Melania and Donald testing positive reveals that Americans believe themselves to be firmly in control of the coronavirus

My Facebook feed is alive with gleeful Democrats posting about (a) their hopes that Donald Trump will die, (b) their satisfaction that Trump’s actions have led to his downfall (i.e., infection), and (c) how events comport with religious beliefs, e.g., in a just God and/or karma.

[Democrat 1] So the fuckface in the White House has Covid. It couldn’t have happened to a bigger piece of human shit. … With any luck–or, as some would have it, any God–the shitbird-in-chief will be confirmed for Hell before the election. Godspeed, you treasonous piece of trash.

[Democrat 2] i just tested asympathetic.

[Democrat 3] I don’t understand how Trump could get Covid. He’s an idiot but the Secret Service is not. Trump probably overrode the SS.

I.e., humans can control whether or not infection occurs. The Great Father in Washington could have protected His children from this virus. The Secret Service, in turn, could protect the Great Orange Father and Slovenian Mother (not a lot of fun compared to the Secret Service lifestyle during the Obama administration).

I’m not sure I believe it. It may be a way for him to avoid the debates, and hide in his twitter bunker for two weeks, and then come out “looking strong” because he beat this thing that only kills the weak. Ya know: “It isn’t so bad.” It knocks his support for white supremacists and his debate performance off the news cycle, and once again he controls the narrative.

Trump is an idiot, except when he is a mastermind!

From an aircraft mechanic:

Trump finally passed a test without cheating

From the bête noire himself:

Responses to the above reproduction of Trump’s tweet:

Finally a Donald Trump tweet that warms the heart.

Tell me this is real. I wish no one to die or be ill… But…

Whoo Hoo!! The Cheeto just tested positive! Maybe now his dumbass followers will believe it!

How did Melania catch it given that she barely looks in his direction? Or maybe she gave it to him. On purpose??

RBG protects us, even from among the shades.

Looks like RBG successfully argued her first case before God

Melania has been an awesome First Lady due to her more or less public acknowledgment of the absurdity of the position and refusal to engage with the U.S. media, so I’m praying to our most recent god (RBG) for Melania’s swift recovery. If 50+ years of fast food haven’t killed The Donald, I’m not going to worry about him.

Readers: Are you seeing the same thing? People who think that Trump and Melania could easily have avoided coronavirus if they’d behaved in some different way? (and therefore the rest of us get to choose whether or not we become infected)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Did Joe Biden do well enough in the debate that companies might start hiring older workers?

Workers older than 40 are inferior, according to the Federal government, which is why employers need to be bludgeoned into hiring them. From the EEOC:

Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.

Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40.

Joe Biden will turn 78 in November (unless IHME is correct and COVID-19 kills most Americans before then) and is therefore the oldest person ever to run in a U.S. presidential election. If he impresses viewers with his keen mind and quick wit, might that be enough to get American employers to question the official government position that older = inferior?

Second question: If your opinion, did Biden impress in this first debate?

Also, does at least one candidate get the questions in advance? The debates are moderated by TV journalists. One thing that we’ve learned since 2016 is that people whose job is to report the “news” actually yearn to editorialize regarding how Americans should vote. If they’re not afraid to present facts selectively, twist facts, and otherwise mislead readers/viewers, why wouldn’t at least one person within a news organization that is moderating a debate leak the questions to the candidate whom he/she/ze/they favors?

(A Democrat affiliated with CNN leaked “town hall” questions to Hillary Clinton in advance back in 2016 (Snopes).)

Multiple perspectives from Facebook:

