Democratic Mayor Bill “No Big Gulp” de Blasio is advancing yet another nanny state fascist reform, this time in a war on salt. New York City is planning to fine chain restaurants that do not warn diners about high salt content dishes after an appeals court lifted a temporary hold on issuing fines while the matter is settled once and for all in yet more litigation.
The mayor applauded the appeals court’s decision to allow further unnecessary onerous regulation on business in his city.
BTW, Medical News Today reports that a study published in The Lancet found that low salt intake may raise the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.
Compared with people who had an average sodium intake, the rates of heart attack, stroke, and death were higher among those who had a low sodium intake, regardless of whether participants had high blood pressure.
Interestingly, low salt intake in the study was defined as an intake of less than 3,000 milligrams a day, which is above current recommendations in the United States.
Furthermore, the researchers found that only individuals with high blood pressure appeared to be subject to the risks associated with high salt intake – defined as more than 6,000 milligrams daily.
Meanwhile, New York City is in the process of decriminalizing a slew of disgusting behaviors including drinking alcohol out of bags, public urination, littering, loitering in parks after hours, and violating noise codes. No doubt, the City Council and police will take credit for the drop in crime even as law abiding citizen’s quality of life plummets. Personally, I’ll take Rudy and Bernard’s Broken Windows policing because it works when done correctly.
The big difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is that no one — Trump included, most likely — knows what a Trump presidency would look like. Everyone appears to know what a Clinton presidency would look like.
IBD posits that Democrat attitudes towards Web-based sharing companies like Uber, Lyft and Airbnb is an opportunity for Republicans who are less anxious to regulate these new business models out of existence:
Last August, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders told Bloomberg that he had “serious problems” with Uber because it was “unregulated.”
The Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, vowed to “crack down” on companies that she says “exploit employees” by labeling them contractors — a thinly veiled dig at Uber and Lyft.
Ultraliberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, likewise, claims these companies exploit workers, and called them “the next step in a losing effort to build some economic security in a world where all the benefits are floating to the top 10%.”
New York’s leftist Mayor Bill de Blasio tried to hamstring Uber and Lyft by imposing a cap on the number of cars the service could operate. Other Democratic mayors have tried to block Uber’s growth.
The reasons for Democratic opposition varies. In the case of de Blasio, it’s clearly meant to protect the existing taxicab monopoly. In the case of Warren and Clinton, it’s because these Web-based sharing services threaten old-style unionized working relationships.
Whatever the reasons, the opposition from Democratic Party leaders flies in the face of the views of the party’s young members who actually use and are benefiting from the “gig economy.”
One would think that the Libertarian Party will equally benefit.
A powerful 3 minute video well worth watching.
Warning: imagery may be disturbing to some, as would be expected in a video dealing with terrorism.
After the Nevada Democrat convention went full-out cra-cra, the talking heads are having a field day. Fiscal Times says to get ready for a third party run from Bernie Sanders. MarketWatch lectures Bernie that he has to decide if he’s a Democrat or a revolutionary. But I think that Professor Larry Sabato has it right: imagine the things Sanders will be able to demand when he goes to the DNC convention with 40% of the delegates in his pocket.
…think about what you can do with a raucous group of 40% of the delegates. He’ll want all sorts of platform planks, he’ll want influence on VP pick, he may want to control some of the scheudle [sic]. This is going to get really stick and messy…
At least Romney has thrown in the towel on the #NeverTrump movement and finally abandoned the idea of recruiting a candidate for a third-party run.
I fully expect Trump to start pulling away from Hillary in the polls as he starts focusing his rhetoric in her and Bill’s direction. I missed the interview with Hannity wherein he described Bill’s assault as rape but that’s just the beginning for Bill (we’ve already seen the “crooked Hillary” label stick … I wonder if he’ll start saying “rapey Bill“).
In other news, the video Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight has over 7 million views on YouTube. It will be interesting to see how damaging a similar video for Trump will be once that is published (the authors said he would be next) but I doubt that it will have the same impact. Everyone knows that the Don’s positions have changed and solidified with his entry into politics and he doesn’t have the same disappointing history of expected truth-telling as Hillary.
Meanwhile, Trump is starting to show his “presidential” persona to the voters. Scott Adams has a great analysis of Trump’s interview with Megyn Kelly. In addition to his positioning to win over women (really, read the “excuse me” section of the analysis … hilarious), Adams notes the change in behavior now that Trump isn’t trying to take out 16 simultaneous threats:
Voters worry that the dangerous-sounding guy Trump plays on television is real. So Trump successfully showed his sane side in the interview. Everything he said sounded reasonable enough, especially the part where he said he wouldn’t have gotten so far in the campaign without getting ugly. You know that’s true.
Then Trump proved he can modulate his behavior on demand by…modulating his behavior on command. Trump was personable and even a bit humble with Kelly. He turned a professional enemy into what looks like a friend, and he did it right in front of our eyes. Kelly even mentioned that she gave Trump her cellphone number. The two of them got along great, and we got to watch. It all looked genuine to me. No sign of any insanity.
One other thing that you probably didn’t see mentioned in the mainstream press (Drudge featured it for a bit): Chelsea’s husband shut down his pro-Greek hedge fund after losing 90% of investors’ money:
The kid was betting on a bankrupt welfare state’s ability to right its course, Hahahaha! He should blame his parents, both former Democrat members of Congress (and one – the father – an ex-con imprisoned for fraud). Nobody but a clueless liberal would bet serious money on a welfare state reforming itself. Yet somehow young Mezvinsky, was able to raise $25 mill.
