If I think back to all the Presidents I’ve known in my lifetime; LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior, and Obama, the one thing they all had in common was a Presidential temperament. Putting aside all of their differences, they were solid, steady, measured, calm, and collected, at least in their public presences.
Last night in the first Presidential Debate we saw an incredible contrast in temperament.
Hillary Clinton, a difficult candidate to love, passes this presidential temperament test in spades. Think about the pressure she was under last night. I don’t think I could have even gotten up there with the stakes so high on the singular goal of her life. And yet she delivered a masterful performance.
Donald Trump is, for many, an easier candidate to love. He’s a character. He’s a successful entrepreneur and businessman who brings a different, and, at times, refreshing perspective to our political discourse. But on the temperament issue, he is a non-starter. He’s immature, impetuous, angry, hostile, and given to bouts of rambling like a mad person.
I don’t think last night’s debate settled this election. This race is close and may well go down to the wire. But it settled something for me. Donald Trump does not have the temperament to be President and Hillary Clinton does. She is by far the better choice to lead our country for the next four years. If there was any question on this issue, let me settle it once and for all. I am with her.
Well said, Fred. You are way more charitable to Trump than I would be. He’s a charlatan. Very entertaining as a reality show character, but I question his ethics and even if he really is a success in business. More like a bully. I also think that releasing your tax returns is an absolute requirement for a major public figure. His lack of transparency on this is a symptom of his arrogance.
he stands for something that americans are dying for and that is change. hillary stands for the status quo. that is why this race is close and could go either way.
“he stands for something that americans are dying for”What do you mean by this? He’s put forward a mix of left and right-wing policies like protectionism, tighter immigration, more public investment? he seems quite short-term, and policy-wise he strikes me as a populist.
he is different. new. not a clinton or a bush.
The great irony is that Obama was “change.” Trump’s ideas are centered around withdrawal. To pull back. Disengage. Walk away.This change Trump represents … Stop and Frisk (racial profiling), take the oil (commit war crimes), Withdraw from NATO (put our country at risk) …. what is the change that will help us?When asked a pointed question by Lester, “How will you bring the jobs back?” Trump’s response was “we are losing jobs.” He has no plan whatsoever.Trump yells and screams about problems. Immigration, export import, national debt. Yep, all problems. But just calling out the existence of the problem does not fix it. Solutions are needed. Cutting taxes does not work. We need to invest.
Obama pulled back on foreign policy-and went huuugge govt on domestic. Didn’t work.Obama has a very thin skin-like Nixon did-but Obama is extremely disciplined. When he is on camera-he doesn’t get rattled. Trump does.Part of that could be having gone to law school. Trump a businessman-they make money by being emotional. See Simon Sinek Selling the Why video. Lawyers try to rip emotion away from everything to remain composed and search for openings. It’s a different skill set.A lawyer perfectly understands Hillary’s “I don’t recall” answer to a question where a businessperson would directly answer the question-opening themselves up to attack.
Since Brexit, I have stopped underestimating how much people want change for the sake of change. The Brexit lobby had no forward plan, told lies after lies and were disingenuous at all levels. Yet, they won because it was a “change”. If that can happen in a liberal country like Britain, I have a great fear that it would very much happen here where there is an anathema for facts.
From what I understand, he successfully borrowed money and then declared bankruptcy, numerous times.
I would say being able to fly around in a 757 and controlling the assets that he does makes him certainly “a success in business”.
Easy position to take for a rich white man.
to vote against a rich white man? or something else? can you elaborate a bit on that comment?
I mean that Hillary represents the status quo. Very easy to want to maintain a status quo that has worked out well for you personally. For the millions of middle class getting squeezed, and the millions of poor who are getting far worse – change is more attractive, “presidential temperament” not withstanding.Personally I think they’re both absolutely awful candidates, and that this is an amazing opportunity to make the US a 3 or 4 party country. Like most of the rest of the western world.
I would welcome that but you have to play the game that you are in until a new game materializes.
Materializes out of where? Change requires people behind it. Just like companies do. If you’d welcome a change – why support literally the one candidate who least represents change, and most represents establishment politics? Because she bullshits better than a blowhard?
I agree Chris, and in fact one of my favorite things about this site and Fred is that it represents that very ideal – that smart people with unbounded optimism given a little bit of resources can literally change the world. It pains me to think that politically we should just “play the game we are in.” I thought I was pretty down about American politics in the middle of Obama’s presidency, but we’ve hit a new low. I cannot believe in a country this great (yes it’s great already, notwithstanding our political state) these are our choices.Last night did nothing to convince me I should not “waste” my vote on a third-party candidate. Trump is a despicable human being, and Hillary represents everything I dislike about American politics. I can only hope Hillary wins and Republicans hold Congress. Hard to say but four more years of gridlock is probably the best possible outcome.
Voting for a 3rd party candidate is the only ethical move here, and likely the only one you’ll be able to be proud of after the fact. It’s only wasted if everyone allows themselves to be bullied into believing that.
To get to a real multi party system, you need a parliamentary system and that would really require a large change in our Constitution. Perhaps that would be better.Regarding more of the same, compare the middle class life to anyone’s life 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 30 years ago.
middle class 30 or 50 years ago notably better than now. common and expected for one breadwinner to support a family, buy a house, a car or two. Now that’s the exception. Even 2 income families getting priced out of several cities.
I’m middle class, and I’m with her. Enthusiastically. You do not speak for all of us.
I’m middle class and definitely experiencing the downsides of the economy. And I’m With Her.
I was in this mindset during the during 2000 presidential election. I was a registered Green. I wanted to vote for Nader.Then, I saw a passionate speech by a black congressman from California, who represented a low income district. He said something along the lines of, “I understand the need for a third party. But my constituents cannot afford four years of George W Bush. I implore you to consider that there is a lesser evil here, and it makes a ALL the difference to the people in my district.”I voted for Gore. So, if you’re going to vote for a candidate that will not be able to win, in order to send a message and help build momentum for a third (or fourth) party (which I agree we need), know that there will be REAL collateral damage.The reality is, it’s easy for a white middle class man to talk about voting for a candidate that can’t win.The success of Sanders this time round is proof that we’re making progress towards building a multi-party system. It doesn’t get built with ‘protest’ votes in the general election.My latino and black friends can’t afford four years of Trump. So I cast my vote for Ms. Clinton out of respect for them.
We all have to make our choices. I vote for someone I’d want to have represent me. That’s all. Strategic voting is insanity of the highest order, and noone here is smart enough to actually be able to do it anyways.
It’s not that complicated. And you can’t hide from the fact that you’ll be asking your black and latino brothers and sisters to bear the burden of your choice.
And the brown people of this world will bear the burden of yours.
Who are these “brown” people you speak of?
Libya (directly responsible for). Syria (implicated in arms sales). Iraq (voted for). You can count on her for war, loose bank regulation and ‘free trade agreements’ that shift power from governments (us) to corporations. There’s not much she hasn’t actually flip flopped on, but her support of those have withstood the test of time.
Fair enough. I was furious — FURIOUS — about her Iraq war vote. And I’ll never understand it.But I don’t believe Trump will be any better in that regard. He has asked his advisers why he can’t just use nukes. His attitude towards blacks and Latinos and Muslims *right here* is crystal clear though.
Never understand it? It’s exactly her MO. I don’t understand how you could even be surprised?Trump’s a wild card. No real clear idea what he’s going to do, but the ONE thing he has demonstrated is that he’s a bit of an isolationist. On this front – I’m reasonably certain Trump would be a MUCH better leader than her.But as I’ve said before – the only ethical choice here is a 3rd party. And I’m so tired of the strategic voting nonsense, so please don’t. That’s nothing more than part of a system designed to keep the US a 2 party country. Even if there’s almost no difference between the parties anymore.
>Trump would be a MUCH better leader than her.You’re fine if your vote results in Trump’s election. Got it.
That’s what we call an intentional failure of reading comprehension, selective quotation, and Trump-style reframing. Nice work! We’re done here.
Oh, you’re not fine with him being elected?
all rich people will benefit from hillary or trump (at the expense of the ~99%) but trump has to be the greatest gift to rich people ever. his corporate tax cut plan is going to make it rain for the wealthy. hillary has more of a garden variety wealth transfer (tax everyone, then use stimulus to give money to friends) which will help the rich but not as much as trump’s plan.
Trumps temperament is to his advantage because it gives him authenticity. He is still a fool and lost the debate by a wide margin last night, but I doubt that matters much since most people have already made up their minds anyway.I was hoping trump would go where no one else has dared to go regarding all of hillary crimes. He only touched on the email stuff and even then just went surface deep there. Too bad, if he had used the truth there I think he could have been quite persuasive to the people who know intuitively hillary is not the right choice but don’t have the substance as to why.
Highlights for me:#1Hillary on emails: “It was a mistake. I take responsibility”Trump on tax returns: bluster bluster bluster. bullshit bullshit bullshit – whilst she by no means lights me on fire – accepting personal responsibility without mitigation or obfuscation goes a long way in my book.#2Hillary jabbed him about not paying federal income tax. A sensible person would have held fire and not retaliated. He had nothing to gain from a response. Trump couldn’t help himself and in a tourette-like way snarked back “that makes me smart”.His ego is so fragile when it comes to his business acumen, he has to defend it at all costs even though in doing so he effectively confirmed her assertion and potentially buggered his campaign.If for nothing else, him choosing ego over pragmatism makes him unelectable.
that “makes me smart” comment is a perfect example of the temperament issue. he can’t keep his mouth shut when he should. that’s a non-starter for me.
Reading pre-debate press reports that advisors/staff were worried because Trump wasn’t preparing for the debates came through, I didn’t believe them. I thought that he’d come out and surprise everyone.Why didn’t Trump listen to experienced advisors? The successful closely-held business is one of the places where a culture of “because I said so” actually sometimes flies (sometimes into the ground.)Stuff like not being able to shut up without getting the last word, and other details that have leaked out of press reports have a family business smell (and I mean this like “code smell”) — the inexperienced senior staffers, the related company dealings…I’d say more, but I have a day of meetings that I have to finish overpreparing for.
Part of the mentality of being an entrepreneur (in particular a small business man which is what Trump is) is doing what you want when you want. This I believe is 100% true for Trump. He doesn’t like the assignment. He is driven by mania and the deal and excitement and opportunity that he creates and sees. He is not, like Hillary or some lawyer or accountant, driven by the same “type” of work ethic. To repeat, his work ethic is based on working hard on exactly what you want when you want to do it and to the degree that you want. Not having the types of deadlines that a lawyer or academic might have.  The fact that he didn’t prep for the debates shows this (among other things). In that sense he really isn’t cut out to be President. He will not be able to allocate the time and his brain in the right way. Although I do believe he would be able to solve some problems potentially that Hillary can’t. I am the same way. I work all of the time, 7 days, but it’s what I want to do when I want and exactly how much I want. Not because there is some external force causing me to do so. (Other than customers and money of course..) The other side is that he is unconventional and is not going to follow the standard playbook because it’s worked for him in the past.
That is exactly it — and easier to see for those of us who have been inside these businesses.
And I love the life of it as well. It’s been that way since I graduated college with the exception of a very short period of time when I sold my first company.What’s interesting is that this extended to athletics and exercise as well. I dropped out of cross country in high school. But I ran on a regular basis all the time after high school and literally everyday for the last 20 years w/o fail. (Take time off only for injuries and must go to events which are rare that I can’t schedule around). My point is it is self motivation, not someone telling me I have to do it which is the key.
There is some truth to what you are saying about being able to solve certain problems better, but the downsides are too scary to consider any possible upside. To me, the lack of awareness is a killer. If you cannot control your mind or mouth, you have no business being President.
He literally can’t do it. He can’t focus long enough to study. He can’t keep his mouth shut when his ego is at stake. He cannot be wrong.
Pretty much nailed it.
> Why didn’t Trump listen to experienced advisors?I believe that it is clear he did listen and did what they advised: He concentrated on being not scary.
You shouldn’t have to focus on being not scary.
This is right. There were so many easy points that could calming elaborated. See my comment to JLM. He couldn’t do it.
On Sky News they played him saying, “I alone can fix it” and Hilary replying with, “Americans don’t say, ‘I alone can fix it.’ We say ‘we’ll fix it together.’ ”She gave a masterclass on not only temperament, she also schooled him on strategic planning for the economy, that facts+figures carry more substance than anecdotal fluff (Trump just seemed not to have a solid grasp of economics other than his own businesses’ income statements), the proof of her stamina ON-THE-JOB as Secretary of State (e.g., flying to hundreds of countries to negotiate trade deals, 11 hours straight at Congressional committee hearings), inclusiveness and …The best part was where she skewered his business practices as they made him wealthy but damaged the prospects for others.She pointed out he rooted for the housing crisis that led to the financial meltdown of 2008 and $13 TRILLION being wiped off the assets of US households and he replied, “That’s called business.”
Hemingway’s genius … “Listen completely”.If Trump had listened to her answers instead of interrupting without purpose, he’d have had a better chance of winning the debate but he didn’t.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
As I have explained, he was largely deliberately ignoring whatever she said.
You may have watched a different debate.She would get out one sentence and T started to foam at the mouth needing to speak.
with a smirk
That sounds like you were going into this debate with an open mind and actually hoping that Trump sounded Presidential.That said the up side of the loose canon that he: It’s actually ideally suited for dealing with the other nuts out there. It’s all about the downside here.  Despite what might appear to be my defense of him on this blog I actually don’t think he fits my risk profile at all. But quite frankly I am surprised that more startup industry people, those that put people who know jack squat in front a pile of money instead of people who have been around the block quite surprising. (I know why of course it’s a different kind of bet..)
.Fred adores Pres Obama — fair? Thinks he’s one of the best Presidents ever. Has said so many times.HRC is an agent of change.What change, one asks.The screwups Pres Obama and Sec of State HRC have effected?So, of course, Fred had an open mind.He was giving DJT serious condition from the beginning and it was a very, very, very close call. Had Trump not messed up at the debate yesterday — unmasking his lack of temperament — Fred was giving serious consideration to going with him.Believe me, it was a very, very, very close call and it turned on temperament.Those who suggest that Fred wrote that blog post the week before the debate, well, y’all are just hateful, deplorable really.Open mind all the way. Trust me.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I wanted so so so much though to believe it was true though.
i see why people like you like him. i get it. that’s called an open mind.i am not sure you see why people like me like Obama and Hillary. maybe you do but i have never seen you communicate that.
.Frankly, I don’t. I have no argument with people who are not thoughtful enough or who don’t pay attention.The results are immutable.When someone like HRC lies and tells us she was under sniper fire — a bald faced attempt to associate herself and to identify herself with men who have experienced such terror — I wonder what else she has lied to us about.I did not have to wonder long as she revealed it in her email debacle. When the FBI passes on prosecuting someone who is “extremely careless” and “unsophisticated” in her knowledge and handling of classified materials, it gives one pause as to how they can possibly be trusted with high office.There ARE things that are disqualifying for high office. A lack of integrity is one of them.I would like to strangle Ross Perot.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I am thoughtful and I do pay attention. Your hatred is so blinding that you do not see
.My objections are hardly “hateful.”They are fact based and I laid out the facts — a complete lack of integrity being the basis for my OPINION.Please re-read your comment and my response. I was admitting I did NOT see how you supported Pres Obama and HRC. I was objecting specifically because you ARE thoughtful and pay attention.I cannot fathom how some people (include yourself if inclined) can tolerate a lack of fundamental integrity in our leaders. I suspect you would not tolerate such a fault in a CEO upon whose board you sat.Simple concept. Straightforward fact based objection. No hate involved whatsoever.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Maybe Fred is determined to fit in with some parts of southern Manhattan.Or, it’s social and cultural and not directly rational or analytical.
Fred, I too am surprised by Jeff’s vitriol.Jeff’s led a life of very high integrity, you can see it in his references to his father’s influence, his schooling, his service and his working life.He turned hard to Trump when the GOPe started to hint that they would rig the convention in order to keep him from being the nominee.I can only imagine that he turned hard against the Clintons nearly 20 years ago.Like Chris Arnade eloquently argues on his Twitter feed, Jeff has adopted a losing trader’s strategy: try to blow the whole thing up with a hand grenade of some type, rather than accept continuing unacceptable outcomes.It’s not hatred of HRC, as much of disgust at the American federal political landscape.It should scare the crap out of you – and all of us – that someone as principled, patriotic and productive as Jeff has made this choice.
Someone as principled, patriotic and productive as Jeff has to make a choice, no?Jeff’s position on dope has been made abundantly clear over the years, so a legal dope pusher like Johnson hasn’t got a snowflakes chance in hell of winning his vote.So we’re left with Clinton, a centre right authoritarian establishment player of modest accomplishment, crooked as a barrel of fish hooks. And Trump, a centre right authoritarian populist of modest accomplishment, mad as a sack of cut snakes.Each covets power. Both should be excluded from it. Unfortunately the system has failed and one of them will be President. Jeff and Fred have gone all in on the least worst candidate. The rest is just dinner table politics — usually the most vitriolic kind.
The core of this situation could show a fundamental weakness in the foundation of American democracy.Fault line. Scary situation.
In many ways it already has and they’re just probing around looking for the bottom. Utterly dismaying, although perhaps a catalyst for constitutional reform.
