The first four states to be polled since the November election all went for Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is making no gains among potential voters in four states that he lost. Two polls are of New York State, one of New Jersey, and one of recent swing-state Virginia. The second poll of New York state is the one that I go with.

First one: New Jersey. Quinnipiac.

President-elect Donald Trump remains unpopular in New Jersey, with a negative 38 - 51 percent favorability rating. (Obama up 56-35 in approval... guess what sort of Presidential nominee the Democrats will be able to win with in 2020?)

https://poll.qu.edu/new-jersey/release-d...aseID=2408


Quinnipiac, Virginia , conducted Dec 6-11

https://poll.qu.edu/virginia/release-det...aseID=2412

Trump
favorable 39%
unfavorable 53%

Quinnipiac poll of New York, conducted Dec. 13-19:

https://poll.qu.edu/new-york-state/relea...aseID=2413

Trump:
favorable 31%
unfavorable 59%

By region...
NYC: -46
suburbs: -23
upstate: -14




I didn't expect a poll of Maryland, not that it contradicts anything that polls of New York, New Jersey, and Virginia already say.

First, the incumbent Republican Governor is doing very well in a deep-blue (Atlas Red) state: 74% approval! Fiscal conservative, but basically non-ideological... we could use much of that anywhere.

Second -- Donald Trump is deep underwater in approval -- 30% favorable (combined "somewhat" and "strongly" favorable) and 56% unfavorable -- with 48% seeing him as "strongly unfavorable".

http://2qtvrz46wjcg34jx1h1blgd2.wpengine...y-2017.pdf

To be sure, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland do not constitute or even contain a state easily described as a microcosm of America. I am more interested in Obama-Trump states for now. I'm guessing that if states from Virginia to Maine were to have their say on Donald Trump, then he'd be vulnerable to a military coup.  

Red is for a Democratic advantage, and blue is for a Republican advantage.


Favorability:



Probably our best approximation until about March, when we have policies to discuss more than personality.


Approval:



Not likely useful until March.


Even -- white



Blue, positive and 40-43%  20% saturation
............................ 44-47%  40%  
............................ 48-50%  50%
............................ 51-55%  70%
............................ 56%+     90%

Red, negative and  48-50%  20% (raw approval or favorability)
..........................  44-47%  30%
..........................  40-43%  50%
..........................  35-39%  70%
.......................under  35%  90%

Colors chosen for partisan affiliation.

(01-06-2017, 12:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 01:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Danilynn, the rural folks are responsible for the 1% OWNING OUR COUNTRY.

They put the politicians in office that made it such.

Now, just WHO is that "maligning?" Since you seem to be all in favor of the political arrangements and policies that created this condition of our country, why not then just be proud of it, and not consider it an insult? If it's what you favor, then why would you consider it "evil"?

You could follow Warren Dew's example. He just tries to argue that I and others are incorrect about those policies, and that the policies that you also favor as well as he, are correct.

You're more financially reliant (owned by as you say) on the 1% than any of us and you don't seem to realize it.

I don't know how you know so much about me. That has always puzzled me about you

You are a blue recruiter. What else do I need to know about you?

With the benefit of hindsight, how will presidential historians characterize Donald Trump's time in office?  I know that's looking far into the future.  What I can say, without equivocation, is that Trump poses more imponderables than any of his successors.  And that means unprecedented uncertainty.  We have only his business record by which to judge the potential nature and quality of his leadership.  He is the only American president to assume the mantle of leadership without benefit of either military or political experience.  Oh sure, he can assemble a "crack team" of retired generals and savvy politicians to advise him, but there is something valuable in and of itself to having been in the field of combat or having served in high political office beforehand.  That kind of experience provides a perspective that a total outsider like Trump cannot possibly bring to the table: real lessons on the horrors of war and the limits of power.

According to Strauss and Howe, the Fourth Turning crisis that now confronts us cries out for a Gray Champion.  We already have threads aplenty that addresses that topic, which I consider one of the weaker tenets of their theory.  Our previous Gray Champions were not all that "gray" to begin with--before their inauguration: Washington (57), Lincoln (52), and FDR (51), who was younger than his disastrous predecessor--Hoover (54).  Younger candidates than were on offer this past election might well be able to lead us out of the "swamp" in which our country is mired.  A Gen-Xer...maybe even a Millennial four to eight years from now.  (He or she could hardly do worse than the Boomer presidents who have preceded them.)