Another nut that didn’t fall far from the tree. I wouldn’t trust him to hold my dog’s leash, much less with anything of real value. Which pretty much goes for everyone in that crowd. Who are you going to trust with your tax dollars, your 401K investments, your children’s futures … politician Hillary or businessman Don?
Disclaimer: I fully expect to be disappointed in a Trump presidency, particularly in domestic and economic policies. OTOH, I expect another Clinton presidency to be an unmitigated disaster from which the country will never recover.
The remaining races and 2 NY as yet unassigned account for 676 delegates. By taking a look at the number of delegates each has already won, I have calculated the percentage needed to reach the “magic number” of 1,237 at the convention.
Looking at these numbers, one would think that Trump has a Sisyphean task ahead to get to the magic number. Yet it would also seem to indicate that, as Trump said in his NY victory speech, Cruz is just about mathematically eliminated from any chances of victory. In other words, these numbers indicate that a contested convention is almost inevitable. And so the media would lead you to believe.
But the “just about” caveat of Trump’s declaration is clear when you consider the 244 delegates from previous primaries that are not dedicated to any current candidates:
|Bush||4||<– He spent how much?!!|
Cruz will easily pick up a lot, if not most, of these delegates.
But I’m going to go out on a very short limb here and say Trump will almost certainly get a quarter of these, which would be 61 delegates. If so, he will need 49% of the delegates from the remaining primaries. 49% will be tough to pull in.
If he picks up 100 (or a mere 41% of the spares), he will need 43% of the yet-to-vote. A much more likely scenario.
If he picks up 150 (61% of the free delegates), he will need only 36% of the coming delegates. Not outside the realm of possibility.
And then there’s this:
Internal documents show Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump‘s campaign advisers are projecting that the billionaire businessman will secure more than 1,400 delegates at the Republican National Convention in July, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
That total greatly exceeds the 1,237 delegates necessary to secure the nomination on the first ballot.
I don’t know about 1,400 but, given the outstanding delegates and the math above, I believe he will almost certainly hit the “magic number” required by the time he rolls into Cleveland in mid-July. Especially if California tilts to him as New York did.
Meanwhile, after eight years of America destroying, race baiting, terrorist hugging, apology ridden, despot bowing Obama, we are allowing him to go happily into retirement. Trump isn’t even the presumptive nominee and the “conservative” politicians are wargaming how best to get rid of him.
That’s right: the GOP elite are already starting to socialize the scenarios under which Trump can be impeached.
And they wonder at the average Joe’s anger.
The Weekly Standard shouts You Won’t Believe What Donald Trump Thinks The Federal Government’s Top 3 Roles Are.
Indeed, in one breath, Trump says education is one of the top 3 functions of the federal government, in the next he agrees that yes, he wants to push education down to the states. It’s as if he doesn’t see the conflict.
- This is one of the many things he is lying about to get elected and momentarily lost where he is in the campaign. Perhaps he wasn’t planning on backtracking on this issue until the nomination was in the bag at which time he will be pursuing Dem voters.
- He believes in pushing the responsibility down to the states but keeping oversight at the federal level (which will be the same as it is now, just different verbiage shrouding the truth).
- He a pathological liar and the only reason to vote for him is to destroy the GOP that has betrayed us.
Well, not money actually belonging to children but money allocated to educate our youth so it’s the same thing, right?
First, the back story.
Democrats in Connecticut have created a massive debt problem with decades of poor fiscal decisions and now in desperate straits. According to Truth in Accounting, Connecticut is one of 39 “sinkhole states” that do not have enough assets to cover its debt. In fact, it ranks at the bottom of the list barely beating out New Jersey as the state in the worst fiscal condition. TIA calculates that Connecticut has only $10.1 billion of assets available to pay bills totaling $72.2 billion.
Fast forward to present day. What can a poor progressive do?
The obvious solution is to look for previously protected mountains of money and institute a tax for the common good.
American Interest documents just such a solution:
The state of Connecticut wants its richest university to share more of its wealth.
Facing budget shortfalls and a deep pension hole, Connecticut lawmakers this week proposed taxing the investment profits of Yale University’s $25.6 billion endowment, the nation’s second-largest after Harvard University’s. Yale is located in New Haven, Conn.
… Connecticut is home to more than 40 colleges. But the potential tax singles out Yale because it would affect only endowments with $10 billion or more in assets.
$10 billion is certainly a good starting point. How many universities could that possibly affect?
You will find more statistics at Statista
Once one state finds a new, hopefully legal source of income, how long before other desperate states follow suit? Every one of the universities listed in the graphic above are in a sinkhole state (although Indiana barely qualifies with only a debt of $700 per taxpayer).
And once the taxation of sitting money becomes legal, how long until it is applied to other private sources? Churches will probably be safe (hopefully), but your 401K? Don’t bet on it. After all, it is for the common good.
Out of curiosity, I placed the top 4 remaining presidential candidates in Google Trends to see how interest has grown or shrunk over time.
Searches for The Donald dwarfs the others. Does it mean anything? Certainly not a predictor, right?
But just for fun: