Betty MacDonald's sister Alison Bard Burnett
Betty MacDonald's mother Sydney with grandchild Alison Beck
Betty and Don MacDonald in Hollywood
Wolfgang Hampel - and Betty MacDonald fan club fans,
Betty MacDonald fan club newsletter October will be available in two weeks with many more info on our new Betty MacDonald fan club projects, International Betty MacDonald fan club events and new fascinating info on Dorita Hess.
Join our new Betty MacDonald fan club contest, please.
What happened to Betty MacDonald on October 30, 1938?
Send your answer, please and perhaps you'll be the lucky winner of several fascinating Betty MacDonald fan club items.
Deadline: October 31, 2016
We can't wait to read new Betty MacDonald Fan Club stories about Betty MacDonald, Robert Heskett, Donald MacDonald, Darsie Bard, Sydney Bard, Gammy, Mary Bard Jensen, Clyde R. Jensen, Sydney Cleveland Bard, Mary Alice Bard, Dorothea Darsie Bard Goldsmith, Alison Bard Burnett, Jerry Keil, Joan MacDonald Keil, Madge Baldwin, Don Woodfin, Perry Woodfin, Mike Gordon, Ma and Pa Kettle, Nancy and Plum, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle and many others.
Wolfgang Hampel's Betty MacDonald and Ma and Pa Kettle biography and Betty MacDonald interviews have fans in 40 countries. I'm one of their many devoted fans.
Many Betty MacDonald - and Wolfgang Hampel fans are very interested in a Wolfgang Hampel CD and DVD with his very funny poems and stories.
Wolfgang Hampel's Vita Magica September was a great event with author Sabine Arndt and tenor Heinz Meisel.
Guys we know you had lots of fun and joy.
Thanks a million dearest Thomas for sharing.
Linde Lund is delighted that Wolfgang Hampel presented one of her favourite songs with his outstanding voice.
Thank you so much dear Wolfgang Hampel!
You made her day!
We are going to publish new Betty MacDonald essays on Betty MacDonald's gardens and nature in Washington State.
Tell us the names of this mysterious couple please and you can win a very new Betty MacDonald documentary.
Betty MacDonald fan club honor member Mr. Tigerli is beloved all over the World.
We are so happy that our 'Casanova' is back.
Don't miss a new breakfast with Brad and Nick, please.
I'd like to visit Betty MacDonald's paradise on Vashon Island.
Happy Monday - although I don't like Mondays too much.
Take care,
Take care,
Michael
Don't miss this very special book, please.
Vita Magica
Betty MacDonald fan club
Betty MacDonald forum
Wolfgang Hampel - Wikipedia ( English )
Wolfgang Hampel - Wikipedia ( English ) - The Egg and I
Wolfgang Hampel - Wikipedia ( German )
Wolfgang Hampel - LinkFang ( German )
Wolfgang Hampel - Memim ( English )
Vashon Island - Wikipedia ( German )
Wolfgang Hampel - Monica Sone - Wikipedia ( English )
Wolfgang Hampel - Ma and Pa Kettle - Wikipedia ( English )
Wolfgang Hampel - Ma and Pa Kettle - Wikipedia ( French )
Wolfgang Hampel - Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle - Wikipedia ( English)
Wolfgang Hampel in Florida State University
Betty MacDonald fan club founder Wolfgang Hampel
Betty MacDonald fan club interviews on CD/DVD
Betty MacDonald fan club items
Betty MacDonald fan club items - comments
Betty MacDonald fan club - The Stove and I
Betty MacDonald fan club groups
Betty MacDonald fan club organizer Linde Lund
Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found
Trump’s Tax Records
The New York Times obtained records
from 1995 showing that Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss. The
figure is so substantial that it could have allowed him to legally
avoid paying federal income tax for 18 years.
By AINARA TIEFENTHÄLER and GABRIEL DANCE on Publish Date October 1, 2016.
Photo by Kathy Willens/Associated Press.
Watch in Times Video »
Donald J. Trump
declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax
deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid
paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by
The New York Times show.
The
1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax
benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived
from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through
mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into
the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.
Tax
experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said
that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have
allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an
equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.
Although
Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a
$916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more
than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.
The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,”
or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he
was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he
created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos.
Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their
shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went
unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received
pennies on the dollar.
“He
has a vast benefit from his destruction” in the early 1990s, said one
of the experts, Joel Rosenfeld, an assistant professor at New York
University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate. Mr. Rosenfeld offered this
description of what he would advise a client who came to him with a tax
return like Mr. Trump’s: “Do you realize you can create $916 million in
income without paying a nickel in taxes?”
Mr.
Trump declined to comment on the documents. Instead, the campaign
released a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916
million loss.
“Mr.
Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary
responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no
more tax than legally required,” the statement said. “That being said,
Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes,
sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes,
employee taxes and federal taxes.”
The
statement continued, “Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than
anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows
how to fix it.”
Document
Donald Trump’s Letter
In response to a Times article revealing pages of his
1995 income tax records, Mr. Trump said, “The only news here is that the
more than 20 year-old alleged tax document was illegally obtained.”
Separately,
a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Marc E. Kasowitz, emailed a letter to The Times
arguing that publication of the records is illegal because Mr. Trump
has not authorized the disclosure of any of his tax returns. Mr.
Kasowitz threatened “prompt initiation of appropriate legal action.”
Mr.
Trump’s refusal to make his tax returns public — breaking with decades
of tradition in presidential contests — has emerged as a central issue
in the campaign, with a majority of voters saying he should release
them. Mr. Trump has declined to do so, and has said he is being audited
by the Internal Revenue Service.
At
last Monday’s presidential debate, when Hillary Clinton suggested Mr.
Trump was refusing to release his tax returns so voters would not know
“he’s paid nothing in federal taxes,” and when she also pointed out that
Mr. Trump had once revealed to casino regulators that he paid no
federal income taxes in the late 1970s, Mr. Trump retorted, “That makes
me smart.”
Donald Trump’s Taxes
Donald Trump has continued to decline
to release his tax returns despite mounting pressure from both
Democrats and Republicans. A look at some of the explanations for
keeping his taxes private.
By SHANE O’NEILL and AINARA TIEFENTHÄLER on Publish Date October 1, 2016.
Photo by Damon Winter/The New York Times.
Watch in Times Video »
The
tax experts consulted by The Times said nothing in the 1995 documents
suggested any wrongdoing by Mr. Trump, even if the extraordinary size of
the loss he declared would have probably attracted extra scrutiny from
I.R.S. examiners. “The I.R.S., when they see a negative $916 million,
that has to pop out,” Mr. Rosenfeld said.
The documents examined by The Times represent a small fraction of the voluminous tax returns Mr. Trump would have filed in 1995.
Document
Pages From Donald Trump’s 1995 Income Tax Records
The tax records obtained by The Times show that Donald
J. Trump claimed a $916 million loss that could have allowed him to
legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years.
The
documents consisted of three pages from what appeared to be Mr. Trump’s
1995 tax returns. The pages were mailed last month to Susanne Craig, a
reporter at The Times who has written about Mr. Trump’s finances. The
documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax
return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the
first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return. Each page bore the
names and Social Security numbers of Mr. Trump and Marla Maples, his wife at the time. Only the New Jersey form had what appeared to be their signatures.
The
three documents arrived by mail at The Times with a postmark indicating
they had been sent from New York City. The return address claimed the
envelope had been sent from Trump Tower.
On
Wednesday, The Times presented the tax documents to Jack Mitnick, a
lawyer and certified public accountant who handled Mr. Trump’s tax
matters for more than 30 years, until 1996. Mr. Mitnick was listed as
the preparer on the New Jersey tax form.
Mr.
Mitnick, 80, now semiretired and living in Florida, said that while he
no longer had access to Mr. Trump’s original returns, the documents
appeared to be authentic copies of portions of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax
returns. Mr. Mitnick said the signature on the tax preparer line of the
New Jersey tax form was his, and he readily explained an obvious anomaly
in the way especially large numbers appeared on the New York tax
document.
Continue reading the main story
A
flaw in the tax software program he used at the time prevented him from
being able to print a nine-figure loss on Mr. Trump’s New York return,
he said. So, for example, the loss of “-915,729,293” on Line 18 of the
return printed out as “5,729,293.” As a result, Mr. Mitnick recalled, he
had to use his typewriter to manually add the “-91,” thus explaining
why the first two digits appeared to be in a different font and were
slightly misaligned from the following seven digits.
