Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 22, 2019

Here's an interesting development regarding the 2020 presidential race: We're both vastly more interested in the election than we were four years ago and we're convinced that neither major party represents us. What could possibly go wrong? Pretty much everything.



Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

According to a recent Fox News poll, voters are extremely engaged in the election compared to where they were four years ago. Fully 57 percent of registered voters told Fox that they were "very interested" in the 2020 race (question three). That compares to just 30 percent around the same time in 2015. At the same time, Rasmussen finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is fair to say that neither party in Congress is the party of the American people. In surveying since 2010, this finding has ranged from a high of 53% in 2014 to a low of 41% last year. Thirty-five percent (35%) disagree, while 17% are undecided.


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"because choices all bad"

I've heard that nearly every campaign season that I can remember.

Yet someone always seems to get elected.

So, go out and vote. If you don't vote, you are letting me do your choosing for you. And you do not want that.

Go. Vote.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-22 11:59 PM | Reply

This might be Jill Stein's year!

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-23 12:03 AM | Reply

If it's Biden, a boring, competent presidency is much MUCH preferable to what we have now.

#3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-23 01:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Anyone but our Russian mob money-laundering, liar who won't show us his tax returns.

The Emperor has no clothes.

Check out this pic: Trump & Son's opposite statements on Russian money and his business

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-23 02:01 AM | Reply

To wit:

by Garrett M. Graff, Business, wired.com-- May 11, 2018

But to Treasury officials and law enforcement who have long pursued money laundering and terrorist financing probes, it's not what Donald Trump or Michael Cohen did in any single transaction that raises red flags"it's how they conducted business day in and day out. The layers of shell companies, the contracts involving pseudonyms, the law firm cut-outs to make deals.

"Many of the activities, when viewed in aggregate, point to a deliberate attempt to create opacity," says Amit Sharma, who used to work on countering terrorist financing after 9/11 at the Treasury Department. "When you take two steps back, you see a murkiness and level of complexity with which the Cohen and Trump companies have operated"what are they hiding? Why are secondary and tertiary entities signing under pseudonyms and cover' names? Truly legitimate, transparent companies don't need to do that. [...]

Yet while regulations"especially since 9/11"require in-depth documentation and identification for basic banking for individuals, it has been much easier"until literally today"for corporate entities to hide their identities behind lawyers and shell companies. "Financial institutions are mandated to collect all this data on its customers, but up until now, financial institutions have not had to do the same for companies," Sharma says. "For companies, often it has simply been the business location and Tax ID number and we don't know the underlying ownership. We don't know whether it's a Russian oligarch." (In fact, new Treasury Department rules that require stronger due diligence on banks to understand who actually owns"or has a controlling interest in"a company only come into effect today, May 11, 2018.)

As Sharma says, "Trump and his companies have exercised this practice for many years"it seems that every new project, every product, every new building, he's starting a new company or legal entity to manage it. This has been the case for overseas operations and activities as well. [...]

In 2016 The Wall Street Journal's Jean Eaglesham, Mark Maremont, and Lisa Schwartz outlined a specific example of just that sort of structure: "Donald Trump owns a helicopter in Scotland. To be more precise, he has a revocable trust that owns 99 percent of a Delaware limited liability company that owns 99 percent of another Delaware LLC that owns a Scottish limited company that owns another Scottish company that owns the 26-year-old Sikorsky S-76B helicopter, emblazoned with a red TRUMP' on the side of its fuselage." All told, the Journal reported, 15 entities were used at that point to "own" Trump's fleet of two airplanes and three helicopters.

Layer on layer of corporate structure makes it hard for investigators, tax officials, or prying lawyers to figure out who owns what, the underlying source of money for specific transactions, whether taxes are being appropriately paid in a given jurisdiction, or who might be partners in what enterprises.

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-23 02:09 AM | Reply

"Reason" is garbage. Don't let your mind be polluted with that crap. I knew when I read the headline, who posted it and what it was. And I was exactly right.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-23 06:47 AM | Reply

Reason has published the best articles on the problems of civil asset forfeiture of any I've seen.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-08-23 06:53 AM | Reply

--Reason" is garbage. Don't let your mind be polluted with that crap.

Typical Danni: The mind of a steel trap...rusted shut.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-23 07:22 AM | Reply

"Typical Danni: The mind of a steel trap...rusted shut."

You're hardly the best candidate to criticize someone for slaughtering the source.

#9 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-08-23 08:22 AM | Reply

"Reason has published the best articles on the problems of civil asset forfeiture of any I've seen."

A broken clock is right twice a day.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-23 08:29 AM | Reply



"because choices all bad"

Russian meme to dampen participation. Same as 2016.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2019-08-23 09:19 AM | Reply

My deepest hope when Trump was elected was that it would drive the left to an actual progressive candidate.

Now I know what they mean about a " Monkey's Paw" wish. Instead of progressives who care about the working class, we get progressives who care about illegal immigrants and open borders. Instead of anti-war, all but one are interventionalists. Instead of pushing for unity and a post-racial society, they are all beholden to identity politics. They all want to talk about free trade and attack Trump's tariffs but none of them seem interested in addressing our trade deficit. The only one I would consider voting for is Tulsi, who still has negatives but at least checks my mark as an almost single-issue voter of being generally anti-war.

No, it's not a good field right now. I want people who are economically left and socially libertarian, and this entire crop is far too authoritarian.

#12 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-08-23 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#12 | Posted by zeropointnrg

I like the anti-war ex-military chick too - she's the only one I'd I'd vote for. But she has two problems:

1. She's anti-war, so she has no hope of being nominated.
2. She's ex-military, and the woke have an absolute, hysterical hatred of soldiers.

#13 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-23 01:31 PM | Reply

"2. She's ex-military, and the woke have an absolute, hysterical hatred of soldiers."

You're full of crap. Most of us understand that those who have seen wars are those who will most stongly oppose war. It's the people like George W. Bush who actually came right out and said it that he would use war to increase his power as President and then try to use that power to privatize SS. He intentionally took us into a long, costly war in Iraq for that purpose as he said he would.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-24 12:16 PM | Reply

They all seem odious to me. I will vote for the individual who proposes to do the least.

#15 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-24 02:19 PM | Reply

The halfway decent Dem candidates are all polling in single digits. That leaves Biden as the only acceptable candidate and I'm questioning whether he has it in him.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-25 10:20 AM | Reply

#16 | Posted by JeffJ, As far as Biden goes, he has been in office of some sort sense I was a teenager. That was quite a while ago. In all that time, did any major bill come up with his name on it? He was a rep from a state that makes most of it's revenue from high interest credit cards, so he wasn't preoccupied with policing the banking industry. His kids have serious had serious substance abuse problems, so he likely wasn't that concerned with his family, except pulling strings for them after the fact. He earned a reputation as a pol with a serious case of footinmouth disease. And THIS IS THE BEST THE DEMOCRAT PARTY CAN DO?!

#17 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-25 01:17 PM | Reply



I've said it before: Dems are hellbent on repeating 2016. Perhaps if they spent 1/4 the time looking for a good candidate as they do obsessing with Trump (which he loves!) they would have a better chance at winning the WH in 2020.

#18 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-25 01:20 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort