I'm not really sure how this is going to trend out in the long run, as a negative for Trump or a negative for Democrats and probably does depend on one's own tax situation and experience and underlying knowlege of our tax structure.

There are a couple of givens I think, one being that no one, or very few people at most, enjoy paying taxes and the other that it is the sworn goal of most companies, both large and small, to limit their taxable profits.

Every morning I peruse the headlines to see which wing of the fortress of Democracy has crumbled further. Lately one particular section, and a central section at that, has featured massive dry rot, bricks falling off the edifice, and doors dropping off their hinges. Due to eight years of deferred maintenance, the Halls of Justice are close to collapse. All of the walls are bearing walls, so the entire structure is now at risk.

Or the Washington Post that I remember.

This essay will offer no earth shattering insights, simply a wry shake of the head at how invincibly stupid, smug, and elitist the Clinton campaign is. The field is tightening and at this exact moment, HRC decides to repeat the strategy that made numbers of Bernie Sanders supporters recoil permanently from her candidacy; instead of disparaging and disagreeing with the opponant and his stances, she makes personal attacks against the character of his supporters.

Yes, yes, it all looks bad, the whole HRC selling State Department access to Clinton Foundation donors thing. But that's how the game is played, you poor pathetic fool! What kind of a naif thinks this isn't the dynamics of interactions between politicians and their funders and which has been such since time immemorial? (SPOILER: the Smoking QPQ starts at Paragraph 9)

I have found that the consistently best reporting on the nexus between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation has been provided by David Sirota and International Business Times.

If you've lost the thread yourself or have friends who don't "get" the Clinton Foundation brouhaha, today's article is a good place to start -

Chapter 2 of the Bernie Sanders Story is in rough draft. The Bernster would like to take the energy and passion his candidacy generated and turn it into a longview multi-pronged entity to push the goals of the 99% and to promote Progressive candidates. Sounds good, right?

It always sounds good. It sounded good with Howard Dean's Democracy For America whose goals are to:

If Donald Trump came out with his arms through his pants legs and his legs in his shirtsleeves and his underwear on his head would that be enough?

I am asking the question because Republicans sticking with him this far is very odd. It almost makes you think they want to lose.

Discuss if you choose.

I didn't catch her name, sorry, but I'm sure it will become well known in just a few minutes or hours after the video is posted online by MSNBC and then goes viral. At least, I certainly hope it goes viral. No, it wasn't Mrs. Khan, it was another Gold Star mother taking exception to Donald Trump in the main, his booing supporters after that, then the Republican Party and then all politicians who vote for war, specifically the Iraq War.

The 2016 Presidential Race in the United States has devolved into this - Voting America asking in the race between Trump vs Clinton: Who presents the smaller probability of igniting national and/or global chaos? Who am I least afraid of? Who presents the best chance of survival and making it to a course correction in 2020? Who is the least corrupt? Who is influenced by foreign governments less? Who has fewer corporate bribes in their till? Who alienates me the least?