“This is legit,” he said, stabbing a finger into the document.
Donald Trump’s Taxes: What We Know and Don’t Know
In the absence of any disclosures from Mr. Trump, The
New York Times and other news outlets have attempted to fill in the
gaps.
Because
the documents sent to The Times did not include any pages from Mr.
Trump’s 1995 federal tax return, it is impossible to determine how much
he may have donated to charity that year. The state documents do show,
though, that Mr. Trump declined the opportunity to contribute to the New
Jersey Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial Fund, the New Jersey Wildlife
Conservation Fund or the Children’s Trust Fund. He also declined to
contribute $1 toward public financing of New Jersey’s elections for
governor.
The
tax documents also do not shed any light on Mr. Trump’s claimed net
worth of about $2 billion at that time. This is because the complex
calculations of business deductions that produced a tax loss of $916
million are a separate matter from how Mr. Trump valued his assets, the
tax experts said.
Nor
does the $916 million loss suggest that Mr. Trump was insolvent or
effectively bankrupt in 1995. The cash flow generated by his various
businesses that year was more than enough to service his various debts.
But
fragmentary as they are, the documents nonetheless provide new insight
into Mr. Trump’s finances, a subject of intense scrutiny given Mr.
Trump’s emphasis on his business record during the presidential
campaign.
The
documents show, for example, that while Mr. Trump reported $7.4 million
in interest income in 1995, he made only $6,108 in wages, salaries and
tips. They also suggest Mr. Trump took full advantage of generous tax
loopholes specifically available to commercial real estate developers to
claim a $15.8 million loss in 1995 on his real estate holdings and
partnerships.
But
the most important revelation from the 1995 tax documents is just how
much Mr. Trump may have benefited from a tax provision that is
particularly prized by America’s dynastic families, which, like the
Trumps, hold their wealth inside byzantine networks of partnerships,
limited liability companies and S corporations.
The
provision, known as net operating loss, or N.O.L., allows a dizzying
array of deductions, business expenses, real estate depreciation, losses
from the sale of business assets and even operating losses to flow from
the balance sheets of those partnerships, limited liability companies
and S corporations onto the personal tax returns of men like Mr. Trump.
In turn, those losses can be used to cancel out an equivalent amount of
taxable income from, say, book royalties or branding deals.
Better
still, if the losses are big enough, they can cancel out taxable income
earned in other years. Under I.R.S. rules in 1995, net operating losses
could be used to wipe out taxable income earned in the three years
before and the 15 years after the loss. (The effect of net operating
losses on state income taxes varies, depending on each state’s tax
regime.)
The
tax experts consulted by The Times said the $916 million net operating
loss declared by Mr. Trump in 1995 almost certainly included large net
operating losses carried forward from the early 1990s, when most of Mr.
Trump’s key holdings were hemorrhaging money. Indeed, by 1990, his
entire business empire was on the verge of collapse. In a few short
years, he had amassed $3.4 billion in debt — personally guaranteeing
$832 million of it — to assemble a portfolio that included three casinos
and a hotel in Atlantic City, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, an airline
and a huge yacht.
Reports
that year by New Jersey casino regulators gave glimpses of the balance
sheet carnage. The Trump Taj Mahal casino reported a $25.5 million net
loss during its first six months of 1990; the Trump’s Castle casino lost
$43.5 million for the year. His airline, Trump Shuttle, lost $34.5
million during just the first six months of that year.
“Simply put, the organization is in dire financial straits,” the casino regulators concluded.
Reports
by New Jersey’s casino regulators strongly suggested that Mr. Trump had
claimed large net operating losses on his taxes in the early 1990s.
Their reports, for example, revealed that Mr. Trump had carried forward
net operating losses in both 1991 and 1993. What’s more, the reports
said the losses he claimed were large enough to virtually cancel out any
taxes he might owe on the millions of dollars of debt that was being
forgiven by his creditors. (The I.R.S. considers forgiven debt to be
taxable income.)
But
crucially, the casino regulators redacted the precise size of the net
operating losses in the public versions of their reports. Two former New
Jersey officials, who were privy to the unredacted documents, could not
recall the precise size of the numbers, but said they were substantial.