  • I can’t believe the s**t that Trump is having to put up with tonight. Wallace lets Biden talk over him all the time. Nauseating.
  • Chris Wallace did an abysmally awful job. He’s more left-wing than I previously thought. His lack of knowledge is shocking. Wallace doesn’t know the basics.
  • Biden was such a terrible moderator of the Trump-Wallace debate
  • The debate. Trump hit a new low. Biden hit a triple: he acted like an adult, he didn’t get flustered, and he reached out to families around the country. I would not have been able to keep my temper that well. Oh, and Chris Wallace shamed himself.
  • (from a socialist Democrat) TBH, I think Trump did better than Biden in this debate. He was more cogent and concrete, Biden was too much “c’mon man” and just not hitting his target.
  • (from a cower-at-home schoolteacher who otherwise posts on the dangers of COVID-19, the hazards of school reopening, the merits of RBG, the stupidity of the unmasked, etc.) This is an absolute disgrace. How could we possibly expect our children to respect this President? Politics aside, the teacher in me would like to park his bully self in our class Think Tank to fill out a Reflection Sheet regarding his behavior. He is a bully, he is flagrantly ignorant of the facts, and he’s disrespectful in every way possible. HOW can we not be embarrassed and WHY are we tolerating it.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Under a fair tax code, Trump should have paid $0 in income tax…

… because he would have paid all of his taxes via a land value tax.

My Facebook feed is alive with people complaining that Trump hasn’t paid sufficient taxes over the past decades for which the NYT has obtained his personal tax returns (see Holy Grail attained: NYT gets hold of Trump’s tax returns). Essentially they are complaining that the real estate industry is not taxed properly. For the first 39 years, for example, depreciation may cancel out much of the rental revenue (and this clock can be accelerated by the sophisticated, as I learned from a friend who owns a huge office building and will pay no taxes for the first 15 years). As with Warren Buffet’s fortune, as long as assets aren’t totally cashed out, any tax on capital gains can be deferred for decades or perhaps centuries.

Maybe this is the nudge that the U.S. needs to move to what might be a much better and fairer tax, i.e., one on the value of land. This won’t discourage investment in nice buildings because the value of the building isn’t taxed. As the U.S. gets bulked up via immigration to a Chinese level of population density, land per person should become more scarce and valuable. Already we’ve seen that much of the fruits of economic growth in the U.S. have ended up accruing primarily to property owners (i.e., as soon as wages rise in a city, rents rise so that landlords soak up most of the increase and leave the workers with little additional spending power).

An advantage of the land value tax is that the U.S. could shut down its income taxation scheme, thus encouraging people to work more. Note that everyone who isn’t homeless, unhoused, or living in a car would end up paying the land value tax directly (homeowner) or indirectly (renter). It is also easy for governments to collect property-based taxes. The government knows where all of the land is and who owns it. In the hysteria around Trump and his taxes, one thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is the extent to which the hated dictator has paid 50+ years of property tax on the various properties that he owns. According to the NYT, Trump is an arch criminal and a mastermind at tax evasion (so much so that the IRS hasn’t actually changed his tax liability, though supposedly such as finding by the IRS will come any day now). Yet there is no indication that Trump or his companies have managed to escape paying property tax every year.

What’s not to love about a tax that even Donald Trump is not smart enough to avoid?

(A federal land value tax might be awesome for redressing income inequality. Wealthy coastal elite states have a lot of valuable land so they would pay more than states where median incomes are low. Uber rich Californians who may be paying almost nothing in property due to Proposition 13 could finally be taxed on the rise in land value to which they contributed nothing.)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Holy Grail attained: NYT gets hold of Trump’s tax returns

“LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE” (NYT):

The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.

Finally all of the Trump-haters’ questions will be answered? Sadly, no. Much additional forensic accounting remains to be done.

By their very nature, the filings will leave many questions unanswered, many questioners unfulfilled. They comprise information that Mr. Trump has disclosed to the I.R.S., not the findings of an independent financial examination. They report that Mr. Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth. Nor do they reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.

If the tax returns don’t reveal Trump’s true wealth “by their very nature,” why was it so important to obtain and review them?

I’ve read through this article once and can’t find anything interesting. Trump seems to have had some winners and losers among his properties and took all of the deductions that good tax lawyers (such as RBG’s husband, a specialist in limiting payments to the government that RBG sought to expand) could find.

Actually, a close reading of the article reveals that Trump should actually be rich, as you might expect with someone who uses a Boeing 757 as a personal/family aircraft:

The newer tax returns show that Mr. Trump burned through the last of the tax-reducing power of that $1 billion in 2005, just as a torrent of entertainment riches began coming his way following the debut of “The Apprentice” the year before.

