Wow Mimi, that's some dramatic prostestation you've worked up to over an opinion piece.

I have a strong opinion about the opinion piece. Mostly, it's salve to sooth the butt hurt of Hillary's supporters who are tired of defending her and probably worried she might lose to the likes of Donald Trump.

If calling her detractors sexist gets makes them sleep better at night, that's fine with me.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and all that.

Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Funny; when I read Womack's article, I did not perceive the mysogynist critique to be aimed @ me personally, but @ our society @ large & media 'reporting' in particular.

Last night's debate sketch on SNL was another comedic winner. Kate M. does a great Hillary and she balances her impression with good humor.

I'm not sure if I like Alec Baldwin as Trump.

You know who does a really good Trump? Ex-SNL alum Dana Carvey. I saw him do this the other week and wish they'd bring him back for a sketch or two. Darrell Hammond does a really good Trump, too.

I don't know if anyone can beat Tina Fey's crazy-azz Palin, though!

Considering the nominee for president from the Republican party is an overt sexist and misogynist, and his supporters don't care, it does follow that there is an issue of sexism and misogyny in our society.

And to say that a society is sick and driven by something is not the same as saying every person in that society is possessing of that thing. In addition, to bring up the "nurturer" trait of women is not about "suckling babies at their ample bosoms." Wow. It's saying that women can be more than the caretakers, which involves a lot more than just breast-feeding, mimi.

But again, considering a raging sexist and misogynist has actually become a nominee for the US presidency, combined with the enormous double and impossible standards HRC has been subjected to - even being blamed for her husband's affairs! - does suggest that there is a real problem of sexism and misogyny in American society. But that is NOT saying that all Americans are sexist and misogynistic.

I think you also need to move over to Hot Topics, Mimi. You're moving more into a tone for HT than for Home Deco Convos, I think.

ETA: When people urge a multi-philanderer to go after the wife of a man who has cheated on her, that is about as sexist and misogynistic as it gets, Mimi, because it's not only saying that it's perfectly acceptable for men to have affairs (unless their name is Bill Clinton), so much so that it doesn't faze people that a man who has cheated himself, multiple times, would actually use infidelity to blame a wife, but that blaming wives for their husband's infidelity is the "way to go". That is profound and overt sexism and misogyny. Both.

Larry is not running for president. I scanned his article to understand his point. I got it. I filtered out the drama. I also recognized that part of the purpose of the article is entertainment.

Here is another take on the subject from the first female former prime minister of Australia:

Gillard on gps (cnn)

I loved Baldwin's Trump. Very funny IMHO. And Margot Robbie's Ivanka, Lol. The Hillary, IMHO, was only ok. They didn't really get her I thought. At least it was relatively flattering.

I read something recently about the under representation of women in politics. The article said that, women, regardless of party, consistently vote differently than men on many areas. The fact that women do not enter politics at the rate of men, then, means that the legislation and policies of our govt do not really reflect the populace as well as they could. I thought that was interesting.

Has anyone seen this? It was recommended to me by someone who hates politics but said this was very well done. It's a PBS Frontline episode that gives the history of Trump and HRC from childhood to now.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/think-know-clinton-trump-new-documentary-gets-inside-candidates-past-lives/

I mentioned "Frontline" about a week ago when it first began airing and also suggested people watch it. Enlightening (as "Frontline" always is), and explains a lot. Interesting that a pivotal moment in HRC's life was when MLK, Jr., spoke at her church, while Trump's pivotal moment (one of them) was meeting the odious Roy Cohn, and whom he seems to have emulated ever since.

I must have missed it when you recommended it, Tibb. I plan on watching it tonight.

I saw it. It was fascinating.

No problem, cattilyles! Glad you brought it up again to suggest people watch it. It's really good. "Frontline" always is.

I mentioned it in this thread. Twice. ;)

Cattyles, I checked out your link, but it's just a clip from the show.

Here's the full film. I'll watch it later today.

Thanks all! I don't know how I missed all your recommendations. :-)

Oh how I love being right! I've been preaching this for years!

" Obama: I see 'straight line' from Sarah Palin becoming VP nominee 'to what we see today' with Trump."

There's a lot I don't get. Granted. But one of the things that seems to be is a lot of trump supporters don't believe he will institute or be able to institute many of the policies he's promoting. And it's with that in mind that they're supporting him. I just don't get supporting someone who, if he does get in, you don't want him to do what he says he will do.

I think it's rationalizing, Annie. Oh, he won't really build a wall. He won't really kick 11 million people out.

I am no fan of Sarah Palin, but I am not sure how one lays this (the state of the Republican party) at her feet.