Politico, which previously reported
that Mr. Trump most likely paid no income taxes in 1991 and 1993 based
on the casino commission’s description of his net operating losses,
asked Mr. Trump to comment. “Welcome to the real estate business,” he
replied in an email.
Now,
thanks to Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax records, the degree to which he spun all
those years of red ink into tax write-off gold may finally be apparent.
Mr.
Mitnick, the lawyer and accountant, was the person Mr. Trump leaned on
most to do the spinning. Mr. Mitnick worked for a small Long Island
accounting firm that specialized in handling tax issues for wealthy New
York real estate families. He had long handled tax matters for Mr.
Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, and he said he began doing Donald Trump’s
taxes after Mr. Trump turned 18.
In
an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Mitnick said he could not divulge
details of Mr. Trump’s finances without Mr. Trump’s consent. But he did
talk about Mr. Trump’s approaches to taxes, and he contrasted Fred
Trump’s attention to detail with what he described as Mr. Trump’s brash
and undisciplined style. He recalled, for example, that when Donald and
Ivana Trump came in each year to sign their tax forms, it was almost
always Ivana who asked more questions.
But
if Mr. Trump lacked a sophisticated understanding of the tax code, and
if he rarely showed any interest in the details behind various tax
strategies, Mr. Mitnick said he clearly grasped the critical role taxes
would play in helping him build wealth. “He knew we could use the tax
code to protect him,” Mr. Mitnick said.
According
to Mr. Mitnick, Mr. Trump’s use of net operating losses was no
different from that of his other wealthy clients. “This may have had a
couple extra digits compared to someone else’s operation, but they all
benefited in the same way,” he said, pointing to the $916 million loss
on Mr. Trump’s tax returns.
In
“The Art of the Deal,” his 1987 best-selling book, Mr. Trump referred
to Mr. Mitnick as “my accountant” — although he misspelled his name. Mr.
Trump described consulting with Mr. Mitnick on the tax implications of
deals he was contemplating and seeking his advice on how new federal tax
regulations might affect real estate write-offs.
Mr.
Mitnick, though, said there were times when even he, for all his years
helping wealthy New Yorkers navigate the tax code, found it difficult to
face the incongruity of his work for Mr. Trump. He felt keenly aware
that Mr. Trump was living a life of unimaginable luxury thanks in part
to Mr. Mitnick’s ability to relieve him of the burden of paying taxes
like everyone else.
“Here the guy was building incredible net worth and not paying tax on it,” he said.
Steve Eder and Patricia Cohen contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
Donald Trump lost Monday’s debate. So did Trumpism.
Donald Trump got his start in politics peddling the
idea that Barack Obama was born abroad. He built his successful
Republican primary campaign on a similar form of white identity
politics, married to a deep and hard-line skepticism of immigration.
That’s been his biggest single issue — deriding Mexicans as rapists and
murderers, promising to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, and
threatening to ban Muslims from entering the country.
At Monday night’s debate, he had the perfect opportunity
to tee off on these racially charged themes. Hillary Clinton had just
fielded a question about “implicit bias” in policing, arguing that
police needed “retraining” to deal with deep-seated psychological
prejudices against African Americans.
Trump had a chance to stand up for “law and order” and
aggrieved white people everywhere, to say that the problem isn’t the
police but the criminals, and that Clinton was kowtowing to politically
correct dogma. But he, remarkably, did the exact opposite. He accused Hillary Clinton of being the real racist, for using the racially coded term “superpredators” more than two decades ago:
I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the words superpredator about young black youth. And that's a term that I think was a — it's — it's been horribly met, as you know. I think you've apologized for it. But I think it was a terrible thing to say.
So here was Donald Trump, avowed opponent of political correctness, essentially accusing Hillary Clinton of committing a microaggression.
This is the untold story of the first presidential
debate. Trump entered the room as the defender of a distinct set of
ideas that blame America’s problems on immigrants and multiculturalism.
He walked out a pale imitation of the mainstream, a man with a deeply
racist past trying desperately to cover it up.
Donald Trump lost Monday night’s debate. So did the ideas he stands for.