The integrity you speak of … you believe Trump has this?Have you simply ignored every hate filled comment he has made?Have you ignored the way he characterizes women? Muslims? Immigrants in general?As though our country was recently invaded by immigrants.The US is the land of opportunity, the beacon of hope, the symbol of freedom. We draw in people from around the world. We take your tired, your sick, your needy. Get it … those are American values.Trump is a silver spoon, gold plated elitist. And if you support him, you are either blind because you can only vote Republican, or you are just like him. FoxNews has executed the biggest con job in the History of our country holding HRC out as this person she is not.Perhaps you need to pay attention and simply read what Trump has written and listen to what he says. Nobody needs to bash him, he makes the case of who he is every single day.
.Tone it down, Alex. Do not insult me or lecture me. Converse, if you can. This one’s on me.You miss the point — when one has a binary choice, either HRC or DJT — it does not make any difference whether the remaining candidate (after you have eliminated one) has a perfect set of attributes.By process of elimination, he or she is the one.As I indicated, I have eliminated HRC and, therefore, I am left with DJT. It does not mean I think him to be a perfect choice but he is my choice by process of elimination.If you’ve ever been to a horse auction in West Texas, you will know what it means when all the good horseflesh is sold and you are left with the dog food.You are on the verge of hyperventilation as it relates to your inaccurate description of Trump. The reality is bad enough but the hyperbole is silly.As anyone with a brain knows, he did NOT speak of all immigrants, he spoke ill of criminals. Living in Texas, as I do, and with intimate knowledge of the Rio Grande Valley, I can tell you he is correct. I can take you to the street corners where ICE dumps them. In El Paso, in Corpus Christi, in Brownsville, in San Antone, in McAllen.A temporary ban on the immigration of Muslims is a very good idea. The underlying threat has been validated and vouchsafed by the heads of the CIA,, FBI, DIA. That is pretty rarefied company.If you or I were the Caliph, would we not try to infiltrate the US through our porous borders or the flow of refugees? Of course we would.HRC is not a new arrival, nor did she arrive under sniper fire. Her biggest problem seems to be posing as a change agent in an ecosystem she is responsible for creating coupled with being responsible for some of the greatest failures of American foreign policy in history — Libya, Egypt, Syria.HRC is not so much running on a set of ideas as she is on the skepticism that she could ever be a change agent coupled with her really bad performance compounded by either her demonstrable ineptitude or complete lack of integrity.One man’s view.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I don’t miss the point, you are in the camp of the “lesser of two evils.”And I understand with perfect clarity that before Trump was the nominee, you were likely saying things like “Anyone but Hillary.”Lots of people have this point of view. And while I don’t agree with a lot of the basis for this point of view, because I believe that the Alt Right media has created many conspiracy theories about the Clintons, I do understand the impact that the constant questions have on all of our collective points of view.My “axe to grind” if you will is that I hope everyone, you included, will take a step back and look at both candidates starting from ground zero. Compare what they have done with what they started with. Compare the scandals. Compare their statements. Compare all of the parts of them.Don’t just choose DJT because he is what is left after discarding HRC, because DJT is worse. And not just worse by a little bit, he is worse by a lot. Its not even close. From the Birther issue, to treatment of women, to all of it.If you believe HRC is worse, so be it. But from what you said, that you have eliminated HRC and are therefore left with DJT, perhaps be more critical of what DJT has said and done.One person’s point of view anyway, feel free to leave it at the door.
.I am not really in the camp of “lesser of two evils.” That implies I am looking — considering — both candidates simultaneously.In fact, HRC has been in the public eye for decades and I have long since made up my mind that she is not fit for high office. To suggest this is a recent decision or to suggest that she has upon the scene recently, is inaccurate.You do yourself a disservice projecting that you know how I might think about HRC — as in “Anybody but Hillary.” Let me play my own game pieces, shall we?I never considered HRC. Ever. She is both unqualified and disqualified — my opinion, mind you — and I really can’t put my finger on when that happened.Was it when she told the lie about her naming? The cattle futures? Her vicious attacks on her husband’s victims? L’affaire Whitewater? The Rose Law Firm records? The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? The disastrous HillaryCare? The three bills she sponsored and which became law during her 6 year Senate term? The sniper fire? The cockup in the Middle East? The amateurish and embarrassing Russian reset button? Libya? Benghazi? The emails? The public tongue lashing by the Dir FBI? The TPP lies? The deplorables?Who knows but it wasn’t any time recently.I know I cannot believe that someone who has been part of the political eco-system they purport to “change” can actually be an agent of change.Given all of that, it is not the lesser of two evils. It is the unqualified and disqualified characteristics of HRC which dooms my interest in her.As to the Alt Right, I am feeling left out. I missed the NeoCons. I thought it was because I wasn’t of the right tribe or wasn’t a draft dodger, so I’m trying to get a place in the Alt Right tent.Please don’t tell me it turns out like the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and it turns out to be a hoax.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Honestly he is making the same mistake that he would criticize liberals for doing to conservatives (or people who like Trump). In essence saying “this is obvious on it’s face your choice is the ‘tard choice. You are wrong. Be a good person and do what I say you should”.Otoh he surely understands that to defeat the enemy you have to understand the enemy. If you do then you can use an argument that actually might work with them. I never (as have mentioned) smoked pot in high school or even tried it. Never drank either (college or high school). Nobody every gave me any reason to (sold me) and in fact it was the opposite. The more they belittled me the less likely I was to cave in (don’t succumb to peer pressure). People would say only “try it you might like it”. I would say “yep that’s what I am afraid of”.
JLM, I agree with Fred here. There were lots of people open to him despite everything. All he had to do was show up, keep his mouth shut, and clear the lowest bar there ever was.The fact that he failed confirms the narrative that he is just too indisciplined and out of control to be President.You may not like Hillary’s policy, but it is hard to dispute that she was incredibly more prepared, was unflappable, and delivered under immense pressure. Being prepared is being respectful of voter’s time. Being prepared means you are willing to do the hard work necessary to master something.
.The snap polls show that, in fact, he didn’t fail. Even Slate has him winning.The definition of winning from a pragmatic, political perspective means simply not changing the trajectory of the race which is propelling him forward.Putting a turd in a Tiffany’s box does not change its fundamental characteristics even for the East German judge.There is a difference between playing a doctor on TV (which requires a lot of preparation) and being a doctor.HRC plays at being a leader and the report card for her actual leadership results is abysmal. She has destroyed American influence in the Middle East while allowing ISIS to grow into 30 different countries, 3 continents, and to export their evil to our country and Europe.Like the engineers of the Titanic finally admitted: Results do count.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
If you think his performance did not hurt him with college educated republican men, women and minorities, we did not see the same debate.
.The debate did not change the trajectory or momentum of the race. Trump is still surging. A week from now, when other things bear on it, it may not be so but on Monday night in Hampstead, NY — nothing changed.The Republican party is in the final throes of consolidation behind its candidate (except for Mitt Romney and the Bush’s) as it was always going to happen.Hell, Ted Cruz even announced he’s going to vote for him and endorsed him. Rumor has it he’s going to campaign with him and lend him Heidi for a weekend at Mar a Lago.Keep you eyes on Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.DJT could win all of them.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Your comment on Ted Cruz is funny. When the polls settle down and the undecideds make up their minds, I believe they will swing heavily against DJT. May be I am wrong, but sure feels like it.
.There is a bit of science in the behavior of “undecideds.”They almost always trend toward the insurgent candidate. Those who flock to the incumbent are easy to identify.There will also be a lot of defections from Gary Johnson and Jill stein when the election is upon us.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
And you are way too smart to repeat the line that he won. There are online polls and then there are polls. The former can be made to say anything you want and there is no scientific methodology. Every real poll taken with a live audience has him losing by double digits.
.Whoa, cavepainting, you’ve slipped your anchor, sailor.I put up a bunch of “snap” polls which clearly showed him doing well.Those are the only polls which can be seen at this early time as the debate was LAST NIGHT.To suggest there are “other” polls is nonsense. They haven’t had enough time to conduct such polls. A good poll has a large sample and takes 3-5 days to complete.The snap polls are just indications of enthusiasm and on that score, he’s doing well — surprises the Hell out of me BTW.I am always reminded of the Tom Cotton v David Pryor Senate race in Arkansas which had Pryor winning in July and the final polls had Cotton +7 while the actual results were Cotton +17.This was a bellwether of the 2014 election and it showed that the momentum shifted rather dramatically.It is not difficult to suggest that the lessons of 2014 have been purposely ignored or unlearned.The Republicans are likely to do 5% better than projected (Cotton went +10%) while Trump is probably going to do a similar polled v actual jump. Hell, folks are ashamed to admit they’re voting for Trump.Live audiences are what> Twenty people invited by a MSM cable station? I don’t believe them even when they’re on FOX.There is a decent probability this will be a replay of 2014.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Worth reading this NYT piece ‘We Gave Four Good Pollsters the Same Raw Data. They Had Four Different Results’:* http://www.nytimes.com/inte…@cavepainting:disqusUK elections have had their share of the polls being wrong. So much so the Polling Council launched an enquiry on polling methods:* http://www.britishpollingco…The snap polls for whether the UK would vote for / against Brexit were also amiss.
.The UK 2015 pre-election polls suffered from the same inability to find the truth of the electorate as the US 2014-midterms did.If there is a lesson to be learned it is this — seeming “liberal” candidates and causes are trending to be over stated while seeming “conservative” candidates and causes are trending to be under stated.There is something to be learned there even before anyone puts a finger on why.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Well, the problem with polls generally is that they limit people either to(1.) binary choices — Are you voting Liberal / Conservative?(2.) how much to you agree this policy is…1 = Mostly Liberal2 = A bit Liberal3 = neither Liberal nor Conservative4 = A bit Conservative5 = Mostly ConservativeThey don’t in any way measure and analyze the complexities of WHY someone is either Liberal or Conservative and what causes them to change their minds or stick with their preferred candidates.
.The only poll that matters is the one on 8 Nov 2016.Having said that, you are conflating opinion polls (policy) with voter preference polls (candidates).I am very liberal on education and very conservative on fiscal, foreign policy, and defense/military matters though I think weapons systems spending is totally out of control.Am I a conservative or a liberal?I am a policy driven voter though I do not get to vote on policy, I can only vote on a choice of two PERSONS.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Exactly, the only poll that matters is 8 Nov 2016.Regardless of whether it’s opinion polls or preference polls, the methodology is broadly the same and that methodology is incomplete and can in no way measure the complex nuances of people’s associations and affiliations.You being very liberal on education and very conservative on fiscal etc being a case in point.Most people are a … MIX; prior to and throughout the election process.They only become a binary definite on 8 Nov 2016.That’s why the polls in between the actual ballot box of the election are often wide of the mark. They can’t measure that MIX. They only measure the binaries and then try to extrapolate and predict with those binaries.But the binaries don’t sum up to the MIX.
Twain, what are your observations and experience with the young people you work with regarding voting. Will they vote? Are they first time voters.? Do you see a stop Trump anti-vote going on?
Generally, SFers in their 20s find Trump laughable. Some friends and I did the Bay to Breakers run and one of them got dressed up in a Luche Libre costume and styled himself as “Trump’s worst nightmare: a flying Mexican.”He got lot of cheers during the course of the 12 km.Young voters (under 30) are likelier to vote for the Democrats but Hillary Clinton is unlikely to experience the same popularity (60%) as President Obama enjoyed.Young female voters will turn out for Hillary Clinton but young male voters may not.The Pew data says this: https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
I propose this errata:Where it says “conservative” it should say “conservative-populist”
.Fair play to you, mate. Well played. Your serve.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Hmmm… the CNN poll had a sample size of 561. It skews slightly more democratic but did have ~ 40% as independents.Snap polls, online polls and social media polls are not trustworthy because they are not reflective of anything but who is more excited to answer the question.The bias of differential response and fraud is multi-fold higher than in a controlled sample with a predetermined composition.You are correct that this is a change election, but you are significantly underestimating Hillary’s doggedness and preparation, and overlooking the incompetence and “wing-it” attitude of Trump. I will bet that a half-competent Republican candidate who is likable enough and without the baggage of Trump would have done a far better job.
.HRC got beaten like a rented mule (alternative: red headed stepchild with a lisp) by Barack H Obama in the 2008 primary.She is NOT a good campaigner. Bernie Sanders made her look foolish — a 74 year old Communist with no national base.Absent the DNC’s book cooking, she might not even have won.Trump beat 16 Republicans for the nomination. He is a novice with all the shortcomings of a novice. Still, he is in a position nobody ever contemplated a year ago.Trump will be fine.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Yes, he has come a long way. But, what you say about Hillary is not true. She won the popular vote in the democratic primary in 2008 and came very close to winning the delegates. She became a much better campaigner through the season but the 150 delegate lead that Obama had from the Southern states was just too many to overcome. Obama was also a special talent with no baggage.One of the things I hate about Trump is he says things like “she does not have basic ability”, “she has no stamina”, “she does not have the looks”, etc. His attacks are very ad hominem against her “talent”. Candidates need to debate each other’s track record and policy, not looks, stamina, ability and talent.
Only if the insurgent runs an honorable campaign and makes them feel that he is worthy of their support.Jill Stein voters are liberal and will never vote for Trump. Gary Johnson’s voters are equally split, but includes a whole bunch of never trumpers. Net, Net she has more to gain as third party vote consolidates to either of the major party candidates.But… I could be wrong. So could you.
.You can test your theorem by looking at the poll number with and without the 3rd party candidates in the mix.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
The betting markets have it as a landslide for Hillary. I trust the money
.It is always difficult to argue with the money. I wonder why we even bother with elections.President Gore was right on that one, no?Of course in 1980, Carter came out of the gate at 62% to 33% for Ronald Reagan. At this time of that election, Carter was +4%.Then, Reagan ruined things by winning 51% to Carter’s 41% (John Anderson took 7%). Reagan went +4% versus the last polls.This election is continuing to ignore Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. They will be factors before the dust settles.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Gee, I need to look up the details of how to place such a bet, on Trump winning, and get great odds! As of Sunday, Trump was ahead in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
THIS: “Being prepared is being respectful of voter’s time. Being prepared means you are willing to do the hard work necessary to master something.”In tech, we slave away (blood, sweat and tears), collecting the scars and burns and broken hearts to earn those votes of confidence from users, our teams and investors.So for the Presidency, the bar of being prepared (even for a debate) has to be higher, [email protected]:disqus
.The “being prepared” meme is an HRC invented yardstick which plays to what she wants to believe. I find no basis in reality for it.I think Trump put on a bad performance. Not more than that. I doubt any level of prep would have calmed his nerves. He looked like a whore in a cathedral.As to his being prepared, he spoke to the same subject he’s been speaking to — trade, foreign policy, defense. Same arguments and same language.Trump made a calculated decision to continue campaigning when HRC decided to rein it in and go to ground. That was a conscious decision.Frankly, I find the debates to be a little shallow. “Two minutes” is not long enough for anything. Last night’s didn’t do much to assail that view. The moderator might have just as well come out in HRC’s colors.Pres Obama got his ass kicked by Romney in the opening debate of their series. Things worked out OK for him as he went to school and did a better job of it the second and third times around.I don’t see anything changing the Big Mo this morning.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Shallow? Apparently there’s been dumbing down of Presidential speeches over the years.Wondering how text speak and 140-characters is changing our brain’s ability to focus and read tracts of Homer, Euripides, Shakespeare et al, capable of understanding their depths as well as recite them (with meaning).Mind you, apparently knowledge of Shakespeare isn’t as valuable as knowing how to code.I can code and recite entire soliloquies from Shakespeare so I may be a rarity, lol.https://uploads.disquscdn.c… https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
.I used to be able to recite Westmoreland’s Crispin’s Day Speech with 4 beers in me. I won many a bet at the O Club doing just this. I failed ignominiously at the 6 beer level.We are becoming a world of the unspoken word. We don’t know how to speak to groups.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
You clearly have male advantages over me. Should I now, likewise, register my objections to your male oppression and humiliation of me in your braggodacious ability to still recite Henry V whilst inebriated?!!!:*).I think after 2 vodka and cranberry, I lose the ability to read a restaurant menu aloud — much less enunciate prose. Haha.
.I no longer can recite the Crispin’s Speech, alas. But I may just practice and re-sharpen the edge.Who knows?I think it is only fair to object to my behavior given any chance to object about anything. I provide that opportunity, generously, to the entire world.You should try Deep Eddy grapefruit vodka. Bit of cranberry juice, grapefruit juice, nice shot of vodka, balance of white wine, splash of Rose’s lime juice. Cracked ice in a 12-16 oz red Solo cup.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
OOOH!!! Grapefruit’s something I’ve never thought of with vodka! Thanks.Here’s my encounter with vodka in Carmel-by-the-Sea: unfinished monkey business.We’d hiked the Big Sur and found a great restaurant, Vesuvio, where they served amazing gnocchi, wood-fired pizzas and lovely vodkas. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
I agree. There were some things that were so simple that he just missed. I sat there in real time and thought he was a terrible debater.When she had comments about the rich Trump trickle down, he should have said: I’m for giving tax cuts to people that employ tens of thousands of others like I do,but not so much for two people that amass a quarter of billion of wealth after coming to Washington.When she said you were happy at the real estate crisis. He should have said who caused it? Investment Banks like Goldman that have given you how much? Who stabilized things? People like me that came in and bought at the bottom.He could have been nonchalant about his taxes. Let’s make a deal. And I am going to include the taxes of my employees which pay your salary.So many other easily prepared for talking points. I wasn’t rooting for anybody but thought he left so many openings.I always say it is impossible to throw a punch when you are slipping around in your own shit. He let her do that.