Anyway, I digress...

Trump, who has been underestimated politically all along the way, could well turn out to be the Gray Champion.  That, of course, is the best case, according to S&H theory.  But I just don't see it.  Trump has neither the intellect, nor experience, much less the character of Washington, Lincoln and FDR.  Not even close. 

He is no doubt a demagogue, the first of that political ilk to reach the pinnacle of power in America, succeeding where Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy, and George Wallace failed.  But I am not prepared to call Trump a fascist, as some pundits have called him, political commentators who--quite frankly--should know better.  I would hesitate even to call him a strongman in the manner of Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez, although I would not rule that out altogether, especially if a meta-crisis strikes on his watch, one that brings out his worst tendencies.  Either possibility is a worst case.

The most likely case is that Trump goes down in history as a (faux) populist, like Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.  The two men bear an uncanny resemblance.  This article appeared in The Guardian prior to our election: "We’ve Seen Donald Trump Before – His Name Was Silvio Berlusconi:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...e_btn_link

We keep being told that the Donald Trump phenomenon means we have entered the era of post-fact politics. Yet, I would argue, post-fact politics has been tarnishing democracy for some time. Twenty-two years ago a successful businessman sent a VHS tape to Italy’s news channels. It showed him sitting in a (fake) office. He read a pre-prepared statement via an autocue.

The man’s name was Silvio Berlusconi, and he was announcing that he was, in his words, “taking the field”. The first reaction was derision. Opposition politicians saw his political project (the formation of a “movement” called Forza Italia – Go for it, Italy – just months ahead of a crucial general election) as a joke. Some claimed a stocking had been put over the camera to soften the impact of Berlusconi’s face.

But Forza Italia soon became the biggest “party”. In the working-class Communist citadel of Mirafiori Sud in Turin, an unknown psychiatrist standing for Berlusconi’s movement beat a long-standing trade unionist. Berlusconi had not just won, he had also stolen the left’s clothes and some of its supporters. That first government was short lived, but Berlusconi would dominate Italian politics for the next 20 years – winning elections in 2001 and 2008 and losing by a handful of seats in 2006. In terms of days in office, Berlusconi ranks as Italy’s third longest-serving prime minister, behind Mussolini and the great liberal of 19th-century Italy, Giovanni Giolitti.

The parallels between Berlusconi and Trump are striking. Both are successful businessman who struggle with “murky” aspects linked to their companies – tax, accounting, offshore companies. Berlusconi was convicted of tax fraud in 2013, which effectively put an end to his political career. But business success and huge wealth was part of his political appeal, as they are for Trump. Beyond wealth, Berlusconi, like Trump, always painted himself as an outsider, as anti-establishment, even when he was prime minister. And, like Trump, Berlusconi’s appeal was populist and linked to his individual “personality”.

Berlusconi’s personal-business political model has since been followed by others in Italy. It could be argued that both Beppe Grillo’s populist anti-political Five Star Movement and Matteo Renzi’s insider-outsider appeal (until recently) have been created very much in Berlusconi’s image. One could go so far as to say Berlusconi transformed politics. The mass parties of the postwar period had become increasingly irrelevant, but he didn’t need a party just as Trump doesn’t really need the Republican party...

If Donald Trump merely turns out to be a political leader in the mold of Silvio Berlusconi, that simply guarantees the kind of feckless or mediocre leadership that we have seen before in previous presidents.  That is hardly the worst case.  Still, the policies that Trump has proposed, and the team that he is assembling, promises more of the same neoliberalism that has brought class resentment--and worse impulses, in some of his supporters--to a fever pitch.  That would be bad enough...

This is a hugely needed thread to highlight the idiocy of the Main Stream Media.  Here's a start with one of my "favorites",  MSNBC   

http://heatst.com/politics/the-place-for...ainst-them Wrote:

MSNBC’s hosts have a tax problem.