For 2005 through 2007, cash from licensing deals and endorsements filled Mr. Trump’s bank accounts with $120 million in pure profit. With no prior-year losses left to reduce his taxable income, he paid substantial federal income taxes for the first time in his life: a total of $70.1 million.

According to some previous articles that I’ve read, due to some crazy favorable contract terms and tax laws it seems that Trump was able to deduct losses on real estate that were actually incurred by partners (i.e., the $1 billion in losses for him might have been taken after only a $50 million personal loss). So if he chewed through this $1 billion with profits, that likely means that he actually earned $1 billion in profit circa 1995-2005 and didn’t have to pay income tax on that profit (due to the losses carried forward from the previous ventures in which he had not actually lost $1 billion of his own money).

Is it fair to say that the NYT’s long hunt for Trump’s tax returns has merely revealed that Trump was making roughly $100 million per year in a volatile industry and that his tax lawyers have been aggressive with the deductions? Who was a primary enabler of Trump being able to keep most of this $100 million/year?

Business losses can work like a tax-avoidance coupon: A dollar lost on one business reduces a dollar of taxable income from elsewhere. The types and amounts of income that can be used in a given year vary, depending on an owner’s tax status. But some losses can be saved for later use, or even used to request a refund on taxes paid in a prior year.

Until 2009, those coupons could be used to wipe away taxes going back only two years. But that November, the window was more than doubled by a little-noticed provision in a bill Mr. Obama signed as part of the Great Recession recovery effort. Now business owners could request full refunds of taxes paid in the prior four years, and 50 percent of those from the year before that.

What about the New York Times’s passion for learning more about how American women make money with their, um, natural assets?

The data contains no new revelations about the $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, the actress who performs as Stormy Daniels — a focus of the Manhattan district attorney’s subpoena for Mr. Trump’s tax returns and other financial information.

How about the proven (by the NYT) fact that everything Trump has done has been bankrolled by Russia?

No subject has provoked more intense speculation about Mr. Trump’s finances than his connection to Russia. While the tax records revealed no previously unknown financial connection — and, for the most part, lack the specificity required to do so — they did shed new light on the money behind the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, a subject of enduring intrigue because of subsequent investigations into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

The records show that the pageant was the most profitable Miss Universe during Mr. Trump’s time as co-owner, and that it generated a personal payday of $2.3 million…

So the guy who was earning $100 million per year from 1995-2005 added $2.3 million to his fortune via an event that occurred in Moscow?

Here’s the most shocking section to me:

Likewise the cost of haircuts, including the more than $70,000 paid to style his hair during “The Apprentice.” Together, nine Trump entities have written off at least $95,464 paid to a favorite hair and makeup artist of Ivanka Trump.

That’s a lot of hair-related expense!

Readers: What new and important information did you take away from this article?

Full post, including comments

New Yorkers should vote for Donald Trump just to get a bailout?

“Retail Chains Abandon Manhattan: ‘It’s Unsustainable’” (NYT):

Of Ark Restaurants’ five Manhattan restaurants, only two have reopened, while its properties in Florida — where the virus is far worse — have expanded outdoor seating with tents and tables into their parking lots, serving almost as many guests as they had indoors.

“There’s no reason to do business in New York,” Mr. Weinstein said. “I can do the same volume in Florida in the same square feet as I would have in New York, with my expenses being much less. The idea was that branding and locations were important, but the expense of being in this city has overtaken the marketing group that says you have to be there.”

But New York today looks nothing like it did just a few months ago.

In Manhattan’s major retail corridors, from SoHo to Fifth Avenue to Madison Avenue, once packed sidewalks are now nearly empty. A fraction of the usual army of office workers goes into work every day, and many wealthy residents have left the city for second homes.

For four months, the Victoria’s Secret flagship store at Herald Square in Manhattan has been closed and not paying its $937,000 monthly rent. “It will be years before retail has even a chance of returning to New York City in its pre-Covid form,” the retailer’s parent company recently told its landlord in a legal document.

Faith in human action:

New York’s stringent lockdown and methodical reopening may have brought the virus to heel, Mr. McCann said, but it is also wreaking havoc on businesses with so few people going to work, virtually no visitors and many residents “a little loath to go out” and worried for their health.