Sure Trump could have kicked Hillary’s pantsuit into orbit, frequently.He’s strong, determined, smart, capable and can kick even Hillary’s broad back side into orbit.But, IMHO, he was advised to go easy and make comfortable the millions of people scared that with his strength, determination, etc. in making his big, great omelet he would break too many or the wrong eggs.Part of the advice was that he just had to be likable. So, mostly he didn’t fight back. Otherwise he wandered on various old topics in order to say at least something.
Good points. But the entire idea that having a good comeback is so important is an issue to me. Being able to think on your feet and under pressure is important but if we want people with good study habits running government or companies we will miss out on many people who are actually qualified to do a job.Sure he was cavalier and should have prepared better and that is for sure a fault and canary in the coal mine for a larger problem with his candidacy.But the press and people give way way way to much to the one line zingers.We see it here on AVC where some of the top rated comments are some stupid one line saying, picture or what not that an average person can easily relate to. (Posted early on of course so the early upvotes lead to later upvotes).
If you wanted to be accepted in certain high end parts of lower Manhattan business and society, what would you do?
for those with long memories, “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes” pretty much sunk leona helmsley’s public reputation. also, jail.https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…After allegations of non-payment by contractors hired to build her home, Helmsley was investigated and convicted of federal income tax evasion and other crimes in 1989. Although having initially received a sentence of 16 years, Helmsley was required to serve only 19 months in prison and two months under house arrest. During the trial, a former housekeeper testified that she had heard Helmsley say: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes”, a notorious aphorism with which she was identified for the rest of her life.
I agree with you. But she can’t be straight with you when she should. That’s also a non-starter.How would you like to be a CEO who has a powerful Board member with that trait?
I think she can be straight in that sort of setting but I see your point. I hate when she dodges issues, like we saw with NAFTA and TPP. Would have like to see her address that issue head on.Still, it’s tougher when you have to deliver a message like NAFTA and free trade is good policy that also costs American’s jobs. Try telling that to people in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania who suffered the lost jobs and communities under economic decline – and now may decide the election. Not easy.
.How can NAFTA and TPP be good policy if they cost Americans jobs?Is the duty of our gov’t to its citizens or to corporate income statements? Profits?There is no such thing as free trade. There is such a thing as fair trade.We are no longer poking about in the darkness here. We know the results of NAFTA (and by association the Maquiladora Program) and they are not good.Why would we let an American company move an American business (meaning heardquartered in the US) to Mexico and then allow them unfettered access to our market without any cost of entry?We would not do this with a foreign company.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
US is heavily integrated with the global economy. We absolutely let the products made by foreign firms in the US without consideration of their using US workers to build their products.Of course ideally the US would keep every manufacturing job in the US – we don’t want them to leave. Still US firms that have factories in the US at times move them to lower wage markets. If we recognize that this will happen, it is part of global competition, would we rather have US companies move operations to China or Mexico? That’s the issue that NAFTA is meant to address. It does not create the conditions that leads firms to moving factories out of the US, it just makes Mexico a more attractive option for a company that is seeking lower wage works.It’s a way to compete with China without sending all jobs there. At least that is how I understand it.Were we to prohibit US firms to relocate factories, we would be putting our firms at a competitive disadvantage compared to non-US firms and then we would need to start stopping the import of foreign goods to protect their market share. One step towards protection leads to another.
.Not sure what you’re talking about. NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement and was signed in 1994. It has nothing to do with China.The signatories are the US, Canada, and Mexico.There was a series of tariffs which were reduced to zero over a period of time — the tariffs were not deleted, they were reduced to zero.The big winner under NAFTA was Mexico with the advent of the Maquiladora Program which provided there would be no tariffs if goods were “final assembled:” in Mexico of parts shipped to Mexico from US suppliers.This was a pure and simple low cost labor play with the Mexican minimum wage being in the range of $4.10 which is declining with the weakness in the dollar,There are more than 1,000,000 jobs in the Maquiladora Program which were exported from the US to Mexico. This had nothing to do with the pricing of such goods and services.If you want to read up on the Maquiladora Program, peruse this:http://themusingsofthebigre…The US did great work on the auto industry requiring foreign cars to be produced at least 50% in the US. This gave rise to auto plants for BMW, Mercedes, Toyota in South Carolina and Texas thereby creating tons of good US jobs.This was the result of good trade policy.The NAFTA and TPP trade agreements are not good for the US. It is not a difficult problem to solve.All we need to do is employ the same logic as we did in the car industry.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
We do pretty good under NAFTA, when our dollar trades at a discount.
.Which would be at the expense of the US thereby proving the point, no?The US and Canada hardly need a trade agreement.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Yup, that’s the point. Although the latest car assembly deal in Ontario was backed by our federal government cutting a big check to the unions, so we are now using an unfair playing field to stay even with Mexico.
.In this instance, with which I am not familiar, the Canadian gov’t protected its employment base.This is the bottom line — countries have to expend effort to recognize the export of jobs and then prevent it.Good on Canada!JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I am familiar with NAFTA. You are explaining the what, my point is about the why, the strategy around creating a trading block in North America. That to me is clearly an effort to position the US for competition with other larger unified markets like China and the EU.I don’t think the US government likes to position these agreements as competition with China because it would be interpreted as hostile but I still see it as that in terms of long term strategy. Look at the TPP, who is in, who is out.In terms of the auto industry, I’m not aware of the policy you mentioned regarding requiring local production for foreign brands. Would you happen to have a link to that?
.NAFTA does not create a trading bloc of any kind whatsoever. That would be something like the EU which is, essentially, an economic alliance intended to create negotiating power to use against US. The good old United States.NAFTA is a trade agreement amongst the US, Canada, and Mexico and controls how we trade with each other. It has nothing to do with how we trade with anyone else in the world.NAFTA is from the early 1990s when China was not a significant factor.The TPP is our creation of a bloc (similar to the EU) — sponsored by the US — to allow for the creation of a single trading agreement rather than allowing the US to hammer out agreements with a number of countries against which we may have extraordinary leverage.TPP allows them to gang up on us rather than the US using the leverage created by access to our market to hammer out deals which are infinitely better for us.TPP puts a lot of power on the other side of the table — by our own actions — while preventing us from disciplining individual trade relationships.TPP is particularly bad for labor and union labor in this country as it essentially allows other countries to provide labor on favorable terms — thereby exporting jobs — without the structure of American labor, environmental, currency, anti-dumping laws.Without TPP, we can use access to the US markets as a means of forcing our trading partners to allow US companies to export from the US to them. This keeps jobs in the US.One has only to look at the new plants being built in China by the likes of Deere, Caterpillar, and others to see how jobs are being diverted.The other side of this is we can compel companies like Komatsu, Hitachi, Volvo, Liebherr to manufacture their equipment in the US in order to sell into our market.TPP is not good for labor, US labor.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I may have been wrong to call it a trading block – still my point stands by it provides US firms with access to lower cost labor while keeping plants in North America.Were you able to find anything to substantiate your point that foreign automakers are required to produce cars in the US to access our market?
.The issue is keeping jobs in the United States, not in N America.Do your own research, realroz, ever heard of Google?I was alive when it happened, so I read it in the newspapers.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I did do research and found nothing to support it, which is why I was asking.My point is that if jobs are bound to leave the US do to firms seeking lower wages, keeping them in North America is preferable to sending them overseas. That to me is a key advantage to NAFTA.
.Look up “automotive VER (voluntary export restraint)” or “US automotive industry 1980s.”Keeping jobs in N America is not the objective. Keeping US jobs in the US is the objective.The Maquiladora Program allows goods to be reimported to the US with no tariffs if only “final assembly” is done in the US.We should stick a tariff on them.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
That VER program ended in 1994 and was basically a cap on Japanese cars during a recession. It was a temporary market protection so that the US automobile companies would not go out of business. I don’t think that is such a great model going forward and while possible for autos, much harder to apply to a wide range of businesses.The US has led the world in pushing free trade liberalization. I think it would be hard to expect our market to be treated any differently.You and Mr Trump can throw around the idea of slapping tariffs on this that but remember that the exporting country then can put a tariff on our exports – which would mean that the remaining manufacturers who are successful at exporting are then made less competitive. It is a system called protectionism and it tends not to end well for domestic producers or US consumers. Brazil has these sort of rules for import. Can you name any Brazilian brands that do well on the world market?
.Not sure what you’re talking about as the program I was referring to was enacted in the 1980s and the US was not in recession in 1994.Voluntary Restraint AgreementGo to this link and review the history of the 1980s which led to the construction of foreign car plants — employing Americans — in the South of the US. It is pretty clear.https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…Let’s also be clear as to the current status — absent TPP, we currently have a complex set of tariffs which number almost 20,000 with our trading partners throughout the world with the exception of the NAFTA countries of Canada and Mexico with who we still have tariffs but they are set to ZERO as long as all parties honor the treaty.To the extent you hold up a US brand as an exemplar, know they are operating within the current tariff scheme. Unless TPP is passed, they will continue to operate in such a manner.The US market is the biggest in the world and it would be an imprudent country which imposed tariffs which might cut then off from access to the US market.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I agree bigly.
.”big league” is what he’s saying.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Wondering how technology will be able to measure candidate’s temperament in the future:* http://moodoftheelection.comIt's possible with existing technology to do this in real-time as an overlay on Apple TV with Twitter app.Not something I’m working on — since I have my own model for NatLang understanding and perceptions. Just showing Beyond Verbal’s approach here.https://uploads.disquscdn.c… https://uploads.disquscdn.c… https://uploads.disquscdn.c…https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
These are fair points. Everybody has an ego, but at his level, to get defensive so easily is not a good sign. But then, he is new to politics and perhaps was overcompensating. Remember, this is the first time he would have had such an audience and such high stakes. He was still continuing in the primary mindset that he needed to come out the loudest voice on the stage with four or ten other people. With Hillary, it was 1-1 and he should have been more restrained.For Hillary, it is the second time she is running for President, and she has been in public offices all her life. Training helps.I will wait for the next two debates to see if he takes this as a learning experience before being so certain in my opinion of him.
isn’t sorting out your edges what the primary season is for?
Is it good to have a president who has never held elected office? Even Reagan was Gov of California before running for President.
He was just pushing his brand, playing his book or whatever the term is in VC investing, etc. That’s some of what he does. That’s not nearly as serious as Comey’s claim of “extremely careless” which means a violation, in this case massive, of section (f) of the US Espionage Act. Right? Or as Secretary of State doing a big favor for UBS while Bill collected the money as in=== 2.5.1 Crooked Hillaryin myhttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…today, right?Is some of Trump’s style really comparable to Hillary’s massive violation of section (f) and bribery by UBS? Her lying to the FBI? Her lying under oath to Congress? The bribe she took from Ericsson? The bribe she took for approving the sale of 25% or so of US uranium production to Russia? How she and Bill ended up with a big chunk of the money donated to Haiti after their earthquake?
comment “makes me smart” is like 5th grader saying to his friend I robbed the bank therefore I am smart.
Late night tweets that are incredibly inappropriate don’t inspired confidence. Ill chosen fights another example of poor judgement.
I’ve been very upset about the email thing. Her response was perfect and took the wind right out of my sails on that issue.Trump, on the other hand, spent 90 minutes insulting people. Dumb people pay taxes, 400 pound hackers, etc. It was insulting.I was voting for Clinton before this debate — his arbitrary recollection of facts is too much for me among other reasons — but the contrast between the two was stark and only served to reinforce his disqualifications as president.I wish this was instead a debate last night over the policies that will dictate the future of this country, but apparently that will have to wait four more years.
> Her response was perfect and took the wind right out of my sails on that issue.The issue is not at all that she made a tinsy-winsy little mistake-y she is sorry for and has learned from.Instead the main issue is that she let every country in the world with a serious hacking effort get all her e-mail traffic including some US NSA Special Access Program information classified higher than Top Secret and, from the statement of FBI Directory Comey about her being “extremely careless,” is in massive violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act.For details, see=== 2.6.2 Blackberry Usageof my posthttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…here.
When Trump said, “That makes me smart,” he basically was saying that people who do pay taxes are stupid. Essentially, that would be most Americans. In my Facebook stream none of my pro-Trump friends thought it was insulting because they actually believe Trump will get rid of taxes and help everyday Americans “get smart,” even though Trump’s tax plan is based on reducing taxes for the highest earners, not everyday Americans.It’s not those of us who understand how delusional Trump is that will vote for him, it’s people who truly believe the delusion despite facts to the contrary. And we all know it’s possible for a majority of people to show up and vote for him. The same people also believe that global sea rise is not real among many other misconceptions.
related: when “all in the family” was on tv, there were people who identified with archie.
Yes, I know those people. My father was one of them. My brother is another. I’m glad that both of them are so apathetic that they don’t vote.
they are trump’s core constituency; trump normalizes bigotry, and celebrates ignorance
> trump normalizes bigotry, and celebrates ignoranceYou get this information from where? The MSM/Hillary campaign propaganda machine?Do you have any good references?”Ignorance”? He’s a Wharton grad and very successful in business — both strongly conflict with “ignorance”.For “bigotry”, athttp://spectator.org/64643_…is a description of the apparently terrific work Trump did against racism in Palm Beach.Who is Trump bigoted against?Any specifics? Evidence? References?Or is this all just old MSM/Hillary campaign lying propaganda?
Half of the audience in fact. Also, half of Colbert’s audience thought he was making fun of liberals.Did you listen that podcast, too? 😀
which podcast, what is this referencing*confused*
Malcolm Gladwell’s. There’s an episode about satire.
he basically was saying that people who do pay taxes are stupidWhat? No he’s not.Not at all. He is saying that people who would be in his or a similar situation who pay more than they have to are stupid. Trump gets audited every year (he says) and takes advantage of the system in a way to pay the least taxes possible. Anyone else who doesn’t do that is stupid at least at that level of potential savings and taxes. Anyone disagree with that? Now at a smaller level of course some people won’t take every deduction. I don’t if the paperwork required is more than the amount that I will save. That is not being stupid it’s being practical.And you have to put this into context of being a businessman of his era and what they see as being stupid. I remember my Dad firing someone (1970’s) who told him something negative thinking that my Dad would like their honesty. His answer was that it was stupid and they should have not told him that. Trump did something similar way way way back with Brad Cohen on the apprentice (Brad is a customer of mine). Brad was honest with him thinking Trump would like it and Trump fired him telling him it was stupid to tell Trump that.Anyone who is an employee and reads this blog can kid themselves into thinking that the world is fair and 100% honesty is the way to go. Of course it’s not. It’s a matter of degree. We all know that. If you don’t acknowledge you are not being honest.That said he for sure wasn’t smart in the way he handled that and not knowing that the little people wouldn’t see it the same way that his real estate buddies would.When I was a kid I remember my Dad telling me that the same story told to two different neighbors would have two different reactions. One would think he was smart and admire him, the other would think he was a thief.  Trump knows this of course in his everyday dealings with people and he practices it so sure it’s surprising that he didn’t temper his responses on stage. Very surprising given the stakes. Makes you think he doesn’t want to win actually. And I remember him telling me he wouldn’t ever do a business deal with a cousin because of a story that the cousin told him that he thought crossed the line.
It’s such a silly argument. Business people, including Fred (assumption alert!) and other participants here, use all available deductions and tax reduction options available. Sure, some have really clever accountants, and others badly bend rules hoping to not get caught, but those filing long-form seek deductions to reduce taxation.It’s such an annoying distraction. Do people really think that successful individuals and companies survive (financially) by not taking advantage of elements provided within the tax code? Simplify the tax code (which will also disarm a lot of politicians) and you’ll eliminate a lot of the concern. Oddly, one candidate who is taking crap over tax returns, vows to simplify the tax code. (Sigh)
Also factor in as far as bending rules and what happens if you do get caught. Are we talking prison time potentially or simply paying a fine? The granularity is important. Plausible deniability and so on as well.
Especially when weighing options between candidates with obvious flaws.Critical thinking is a valuable skill, often not exercised.
Then by not revealing his tax return could be viewed as a strategic error and missed opportunity for Trump as he perhaps could have demonstrated how archaic and stacked the deck (and tax code) is for people like him. I think it goes deeper than that for Trump, though. I think his tax return is likely disconcerting relative to his AGI, taxable income, charitable contributions, overseas investments, etc. Plus, his enormous wealth and income would likely alienate his base of support, the white, hardworking, blue collar family. The risk of reveal far outweighs the reward. A no win situation.
I feel it’s a distraction from more important topics. And it proved to be just that during this debate. It consumed several minutes so that really important topics weren’t addressed.I do expect that DJT’s returns will be somehow unflattering in the eyes of his detractors, and maybe among his supporters as well. But given the candidates we have, I feel it’s far less important than many other issues.As a business owner, I know what it’s like to get creamed by taxes in some years (AMT, inventory tax, double taxation, etc.) such that I would’ve literally been ahead to stop all income in July through the end of the year; And I’ve experienced comfortable years when, due to certain capital investments, taxation was at or near zero.Therefore, while I’m happy to look at Trump’s returns if provided, I also expect that the average media pundit will take much out of context to advance their own addenda. These topics are complex and too many are just “tasting the icing”.
.I applaud your ability to divine his shortcomings absent any proof or evidence. A rare skill, indeed.How about we just deal with the truth and not invent stuff?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
> even though Trump’s tax plan is based on reducing taxes for the highest earners, not everyday Americans.No. Watch Trump’s speech to the NY economics club athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…where he flatly stated to the people in that room that the people in that room, with $5 million a year in income, would see NO reductions and, instead, would pay more due to his elimination of the carried interest deduction.I’d like a good reference to your claim.
