be reckless and Clinton is widely considered to be a friend to Wall Street,” explains Chris Irons, an analyst with the equity research firm GeoInvesting.

Société Générale analysts call it the “Trump factor.” They argue that the tightening of the polls between Trump and Clinton is a big reason for a sell-off in global bonds in September, which has led to the unease in equity markets, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday. Rates on both long-term Treasury and Japanese bonds have been rising since the polls started tightening, SocGen says.

A tightening of the race is normal, and might seem inevitable after the huge lead Clinton took following the Democratic National Convention and the Khizr Khan affair. But investors seemed to start selling when Trump took the lead in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Florida. 

In general, markets prefer a Clinton victory. In a new CNBC survey of economists, fund managers, and strategists, 53 percent think Clinton is better for the stock market than Trump — because she’s a known quantity, and a person whose ability to relate to foreign leaders is comforting. Only 26 percent of those surveyed think Trump is better for stocks, down from 32 percent the prior month. Some market prognosticators have suggested a win by Trump could send the stock market down at least 10 percent.

“I don’t know what the U.S. dollar is worth with a Trump victory. I don’t know what it does to foreign flows into the U.S.,” says Josh Brown, CEO of financial adviser Ritzholtz Wealth Management. “Are foreign corporations as desirous of owning US dollars with someone so erratic in the White House?”

[T]he concern on Wall Street is whether or not Trump knows what he is talking about — or even cares. In recent weeks, for example, he has been bashing Fed Chair Janet Yellen, blaming the Fed for creating a “false economy” and an “artificial stock market” in an interview with Reuters, saying the Fed needs to raise rates. But Trump also says the economy is a disaster. “Which is it?” asks Brown, noting that if the economy is truly a disaster, rates would need to stay low. (Trump also changes his mind a lot, which Wall Street doesn’t like. This spring, he said raising rates would be “scary.”)

Wall Street economists have long warned that a Trump presidency could increase the chances for a recession. In an August 25 research note, Citigroup chief economist Willem Buiter wrote that “a Trump victory could prolong and perhaps exacerbate policy uncertainty and deliver a shock (though perhaps short-lived) to financial markets. Tightening financial conditions and further rises in uncertainty could trigger a significant slowdown in U.S., but also global growth.” 

“When you lay out the possibilities of what can happen with Clinton, it’s far more predictable. When you lay out what could happen with Trump, we could be at war with Canada.”

Despite such fears, the ignorance embracing Christofascists, white supremacist and economically challenged white males are putting their hopes in a vulgar carnival barker.   

Kathleen Parker: Trump, A Con Man Among Heroes

I continue to find it telling that conservatives and Republicans who all too often turned a willing blind eye to the ugliness that motivated much of the party base and the self-prostitution that GOP elected officials regularly engaged in are now shocked that the selling of the GOP's soul has finally culminated in Donald Trump as the party standard bearer.  While Kathleen Parker has strayed from the GOP reservation ,more than other conservative pundits shocked by Trump's rise, had she and others criticized Democrats less and addressed the hideousness in their own party, perhaps the Trump nightmare could have been avoided.  Her latest piece  in the Washington Post looks at Trump's unqualified nature for the presidency.  Here are highlights:

At long last, Donald Trump has set himself free.

At a highly choreographed event Friday, the Republican nominee for president of the United States finally issued his verdict on the birthright of our two-term president, who, it turns out, is a real American!

“Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period,” Trump intoned to the great relief of no one.

Well, howdy-do. Welcome to planet Earth, son.
But Trump’s announcement was merely a curtain call on a theatrical production otherwise known as Free Publicity for Trump. For the preceding 24 hours, Trump gleefully baited and dragged the media through Con Man’s Swamp, first refusing to answer the question posed by The Post’s Robert Costaabout whether Trump still thought Obama wasn’t born in the United States, then building suspense Friday morning that he would make a “big announcement.”

Awaiting him on the dais was a gathering of war heroes, who spent 20 minutes extolling Trump’s virtues, many of which one has never before associated with the nominee — his intellectual curiosity, his great temperament and his raw intelligence.

Only Trump could believe such things about himself — and he obviously did. Nearly glistening from the mist of blown kisses, he beamed like a boy with a brand new toy.

Now, I don’t doubt that those on the stage sincerely support the Republican nominee. And nothing I say about Trump is intended to reflect on these extraordinary Americans, especially not on Michael Thornton, a retired Navy SEAL, whom I single out because he happens to be a friend. I commend his remarkable story to anyone seeking perspective and inspiration.

My heart sank just a little when I saw Thornton standing behind Trump, even though I’m aware that it’s difficult for many battlefield veterans, especially those from the Vietnam era, to find a Clinton acceptable as commander in chief.

Seeing Trump wedged among men who had served heroically, several of whom risked their own lives to save others, had an effect more minimizing than elevating. Trump avoided the draft, too, with a doctor’s excuse, often available to sons of the rich, and otherwise isn’t qualified to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Medal of Honor recipients.

“Selfish men, bullies, and braggarts don’t perform well in battle. And those believing in their own extraordinariness rarely if ever accomplish feats worthy of the MoH.”

Trump has finally owned up, if way too late to make any difference. But one should keep in mind that the birther movement was racist to its core. And the man who would be president led the charge. 

In case readers have not figured it out, Trump sickens me.  What sickens me even more is the number of Americans who are supporting a racist con man.  That speaks volumes about America and none of it good.  It certainly shows that claims of America's exceptionalism are untrue, especially in the day of Donald Trump.