It can’t be that the virus ran out of suitable hosts in NYC! Bold action by the governor and mayor defeated the virus.

Democrats in New York assert that Donald Trump is corrupt and acts out of personal financial interest. Donald Trump is known to own a lot of real estate in NYC that would get a big lift from a federal bailout of NYC. Putting these things together, wouldn’t it therefore make sense for New Yorkers to rally behind Donald Trump for the 2020 election? What other politician is certain to divert rivers of federal cash in New York’s direction?

From January 2019, NYC subway:

Now they know that the real minimum wage is actually $0 and/or $600/week…

Full post, including comments

Psychologists struggle to comprehend the incomprehensible (Donald Trump)

A friend of a friend is a Ph.D. psychologist…

I had to take a class yesterday on “Racial and Community Violence” in order to renew my license to practice. There were only three articles used as curric[ulum].

(1) The first was regarding the mystery of why ordinary Americans support Trump. It said among other things, “Trump is an insult clown….and he is “A gold-plated buffoon who draws the enthusiastic endorsement of racists across the spectrum of intolerance, a gorgeous mosaic of haters, each of them quivering excitedly at the prospect of keeping a real, honest-to-god bigot in the White House. The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending.” (maybe from The Guardian?)

The second article was titled “Ferguson Isn’t about Black Rage Against Cops. It’s About White Rage Against Progress.” (Washington Post?)

The last article was titled, “The Decline and Fall of White America: Inside the Study that Shocked the Public-Health Community” (Slate?)

I got my CEUs [continuing education units?]. The class was produced and offered by The American Psychological Association. I paid them $80 for it. It is 3 hours to meet my multicultural requirement.

Full post, including comments

Donald Trump is a dictator and the U.S. is the worst place in the world for Coronaplague…

… however, according to M.I.T. and Harvard, it is essential for the welfare of foreigners that they stay here in the U.S. to be governed by Donald Trump and subjected to an unmitigated textbook-style coronaplague. See “Harvard and MIT sue Trump administration over online-only instruction for foreign students in the US” (CNN):

Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Wednesday sued the Trump administration over its guidance not allowing foreign students to take online-only courses in the US this fall semester.

Harvard announced earlier this week that all course instruction will be delivered online, including for students living on campus. In a statement provided to CNN, the university said the guidance stands to affect approximately 5,000 international students.

“The order came down without notice—its cruelty surpassed only by its recklessness. It appears that it was designed purposefully to place pressure on colleges and universities to open their on-campus classrooms for in-person instruction this fall, without regard to concerns for the health and safety of students, instructors, and others,” Harvard University President Larry Bacow said.

The lawsuit also underscores the challenge posed to students: “Just weeks from the start of the fall semester, these students are largely unable to transfer to universities providing on-campus instruction, notwithstanding ICE’s suggestion that they might do so to avoid removal from the country.”

If Trump is as bad as these folks say and the U.S. is an example of spectacular incompetence in managing the only thing that matters to humanity anymore (coronaplague), why wouldn’t the best thing for foreign students be an airlift back to relative coronasafety and government competence in their respective home countries?

(This is especially critical as we are informed by U.S. media that the typical victim of Covid-19 is a previously healthy teenager.)

A recent photo from a Robinson R44 of the empty Harvard campus:

(credit: my friend Tony)

Full post, including comments

Coronavirus is a Republican plot to prove Trump right?

“The Purell presidency: Trump aides learn the president’s real red line” (Politico, January 7, 2019):

A self-described germaphobe, the 45th president is strictly enforcing proper hygiene inside the White House — and wherever else he goes.

He asks visitors if they’d like to wash their hands in a bathroom near the Oval Office.

“If you’re the perpetrator of a cough or of a sneeze or any kind of thing that makes you look sick, you get that look,” said a former Trump campaign official. “You get the scowl. You get the response of — he’ll put a hand up in a gesture of, you should be backing away from him, you should be more considerate and you should extricate yourself from the situation.”

The president’s admitted germaphobia has been a fixture throughout his career — from real-estate deal rooms to casino floors — and it’s now popping up in more public ways. It could create another round of tactile challenges as Trump launches his 2020 campaign, during which he might try to steer visitors toward his signature thumbs-up selfies and away from handshakes for the next 16 months.

