Trump gets the NY Times to release the off-the-record transcript of their interview with him a few months ago, in which is supposedly admitted there will be no wall and that other things he's said are just campaign rhetoric.
I've made this point several times. You've got a bunch of people in the press and in the campaigns who need to do and say things, even if they are not worth doing or saying, because they are getting paid to do so. And, they will only get paid, particularly in the press, if they get a lot of clicks and high ratings; think Kardassians.
"Among all these classes of professionals, all these institutions, that whole superstructure of US politics built around two balanced sides, there will be a tidal pull to normalize this election, to make it Coca-Cola versus Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola versus sewer water."
"No institution needs a competitive election more than the media, especially what remains of the "objective" campaign media. Imagine writing this headline:
Trump, bad candidate, likely to lose
Now imagine writing it again and again for six months — and watching your web traffic dwindle into nothing. Sad!
The campaign press requires, for its ongoing health and advertising revenue, a real race. It needs controversies. "Donald Trump is not fit to be president" may be the accurate answer to pretty much every relevant question about the race, but it's not an interesting answer. It's too final, too settled. No one wants to click on it."
... and I'm pretty sure Hillary has managed to maneuver things so this isn't an issue for her, but in point of fact, Trump still maintains direct influence on his investment portfolio, which is obviously considerable.
The law states that he must place his assets into a blind trust.
I remember the controversy came up over Cheney and Bush wrt Halliburton/Kellogg and the Carlyle Group respectively.
I'm merely a spectator in this campaign at this point. Can't in good conscience vote for trump or clinton OR Sanders for that matter.
I'd still vote for Laffy over Cruz though, as long as GaGambler was his VP.
Sitting it out equals a vote for Trump, pure and simple.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption, despair, death and destruction.
Mark my words, a vote for Hillary is a vote for unfettered incompetence and war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html
not that I expect him to. But, will the press press him to do so?
speeches
hell, we just got SOME of her emails - you know, the ones about yoga and Chelsea's baby-shower plans (only the unclassified ones)
I'd tell the Donald to comply as much as Kaptain Kangaroo does
Trump gets the NY Times to release the off-the-record transcript of their interview with him a few months ago, in which is supposedly admitted there will be no wall and that other things he's said are just campaign rhetoric.
perhaps true, but I would need proof to believe it.
It's fairly logical to assume he won't do it because he knows it would hurt his credibility. Same as his tax returns. He says he can't release them because he's under audit on many of them. The IRS says he's allowed to release them.
By the way, I don't doubt there are some embarrassing statements in Clinton's Goldman-Sachs speech, too. I think all of the above should be released.
Remember the bet I wanted to make with St C regarding Laffy? If I was willing to drop him off the Stratosphere for a one dollar wager, How likely would it be that he would live out his term with me waiting in the wings?
I remember the discussion about Trump putting his assets into a blind trust already having come up and it didn't sound like it would be an issue.
The good news is the chances of having a bible thumper who wants to revisit every social issue from Roe v Wade, to gay marriage and "freedom of religion" bullshit in the White House for the next four years are just about zero. Neither Trump nor Clinton are going down any of those roads. I think Mitch McConnel should seriously reconsider confirming Garland as he is likely to be the best option he is ever going to get.
I don't like to quote the Salon, but it was at the top of the list on my Google search on the subject and they raise a fair point in their own "Laffyesque" manner.
your hated "thumpers" (a term likely plagiarized directly from bigguy or laffy)
never mind, to you they are the same thing.
you seem to focus on only the important issues, eh?
don't asians have some sort of religion - is Buddha an asshole too?
I like it when they gag!
even though he doesn't like me and calls me (and many others) stupid
I like it when they gag!
Guess we were doing it for the entertainment value. Can't we at least have the event catered?
I might be able to warm up to Trump. You mentioned in past thread about the possibility of a lower corporate tax rate, maybe one specific to the $2T sitting offshore. I stated that some of that money is already in the system, but now that I think about it, a return, albeit even just an accounting adjustment, could prompt potential dividend payments. Maybe a share buyback program. All healthy for some equity appreciation.
There are now a few new small firms that focus on repatriation of resources, a form of insourcing. With Trump, there will be more risk, but definitely more reward, if you know where to invest. Making money, how UN-Bernie Sanders of me.
I remember the discussion about Trump putting his assets into a blind trust already having come up and it didn't sound like it would be an issue.
The good news is the chances of having a bible thumper who wants to revisit every social issue from Roe v Wade, to gay marriage and "freedom of religion" bullshit in the White House for the next four years are just about zero. Neither Trump nor Clinton are going down any of those roads. I think Mitch McConnel should seriously reconsider confirming Garland as he is likely to be the best option he is ever going to get.
I don't like to quote the Salon, but it was at the top of the list on my Google search on the subject and they raise a fair point in their own "Laffyesque" manner.