> even though Trump’s tax plan is based on reducing taxes for the highest earners, not everyday Americans.No. In hishttps://www.youtube.com/wat…Donald Trump & Mike Pence Speech at the Economic Club of New York 9/15/16Trump made clear to the people in the room, say, earning $5 million a year, that they would pay the same in taxes except would pay more due to his cancellation of the carried interest deduction.
Hillary jabbed him about not paying federal income tax.Which is, of course, playing to the masses of little people who don’t understand debt, business and so on. At least the way it is and has been played by an old timer like Trump.I remember an article way back about Reagan (iirc) and his tax return. He would itemize used underwear and clothes that he donated to charity. Literally line by line.Trump not releasing his tax returns was smart, not finding a creative way (especially given all of the prep time that he had) to counter that was stupid. Also showed a lack of effort and conviction to solve a problem that he had.Hillary and/or her handlers trying to at the same time say that Trump is not as rich as he is and also doesn’t pay that much in taxes is a lie in that she as well as anyone else with a brain knows exactly why that is and why it’s not only legal but smart. It’s really schmucking the small people out there who don’t understand the business world. A big negative for sure. Hillary the student boned up but in the end that just shows what we already knew about her that she is a good student and academic and knows how to pass the test.
i didn’t see the debate.Here at home i have the book, Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique by Bill Bolton and John Thompson.All three of these qualities are required to… get things done. Trump has talent and technique. On his temperament it is clear that he is not a typical statesman. What he seems to lack in his public persona is… gravitas. He doesn’t ‘fit’ in this regard with the job description of POTUS, or the institutions of state or global institutions (the UN, G20, et.c.), but the question is whether these institutions are themselves actually ‘fit’ (for purpose) in the 21st century. We live in times of great change. In my country it is Brexit. In your country it could be Trump. Both mean change, and change can be good.Clinton means no change. I don’t think your country can afford that option when we see the rise of China and Asia.#change
As a gen xer I’ve been upset at the blatant disregard for the next generations by those in power here in the US for the last 20+ years. But change just for change sake is not necessarily smart, especially when that change involves handing over keys to the nuclear arsenal.
i honestly think this nuclear arsenal debating point is a red herring (not your red herring) by Trump’s enemies. there are so many behind the scenes contacts in the global political system that work as fail-safe blocks on any Potus authorising their use. in my view the far greater concern would be a false alarm in the early warning detection systems that could lead to nuclear conflict. from what i’ve read some of the systems are based on tech from another age.
Do you think the rise of China and Asia is a bi-product of the current administration?Everyone that is railing against TPP is missing the fact that the underlying goal of TPP is to create a strong counter balance to China.From what Trump says, it appears the core of his plan is to retreat from the world stage. That’s not okay.
my view is that the US became the 20th century’s greatest power because Russia and China were isolated from the global economy by their communist principles and systems, but they are now on the playing field once again and competing hard. so no i don’t think their rise is a bi-product of the current administration. it’s a long trend phenomenon that has reached a point where it has now become clear to everyone that the US is no longer winning the game.
Its life … not a game.The US has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the wealth. And 90% of that wealth is held by just 1% of our Population. If its a game, it seems like the US, and more specifically those with the most money in the US are still winning.But yes, the world is changing and so the US has to change too. The simple reality is that what US Exceptionalism is and means has to change along with the acceleration of the rest of the world. We cannot isolate ourselves, else the rest of the world will pass us by.But its more than just the economy, it is what Economics means for everyone. It is about enabling Human Rights, which in the 21st century goes beyond removing forced slavery and the like. We (worldwide) are all Humans …Fundamentally, that is why it is so critical that HRC has been to so many countries.
i used the analogy of “game” because Fred likes his sports and so many of his recent posts have been related to various team ball sports. personally i prefer cycling, and the pro peloton is a smorgasbord of internationalism, which i like and is a better approach to solving the world’s (and not just America’s) problems.
I’m not ready to gamble the American dream on this clown.
democratic voting just can’t serve the needs of everyone. in my country almost half of the electorate was not for Brexit. That’s a lot of people not wanting such a fundamental change that will come to pass.
Do you contend that an isolationist will suppress the rise China? I am struggling to picture how this works in my mind. But then, I am not so very smart.
So it’s just us vs them? We get no benefit from China’s rise? Their entrepreneurs are wiping the floor versus ours?
Fred, I think you make a good point about contrasting Trump and Clinton’s Presidential temperament. I still cannot bring myself to support either of them because of broader considerations around character and integrity. I am disappointed Gary Johnson was not included in the debates and believe he would offer American voters a refreshing alternative. It is too bad the Presidential debate format does not allow his inclusion despite his surge in support over the last several months. I don’t agree with all of his views but feel he’s the best alternative to lead our country. Have you looked into Johnson and considered being with him rather than being with her?
Of course. But like it or not, one of the two people on stage last night is going to be our next President. I cannot and will not waste such an important vote (even though I live in as blue a state as there is)I feel it is our moral duty to choose one or the other and not punt
Ray Guy here! http://rayguy.net/
I think it’s very important that HRC win the popular vote by a country mile. We can’t have 2000 all over again. The Republicans will challenge her legitimacy either way, but if she wins the electoral college but not the popular vote, or even just wins the popular by a squeaker, it will be a much tougher start for her. And so I think it’s critical folks in very blue (or red) states come out to vote.
I’ve had this discussion with many friends and I understand the point they make. My personal view is to vote for the person (or ticket) that I feel is most qualified to lead our country. Sadly, our two major parties are offering candidates who I feel would not be qualified Presidential leaders. So, the American voters are left with the question: who do I dislike the least? I want to vote for a Presidential candidate who inspires me, who aligns with my values and who most closely aligns with my views on key issues.. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton do not inspire me and we are misaligned on values and issues, which means to me neither are qualified to lead the country.So, the question comes down to what do you value when you cast your vote. Do you value supporting a candidate because they have a greater probability of winning the election or do you cast your vote because you feel they are the best person to lead our country (or our state, our country, our town, our school district)? In that paradigm, I get the chance to make a great decision and cast my vote for someone I really believe in and support versus voting for any other reason. Personally, I’d consider it a waste to vote for a candidate I did not feel would be most qualified to lead our country. I know you have a high standard to invest in entrepreneurs you feel great about — who inspire you — why would you settle on a lesser criterion (e.g., electability) when it comes to voting for President?
A quote, “if you do what you’ve always done you will get what you’ve always got”….Voting for who you believe is not amoral, otherwise, why vote? The polls say the election is decided in most states. Only swing states matter. Why vote for Hillary in Texas? It will be a Republican state. A vote for Trump in NY is a similar wasted vote. The Polls say those states are already decided. Follow your conscience is always a good guide.
But the more this is said, the more riled up the 3rd party people get. “Don’t tell me who to vote for!” It turns into absolute fury. It’s like you can’t even say it out loud.I hope someone figures out how to deliver this message in a way that the 3rd party folks actually listen, understand, and follow suit.
Hi Brandon, sorry this is off topic, but i thought of you when I read this article, and to reach you I have had to reply to your latest comment on disqus – http://www.huckmagazine.com…
Gary Johnson didn’t know where Aleppo was 3 weeks ago.http://www.nytimes.com/2016…Temperament is critical. So are basic foreign policy facts of the day.There is a lot to love about being Libertarian. It is a point of view, but it has to exist within the two party system we have otherwise they are wasted votes.For Libertarians to grow and take one of the two seats, or to force a third party in, they need to start with a local ground push. They have to create the underlying support from local groups to propel them into a realistic position in order to participate. Its ironic, because they are really trying top down which everything a Libertarian isn’t.
Hey Alex, you raise an interesting point, but I’m not advocating anything for the Libertarian party. I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a lifelong registered Republican. I supported Kasich in the Republican primary. I have no issues with our electoral system or that we have two major political parties.My point is we have two horrible choices for President offered by the two prominent parties, Yet, there is a good Presidential candidate in Gary Johnson who has garnered more support as a third party candidate in any Presidential election in the past dozen elections. That fact is a reflection of the poor alternatives from which Americans have to choose.So, even though Johnson doesn’t have 15 percent support (criteria of Presidential Debate Committee to participate), why not allow him on the debate podium and expose Americans to another candidate? Let Trump and Clinton hammer Johnson on his Aleppo blunder, but also let Johnson share his views on key issues and his plans for moving the economy, reigning in unbridled government spending, restoring civil order and representing our interests abroad. Johnson would be a welcome contrast in temperament, character and integrity to Trump and Clinton and would make an outstanding President.
I can’t get past HRC’s conduct surrounding the email server –including post-exposure, pay-to-play behavior at State (not unique to her surely, but she took it to a new level), the whole Clinton Foundation situation (carefully follow the money and players), Benghazi (so sad for those who lost their lives, and deeply angered by the way Clinton and the administration handled it), and on and on and on. It’s just mind-boggling to me, and too few people really dig beyond accepting whatever the MSM publishes.It’s a rough election cycle, but I greatly prefer to give anyone but Clinton a chance. It’s a risk (Trump), for sure, but I’d rather close the White House for four years than see Clinton there. Ethics and respect for the constitution matter. Plus, a more liberal SCOTUS with a habit of legislating from the bench is not good for America.(IMHO, of course 😉
That argument would make sense if Trump wasnt just as bad or worse in ethics and slipperiness
You’re probably in position to know better than I (as a New York resident), but I think we differ on how we perceive the scale or impact of each candidate’s degree of corruption or bad acts.We might also differ on how we evaluate the results of the current administration (including HRC’s contributions), but I’m sure we agree that this election cycle presents a choice between two bitter pills. I’ll be glad when it’s over so the bickering can stop.
This is 100% bakcwards.HRC’s ethical slips are violations of the public trust. DJT’s are working over private citizens.If you get into business with The Donald and you are 18+ with all your vaccinations, you deserve what you catch.HRC does not have that direct accountability to the people she worked over.It matters and most people see her violations as cowardly and therefore worse.
Except we’re supposed to use his private experience to judge his public one
Actually, I would trust HRC to keep us out of trouble & DJT to make better decisions when in trouble, IF they actually could make a decision without putting their own interests first ( which neither of them can do ).
I rather stay out of trouble
That will be expensive, in a lot of ways.
How do you feel about Russia and their hacking activity? Just not a factor here?
all countries with the technical capability hack.
All hacking is a factor here. As is the Iran nuclear deal, and everything else.If you’re suggesting that Trump provided support to foreign state hackers, I respectfully suggest that’s absurd.Anyone who follows cyber-security issues closely knows we (the US and many others) have a real problem. This is just one reason why I do not forgive HRC for using a private server for government work, and a poorly managed one at that (based on numerous reports and testimonies). This is an area about which I’m passionate (data security). So, yes, foreign state hackers, be they Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, or even those who are allies, are an issue. A big one.On this topic, the only evidence of Trump interaction with the “Russian Hacker” topic was a stupid comment that he said as an obvious and il-considered joke. He wanted to suggest that the Russian government (or Chinese, etc.) had the emails if HRC couldn’t provide them (due to her poor judgement). The joke backfired and he’s paid for it. He’s also grown a bit as a politician over the past six months and tempered some of his remarks.
As a life long republican, for fiscal reasons not social ones, it pains me to say, but Trump is too much of a risk because he is wildly unpredictable. And like all hiring it’s all about the level of risk. Hillary is also a risk given it means more of the same, but it’s like they say, it’s the devil you know.
I find it almost impossible to believe that any voter can be “undecided” at this point. My only Trump guess is that he takes some form of steroids that cause this bizarre behavior.
Cue Comments Explosion! 🙂
I suspect you’ll be writing a slightly diff post after the next debate. What we saw last night was Donald Unplugged, what we’ll see next time is the real thing, Electric Donald, with heavy reverb and feedback. Why? The restrained Donald, which we saw last night, isn’t him and doesn’t play to his alleged strengths, which is unfiltered candor, fear mongering and a biting tongue.There are things, admittedly, he says that do resonate but his vague solutions aren’t rooted in a sense of reality and practicality, relative to both implementation and funding. Details, preparedness and underlying facts are an impediment to him, a distraction, rather than a source for crafting cogent, actionable solutions.HRC isn’t particular ideal either, though. She’s slippery and hasn’t been entirely forthright, but Trump is a far, far more dangerous candidate because he thinks he knows more than he does.I want a President who possesses a command of the issues, from all sides, both pro and con, and breathes this job night and day, and that’s not likely gonna come from an impetuous candidate who shoots from the hip and frequently exhibits A.D.D. tendencies.
In what respect is she slippery? How much more clear and straightforward can someone be other that to say, on stage, in front of 100m + people, “I made a mistake.”
Took her a while to get there, though. That should have been her stance from the get go, and it wasn’t.
Great. So like the waiter in the restaurant who tries to gain your trust by telling you what entree to avoid she comes across as ‘honest’ so you believe her on other things. Well know psych principle of manipulation.Also love the way she says “hey I’m not perfect who is”. When you go to a doctor and expect him to cure your dreaded disease that is not what you want to hear. You want to believe that he has all the answers and for him to give you the hope that he will solve your problems. Sure a little circumspection is good but honestly I think that people would rather hear a bit more confidence actually.And she is slippery. The Clintons are slippery and shady. This is actually well widely known. Bill’s nickname was slick willie.https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
.Having exhausted all other lies? Haha. Good one.I guess that’s the gold standard, like TPP?HRC is a liar. That is not even a close call.Got to run, the sniper fire is building.JLM
no lies, no C in the headers, simply misguided and followed the routine of her predecessors.just because hanity asks the same quack questions every day does not make the innuendos more true.There is no doubt that she has handled several things poorly, or that in hindsight it would have been better that different decisions were made.Do you think Trump feels the same way about T University? Maybe, except that was a purposeful fraud.Do you think GW feels the same way about Iraq? Maybe, except killing Saddam was always the singular goal, regardless of the cost.The gravity and scale of the issues need to be understood and brought into context and that doesn’t seem to be taken into consideration in any way whatsoever.Be more pragmatic.
What Hillary said about headers is a flat out, total lie. My father and mother held security clearances at least as high as Top Secret. I have held security clearances at least as high as Secret. I repeat: What Hillary said about classified headers is total BS. Hillary is a LIAR.E.g., my father had a very high position in the Pentagon. Mom was secretary for a high Poobah at the IDA — Institute for Defense Analysis, that is, think tank for the Joint Chiefs. In classifed information, don’t get much higher than that.Hillary is a liar.
Sorry Sig, but again, you are flatly wrong. And it just doesn’t matter how many times you want to call her a liar, and it doesn’t matter if you go to your mom and dad as references, they are wrong too.1. Classified information is only classified by the appropriate authority within the department.2. Classified information is to be id’d as such in the header, footer, and generally in a cover letter3. Clinton did not receive information so marked.http://www.politifact.com/t…It is widely known that regardless of the facts above, she did in fact receive information in her email that was confidential. It happened at least 83 times out of at least 10s of thousands of emails.This is the carelessness that Comey pointed out. Given where we were in 2008, and the handling of email, multiple blackberries, electronic communication etc, plans and processes were established, in part based upon prior processes. Looking back at this activity through the lense of 2016, and all of the hacks that have taken place, HRC and her team failed to have the imagination to think through what could possibly go wrong.In reality, it sets her up to deal with “the cybers” in a much better way. One learns from errors like this in a much more fruitful way than commenting about their 10 year olds use of computers or trying to divert attention of hacking away from Russia and onto a potentially 400 lb person.
I second this opinion.I think politifact puts her at one of the most honest political characters we’ve had in a long timeShe has a tendency to listen, which in a campaign makes her come off as hiding something because we think candidates should be aggressive and talk constantly.Nevertheless, even with the servers, where she appears super guarded, at some point she does say something. Including “I’m wrong”
Good point. “Listening.” Clearly she can not be up to any good.
He came straight out the gate scare-mongering. The first question was about how to fix the challenges facing the American economy.He went off round the bushes on how the Mexicans and the Chinese are stealing jobs.All Trump did was point out all the problems. He didn’t offer well-thought out and comprehensive solutions. Other than cutting taxes from 30% to 15%, there was no meat to any of his bluster on how to fix the economy.That was surprising — given that he’s a businessman.By comparison, Clinton led out with proposals to create 10 million jobs, to appoint a Special Prosecutor to enforce trade agreements, to ensure gender pay parity, to invest in clean energy, and more.
and breathes this job night and dayAgree on that point.
I think we’ve gotten way past temperament being a deciding factor in this election.It feels a bit like grasping at straws.I know that this could sound like a plug for Trump. It is not meant to be. I am not happy with the choices before us. But this is a democracy.
Can you elaborate Donna?
Sorry to bail on you Fred.
Are you saying that putting a finger on the issue of temperament is grasping at straws?
yes, thank you
Keeping a level head, building confidence, bringing both sides together, being gracious, humble, but firm. All elements of temperament.He can’t attract the best people to his cabinet if he is a hot head. He can’t get the other side to sit down if he is a hot head.He can’t refrain from saying really stupid things like we should shoot people from other countries (Iranian ship), “that’s business” in respect to his desire to see a housing collapse, or to flat out make things up like the birther issue.How about the fact that he couldn’t resist a jab at Rosie last night. He can’t let anything go, ever.We need cool, calm, collected. It is core to what the President must be.
Yes but I still don’t want a calm, cool, collected, even charismatic psychopath as president. First you have to pass the psychopath test before we even talk about temperament.