A Heat Street review of public records show that a total of six current, prominent MSNBC pundits have recently settled federal or state tax liens, while one still has tax problems. Moreover, at least two other hosts who recently left the network have also had massive tax liens filed against them.

MSNBC declined to comment, and none of the current or former tax debtors responded to requests for interviews sent through an MSNBC spokesperson.

Get our exclusive newsletter—the best of Heat Street every day

 



The Rev. Al Sharpton — MSNBC’s Sunday morning host — easily comes in first place when it comes to “issues” with the taxman. He and his various entities—including several dissolved by New York for failure to pay taxes—currently owe about $1.5 million in state and federal taxes, interest and penalties, according to public records.

Advertisement

It’s a staggering sum, but down substantially from the $4.5 million in outstanding tax liens tallied by the New York Times two years ago. Sharpton has repeatedly said he’s worked out agreements with authorities to settle his tax debt, and a source close to him says he’s been paying it down aggressively, aware of how it may affect his legacy. The reverend has repeatedly called publicly for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.

Several other prominent MSNBC talking heads have settled their tax debt only after liens were filed.

In January 2016, New York filed a lien for more than $2,500 in back taxes against MSNBC daytime anchor Craig Melvin, which he didn’t settle until the final weeks of the year.

Craig Melvin

It’s not the first time Melvin has run into tax problems, either. In 2010, South Carolina — where he used to anchor local news — filed a tax warrant against him for more than $3,300, which has since been resolved. Melvin has also run into other financial problems, with Discover Bank taking him to court in 2005 over a $3,200 debt.

Melvin has spoken out on air and on social media about the need for the wealthy to pay more taxes.

Quote:Should peeps earning a million $ or more a year pay more income taxes than those making less? Would a "millionaire's tax" help the economy?
— Craig Melvin (@craigmelvin) September 19, 2011

Melvin is joined by Chris Matthews. Last summer, Maryland took out a lien against the Hardball host and his wife for nearly $4,000 before Matthews paid up.

Quote:Congrats to Eric "Ebeneezer" Cantor for starving people on food stamps. Helluva victory for the 1 percent.
— Chris Matthews (@HardballChris) September 19, 2013

Quote:#Obama has rung the bell. The campaign’s on. He’s asking the American people to say they want a fair tax burden. Gutsy move.
— Chris Matthews (@HardballChris) September 20, 2011

Joy-Ann Reid also recently settled a New York tax lien for nearly $5,000, filed against her in 2015.

Both Matthews and Reid have repeatedly held forth about tax policy—including together, on the same TV segment.

In 2012, for example, Matthews said that “the key element” of a political battle between John Boehner and Barack Obama was “that there be tax fairness—the people at the top, who now get a tax break of about 5 percent, should not get that anymore because they don’t need it.”

“Right, absolutely,” Reid replied. Later in the same interview, she mentioned how “it was very important to [Obama’s] base that he gets those rates up on the top earners. That was what he promised.” More recently, Reid said that taxation of the wealthy comes down to “a basic fairness argument.”

In 2016, Kristen Welker finally paid off $6,700 in California tax liens. Though she’s offered little personal commentary about tax policy, she has reported on the issue.

Quote:POTUS:"Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled." Dems will campaign on issues related to income inequality. #SOTU #nbcpolitics
— Kristen Welker (@kwelkernbc) January 29, 2014

Quote:Potus: "majority of voters agree with me" when it comes to wealthy paying more in taxes. A subtle suggestion that he's got a mandate.
— Kristen Welker (@kwelkernbc) November 14, 2012

Quote:Per Dem Source Fam with talks: The call between Boehner and POTUS was tense bc the R. offer had permanent tax cuts for wealthy americans.
— Kristen Welker (@kwelkernbc) December 12, 2012

Two other recent MSNBC personalities have also grappled with massive tax debt.

Touré Neblett, who was fired by MSNBC in 2015, has had significant tax problems. According to public records from the NYC Department of Finance Office of the City Register, the IRS filed two separate tax liens against him for more than $257,000, covering the years from 2008-2012.