Trumpism gave up without a fight
The proposal to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it,
the labeling of all Muslims as potential terrorists, the suggestion that
a Mexican-American judge couldn’t hear a case involving Trump because
his heritage would bias him against the magnate — these are the things
that have defined Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Trumpism is a kind of authoritarian populism, one that
blames immigrants and other ethnic and religious minorities for crime
and terrorism. It has a lot in common with the European far right, as well as a fringe American movement called the alt-right.
“Donald Trump,” as one scholar put it, “is the first Republican in modern times to win the party’s presidential nomination on anti-minority sentiments."
Yet you wouldn’t know it from Monday’s debate. Trump
mentioned crimes committed by undocumented immigrants once, but very
briefly. He didn’t talk about the wall or about rounding up and
deporting millions of people. He never mentioned the purported terrorist
threat posed by Muslim immigrants generally and Syrian refugees
specifically. His signature themes, in other words, were just completely
absent from the night.
This wasn’t for lack of opportunity. Late in the debate,
moderator Lester Holt asked Trump “specifically how you would prevent
homegrown attacks by American citizens.” This was a perfect opportunity
for Trump to pivot to the need to screen immigrants better, to prevent
Muslims from “terrorist” countries from entering and committing attacks.
He didn’t do it. Instead, he decided to attack Clinton’s
record on ISIS and tout his bizarro plan to “take the oil” from Iraq.
This disappointed some of his prominent alt-right fans, like Jared
Taylor (the editor of the racist publication American Renaissance):
When Holt asked Trump about the racial component of New
York’s “stop and frisk” policy, Trump did let loose some vintage
Trumpisms about high rates of crime in inner cities, which painted
American cities and minority communities in a wildly inaccurate light.
But he avoided the more obvious racial dog whistles, like
“black-on-black crime.” He argued that stop and frisk wasn’t racial
profiling but actually a kind of gun control program:
HOLT: The argument is that it's a form of racial profiling.
TRUMP: No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them, and they are bad people that shouldn't have them.
The exchange about birtherism is a third good example.
Trump has been dinged, rightly, for being completely incoherent on the
subject. But he also had a weird way of punching back, arguing that it
was Clinton who actually tried to racially “other” Obama by circulating
pictures of him from a visit to Kenya:
I got to watch in preparing for this some of your debates against Barack Obama. You treated him with terrible disrespect. And I watched the way you talk now about how lovely everything is and how wonderful you are. It doesn't work that way. You were after him, you were trying to -- you even sent out, or your campaign sent out, pictures of him in a certain garb, very famous pictures. I don't think you can deny that.
So to sum up: Trump avoided bringing up his most
controversial, and racially charged, comments. He avoided them even when
he had clear opportunities to bring them up, and even accused Clinton
of being racially insensitive.
This is a very different Donald Trump from the one who announced, in his convention speech, that “we cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.”
A small victory for American democracy
The point here is not that Trump somehow successfully
pivoted away from his long history of racially and religiously charged
comments. No one has forgotten what he’s said.
Rather, it’s that Trump made a decision not to back off
from them during the biggest moment of the general election to date.
Instead of sticking up for his ideas, he just avoided them. He flinched.
This matters.
The Trumpist project, inasmuch as it exists, is about
making nakedly racist and bigoted language part of the American
political mainstream. It depends on breaking down barriers against
openly offensive speech and normalizing the unacceptable, and it’s been
working: Trump remains close to Clinton in most polls.
But his main political challenge is to take ideas that
appealed to his party’s base and make them acceptable to the rest of the
country. If he had given his normal spiel about banning Muslims on
Monday night, and it had been debated like a normal policy proposal, the
once unthinkable idea would creep even further into the mainstream.
That’s how it’s worked with objectively wacky Trump ideas like “take the
oil,” which he now just gets to say without anyone in the audience even
batting an eye.
By opting not to make those arguments on the debate
stage, Trump has given a surprising signal that he believes some of the
racist language that worked in the primaries won’t fly in the general
election.
That’s a problem for him, because Trump’s entire
electoral strategy depends on holding on to his racist base. Trump can’t
move too far away from his core message without dampening the
enthusiasm for him among people who think Latinos are criminals, Muslims
are terrorists, and black people are lazy.
This constituency is, as George Washington University political theorist Samuel Goldman puts it,
“a minority that thinks it's a majority.” It’s too small to guarantee
electoral victories but too big to accept its minority status. Its
members don’t see a need to reach out to minorities and “politically
correct” whites, and they see doing so as a kind of betrayal.