Here is the sad thing, too. If you find Sarah Palin as utterly unqualified and absurd as I did, you must lay that at the feet of a man I like and and admire very much; Senator John McCain.

What a disastrous decision that was!

a lot of trump supporters don't believe he will institute or be able to institute many of the policies he's promoting

Sadly, as someone who lives in a solidly pro-Trump area, I must disagree. They hope he will be able to implement all the policies he's promoting, I'm afraid.

Palin still has a huge fan base and she was one of the first to endorse him, so she played a big part in this mess.

I've been having conversations with my friends about what is really going on behind the scenes with the mainstream Republicans about how to deal with everything (esp him) if he should be elected. One theory is they'll have him assassinated and then Pence will be president and they can appoint another acceptable (to them) VP and have the real right wing in power.

But now some people are saying they are just riding this out and should he get elected, they'll maneuver his removal via an impeachment (is there another way?) over some of the things that are now coming out about his dealings with...pick one. Same outcome as above and not quite so messy as the other option.

Palin and Trump are merely symptoms of a bigger problem.

Ha! Oly, I've been floating that "impeachment" thought for a little while. It makes no sense at all that Pence would want to be that doofus's VP, so it struck me that there had to be some deal made between him and the RNC.

The bigger problem, I think, is that people are plain desperate for change.

I think many will overlook the recent revelations about his tax returns just because they are desperate for change. His supporters are claiming he's a genius business person for avoiding taxes. A few have noted it was unlikely that it was he who found the loophole and knew how to use it, so Trump himself isn't really the "genius" behind this.

If you read the whole article, the President makes a very nuanced and comprehensive observation. He uses the selection of Sarah Palin as one of the first very visible sign of the rise and power of the Tea Party Republicans. He then states that the reason DT was able to secure the nomination is because the Republican Party has a considerable number of Tea Party activists participating and controlling party business, and DT is the kind of candidate they like. Is there a split in the Republican Party, yes, and DT's supporters won. I think there is a possibility that both parties will split apart or realign. It has happened many times in the past. Under the leadership of the Clintons and Obama, the Democrats have pursued a centrist strategy, despite the hype. Realignment has happened in the past, FDR realigned the Democratic Party and Nixon realigned the Republican Party and the Whig party dissolved and the Republican party was born and thrived. Can such things happen today? We shall see. There is a large constituency out there to be tapped, but do the times make the person or does the person make the times? I find it hard to imagine what kind of person could be successful in bringing this country together if Obama couldn't, considering the forces that are only too happy with the status quo.

Of course McCain is responsible for Palin by not vetting her hardly at all, but she managed to rile people up anyway, then we had the Tea Party, and now look at the party. I've lost all respect for it.

I read today that Catholics have been told to overlook Trump's personality and vote for him because of the abortion issue, and who will be put on the supreme court if he doesn't win.

I read today that Catholics have been told to overlook Trump's personality and vote for him because of the abortion issue, and who will be put on the supreme court if he doesn't win.

Interesting. I guess I must live in backwater or something because the Catholic church has never once in my whole life told me how to vote.

The Baptists, C of C, and non-denominationals around here all support Trump (as if it makes any difference in west Texas). The message is to support the platform, not the person. I know this from fb posts.

I work for a large Catholic healthcare organization. The Sisters that sponsor the ministry portion are careful to make sure they don't "officially" endorse candidates. But they made it very clear that Obama had their support because of healthcare and ditto for HRC. I have had the pleasure of meeting these women at the Motherhouse in California and even though they are quite elderly they have travelled to our hospital in Texas. I can't convey how much I admire them and their heritage of service to the "dear neighbor". They inspire me so much, I have considered Catholicism. And I am very much not a church person.

Sorry for the tangent. I wanted to share their example of nonpartisan service.

@Oakley

Where did you read that?

I only know one person so far who is voting for Trump. Oh, and half a handful of acquaintances that I don't know well. The first person is a friend of mine and I was shocked when she told me, shocked because she voted for Obama both times. When I asked her why she said she would never vote for Hillary and she felt she was stupid for getting sucked in for the last eight years because it really divided our country more than ever. She called Trump a buffoon but felt he was the lesser evil.

Edited to add: I was just thinking I haven't spoken to my friend since the Donald tax thing. It will be interesting to hear her take since she was a corporate auditor for the IRS (now retired).

My Catholic friends are posting almost constantly on facebook how HC and Kaine go against Catholic doctrine. They are particularly vitriolic about Kaine because they consider him to be a hypocrite because he is Catholic and since HC and Kaine haven't made unequivocal anti-abortion, anti-birth control statements, the reasoning is that no Catholics of good conscience can vote for them. My Catholic friends have been posting about birth control and abortion and gay marriage being wrong and a thing that Catholics can't support almost non-stop since DT started imploding. So yes, they are voting for a scumbag and hoping for the platform. I'm voting Democratic for the same reason, I support the platform, not in love with HC but she will do. I know what the Republican platform is and I don't want it, I want a smaller deficit, environmental protection, peace, and support for programs that benefit the middle class, which can be accomplished by a slow and steady reform and improvements in efficiency, (belt tightening for all) small tax increases for some, and closing big tax breaks and loopholes and effectively working with allies to promote our agenda overseas. I don't care about peoples sex lives at all.

With regards to the Catholic thing, there are many single-issue voters out there. It might be abortion, or gay marriage or the environment or terrorism. As long as people don't berate others for voting on other issues, they can FB away about how Kaine is a traitor.

I just think the issues nowadays are so much more complex and far reaching.

I am Catholic. I have many Catholic friends (I see most of their Facebook posts). I also have many friends who are not Catholic, but are quick to let people know they are 'good Christians'. I also have atheist friends.

I see many more anti-choice, anti-abortion posts and memes from those that are not Catholic.

I would love to see the article you read, Oak, because I have never been advised how to vote from my Chirch.

lpink, much of the same happening with the Catholic community here. Unlike the Sisters cattyles mentioned above, the folks I know taking that stand are ignoring all the other social concerns a Democrat president would support and voting solely on the abortion issue.

My MIL is particularly vocal on her loyalty to The Church. The irony is that she hasn't attended Mass for decades (except weddings & funerals). Her idea of raising her kids in the Catholic faith was to drop them off at CCD classes so they were eligible to receive the Sacrements. There was never prayer or mention of God in DH's household. In fact, she & her DH asked that we stop doing that "say Grace thing" at Thanksgiving. She has never participated in a church community or done any form of public service. She used birth control her entire adult life (against Church doctrine) But now she can't move her fingers over the keyboard fast enough to promote pro Trump messages because she says as a Good Catholic it's her duty.

I know other Catholics are sincere in their convictions, and I respect that. But I know that there are many others like my MIL who are using Facebook to impress extended family and friends with their..ahem.."piety."

I reminded her that her small New England city at one time had the largest KKK organization in the North. There were no people of color living there. The targeted group they were persecuting? Catholics! I asked how she could support a candidate who is aligned with Klan leadership. It all falls on deaf ears..

I have vague recollection of politics being addressed from the pulpit, but obliquely and in general terms of voting in accordance with our beliefs is important. That's about it.

Some priests might push the limits and try to exert influence over their congregation.

maddielee, I saw your post after I posted above. I am writing to confirm that there is indeed pressure by some Catholic churches regarding voting and I personally experienced it.

DH & I raised our kids as Catholics. Our family was very involved in our parish in Maine for many years. Around the time of the priest scandal in Boston many people began falling away from the Church. We hung in there, but I was really put off when during election times, after the homily, ushers came through and distributed stamped, addressed postcards that we were expected to sign on the spot and put in the collection baskets. They indicated our allegiance to pro life candidates. Some of these candidates had shady histories and I wouldn't have chosen to vote for them. I felt secure enough at the time not to be brow beaten into signing, but there were many older, meeker parishioners who cowered under the pressure of having to do this publicly in front of the congregation during Mass and worried about the priest's and others' opinion of them if they didn't comply.

DH & I spoke to our priest about it but he claimed his hands were tied, that passing out these voting cards was dictated by the Bishop. We moved to another state soon after, but that marked beginning of the end of my participation in the Catholic Church.

I don't know who is wagging the dog, but I am totally in favor of the separation of church and state for reasons like this.

I find these anecdotes interesting because polls have shown Clinton leading Trump by a wide margin among Catholic voters. Perhaps there are local differences?

In re the tax thing, I hope it plays poorly "in Peoria" but I find it pretty meaningless.

A tax loss of $916mn in one year really does not tell me anything at all about what kind of a businessman he is (although, fwiw, as a careerist Wall Streeter, I can tell you no real estate person thinks he is a good business person at all. They recognize him solely as a marketer). Anyone who has ever run even a small business knows the difference between say, positive cash flow, and a tax loss. We just don't have enough info from that return or corroborating financials to judge how he did in 1995 as a businessperson.

In addition, if he was able to shelter the next 900mn of income, he can hardly be blamed. He has a staff that does his tax work and they will do whatever makes sense. Should he have said "whoa now, that doesn't seem right! Let's cut a check to the IRS!" Ridiculous. I think our tax rates are not progressive enough and that I should pay more, but I have never sent in extra.

"I think our tax rates are not progressive enough and that I should pay more, but I have never sent in extra."