> psychopathfor Hillary, the clue is that she is cold-hearted, has no sympathy or empathy, and can’t form emotional, affectionate, or loving bonds.Another big clue is how Hillary is a total shameless, unconcerned liar. She lies as easily as she breathes.Actually she is psychopathic like a lot of criminals.Psychopathic is a diagnosis of neurosis as inDavid Shapiro, Neurotic Styles, ISBN 0-465-09502-X.For that diagnosis and OCD, as inLeon Salzman, Treatment of the Obsessive Personality, ISBN 0-87668-881-4.Hillary is a perfect fit.Trump is not a fit at all.For more, as neurotic is an anxiety disease, and as inDavid V. Sheehan, M.D., The Anxiety Disease, ISBN 0-553-25568-1.that is four times more common in women than men. Trump definitely does not have anxiety disease.At one time, I had to learn this stuff — my wife (and her mother and two sisters) were awash in anxiety disease, and for my wife it was fatal. I did learn. I’m not joking. For the books above, I have all of them and carefully read two of them.Trump is not psychopathic at all, and Hillary very much is.Head to toe, Hillary is a very sick person.
You are flatly off base.HRC has spent her life in service.Trump is the definition of psychopath: “an unstable and aggressive person”He can’t restrain himself from lying (70% + mostly false or worse http://www.politifact.com/p…. He is focused on himself, on Trump, and on Donald. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants.Look at his Birther campaign on Obama. Look at his embrace of the Alt Right (are you one?). Look at his desire to build a 40 foot wall at the border. Look at his desire to push racial profiling with stop and frisk. Look at his desire to commit war crimes and take foreign assets … oil.Conversely, HRC joined the children’s defense fund and has been working for the impoverished child for her entire adult life. She seeks parity in healthcare. She has traveled more widely than any other candidate, to understand global needs, in a time where the world is more flat than ever. She sees where the world is going and is engaged.Meanwhile, Trump engages with Dictators from around the world and uses American influence and the appearance of money to force others to do his bidding. This is the reason he wants to be President, to further his ability to force others to do what he wants. He is anything other than a Statesman.http://www.newsweek.com/201…Last point, last night, he very plainly stated that he views the desire for a financial collapse in the housing system as “just business.” Fine, that is business, and maybe he made out in the deal, but that point of view is ANYTHING other than Presidential. It is a self serving greedy point of view. And that is NOT what we need in the leader of our country.
I’m not aware of any Trump lies.He does exaggerate.I gave you a good 101 lecture on psychopathic. You get a grade of F.For the link you gave to PolitiFact, their first three Trump statements they claim are 100% false are: Donald TrumpSays to Hillary Clinton, “You heard what I said about (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal), and all of a sudden you were against it.”— PolitiFact National on Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 Donald Trump”NATO is opening up a major terror division. … I’m sure I’m not going to get credit for it, but that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO.”— PolitiFact National on Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 Donald TrumpSays “Hillary Clinton’s plan would bring in 620,000 refugees in her first term, alone, with no effective way to screen or vet them. Her plan would cost $400 billion in terms of lifetime welfare and entitlement costs.”— PolitiFact National on Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 Sorry, I remember each of those, and I count each as a reasonable guess by Trump. It would be difficult to establish the first as a lie since we will never know why Hillary changed on the TPP from it being the “Gold Standard” to, IIRC, she would support it after some changes.I do very much know where Hillary lied very seriously and gave good details in my posthttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…here today.So, again here today, the pro-Hillary people are bringing up trivia about Trump to avoid considering some really serious legal and US national security problems for Hillary.Again, if that is the worst the MSM/Hillary campaign can dig up on Trump, he looks terrific.Look at his desire to push racial profiling with stop and frisk. How much does the MSM/Hillary campaign pay for such garbage? You’ve GOT to know better than that.IIRC, Trump suggested profiling for Chicago, profiling as Giuliani did so well with in NYC. That’s Chicago with 3000+ shootings so far this year and 3000+ shootings deaths since Obama was first elected. Then CNN inserted “racial”. Trump never said that.How can you insert this “racial” propaganda? You are getting paid? You believe the MSM?This CNN “racial” is another example of what Trump said, that the MSM is the worst, that they distort and lie, and that he is having to run against both Hillary and the MSM.working for the impoverished child for her entire adult life The case I remember now is that for the poor children of Haiti, she and Bill arranged to direct $1+ billion of aid to some people who gave Bill and Hillary a big kickback. Hillary stole that money from the poor children of Haiti.Hillary is evil. That she is a psychopath makes it easy for her.
again, you are off base.The point about the gold standard was that having a trade pact with so much of the world’s trade would be the equivalent of the gold standard. You cite so many sources, perhaps you can spend some time trying to gather context. Your grading scale is out of whack. More words and citations does not make you correct. You can copy and paste as much alt right dogma as you like. 8m+ kids are covered by healthcare because of her push for the bi-partisan bill that created CHIP, for children’s health coverage. http://www.politifact.com/c… <http: http://www.politifact.com=“” colorado=”” statements=”” 2016=”” feb=”” 17=”” hillary-clinton=”” hillary-clinton-wrong-sanders-claim=””/> Please share your evidence of the Clintons taking money. That is quite the charge.
.Ummm, maybe not as you describe. May have to call bullshit on you, Alex.<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/emb…” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>Here it is in HRC’s own voice. She doesn’t seem to be saying anything about it being the “equivalent” to anything.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Opening line:”It is fair to say that our economies are intertwined.”Later:”This agreement sets the Gold Standard for free, transparent, fair trade”The point of this being that like the gold standard held an international basis where all money was linked to the inherent value of Gold, that all trade deals among those included in TPP would be fair and transparent and consistently held.This speech was given long before the final details.Changing one’s mind (you have done that before, right?) because of new information, or based on the final copy, that is okay, right?As it stands, I am an advocate for the concept of the TPP, I have not read it cover to cover, but in general, I believe very strongly that we in fact need more open and fair trade deals that all of the standardization of such things as labor treatment as well as the reduction of bribes and other backroom dealing.But even more importantly, we need a counterbalance to the influence china has in the region. Economic interconnectedness reduces the likelihood of war. And this is very much a primary goal of TPP. And while complicated, I think that everyone should understand that goal and objective and get behind it. Early 20th century style isolationism is NOT the answer.You seem to go into every analysis of anything said by HRC as though it will be negative simply because it comes out of her mouth. Be more pragmatic. And leave the bull shit in the field.
.Good luck, Alex, with that line as it falls under the umbrella of basic reading and hearing comprehension — miscomprehension.The subtleties you try to inject are fabrications at best. She said what she said. “I never said the TPP was the gold standard.”No sale.TPP has nothing to do whatsoever with balancing Chinese influence in the region — it is only about trade between the US and the TPP conglomerate.To suggest that TPP has as a primary goal the reduction of the likelihood of war is fanciful. We tend to keep our defense issues in the realm of the Defense Dept and/or the State Department.The TPP is under the aegis of the US Trade Rep.There is an excellent website on the subject: https://ustr.gov/tpp/ — which provides the views of the proponents.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Wow, that assessment is maybe the least surprising thing to read this year, well other than the idea that Trump won the debate … who else had that conclusion? DOD views trade and economics as a de risking element of war. Put differently, in times of economic unrest, countries are much more likely to go to war. If you don’t understand that, then this helps me understand how you could come into alignment with DT. The frightening thing is that this lack of understanding results into isolationism, fear mongering, and war mongering.
> Please share your evidence of the Clintons taking money.I spent a LOT of time here yesterday. To save time today, I will respond with just IIRC that story about Haiti was in the movie, and, thus, likely also the book, Clinton Cash where the movie is on YouTube and, IIRC, my first, long post here had the URL. Also, somewhere, IIRC, there was some similar dirt, maybe also in the movie, about two or more such deals in Africa.For taking money, my long post, IIRC, gave references on SoS Hillary passing out favors and Bill taking in the money, personally as speaking fees, or for their fake foundation (a slush fund for Hillary and family and friends for everything from airline tickets to salaries). The cases in the movie, IIRC, were UBS, Ericsson, and Russia buying US uranium production assets. Read my long post for details.Basically, whenever there is a disaster in a poor country, aid money flows in, and that’s an opportunity for scamsters to get in quickly and help move the money around so that they get a lot of it. Or, under SoS Hillary, the US State Department gave a big pile of money for a university in South America, and, presto, bingo, Bill got a, IIRC, $16 million position high in the university — IIRC, there was one level of indirection involved: The DoS movey went one place and Bill’s money traveled around back from the direct target of the DoS money.
Unsubstantiated and evidence less claims. Repeating something, that someone repeated, that someone else repeated, doesn’t make it an actual truth. This is the very definition of an echo chamber. Your sources are not challenged and they are not vetted. The “but I heard it from a movie” line is one that many seem to like to use to continue to spew out untruths.
The movie was from the book, by Peter Schweizer. The movie was a documentary, not Hollywood fiction.You are being misleading. So, you just lost your credibility.
I’m not for either. But don’t tell me she spent her life in service.She has amassed great wealth at the expense of those she has served.
Your opinion. She has been a public figure since the 70s. She could have chosen a different path as an attorney and amassed a greater fortune. She continues to work countless hours.And, no, that doesn’t mean she should be poor.
I don’t think you should profit from your public service. Yup my opinion. But I would ask do you know what the results are? I do. I’ve seen it both ways in my small state.
Our FF’s wouldn’t agree with you even one little bit.This entire American experiment started over taxes, and the need for representation, and all of the FFs were business people in one respect or another. Nobody in Gov today is responsible for the administrative state of the 21st century, but they aren’t there to sit on the poverty line either.
???? All of the FFs were business people. Agreed. What exact business has HRC run?
Our FFs were busy talking, discussing, planning, etc … pretty much the same type of business that we do today.Madison would have been great on Twitter.
You need to look up each of their professions
You mean slave owners? You mean, inherited slaves and bred slaves and traded slaves? I am sure that is not what you are referring to, and certainly we can try to brush aside the sins of the past and say “that was a different time,” but please, lets not get into a discussion about the merits of a profession in the Information Age of 2016 vs the Ag Industry age of the 18th Century. Shifting to the positive contributions of The Founding Fathers, notably the creation of the Constitution, the FFs would throw up on Trump. They were trying to do everything in their power to minimize the impact of the single leader so as to avoid a Dictator or King. Even though some of the period was GW to be King. Trump’s one liners like “only I can fix it” is making them do backflips in their graves.
That’s my last comment to you.One of the features disqus needs that people have asked for is the ignore feature. That way you can post but I never need to see.I guess I can just skip.
You can block, and by all means do.My point was simply that times were quite different and leaning on assets such as slaves makes for a very different type of work.
That’s pretty rude.
The Clintons have banked $250M in income in the last decade. They have no known product or service to provide, other than the prestige or contacts created via their ‘service’ to the American people.Its not service if there is a massive payoff at the end, right @philipsugar:disqus
Exactly my point.
Are you saying that every person that has served in the military, and then in the end gets a job related to what they did in the military, and then double dips … that their service doesn’t count?I don’t know the $250m number to be true or not true. If they are getting paid big money for speaking, good for them. Speaking fees are great.Look at the last 5 years of tax returns for the Clinton Foundation … then go back to the beginning. Look at how much they have taken … its an easy answer …. ZERO.Seriously though … look at their returns.
I am saying that having political leaders who shape policy based on wealthy corporations providing them with huge payoffs after they retire is unhealthy for the American democracy.The Foundation is a classic Slick Willy Clinton deal….I don’t own the assets, I don’t get paid directly but I live the lifestyle of a billionaire.How about we look at the Foundation’s records and review the submitted expenses for William J. & Hillary R.? I bet they are eye [email protected] claims that < 10% of Clinton Foundation funds flow through to projects. I do not know how accurate that is, although I do know that number is in line with industry standards for global NGOs.There is only one reason there is a Hilton in Kinshasa after all.
Another case of JLM referencing Alt Right propoganda.88% in 2014 went toward grants, mission, etc.Cost to raise $100 was $2. Total overhead was 12%. https://www.charitywatch.or… <https: http://www.charitywatch.org=“” ratings-and-metrics=”” bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation=”” 478=””> It is one of the most program centric charities in the world.Meanwhile, the Trump foundation gives to …. Trump, and pays for Trumps problems. He is disgraceful! https://www.washingtonpost…. <https: http://www.washingtonpost.com=“” news=”” post-politics=”” wp=”” 2016=”” 09=”” 27=”” trump-is-actually-doing-his-foundation-a-favor-by-storing-its-portrait-his-golf-resort-wall-his-adviser-says=””/> You are making a “potential” claim against HRC and Bill Clinton based on speaking fees, which are normal and customary. Their laundry is all out there. Go look at their tax returns. They’re all out there from the last 20+ years. On the other hand, look at how becoming President will have an immediate impact on the Trump business world. This is an amazing well done, and well documented piece on the conflicts that will exist for Trump. Not to mention how he does business in a straight arm manner. http://www.newsweek.com/201… <http: http://www.newsweek.com=“” 2016=”” 09=”” 23=”” donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html=””> Look at the positive outcomes from the things HRC has worked on from Child Healthcare to no nuclear bombs in Iran. People want to argue the tactics, that there were alt motives, etc. But the reality is that these are real outcomes, that we are living with today. To the charge about ISIS, Iraq was going through a secular leadership cycle and was looking to get the US out. There was no choice in the matter at the time. It is not our country. Taking their oil is a war crime. Staying unwelcome is a war crime. The reason ISIS exists is because of the GW administrations series of lies over WMD. Its pretty plain and simple.
There seems to be a good deal of confusion about the foundation.JLM claims that < 10% of Clinton Foundation funds flow through to projects. I do not know how accurate that is, although I do know that number is in line with industry standards for global NGOs.There is a distinction between funds the foundation distributed to other charitable institutions and funds it spends on its own programs. The fact that it distributed approximately 10% to other charities does not mean the Clintons are trousering the rest.
Clinton finances? The evidence is strong that they are crooks, e.g., as SoS Clinton sold favors that hurt the US, and Bill picked up the money as speaking fees or for the ‘foundation’ used mostly as a slush fund for the Clintons and friends.There are more details and good references in my post in this thread athttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…As documented by Peter Schweizer, as US SoS, she sold favors to UBS, Ericsson, and the Russians. UBS got to give details on about 4000 bank accounts of US tax payers instead of about 40,000. Ericsson got to sell equipment to Iran past the embargo — the day after that was made public, the CEO of Ericsson resigned. The Russians got to buy 25% of US uranium production capacity.In Haiti, the Clintons directed about $1+ billion in aid money, intended for earthquake relief, to their buddies who gave the Clintons a big kickback.Mayor Giuliani has claimed that due to the SoSo favors, the Clintons are in violation of RICO and that he would love to prosecute them for the UBS deal.The evidence is that the Clintons made nearly all their money by being crooks. This pattern goes way back to Arkansas, the cattle futures deal, Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm — in those days, lawyer Hillary took the money and Governor Bill passed out the favors.Due if only to the communications power of the Internet, the Clintons can’t keep that dirt under the rug any longer.
I agree. This is the dark side of “network power,” an invisible lobby formed in the spaces between out of office public officials and the organizations that hire them.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…I’m not for either either. She did a better job of manouevring him into situations where he then painted himself as worse than she is.It was the first time I’d seen him in a debate rather than his monologues at rallies or sound bites on the campaign trail, so I was surprised he came across as unprepared.What are his chances of winning? Depends on whether Louis Pasteur is right or if the electorate will “hold their noses to the crazy”. People are this great mix of rational and irrational and, as JLM and I agreed elsewhere, the only poll that matters is 8 November 2016.The US will either get its first-ever female President or someone who’s never held political office before.
I frankly was shocked. Either he was totally unprepared or he couldn’t stick to script. Either one is really bad.Frankly there wasn’t one question or attack that couldn’t have been predicted.He got served meatballs down the middle of the plate (baseball) and he whiffed every one.
He was prepared and did well following his preparation. What he did was deliberate: He tried hard not to look scary, and he was successful in that. Why? The theory is that he has his positions, plans, and policies well described but now just needs to assure people that he is not to be afraid of. That is, too many people believe he will make a great omelet but are concerned about how many and what eggs he will break doing so. So, he needs to look likable, concerned, empathetic, gracious, etc. E.g., he held back commenting on the Clinton ‘marriage’ because Chelsea was in the audience and is a friend of Ivanka.Everyone knows by now that when Hillary wants people to believe something, she just puts on an act, lies, and claims it is true or has her ad people spend another $10 million on a TV ad claiming it is true. So, nothing Hillary can say can mean anything. A lot that she said in the debate was wrong, misleading, or just lying — I’ll let others run down the details. The rest she said, if only because she is a flagrant liar, was not at all credible. And often she was nasty.Maybe in the next debate Trump will hit back. In the last debate, there were several places he could have blasted Hillary like all 9 of the 18″ guns of the Yamato and blown her to the Azores, into earth orbit, or into orbit around Pluto. But don’t we all know this by now?Head to toes, she is a very sick example of a human, but we all know this now. What is the point of beating on a sick, nearly dead, if despicable, deplorable, animal?The amazing part is how much in rest, meds, and makeup it took to let her stand there for 90 minutes?
You were surprised he came across as unprepared? Really?
Yes. I know he has a rep for doing things “on the fly”, “off the cuff” and “shooting from the hips” which is his appeal to a demographic that’s cynical of politicians’ patter.Still, I thought he’d prep.