Touré Neblett

It’s unclear whether he has made any effort to pay off these tax debts, or whether they remain outstanding. Neblett did not respond to our media requests sent to his various social media accounts, and by deadline, his representative for speaking gigs had also failed to respond to our detailed inquiry.

The New York City office that recorded the liens was unable to confirm or deny any payments. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said it did not show any state warrants but couldn’t comment on the status of federal tax warrants. By deadline, the Internal Revenue Service hadn’t responded to Heat Street’s detailed query about whether the tax debt was outstanding.

Melissa Harris-Perry
Melissa Harris-Perry, who left the network in 2016, had a federal tax lien taken out against her for around $70,000 in 2015. She paid it off the following year. She did not respond to Heat Street’s request for comment.

Yes, by all means I support a more progressive income tax.  Now, all y'all deadbeats, pay up 'cause this tax lien situation makes y'all look like dufuses.

We've been discussing this topic on other threads, but it deserves its own, in light of this column on the PBS Newshour website:

Column: Why we need to say goodbye to work


James Livingston
FOLLOW

• http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense...dbye-work/
  
  

So here's a bit of superficial fun.  I confess I enjoy these fashion-through-the-decade videos that have been popping up on youtube lately.  These two, from Vanity Fair, feature the pop stars to represent each decade for the past 100 years, using black and white models.

What do you think, and how would you have chosen differently?

Of the two, I prefer the male video.  It's too bad they couldn't have somehow included John Lennon and Nat King Cole.





As for the female video, I think the 60s should be Diana Ross, as her biggest hits with the Supremes were from that decade.  I never really cared that much for Janis Joplin anyway.  The 70s should be Debbie Harry.  For the 90s, I would have chosen Tori Amos, Whitney Houston or Bjork.  Britney Spears has no business representing the 90s since she only started out during the very end of the decade, and even then was only popular with preteen Millennials.  She could represent the 2000s, I guess, but I think Beyonce is the better choice. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/health...pe=article
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health....html?_r=1
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/health...pe=article

You Gen-X’rs wanted us dead, right? Congratulations.
 
So keep on saying “It Is What It Is”, or “Your point?”.
 
You’re next. You’ve trained the slackers that you slave-drive into caring even less about others.
 
2016. The National  Election Suicide “cry for help”, no matter your political affiliation.

Know that this has been a few years in the making.......

http://www.businessinsider.com/stores-cl...rs-2016-12

Page 1 (except for DHS and FBI logos which I have no desire to duplicate)

TLP:WHITE
JOINT ANALYSIS REPORT
DISCLAIMER:

This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as Subject to standard copyright rules, information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.


 (Comment: official publications of the federal government created by federal employees in official duties are not subject to copyright protection but may be denied in accordance with concerns for national security, judicial process, or law enforcement)


Reference Number: JAR-16-20296

December 29, 2016

GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity


Summary

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and  endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.  The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. This determination expands upon the Joint Statement  released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security.

This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at U.S. government and its citizens. These cyber operations have included spearphishing campaigns targeting government organizations, critical infrastructure entities, think tanks, universities, political organizations, and corporations leading to the theft of information. In foreign countries, RIS actors conducted  damaging and/or disruptive cyber-attacks, including attacks on critical infrastructure  networks. In some cases, RIS actors masqueraded as third parties, hiding behind false online personas designed to cause the victim to misattribute the source of the attack. This JAR provides technical indicators related to many of these operations, recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided, and information on how to report such incidents to the U.S. Government.  

Page 1 of 13.

Read it and weep.

My comment:It is bad enough that foreign interests may have decided the electoral results for us. Just think of how bad things can be if the 2020 Presidential election turns into a contest between Chinese and Russian actors trying to manipulate the Presidential and Congressional elections with more concern for getting or keeping amenable stooges in power. In such a scenario the United States of America is no longer truly  really independent.

This is not about Americans or about public policy as established by the President and Congress.

So I had this thread going on in the former forum, so I thought about bringing over that iscussion over to this forum now.

It's about Vaporwave, or whats known as neo-dadaism. What do you think about it so far?