Indeed, you can see this in the reaction of Trump’s supporters in the so-called alt-right movement. As my colleague Tara Golshan
documents, these online racists are furious that Trump didn’t talk
about what had long been his core issues. “He can't win a debate if they
ask basically no questions about terrorism or immigration,” one user at
the alt-right-friendly message board 4chan writes.
Internet trolls, of course, aren’t a huge constituency. But the voters who share their concerns about minorities and immigration are.
While Trump’s campaign has shown that this group can power a victory in
the Republican primary, it may now be exposing the limits of this
group’s influence on American politics writ large.
There are still two more debates and 43 more days in the
election — plenty of time for Trump and his supporters to wreak more
havoc.
For now, though, score one for the basic norms of American democracy and values.
Post-debate poll: Hillary Clinton takes round one
Story highlights
- Poll: 62% say Clinton won, 27% said Trump did
- It's a similar result to Romney topping Obama in four years ago
(CNN)Hillary
Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night's debate by 62% of voters
who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump
had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.
That
drubbing is similar to Mitt Romney's dominant performance over
President Barack Obama in the first 2012 presidential debate.
Voters
who watched said Clinton expressed her views more clearly than Trump
and had a better understanding of the issues by a margin of more than
2-to-1. Clinton also was seen as having done a better job addressing
concerns voters might have about her potential presidency by a 57% to
35% margin, and as the stronger leader by a 56% to 39% margin.
The
gap was smaller on which candidate appeared more sincere and authentic,
though still broke in Clinton's favor, with 53% saying she was more
sincere vs. 40% who felt Trump did better on that score. Trump topped
Clinton 56% to 33% as the debater who spent more time attacking their
opponent.
Although
the survey suggested debate watchers were more apt to describe
themselves as Democrats than the overall pool of voters, even
independents who watched deemed Clinton the winner, 54% vs. 33% who
thought Trump did the best job in the debate.
And
the survey suggests Clinton outperformed the expectations of those who
watched. While pre-debate interviews indicated these watchers expected
Clinton to win by a 26-point margin, that grew to 35 points in the
post-debate survey.
About
half in the poll say the debate did not have an effect on their voting
plans, 47% said it didn't make a difference, but those who say they were
moved by it tilted in Clinton's direction, 34% said the debate made
them more apt to vote for Clinton, 18% more likely to back Trump.
On
the issues, voters who watched broadly say Clinton would do a better
job handling foreign policy, 62% to 35%, and most think she would be the
better candidate to handle terrorism, 54% to 43% who prefer Trump. But
on the economy, the split is much closer, with 51% saying they favor
Clinton's approach vs. 47% who prefer Trump.
Most
debate watchers came away from Monday's face-off with doubts about
Trump's ability to handle the presidency. Overall, 55% say they didn't
think Trump would be able to handle the job of president, 43% said they
thought he would. Among political independents who watched the debate,
it's a near-even split, 50% say he can handle it, 49% that he can't.
And
voters who watched were more apt to see Trump's attacks on Clinton as
unfair than they were to see her critiques that way. About two-thirds of
debate viewers, 67%, said Clinton's critiques of Trump were fair, while
just 51% said the same of Trump.
Assessments
of Trump's attacks on Clinton were sharply split by gender, with 58% of
men seeing them as fair compared with 44% of women who watched on
Monday. There was almost no gender divide in perceptions of whether
Clinton's attacks were fair.
The
CNN/ORC post-debate poll includes interviews with 521 registered voters
who watched the September 26 debate. Results among debate-watchers have a
margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Respondents were originally interviewed as part of a September 23-25
telephone survey of a random sample of Americans, and indicated they
planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed
when it was over.
"New York Times": Trump's "worst candidate in history"
 | |||
Politic News Report:
The "New York Times" has made a recommendation to vote for the
Democratic US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Your Republican
challenger Donald Trump described the newspaper as the "worst candidates
to a great party has produced in modern American history."
In an editorial it said, Trump reveal nothing of himself or of his plans
- instead, he promised voters the moon and the stars for gripping.
Recommended Politic News Report: Obama blocked Act lawsuits against Saudi Arabia
At the same time, the newspaper praised Clinton's "intellect, experience
and courage". Today's world fighting against challenges such as war and
terrorism as well as the pressure of globalization. Clinton have
analyzed these problems and the "responses accurately weighed it."
Now the US citizen should not only therefore choose Clinton because the
alternative Trump loud, warned the "New York Times". Instead, the voters
would have to be clear about what problems had confronted the country
and Clinton's abilities weigh to tackle this.
Of voters in the US customary
The newspaper gave its recommendation to vote on shortly before the
first televised debate between Clinton and Trump, held German time early
Tuesday morning. Six weeks before the election are the former foreign
minister and the real estate mogul close together in the polls.
In the US, it is tradition that newspapers proposed concrete
recommendations choice. Thus, the "New York Times" had previously spoken
twice for Barack Obama: at his first candidacy and his re-election.
Most newspapers supported Democratic candidates. Recently she had
recommended in the 50's with a Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Mr. Tigerli in China
Copyright 2016 by Letizia Mancino translation by Mary Holmes All rights reserved
Yes Betty, either or it seems he wanted to fly only with
Singapore Airways.
Boeing or Airbus, it’s just the same
isn’t it? Aren’t they both just fat birds with 500 passengers?
Yes, but Singapore Airlines has the
most beautiful airhostesses: delicate, fine, graceful… Mr. Tigerli had looked forward to the flight
so much!
So the little man was disappointed?
You just can’t imagine how disappointed
he was.
But thank God one of the hostesses was a
pretty Chinese girl. Mr. Tigerli purred loudly but she didn’t hear him because
the purring of the Airbus 380 was even louder.
The poor cat!
You’ve said it Betty. Mr. Tigerli was
in a very bad mood and asked me for a loud speaker.
I’m sure you can get one in 1st
Class.
“”Russian Girl” had even heard you over
the roar of the Niagara Falls” I said to Mr. Tigerli. “You are a very
unfaithful cat. You wanted to get to know Asiatic girls. That’s how it is when
one leaves one’s first love”.
And what did he say to that?
“Men are hunters” was his answer.
Yes, my dear cat, a mouse hunter. And
what else did he say?
Not another word. He behaved as if he
hadn’t heard me.
The Airbus is very loud.
I told him shortly “Don’t trouble
yourself about “Chinese Girl”. There will be enough even prettier girls in
China. Wait till we land in Guilin”.
Did he understand you?
Naturally Mr. Tigerli understood me
immediately. Yes, sweetheart, don’t worry. They will find you something sweet
to eat.
And he?
He was so happy.
No problem going through the immigration
control?
Naturally! Lots of problems. How could I explain to
customs that the cat had come as a tourist to China to buy shoes?
Fur in exchange for shoes…
Don’t be so cynical Betty!
Cat meat in exchange for shoes?
He came through the pass control with
no trouble!
Is this Mr. Tigerli?
 |
Betty MacDonald's Vashon Island is a paradise.
info to: Sandra Lorinda Traci Petr Dana Jana Michaela Rebekah Swiss Charrd Tru John Darsie Darsie Toby Jeanine Carol Justin Lila Daniel Mo Nika Steve Neal Jitka Jitka Tami Pete Laurie Maia Nancy Kelly Pam Mary Jan and all our other friends
www.bettymacdonaldfanclub.blogspot.com/
info to: Sandra Lorinda Traci Petr Dana Jana Michaela Rebekah Swiss Charrd Tru John Darsie Darsie Toby Jeanine Carol Justin Lila Daniel Mo Nika Steve Neal Jitka Jitka Tami Pete Laurie Maia Nancy Kelly Pam Mary Jan and all our other friends
www.bettymacdonaldfanclub.blogspot.com/
Take an illustrated day trip through Washington state’s largest city with artist Candace Rose Rardon.
gadventures.com
Linda White yes,if my health allows.I have a few problems but is something I have always wanted to do,especially as I reread her books.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 6:37pm
Linde Lund Dear Linda I'll keep you posted.
Like · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 6:42pm
Bella Dillon · Friends with Darsie Beck
I still read Mrs Piggle Wiggle books to this day. I love her farm on vashon.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 10:32pm
Lila Taylor Good morning...Linde Lund
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 18 hrs