.In eight years in the US Senate, representing New York, Sen HRC sponsored THREE bills which actually became law.SB 3145 which designated a stretch of road as Tim Russert Highway.SB 3613 which was a Post Office naming “Major George Quamo Post Office Building”SB 1241 which named a historic building as the Kate Mullaney National Historic SitePlease tell me again about her “service.”From the instant she landed in the Senate, she was running for President,This is the sum total of her legislative leadership and accomplishment. It isn’t very much.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Beautiful!If Hillary gets more than 10 votes in the Electoral College, the US will have to be renamed as the foolish, self-destructive, silly, brain-dead Gullible States of America.Freedom is not free. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The day we quit fighting for our free democracy is the day we lose it.Recall that she got elected in part with the Hispanic vote from in part Bill’s pardon of a gang of radical Hispanics who bombed a very old tavern in NYC.How the US could be so fooled by the Clintons is beyond me, e.g.. as in the new, devastating Linda Tripp interview inhttp://www.breitbart.com/bi…but in each city of the US there are about 30,000 people eager to show up at a Trump rally likely no longer fooled by the Clintons.
Your remote, uneducated clinical psychological analysis of Trump is just junk to be ignored.Your descriptions of Hillary are not based on any credible references and conflict strongly with descriptions that are. E.g., there is the Byrne book I referenced inhttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…The book and movie Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer is devastating.Linda Tripp is highly credible, and her recent statements as athttp://www.breitbart.com/bi…are also devastating.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
Disagree completely. People who work for her love her and are very loyal to her. She has a problem with being telegenic. If you see her interview up close she seems like a warm and normal person. It’s when she puts on her political act that she is disconnected. Watch this interview: https://charlierose.com/vid…Trump is a total classic textbook case narcissist and has self control problems.”Narcissists tend to have high self-esteem. However, narcissism is not the same thing as self-esteem; people who have high self-esteem are often humble, whereas narcissists rarely are. It was once thought that narcissists have high self-esteem on the surface, but deep down they are insecure. However, the latest evidence indicates that narcissists are actually secure or grandiose at both levels. Onlookers may infer that insecurity is there because narcissists tend to be defensive when their self-esteem is threatened (e.g., being ridiculed); narcissists can be aggressive. The sometimes dangerous lifestyle may more generally reflect sensation-seeking or impulsivity (e.g., risky sex, bold financial decisions).” https://www.psychologytoday…Dude puts his name in giant gold letters on buildings everywhere…
I gave details and good references on Hillary in my posthttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…in this thread.For what people who work with her think of her, the Byrne book is devastating. So, is the recent Linda Tripp interview athttp://www.breitbart.com/bi…Your clinical psychological analysis of Trump has no accuracy or credibility.
I think you see what you want to see in Hillary and avoid the parts of Trump you don’t like. Anyone who watched the debate, or who has watched him handle himself over the last year can see the problem clearly.I don’t know how you can draw the conclusion that Hillary cannot form bonds and on that basis conclude she is a psychopath.In terms of all of the Clinton scandals, if you look at it from the conspiracy lens of Linda Tripp you can draw any conclusions you like but Kenneth Starr did an exhaustive investigation and did not find anything worth the public’s time.Also, it is not lost of me that all of this email investigation came out the the Benghazi hearings which were themselves an abuse of power, and GOP House leaders admitted the point was to damage Hillary.We also see that the Bush Whitehouse deleted millions of emails. So what are we really talking about?
I think you see what you want to see in Hillary and avoid the parts of Trump you don’t like. Inhttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…I gave relatively good references for everything I said about Hillary, and that’s why I don’t want Hillary in the White House.I don’t like her pants suits, but that is not part of why I don’t want her in the White House. Similarly for her fake marriage.Anyone who watched the debate, or who has watched him handle himself over the last year can see the problem clearly. I did watch the debate and saw nothing wrong with what Trump did, and you gave no details of anything wrong.I don’t know how you can draw the conclusion that Hillary cannot form bonds and on that basis conclude she is a psychopath. Her fake marriage is one indication that she can’t form bonds. But for my conclusion of psychopathic, I gave much more evidence than that.In terms of all of the Clinton scandals, if you look at it from the conspiracy lens of Linda Tripp you can draw any conclusions you like but Kenneth Starr did an exhaustive investigation and did not find anything worth the public’s time Now a favorite defense of the Hillary campaign is to call anything critical a conspiracy. In the Linda Tripp reference I gave, I saw no conspiracy theories. Instead, Tripp seemed just to describe what she saw working in the West Wing. It looked like a reasonably objective description to me.Kenneth Starr did an exhaustive investigation and did not find anything worth the public’s time Nonsense. All Starr did was try to get an impeachment on one narrow aspect of Bill lying. In no way did Starr do “an exhaustive investigation” of the Clintons or Hillary.Also, it is not lost of me that all of this email investigation came out the Benghazi hearings There are at least three huge points about Hillary’s e-mail usage:First, from Congress Hillary received a subpoena for her e-mail data. Shortly after that she had her people work to delete a lot of her e-mail data. Doing that is likely destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.Second, as in the presentation of FBI Director Comey, Hillary’s e-mail usage was “extremely careless” in handling classified information. This, and the volume of e-mail involved, mean that Hillary is guilty of massive violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act. That is a very serious crime.Third, Hillary’s usage of her home grown, DIY e-mail for official business with classified data (as Secretary of State, no doubt she used e-mail to send/receive classified data, if she was doing her job, quite a lot of such data) meant that she let hackers of foreign countries get that data.For one, apparently her e-mail server was based on Windows, Exchange, and Outlook PST files. There are claims that the setup was not secure from hackers.For another, to use e-mail, Hillary used a wireless Blackberry client on an open balcony of the State Department building. The Blackberry did not encrypt its data. Thus, any hacker with common wireless equipment could have gotten all of Hillary’s e-mail traffic including her server domain name, her login user ID, and her login password. Then from anywhere on the Internet they could have accessed that server and downloaded all of Hillary’s e-mail data. No doubt Russia, China, and Iran, among others, did exactly that.Some of that e-mail data had information classified NSA Special Access Program, that is, way above Top Secret.As a result, Hillary was a US national security disaster.We also see that the Bush White house deleted millions of emails. So what are we really talking about? Deleting the e-mail data after receiving a subpoena for that data is obstruction of justice. That’s some of what we are talking about.Moreover, Hillary lied about her e-mail usage, to the FBI (a felony), under oath to Congress (likely a felony), and to the voters.That’s more of what we are talking about.Your post is a childish, trivial attempt at deceptive pro-Hillary propaganda. I can’t believe you are so stupid you actually believe anything you wrote. Instead, you are insulting all readers and yourself. You appear to be passing out propaganda as part of the Hillary campaign. How much are you getting paid to sell out your country?There is no sense in responding to you further.No, Hillary would not sell the Oval Office. Instead, she would rent it. She could sell it only once. She could rent it several times a day.
I’m responding in a way I think is appropriate to this forum and my time. I don’t feel the need to review the debate point by point with you. It is the impression, largely subjective, that matters. I think for the first 30 minutes Trump made some good points, questioning her about NAFTA and TPP. After that he was inarticulate and seemed out of control to me. Defensive.What is wrong with her pants suits and why would it matter? How do you know her marriage is fake?Nonsense. All Starr did was try to get an impeachment on one narrow aspect of Bill lying. In no way did Starr do “an exhaustive investigation” of the Clintons or Hillary.Kenneth Starr had a wide ranging investigation: “Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton’s conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation, Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…Are you saying the Benghazi investigation was appropriate? What was the point of it other than a political attack? House leaders admitted that is what they were doing: https://www.washingtonpost….if she was doing her job, quite a lot of such data) meant that she let hackers of foreign countries get that data.The fact that things were mishandled is not the same as her allowing hackers to access the data, or an intent to do that, and there was no evidence of a hack or data loss occurring.http://www.newsweek.com/201…I’m not a shill for anyone, Hillary is not perfect, I would not bet my life on her telling the truth in all cases, Trump is much worse to me. He is anti democratic. He supported the physical attacks on people at his rallies, he questioned the judgment of a sitting Federal Judge because of his heritage, he is a bully, he does not pay his contractors, there are so many examples of his unsavory conduct.Hillary at least seems able to competently hold office without threatening the future of our democracy as Trump does.
Fair enough. For what its worth, I think psychopath is one of the steps on the temperament spectrum. Its far far far far over edge, but on the spectrum.
Surely being a psychopath constitutes a problem of temperament?
He can’t attract the best people to his cabinet if he is a hot head.Steve Jobs was quite a dick and did well with attracting the best people. And in turn building and (hate to use the phrase) changing the world in several ways (gui and iphone). People want to please Daddy. Trump/Jobs is that character. People will swear they would never work for him and then, given the opportunity, will. He will (just like Jobs was able to) convince them with a reality distortion field.Not everyone who has done well for themselves comes across like Warren Buffet, especially in business.That said and as I’ve mentioned it’s risky and I am not sure it fits with my risk profile to go down this road. But it is possible that is for sure.
BIG differences between Trump and Jobs, and their ability to attract the best people to their cause.Trump takes pride that he’s rich, from inherited wealth, has lots of rich friends and earns $ millions in salary.Jobs took pride in making what he envisioned as the perfect product for many people. His salary was $1. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Trump takes pride that he’s rich, from inherited wealthHonestly you really think that is the case?Of course he got money from his Dad to start off things. So what? He created something much bigger with that money nobody questions that at all. Are you questioning his drive and motivation?And his biggest advantage (and this is always missed) isn’t what he got in money from his father but what he learned from him in terms of business and real estate. Much more valuable than what he learned at Wharton or what he got in money. You honestly think that w/o that ‘education’ (from his father and exposure to the business) he would be doing what he is now? That is the secret sauce. Not the 1 million dollars or the loan guarantees or whatever. And Fred Trump was a tough bird no question. Not some guy who would waste money on his son if he didn’t think he “earned” it. And look at the way Trumps kids are now? You going to take away Ivanka because her success is because Donald helped her?Do you think that Fred Wilson would be doing what he is now (even if people gave him money) without what he learned at Euclid partners? He wouldn’t.Did you ever notice how much I mention my Dad (no Fred Trump by any stretch) or what I learned in my first business or even doing business in high school on this blog? How many times I have ever mentioned anything that I learned at Wharton? Probably never. The learning and education is what matters not so much the money.Lastly, Steve Jobs (not sure if you lived through this like I did) was quite the fucking child when he started Apple. He was not the slick and sophisticated person seen by most in later years. He was a true wack job living with no furniture and going off with drugs and visiting weird places looking for the answer in life.
Donald and his kids not sniffing away their inheritance but actually building on it is hugely commendable and inspiring. It’s also laudable that they made great use of their educations.The comparison between Trump and Jobs is only to highlight that their pride and values arose from different places.That will affect whether and why the best people would / wouldn’t work with them.Don Valentine after meeting the young, unkempt Jobs asked McKenna, “Why did you send me this renegade from the human race?”In later life, Jobs gave his “Here’s to the crazy ones” speech.
Trump’s proposition to the disenfranchised working class men who’ve seen their jobs disappear is, “Look at me, I’m rich. I have a Wharton MBA. You can be rich like me too.”Jobs’ proposition was, “Look at me. I’m a dropout. I followed my heart. Made something in a garage with my friend and then sold it to other people.”There’s nothing wrong with giving people aspirations. It’s just that Trump’s isn’t a rags to riches story so his reality distortion field is going to be different from Jobs’.
You are reading way too much between the lines.The US has 95 million people able to work but out of the labor force. Trump wants to put a lot of them back to work. That will lower welfare expenditures, raise tax revenues, and get more goods and services for everyone. Aren’t those reasons sufficient for what he is proposing?
Reagan and Bush were better at reading their lines and in between them, to gauge how to appeal to the electorate that’s out of work — whilst being rich and privileged.Trump got painted as top-down. How do you think that makes those at the bottom FEEL about whether he knows what it’s like to walk in their shoes?https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
If the people at the bottom feel bad about something they heard about Trump from the liberal, totally in the tank for Hillary, MSM, then they should quit paying attention to the MSM.
I disagree with this comment as much as agree with your other one. If that was the case this wouldn’t even be a race.What elitists don’t understand.Is he appeals to people that don’t like any insider career politicians be them republican or democrat and are willing to hold their nose for the crazy.
I do understand. The things he says about the loss of jobs is aimed at resonating with the blue collared workforce, who’ve seen their manufacturing jobs either automated or sent abroad so that American consumers can continue to enjoy relatively lower prices and so that American companies can book huge revenues, employ more people in the Knowledge Economy (where an education is a requirement) and then redistribute that wealth in the form of taxes.He really didn’t help himself by his answers like, “That makes me smart” and “That’s business” because it made it easier for Clinton to paint him as an elite who doesn’t really care about the working guy and is only out to get riches for himself.So that’s how Trump’s pride in his wealth and privilege were played against him.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
I am saying it’s not only those people. Many people are thoroughly disgusted with the “political class” of this country. It is why Jeb Bush who thought he would just inherit the position got trounced so badly.Hillary was the presumptive Democratic nominee and she won it because the only person that had guts or stupidity to run against her was “I’m going to give you free shit” Bernie. At least people knew that wouldn’t work.
Twain hasn’t spent time around working class men much I am thinking or interacted with them. We both have. My experience shows they like displays of wealth and success. Any person who is upwardly mobile would.I remember when I was a kid and young and would look up to people in the neighborhood with the nice car. That is the simple brain connection level that these types of people are at. Doesn’t mean they are stupid either. Just that they go for obvious signals and don’t overthink things. If he has a jet and I don’t, he is the shit they think.
> Trump takes pride that he’s rich, from inherited wealth,You are being gullible and naive and just fell for the silly, early MSM/Hillary campaign anti-Trump propaganda. LE’s explanation below is on target.
He presented himself that way during the debate.He could easily have owned it differently and said something like, “The Clinton campaign want to paint it as a negative that we should be well-rewarded for our hard work, for getting a great education like I and my children have, for making great returns on the investment our parents put into us … Well, I’m here to show that it’s a big positive. We employ thousands of people. We’ve built on what we were lucky enough to be given and made it so much bigger and better. Those same opportunities — to do really well — are what I’d put into policy.”Instead, he made several points to highlight how many millions he’s personally worth.He didn’t manage to sell his own story well.
As inhttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…here, Trump could have blasted Hillary all the way to the Azores, with something like all 9 of the 18″ guns of the Yamato, several times but was trying to go easy so that people would not be afraid of his strength and determination, that is, as he made his big omelet he would not break too many or the wrong eggs.So, sure he could have fired the nice shots you gave, but he tried hard not to shoot. There was a lot of such advice for him; my guess is that he tried the advice.
so instead he decided to be unprepared and sound like a defensive boob. one or the other.
This is a great comment. A soundbite he should have had memorized.
I think of this more like a road sign. Has to be able to be digested in one chunk to many chunks and you loose the meaning. You loose people. This is why he more or less won with low energy Jeb and Lying Ted and small Marco (or whatever it was).Remember “if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit”. Remember why Ray Kroc had the KISS etc. Develop for the puny brain.
He is not selling to you with your brain he is selling to a different brain. And his sales pitch with that brain has worked. He is able to do this as a result of the people that he has interacted with in his life and understanding what their hot buttons are.
Apart from watching the debate and 3 videos of Donald Trump IN HIS OWN WORDS:(1.) Ban all Muslims entering the US.(2.) Mexico wall plan.(3.) His views on the American Muslim soldier killed in action.I haven’t been much exposed to the propaganda from either side.
(1.) Ban all Muslims entering the US. Fantastic. Right on target. Some of the best leadership the world has seen in years.IIRC, Trump said that the US should have an immediate and temporary ban on all Muslim immigration until we can find out what is going on.Later he made some progress on finding out what is going on and said that the ban should be from countries with a lot of jihading activity or some such.Later he learned some more and said that, IIRC, the US needs “extreme vetting” to make sure all immigrants love the US, will adopt US norms and values, will assimilate into the US, will be successful in the US and not welfare burdens, and will contribute to the US — i.e., the US needs a good reason to admit anyone or just say “No.”.Due to the US and world attacks by radical Islamic jihader terrorists since Trump’s first statement, I conclude that he has been right on the center of the target, one of the best leaders in the world in years.Meanwhile, Germany, France, England, Italy, Sweden, and more have seen the wisdom of what Trump said. E.g., ask anyone in Nice, France.What is this, you take seriously literally alle männer werden bruder ?(2.) Mexico wall plan. Definitely. No doubt. Long overdue.A wall has been in the works in the US Congress long before this election. It was always a shell game, first to do something about amnesty and, then, second build a wall. Well, Congress knew that nothing about amnesty would pass, so the wall never got built. But parts of a wall did get built.If you lived in parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, you’d want a wall, too.Also the US needs a wall as part of stopping the importation of illegal drugs, especially meth and opiates.The wall is right on target.(3.) His views on the American Muslim soldier killed in action. Nonsense. 100% total reeking BS. Trump was nothing but fully respectful for that soldier.But the soldier’s father is an old Hillary buddy, was a lawyer at the law firm that did the taxes for the Clinton crime family, and also represented the Saudis, e.g., where 24 x 7 Hillary companion Huma is from.The speech of the father at the DNC was a deliberate setup by the Hillary campaign. The one who dishonored that soldier was the soldier’s father. When the father held up the US Constitution and insulted Trump, he was claiming that freedom of religion meant that the US had no right to consider religion when deciding what immigrants to admit, and that is total 100% nonsense about the US Constitution which says no such thing. Instead the US is perfectly free to decide who to admit or not admit based on any reasons or no reasons.There is much more wrong with this Khan thing-y.The Khan thing-y was a carefully planned trap. What Trump said in response was literally fine. But, of course, the MSM/Hillary campaign went ahead as planned and distorted what Trump said.The whole thing was an insult to Muslims and the soldier, a setup trap, and an MSM/Hillary propaganda plot.Likely Trump knew it was a trap but took on the challenge. From his business experience, when attacked he tends to push back. When challenged he tends not to turn and run. He is not big on the Thumper rule: “If you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all.”.All he had to do was to ignore the attack, but then he would look like a chickensh*t, a wuss, a coward, a pushover, etc.In much of life, and likely also much of US national security, ignoring attacks invites attacks and is for losers. Trump was right.That Trump did something wrong on your (1.)-(3.) is something likely from the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Slate, Salon, The Atlantic, The Communist Worker’s Daily pushed by slave drivers who want dirt cheap labor, etc. where for the ugly situation everyone else pays for the extra police, welfare, education, etc.Got some more objections to Trump?On you and your exposure to propaganda, all three of your points are from nearly the worst of the MSM/Hillary campaign propaganda. If propaganda were like the TB bacteria, then I’d urge you to rush to a hospital. You got a huge dose.You need very much to turn up the sensitivity of your BS detector, your manipulation detector, your exploitation detector, and your rationalism severity. Else you will get labeled as naive and gullible and be getting lots of a once in a lifetime offers to buy a bridge over the NYC East River.All this today about Trump is heavily just trivia, a manipulation, and heavily a diversion to take attention away from the really profoundly serious problems of Hillary, e.g., as in myhttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…today.