Democrats on Facebook love to say that Donald Trump is stupid, but doesn’t coronavirus make him look smart in retrospect? Maybe COVID-19 came out of a secret Republican National Committee laboratory?

Separately, a Facebook post from a righteous (and now disappointed) Elizabeth Warren supporter:

The news needs to show more White people with covid19 to help quell this tide of insane anti-Asian racism.

(She may have a point; we went for dim sum a couple of weeks ago and there was no wait for a table!)

Full post, including comments

Elizabeth Warren’s Legacy: Idea that Trump is an ordinary rich guy

Elizabeth Warren is gone, much to the dismay of my Facebook friends, especially degreed women who don’t work. Before Warren dropped out, one of my friends on Facebook said “More of this, please!” over a video of Elizabeth Warren in which she says that replacing Donald Trump with Michael Bloomberg would “Just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another”.

Of course, I couldn’t resist asking “Shouldn’t she be happy if any Democrat replaces Trump? How can she say that it wouldn’t be progress for the virtuous billionaire to replace the hated dictator?”

His response included the following:

You are making the claim that neither Warren nor I appreciate that Trump and his minions are a threat to democracy and Bloomberg is not. I don’t believe you believe this claim. Therefore I believe you are trolling.

“Trolling” seems to mean “point out a logical inconsistency,” so had to continue:

“Just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another” does not seem like a great way to highlight that one of said billionaires is a “threat to democracy”.

Perhaps Elizabeth Warren would personally have voted for Michael Bloomberg if he’d won the nomination, but that’s just Pepsi vs. Coke according to her, right? Not “new Hitler” or “threat to Democracy” or “insane” versus “reasonable”, “rational”, and “righteous”.

After telling Americans that they might not survive four more years of Donald Trump, that the Trump Presidency was a “national emergency,” etc., the Democrats have their smartest politician on record saying that one of their own is scarcely superior.

I’m wondering if this will be the only lasting legacy of the Warren campaign.

Related (loosely):

Full post, including comments

What happened at the Harvey Weinstein trial?

I saw from the headlines that the Harvey Weinstein trial in New York is over (but he still has one or more to go in California?). I hadn’t followed the case because the judge said prior to the trial that Harvey was going to spend the rest of his life in prison (Vice); it was only a question of whether it would be for using his phone in the courtroom or something related to the transactional sex that we read about (and would a jury who got even a quick look at the obese elderly Harvey need convincing that sex in which he was participating was transactional?).

Given that the outcome was predetermined, was there anything new that came out?

Separately, back in 2017 I asked “Where can Harvey Weinstein go for a peaceful retirement?”. It turns out that Harvey might have accidentally escaped prosecution if he’d followed his political heart. From a September 2016 article:

Talk turned from Oscar voters to American voters as fervent democrat Weinstein, appearing in Switzerland for the European premiere of the Garth Davis directed drama, was asked if he’d move to Canada if Donald Trump were elected US president.

“I’ve known Hillary Clinton 20 years. The allegations about her being untrustworthy are not true,” he said.

“I don’t think anything she did [with email servers] was intentional. The Clinton Global Initiative has the highest rating of any charity in America, and probably as good as any charity in the world, and I’m proud I’m part of that too.

“It’s insane that she doesn’t have the trustworthiness and it’s the only thing keeping her from winning. I don’t want to move to Canada, but I certainly don’t want to see Donald Trump [win] with bigotry and racism.”

Weinstein, who has hosted Clinton fundraisers this year, continued: “This is the worst I’ve ever seen it. This is not Mitt Romney or Robert Dole, or anybody you could afford to have as president.”

The Oscar season veteran didn’t mince his words when it came to Clinton’s opponent.

“Ronald Reagan ran the country and it survived. This is not George W. Bush. This is really serious. It’s somebody appealing to the worst in us.”

Mr. Weinstein, at least, seems to be living proof of the wisdom of fleeing the Trump Presidency (though perhaps it would be better to choose a country other than Canada, e.g., one without an extradition treaty with the U.S.).

Full post, including comments