I would like to see our tax code revised to stop benefiting the top 1% so that they pay more taxes which would benefit all. But until we get people in power that do that, I don't fault anyone for paying what the law requires. However, there are people who use some of their wealth that doesn't go to taxes to support charities and good causes, which, based on your posts about other things, I suspect you do. Donald Trump does neither.

This was on our local NPR station and is worth a listen, I believe...a local multi millionaire on Trump and the fairness of our tax system:

NPR interview with Nick Hanauer

About Nick_Hanauer

People are going to view the Trump's tax situation based on their support of him--excuse or accuse. Although I do find Giuliani's seemingly unabashed support of everything Trump rather off-putting.

Catholics are the same. One cannot ascribe 100% to Catholic ideology and still support either candidate. Although Jesus hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors and adulterers and other sinners to bring them grace, so today he'd probably hang out with most politicians. (wink)

ETA clarification to Jesus comment above.

Amck2, your priest might want to be a little more cautious. He wouldn't want to lose tax exempt status, would he?

mtn, I don't think the argument w/r/t his taxes is that he should have voluntarily paid taxes or that he should not have taken advantage of every tax break and loophole available to him. I think the argument is that the tax code and all those kinds of breaks and loopholes favor the already very wealthy like Trump and the overall result and sense is that the very, very wealthy are treated with favor, often to the point of not paying any taxes at all on enormous incomes.

My father was a priest and he never, ever discussed politics (outside of his immediate family), and when I asked him why, he said, "Professional ethics. I can't as a priest."

When the Catholic Church was undergoing the child molestation "thing", I asked him why the Episcopal Church didn't take advantage and 'recruit' disenchanted Catholics. He said, "Because you don't kick people and take advantage of them when they're down."

So what he was saying was that you never use people to reach your own ends.

I don't know that what he did was a loophole or a tax advantage that the rest of us don't have. Some of his business ventures failed or did poorly so he gets to write off his investment losses. Even the little guy gets to carry them over each year, offsetting current taxes with losses until they are used up. The amount involved in his case is huge because he has a tremendous amount of resources that he takes risks with. It would be terribly unfair if he was not allowed to write losses off like the rest of us. A lot of entrepreneurs and investors would also stop taking those risks, which employ a lot of people and feed the economy.

Sometimes business ventures succeed. More often, I believe, they fail.

It is highly unlikely that The Donald does his own taxes. His tax professionals did their job.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is a huge umbrella and has right wing, left wing, and middle wing folk, all of whom usually consider themselves "good Catholics." Different Catholic churches can have a right leaning, left leaning, or middle leaning tone depending on the leadership. So you can expect a wide range of diversity in Catholic voting in any given year. I am a practicing, believing Catholic and consider myself a "middle of the road" type--not too conservative, not too liberal. I will NOT be voting for Clinton for a number of reasons, but her platform on abortion is way up there. On the other hand, I will NOT be voting for Trump because he is--how can I say it best--a bombastic, vulgar, fool.And I am not alone among my Catholic and many non-Catholic friends. In good conscience, many of us cannot vote for either candidate.

For many other conservative-leaning Catholics Trump is simply the lesser of two evils. Sad.

It gets really interesting when my anti-abortion, "all lives matter" ( do they?) pro DT evangelical friends post anti Catholic memes at the same time my Catholic friends are posting similar memes about blacks and abortion. I myself try to stay away from most memes unless they are about libraries. I will cop to being a sucker for a pro-library meme.

Actually Tibb, that's the argument he makes about it. That it may be representative of weaknesses/unfairness in our tax policies. And it's the correct argument in my opinion… Minus his nonsensical boasting about being a genius. We have no way of knowing if it represented a particularly complex or creative maneuver, and even if it did it was done by tax professionals and not him.

But the talking heads are using this new story in two ways. First to suggest it proves that he does not actually have business acumen. And second to castigate him for not paying "his share of taxes". It's more than Fine with me if people believe those things, but I think they're misguided is all.

One of the problems is that we use tax policy as a way to incent people and businesses to do certain things… As a carrot… And some people then find ways to distort the intent and exploit the tax code.

Well, I think he's lying when he says that is a problem. I don't believe for a second that he thinks it's a problem. Trump is so sleazy and does anything he can to save or make a buck, including not paying contractors, so his expressing a concern over unfairness of a tax code that he has benefitted from hugely falls on these deaf ears.

The latest is that the WaPo is reporting that Trump used his "foundation" as a slush fund, or a laundromat, for funds he has used for his presidential campaign. Illegal.

Trump has absolutely NO record of caring one whit about anyone but himself, about sticking it to people, about the welfare of others, etc. He's admitted he has no friends, and someone who brags about having no friends can't possibly have any kind of empathy or sense for other people.