I get my non-tech news from the BBC and SkyNews.So the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Slate, Salon, The Atlantic couldn’t have influenced me with their propaganda.Trump’s campaign need people like JLM and you to help them show and tell why Trump is the better candidate because he didn’t do a great job of it himself.You and JLM have given better context and rationale around (1) — (3) than Trump has.
There is one reason to hide his taxes …. he does not have the much money.
Well, he did before the last time he paid the fuel bill on his 757!
which he charges back to the campaign account that has donations, and is paying fuel bills instead of campaign commercials.
Comparing Steve Jobs with Trump? I think that is not possible, they are at different levels of evolution, ethics, life standards.Jobs was bright, smart up to genius level, could think and speak for himself, people trusted him and his commitments with missions in life and people didn’t have an expiration date. He had taste and could differentiate clearly and in advance a masterpiece from a piece of junk.Trump in comparison is just an opportunist and a quitter.
comparision between Jobs and Trump is comparing between Artist and ConArtist. There is no comparison.
You are talking about Jobs later, not early on. Of course intelligence was the same but he was a juvenile for sure.And despite what you might think about Trump by his behavior (caused by mental disorder) he is a genius. Eccentric but a genius no doubt. Couldn’t do what he did at a young age and even now (at an old age) w/o having raw intelligence.
He is not dumb and has business ‘smarts’ for sure, he has his empire to prove it. I’m just saying they are not in the same league.What he lacks in my opinion is emotional intelligence which is related to focusing on and connecting with others.
Did you know Jobs? One man’s Dick is another man’s Father and yet another’s hero. We should probably all be less cavalier with our depiction of people that at best we have had very limited interactions with.It is not a theory that Trump can’t attract great talent.Look at his inner circle. The people with him on the campaign trail. Ailes. Christie. Omarosa. Expect more of the same.
Not true w/ respect to Trump. He has had many good people working for him and in fact actually shapes raw talent he doesn’t go for degrees and other people’s stamps of approval.
Regardless of the good or bad people he has had in business, lets look at his current & most recent political team:- Bannon, Alt Right Pub leader – Ayles, Fired from Fox and disgraced for Sexual Harassment – Giuliani, Racially ignorant, establish stop and frisk found to be unconstitutional- Christie, BridgeGate- Manafort, worked to secretly move funds for Dictators of foreign countriesNo need for a stamp of approval per se. But he is surrounding himself with people that … shall I say, are Deplorable.
He is reputed to be a data pig and stubborn in private. I think he stresses out in public, does odd things to attract the attention he so desperately craves.
I am not 100% sure what you mean by data pig … if you mean that in an endearing way, I would imagine he would have looked at NAFTA and realized that the average person in the US has done quite well considering the increase in trade with MX and CA, along with the low cost of ALL goods.NAFTA doesn’t play well in the rhetoric, but it is an extremely good thing for our economy.It is how we get to buy clothes that look nice for $14.99 at gap.The alternative is to buy the same clothes for $99 and rags for $29.
He’s better in private than he is in public, but still a horrible person. He likely makes decisions in a reasonably orderly fashion, but his concern over how he is perceived is so psychopathic that he constantly shoots himself in the foot. He is without morals or ethics, but ‘data pig’ is a compliment….he likely has a solid decision making process.NAFTA has been good for everybody except for the people who used to make the $99 version of those Gap clothes.
> He is reputed to be a data pig and stubborn in private.Solid, credible references?
various articles that I can’t recall, at least two of which were unflattering.
Unflattering articles about Trump? The liberal, totally in the tank for Hillary, MSM has more such articles than the Congo jungle has piles of monkey poop or great, gross gobs of greasy gorilla grunt, to borrow from grade school, with in all three cases lots more coming hourly!
+100 on the poor quality of choices. All you need to know is that the combined negative perception of the two candidates exceed 100%. Wow.Donald is doing this because he craves attention.HRC is doing this because she can’t believe she got a dipshit like her husband elected President when she should have been the candidate.Regardless, neither candidate has a valid ‘ask’ to present to the American public. The Republic has reached the point where the potential Emperors Wear No Clothes.
Donna, Can you clarify ?There is a general equivalence made in the media between his temperament vs. her perceived dishonesty.But.. if you deep dive into what exactly happened in the email issue, and her past scandals, it is pretty obvious that she has been more stupid than malevolent. She has always had trouble with managing the line between privacy and transparency. May be because she has been vilified by her opponents for the last 30 years.Her transgressions simply pale in comparison with the dangers posed by Trump and the track record of his apathy for the vulnerable, and a need to optimize for his ego. There is simply no equivalence between the two choices. She comes out far ahead.
.His “temperament” is a perception not held by all. Her dishonesty is a truth.There is no equivalence.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
examples of actual lies … sourced, please.
His lies are quite clear too – he lied right up there in the debate and does so continuously.Hillary has a problem with credibility but she at least is spinning a kernel of truth, like a lawyer would. Not totally satisfying. Trump blames her for the birther thing, which is ridiculous, that is more than a lie, it’s a lie plus deep denial and refusal to accept responsibility. He did say that stuff about climate change being a hoax from China. He says bs like that all the time.
.It feels like “grasping at straws” because……………………………………….it is.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Surprising. I would think being Presidential, and the required temperament of the office, would be one of your most significant requirements.
Not at all grasping at straws. Trump talked about his penis at the GOP debates. He talks about beating people up at his rallies. People reacting to that are not making up concerns. This is not a political issue – none of the GOP leaders with any stature want to touch him. It’s not because they are establishment, it is because Trump is not suitable for office.
Yes TEMPERAMENT being a deciding factor is past for REPUBLICATION primary voters. But it is NOT past for US voters whole as a COUNTRY .You may need to understand the difference .Can you name a Governor for any state for last 50 years whose temperament is close to Trump . I can not name one,From the long list of these presidents from 1963 to 2016, When everybody passed this basic HUMAN trait , It is highly improbable to have a person NOW who can bypass this basic Human Trait and become president .LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior, and Obama
.What sheer nonsense. Show me a single reference to “temperament” in the last 20 years pertaining to a Republican primary. This is a made up subject.Show me a single reference to the issue of temperament in the last 20 years of US Presidential politics.It is an invented, focus grouped, bullshit consideration.Look at the current Governor of Maine. He’s a piece of work.WJC was getting blown by an unpaid intern. She was 22 and he was 49. I never heard anything about that pervert’s “temperament.” Surely, one would agree that the most powerful man in the world getting blown by an unpaid intern young enough to be his child was creepy.Have you ever listened to LBJ’s Oval Office tapes? He was insane. His utterances were racist and raw and, yet, he was the driver of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (passed by Republicans BTW).JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
you are talking about BIG lapse in judgement ( which are serious issues ) about elected leaders . Here we are talking about temperament . Can you find a any elected official any where in the world ( including third world countries ) that used this language THOUSANDS of times ( 258 x N people ) against everybody who has opposed view of him .I am not talking about policies who has good policies, who will do better than the other . Just about temperament .The 258 People, Places and Things DonaldTrump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete Listhttp://www.nytimes.com/inte…
People find Trumps out of control behavior scary and that makes it an issue. He can’t contain himself and seems ignorant and irrational. No one wants that for a commander and chief.LBJ may have been extremely vulgar behind the scenes but he was a gentleman in public, that takes self control, something Trump does not have when the spotlight is on him and the pressure is on. That was the message from the debate – this guy can get out of control. So now it’s an issue.WJC did get a blow job and it was a huge embarrassment – no one thinks that was good judgement.
Also, Twitter was a start. I wound up with Twitter on two screens. One with the actual debate and tweets from random people, the other my own people…it would have been nice to toggle back and forth between tweets from my known twitter friends and unknown folks…
On reflection i don’t think you are entirely right to identify temperament as Trumps main weakness. It’s his technique that is weak, and because he isn’t a professional politician. professional politicians learn technique over time. they make mistakes earlier in their careers at a local level, when the global media isn’t looking and listening, and they polish their performance until it’s right for prime time (particularly the craft of being a public speaker).Clinton can seduce people with her technique polished over many decades. That doesn’t make her a better choice.I won’t be voting for either, naturally.p.s. wasn’t Nixon even more crooked than Clinton is said by Trump to be?
To reward either of them with a vote is just something I can’t do as it encourages more of the same behavior (or worse) next time around.While it is refreshing to see someone publicly acknowledge how out of hand the PC atmosphere has gotten in this country, I agree Trump does not have the temperament to be President, not even close.But by the same token I cannot in good conscience reward Hillary’s behavior either. We seem to come to accept a level of lying and blatantly unethical behavior from politicians, but she takes it to a whole new level. She is much better at hiding her blind ambition behind a fake smile, but being ambitious and competent are completely different. Trump is right on that point…she’s done almost nothing successfully in her political career, so I’m not sure how that warrants a promotion to the top job.If the country has ever needed another party or two to keep the others honest, it is now. I am so disappointed that we cannot hear from the other voices (Johnson / Stein). I feel like any decent candidate that can fog a mirror could show up the week before the election and win if they could get on the ballot.Voting for a either of these people is a non-starter for me.
Presidents are megalomaniacs. Most politicians are, but anyone with the drive to get to the presidency have enormous egos and are driven by a ton of ambition.I think she has numerous successes going to back to the SCHIP in the 90s and continuing on to wins like the START treaty when she was SoS.
That is a vote for Trump. Not having a Pres is not an option. You will either have Clinton or Trump in the White House.
It’s not a vote, so how is it a vote for Trump?
It is unfortunate but a vote for anyone other than Hillary is a vote for Trump
Given my past voting record, it is almost certainly a lost vote for Trump. I can see and respect the view that not voting for one or the other is “punting”, but if we keep voting the lesser of 2 evils, I’m not sure how we ever expect things to change.We get what we deserve I suppose. If enough people get fed up it will change.Props to the AVC community for a civil and intelligent debate. Better than most of the interwebs can offer…or the 2 primary candidates for that matter 🙂
I absolutely agree. It’s what I call the Hamlet effect. Hamlet chose death as his destiny because he didn’t like the choices that lay before him. He apathetically wasted a lot of time on “woe is me,” rather than taking realistic action. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect choices. It seems there is a vein of thought in which Americans seem to believe that nihilism is better than realism.
Oh god no. Stop with this nonsense already. It’s foolish, and frankly, it’s bullying. A vote should represent who you want to have represent you. Nothing more.
Aren’t GOPers arguing that a vote for Johnson is a vote for HRC?
Ed, I am with you. I am not happy with either of them but I cannot in my conscious vote for Hillary because she lies constantly and has so many scandals. And the scandals keep coming. They are not going to get better they are going to get worse. She may be the 3rd president in US history to be impeached after her husband.For all of you business owners out there…If Hillary was your employee, you would have fired her long ago. Don’t fool yourself.
Quite unbelievable that after Obama, Trump is one of the two options.
stoked and fed
The one thing that surprised me and keeps surprising me is that both candidates spend an awful lot of time attacking each other, instead of discussing issues at depth. They try to gain points by attempting to demolish each others’ characters. Trump is typically angry, so he appeals to angry voters.
HRC is pulled into attacking Trump because Trump flat out lies on stage, and then the media replays his lies so frequently that a very large number of people start to believe it.Trump has now said, in public forums, repeatedly, that Clinton started the birther issue. He made it up. Complete fabrication.It has now been played so often that there is a large group of people that believe it.This has played out over and over against Clinton. She has made mistakes. No doubt. But the ‘conspiracy du juor’ approach that Fox and others have taken have made people believe she is evil, bad, and not a good choice. When you dig into these issues, they are the very best examples of making mountains out of mole hills.There is absolutely no reason Trump should be President. He is a self serving, greedy, cut throat person. He is anything other than a statesman. And why more people aren’t critical of all that he is and has done is shocking.The fact is that the Republican party of today is made up of lemmings, voting for Party over country. How easy it would have been for the Rs if Trump had run as a Democrat, which based on his anti trade, Pro choice past he could have easily done if not for the Birther hoax that he helped create.
For whatever reason it is the culture of the mainstream media that negativity and cynicism are not only the things that win, but are the “correct” viewpoints. It isn’t just in politics but happens in relation to other subjects like technology, or even more appalling the way the local news might cover the local city. This is reinforced by a political consulting class that believes attacks and attack ads are the things that work, combined with a less of two evils mentality adopted by many voters. I tune much of it out. But as I’ve grown older I’ve also built an understanding of the point of view these places espouse and how disconnected it is from many of their audiences. I’ve learned more about Hillary from the campaigns own push notifications on my iPhone than from the 300th inquiry the New York Times has written about the e-mail server.
They have no beliefs or plans that they are truly committed to executing.They share the ‘ there is no low that is too low for me to get what I want or keep what I have ‘ trait.His lows are public, hers are private. But they are both ultra low.Sad.
“As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not.”
I thought for sure the Donald would point out if anyone knows cyber security it is Hillary 🙂 I’m wondering why he let that slip. That was a T ball.
Tough to say what he was thinking
The debate did one thing for me-I am going to look deeper at 3rd party candidates. I realize it may “waste” my vote. My conscience tells me I should consider all. The two party system may be all that we have but if others thought closer about it……Not sure I will vote 3rd party, but owe it to myself to at least investigate deeper.
don’t waste a vote in this race Mitch. that would be a terrible thing to do.
Thanks Fred,I agree with you on Trump. He does not have the correct temperament. I have voted in every election ( including local) since I was 18. This is the most uncomfortable I have been with both candidates At least want to look deeper at 3rd party candidates before I decide.
I’d like to know what you call mansplaining when it is that interruptive and shouted. And why a moderator does nothing to enforce one person speaking at a time.
But the Fox spin is that Holt was unfair to Trump and kept interrupting him.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…at 8:52 am EST. (just in case you are still trying to track it down).
What the cloudflare screen could do is also troubleshoot connectivity to the server as well as server lack of response. It could easily know what other hosts are on the same server (possibly depending on the architecture) and even see ping wise what is going on. This is one of the disadvantages of having cloudflare in front. A regular user can’t ping the site. Quite frankly with avc being static I wonder why cloudflare isn’t helping with this issue to begin with. I thought that was one of the advantages of using cloudflare, static pages. AVC is static, the disqus serves itself up from elsewhere I am thinking.
thanks. long after i posted. ugh.
Fred,While I agree with you regarding the nature of Trump’s temperament, which is open and obvious, I disagree with you about Hillary’s temperament, which is every bit as volatile. Hillary’s nasty side comes out behind the scenes. It is not in front of the camera, unlike Trump, and it is hidden.If you read accounts from those who know Hillary, many with no real ax to grind, you will see a consistent picture of a person who can be hot-tempered and volatile. At least with Trump, who is very extroverted, you know what you are getting.I don’t personally know either candidate and from a voting perspective I don’t care for either one of them. I consider myself an independent, having voted for both republicans and democrats in past elections. In the primary cylcle, I voted for Marco Rubio. Tough choice for me now, but temperament won’t be the reason why I will vote for one candidate or the other.
True. But it’s what is in front of the camera that counts. Nixon, LBJ, Obama extremely volatile behind the camera. In front, composed. Takes discipline.
It certainly didn’t require last night’s debate for me to determine that I would never ever vote to put a racist, sexist tax dodger into the highest office in the country.Talk about temperament or anything else seems like a way to not talk about the fact that the man is a bigot. Even Hillary had the guts to call him out on it, which is unprecedented in our presidential debates.
You are wrong about the tax dodger. Where are you getting that from? Trump has several hundred page tax returns and gets audited by the IRS regularly. Where has it been shown that he is a tax dodger other than what is accepted and legal to try to do given our tax laws? What are you saying? That he shouldn’t hire accountants and tax lawyers to try and minimize his taxes?Tax dodgers? All of those cash businesses in NYC and elsewhere that aren’t reporting income let’s start with them. The small businessman that is using a company car for private business. The ones that aren’t audited like Trump is. I am sure he pushes the limits with this. But he is under a microscope with his fame which is why he gets the scrutiny that he does. In all fairness. Not a reason to vote for him but be fair.
Fine. You can believe he’s an honest man on his taxes. Or you can not care that he doesn’t pay any taxes even though he’s tremendously wealthy while my babysitter who makes $18k a year pays hers faithfully every April.As you can see, the emphasis of my comment was on the fact that he’s racist and sexist.
.I wonder if Trump employs 27,000 people, should he get any credit for the taxes they pay?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
No Kristen just wants to believe that the world is made good by people earning 18k a year doing babysitting and paying their taxes. I mean this is all so ridiculous on it’s face. That entire bullshit about Warren Buffett with a straight face saying that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he is.
I believe Buffett. Good secretaries are so rare that it wouldn’t surprise me if he or she pays tax at the top marginal rate. Buffett, you, and I all know that he pays many orders of magnitude more tax than his secretary. That isn’t his point.
No because it takes advantage of the fact that people think that the marginal tax rate makes more difference than it should. It’s highlighting a number to rile people up. “You pay 18% in taxes, that rich guy pays only10% in taxes”. Or “real estate allows you to not pay taxes see how bad that is?”. The tax laws are setup to provide incentives for certain behavior. That point is never discussed and if it is it becomes a “to be sure” point with little impact or emphasis.
Buffett and Soros support the so called Buffett tax to redress the consequences of rent-seeking. Hard to sell unsexy tax increases to the aspirational classes without first riling them up.
Be careful about assuming you know what I believe. One of the great truths in life is that none of us truly know what the other is thinking.What I believe is that someone making $18k/year should be in a $0 tax bracket.
Un related but I think that Trump is in “be careful what you wish for” phase and has been for some time. Honestly I think he wants to win in one way but in another way really doesn’t want to win the race. I can’t find another easy explanation for why he didn’t prepare better or control himself. He seems to do well enough to stay in the race but not enough to do the knockout punch. Hard to believe that a guy who has been able to manipulate people his whole life and know the right thing to say wouldn’t be able to buckle down and do a better job last night at restraining himself. I mean for sure he has been in thousands of meetings where he has had to restrain himself and not say the wrong thing.Sure it could be that the next debate is when he will knock her out but I am not so sure that he will.Quite frankly it’s a big scary job and I am not sure he actually wants the job in the end.
Oh wow. Your baby sitter who makes 18k a year pays her faithfully every year. That has no wiggle room at all to even pay less.What do you think Trump is doing. Under reporting income? Hiding income? Taking deductions that he isn’t allowed to? Do you think the people downstream in his organization are cheating as well?Your evaluation of this is much much to simplistic. He pays exactly the taxes that the laws and the system allow him to do. That is exactly as a businessman what he should be doing.Do you not take the legal deductions that you are allowed?Do you think his use of his business jet has not been scrutinized?Leona Helmsley went to prison for tax evasion, Trump did not. And has never been charged.
Why are you still talking about taxes? I gave that one to you. If he was *amazing* in all other ways, I might be able to care less about his taxes.He’s racist, sexist, bigoted. I wouldn’t vote for him if he paid DOUBLE his taxes.
Kristen, they both know no low that is too low.He says stuff and does not care about the consequences. HIs actions never match his words. Oddly enough, his ‘bigoted’ speech is not supported by bigoted action (look at the number of influential women in his world).She does stuff and does not care about the consequences (private email server, want that. against the rules, fuck that.) Most HRC supporters seem blind to her stratospheric level of arrogance. The rules don’t apply to her, according to her.They are horrible people and terrible candidates.America and her allies deserve better.
CONTRIBUTORS:we are creatures of the moment. There have been in the past (Television not invented) Presidential Candidates who smeared the characters of each other to a point of claiming an Anglo Saxon Candidate was some how part Negro. (All Homo erectus evolve from Africa). It was much more volitile when duels settled disputes.Whatever history was provided it apparently didn’t cover Presidential debates.
Of course there is the video of Hillary wondering why she isn’t 50 points ahead that starts to reveal her true temper. And this from DrudgeReport.comAsked Trump 6 follow-up questions, did not ask ANY of Clinton… Interrupted Trump 41 times, Clinton 7… ‘Fact-checking’ becomes opinion journalism…CLINTON, TRUMP BATTLE FIERCELY OVER TAXES, RACE, TERROR… PAPER: Clinton loses ground among some voters in swing state… Trump ‘pulled off presidential’… How he won over bar full of undecideds, Dems… Why he decided not bring up Lewinsky… Man Mows 58,000 Square-Foot ‘TRUMP’ Sign Into Lawn… TAKES LEAD IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE…I think Lester Holt did Hillary a disservice, when he was trying to do her a solid. He was so biased people noticed. Based on my FB feed, Twitter Feed and the comments here, I don’t think any minds were changed last night. A person’s confirmation bias will allow them to highlight the things they want to highlight.The best moderators don’t insert themselves into the debate-you don’t know they are there. Like good game officials.
I am with Her too! I am so so excited to have Hillary Clinton as our next President.
Yes. More of this from all HRC supporters! Stop talking about him. Start talking about Her!
You are right. If the narrative in the press and social media continues to be about Trump (good or bad), she cannot win the vote of those on the fence.
Amen! I’m just so surprised that there are so many people who like his showmanship. They don’t seem to understand how the rest of the world is so important to our future economic, financial, and even physical health. Maybe they haven’t traveled enough or studied enough history to know how much damage a person like Trump could do to all of us if he’s president. It’s scary how divided we are in many things for a candidate like Trump to get so far in what used to be a respected Republican party.
The individual voter has such a great opportunity to fact check in real time. As much as this pains me to say this trump was correct on certain point but it was how he said vs what he said that turns people off
Temperament is an interesting character trait. In this case I think voters need to consider a candidate’s utter lack of competence, lack of leadership ability, rampant disregard for basic facts, utter absence of any type of intellectual curiosity, open disdain for basic institutions of democratic society, rampant bigotry, at best dubious business liaisons, at best questionable professional record, etc. before temperament even comes into play.
you were up in the air? that is funny. so intellectually dishonest
did i ever say i was up in the air? where in that post did i say that? where was i intellectually dishonest?
” it settled something for me. Donald Trump does not have the temperament to be President and Hillary Clinton does. “”settled something”, you honestly thought at some point that you didn’t know whether he had the temperament?now regarding my intellectual dishonesty. I really do not care who wins and should not have tried to nit pick. Apologies and Best wishes.
this. someone competent vs. someone not.
I thought Trump actually started off surprisingly strong. He was measured, and scored some points very early on the trade discussion. If you want to do fact checking on temperament, re-watch the very beginning of the debate.But where everyone in this country should be concerned is what happened after the first 5 minutes. Clinton got him to unravel. She got him flustered. She got him emotional. She turned him into a combination of Jack Nicholson from “A Few Good Men” and Biff from “Back to the Future.” By the end, he was resorting to complaining that she was not being nice to him. It was no longer about Trump telling us why he was a better choice to lead the country as president, it was about him worrying about only one thing: himself and preserving his thin skin.His own words were that he had a better temperament, looked presidential, and had the stamina to be president and lead our country. This entire debate was a referendum to the contrary. If Hillary could get him to that state in just 90 minutes, think what other world leaders could do with four years……
BTW, Twitter was the best place to be last night.https://twitter.com/themads…
That was my favorite tweet from after the debate.I watched only parts of the debate, instead went and watched the West Wing for the 2-millionth time.
It was fun to watch. Hillary won by technical knockout. She had him in his corner punching back many times, him interrupting her in defense. His use of ‘braggadocious’ impressed me, the man has words, lot of words.At the end, Trump stayed up in the stage surrounded by his family and looking somewhat lost, while the Clintons shaked hands with the front rows, looking as if they had won.As for content, it wasn’t very much, just the usual bs.
Late night humor like that tweet really doesn’t solve any problems. Typical nonsense that people pass along online.
Sheesh, lighten up. It’s a joke, not a Middle East diplomacy policy proposal.Why do you hate the Internet so much?
Well next time Trump makes a comment about Rosie O’Donnell I will say the same thing. (Remember that was made prior to running for President).And no I am not going to lighten up.
Do you need a hug today? You seem edgier than usual.
I guess I am just disappointed that he didn’t get his act together last night.  I need a hug everyday.
Same. I’d offer an in person hug if I were there
ShaneC:are you a Trumpette? Just a question. Regarding an upvote on LE’s post.
Who wants upvotes? He got two hugs!He is a damned good negotiator.
i’m trying to vote trade actually, I try to avoid saying who I vote for in general
I was looking forward to it being an evenly matched debate.But as soon as he opened with complaints (the Mexicans and Chinese have taken all the jobs) rather than solutions, he lost his own opportunity to impress voters with his leadership and problem-solving.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
The Cyber … it gives the best hugs
Always appreciate your intellectual honesty. Lot to be said for being straight with yourself.
It wa a very poor performance. See my comment to JLM.
I remember at Penn when I had to go on this TV show on Sunday Morning (tv filler community service) and we had to review a book. I got to pick the other people that attended and were there to discuss it with the author and a moderator. I am the only one who read the book. The others didn’t even read it. On the way out of the studio they cavalierly threw it away in the trash. In college never a class that I didn’t attend, never a test that I didn’t study for. Part of this was because I couldn’t wing it I guess in all honesty. I always had to work hard.My stepson sails through things in school as my stepdaughter. They can miss class go on vacations wait till the last minute and still get all A’s (part is grade inflation but not all of it). School has no stress for them. What I worry about (that I’ve told my wife their mother) is that later in life that will cause issues because things get more complex so you might as well get used to taking things seriously.Oddly I heard last night that Hillary failed the DC bar exam. Don’t know if it’s true though.
LE:HRC failed the bar examine in DC after passing in Arkansas but she is in good company. Most people fail the first time. Good lawyers are aware of this statistic.The following people failed the first time taking the bar examine:1. Michelle Obama2. President Franklin D. Roosevelt3. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton4. Kathleen Sullivan(Named partner at Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Supreme Court arguer, former dean of Stanford Law School, and California bar exam failure)5. Gov. Jerry Brown6. Pat RobertsonToo many people to even name. Both Republicans and Democrats. (Couldn’t locate any Independents, we all pass on the first examine)
“Couldn’t locate any Independents, we all pass on the first examine” – well played
Kirsten Lambertsen:The Trump supporters are not going to sing Kumbaya with the Clinton supporters or anything Democrat that continues to win the office of the President of the United States. They are not realizing after not winning the oval office for two terms the majority of Americans are not gravitating to that message of hate, misogyny, ignorance, intolerance, on and on.The Democrats better not take the deplorables (A term that Trump used yesterday) lightly. It will cost them the election thinking that everyone with a college degree, common sense, or being a minority will be enough.The Democrats need some backbone. Need to discontinue the passive and weak mantra of just be nice and everyone will see what he is about. They have seen what he is about through the primaries and he spanked his opponents.Peter, Paul and Mary song will not help.https://youtu.be/YGU8_9UuSM4
Hillary will have the hit list of all hit lists if she wins.
I used the twitter app on the TV like fred. Was dissapoint. A little curation could have gone a long way.
i agree. i made these suggestions a few weeks agohttp://avc.com/2016/09/feat…
Running them along the bottom would be better than reducing my screen by 50% to run them on the side.
You mean like this? https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Yeah. only the best ones tho.
Isn’t that your AI looking for Sarah Connor? 🙂
Haha. The clever people at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, MIT, Toronto and other AI powerhouses can do this now: https://uploads.disquscdn.c…So the Terminator robot could definitely pattern recognize Sarah Connor as its target.
If the rumors about a Disney acquisition pan out, maybe Twitter will get the Head of Product it needs to steer all these features it needs.And instead of ad hoc media partnerships with Bloomberg, they can stream the tweets over ABC and ESPN.
yup, for sure
After today’s tweets from Trump and the recent post-debate behavior, I find it very hard to accept anyone justifying that behavior, or wanting to vote for the Republican Nominee. The stakes are just too high for anyone – whatever their political leaning – to vote for Donald Trump.
I was so consumed with work I have no idea what happened in the world today. I’ll have to check it out.
.Today is a day for all involved to confirm their own biases and to say those things that they wanted to say before the debate even was whistled open. Nothing wrong with that; that is who we are and who we have progressively become even more and more.I will resist that temptation as I don’t think this particular debate is going to move the needle. In much the same way that we saw the candidates confirm who they are and who we knew them to be after having watched them for more than a year.I thought Trump underperformed even his own low expectations and missed many fertile opportunities to guide the conversation to explore sensitive elements of his opponent. He showed himself to be nervous and prickly and more than a bit bombastic.Nonetheless, he comes across as the agent of change which forms the big question — does the American electorate actually want change?I thought HRC was exactly the person she has been — part of the establishment, still hawking the same tired, worn, unsuccessful solutions while talking about things that are totally irrelevant to solving America’s problems.She comes across as “more of the same” while pretending that she is an agent of change but failing to acknowledge that she’s had a seat at the edge of the campfire for a long, long time.I thought the moderator must have left several of his pages of questions home. No questions about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the FBI’s characterization of HRC as “extremely careless”, HRC’s health? Obama-fucking-care? Not a single question about the biggest issue of the Obama administration? Not one? The program is a disaster (financially and in its execution) and not a single question?Frankly, I thought the moderator was cowardly toward HRC and punitive toward DJT. Which is fine with me.The moderator took a keener interest in probing with DJT than he did with HRC — I don’t really have a problem with that and DJT should have used his own pitchfork to go after some of those things, if he were so inclined.This debate changed nothing and will have no impact on the polls. There are two more such circuses to come and DJT will get better. He is a learner. In much the same way that Pres Obama was bested by Romney in the first debate and ultimately rebounded — so shall DJT.Much ado about nothing while acknowledging that DJT received an abject lesson in one-on-one debates.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…The moderator was the weakest performer on the stage.
It’s like no one on this blog every filled out a schedule A.
“does the American electorate actually want change”What is the re-election rate of congressional incumbents?So, no, the American electorate does not really want change.
.The disapproval rate — well, for all but my Congressman — is about 459.8% and yet we keep sending the same people back to DC.There is no real connection between what we think at the local level and what we want at the national level.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
This is an interesting podcast about a proposal to deal with exactly this issue: http://www.econtalk.org/arc…I am not a huge fan of giving more power to the president, but I think that there’s a discussion that needs to be had about weighing the local and national priorities.It is easy to forget but this country was set up as a republic, with representative democracy rather than delegative or direct democracy. Not that the founders were perfect, but they were aware of the dangers of majoritarian rule.
Never in American history has the Republic been served up two less deserving candidates.HRC is the most arrogant politician in recent memory. Her argument for her Presidency is “Because.”She is in a dead heat with the biggest public Buffoon of the last 50 years. He is competitive with her because his argument is ” Because I am not Her. “Fuck me what a disaster.Scare yourself and follow Chris Arnade on Twitter. He posted an epic 20 tweet summary of what ails America and what world history predicts for her future (spoiler alert: not good). https://twitter.com/Chris_a…
.Go build some 100-story buildings in foreign countries and check back with me thereafter. Trump is not a buffoon. Building such buildings is no mean feat.He is a man who understands and has worked the system. When he wanted some luminarios at his wedding, he snapped his fingers and HRC & WJC appeared like monkeys at the end of the organ grinder’s chain.He is winning because, as demonstrated in the 2014 mid-terms (the largest and most historic rejection of a party holding the White House since 1920, which the MSM pretends didn’t happen), the country is angry at the establishment and he, brilliantly, rode that wave of sentiment.Further, his decision to catch that particular wave — and vanquish tons of experienced, well-funded pols in the process — was his and his alone.So, no, Trump is nobody’s fool. Pick your adjectives to describe his behavior but don’t pretend to know this man’s mind.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Well he should stick to what he is good at then. I swear, sometimes I feel like the only reason he wants to be president is because it’s four years of guaranteed air time.I can’t imagine being president is nearly as fun as building hotels and putting on beuty pagents.
.I’m sure it’s the free housing and the chance for Melania to be First Lady. I bet he does serve the Chinese cheeseburgers — he threatened to do so.One has to consider that his life style — unique amongst all modern Presidents — will not be a huge increase in quality. He lives well.As to the beauty pageants, I consider that an affront to women. Young women who vie in these contests are quite accomplished and notable women and do not deserve to be the butt of jokes and derision.I thought HRC’s comment was an affront to women even those who stay home and bake cookies — like my Mom who was also a soldier in WWII but could bake some damn good oatmeal-raisin cookies.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
> oatmeal-raisin cookies.My FAVORITES!!!!!
> swear, sometimes I feel like the only reason he wants to be president is because it’s four years of guaranteed air time.Standard Hillary/MSM propaganda. They got this because Trump got about $2+ billion in free air time, earned media, during the primaries. Also, going way back, Trump has been in the NYC news — part of his brand from which he, Melania, Ivanka, etc. make good money.Look, Jess, all your points are just from Hillary/MSM propaganda about totally meaningless, silly stuff irrelevant to being POTUS and intended as a manipulation to keep you from looking at reality, especially the horrible things wrong with Hillary, e.g., that she belongs in court on bribery, racketeering, and massive violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act.
Trump lacks a certain polish, but he’s not a buffoon or a fool.(Niether are the Clintons fools, but they have made a market in selling America and its assets to foreign interests, in the interest of personal enrichment and globalization.)
> Trump lacks a certain polishDeliberately in front of some audiences, e.g., that typically are about 20,000 in size, with people lining up starting at dawn, 10,000 in the main room, 10,000 more in an overflow room with video, and another 10,000 outside with audio.A Hillary rally?http://media.breitbart.com/…
Yes, there is a remarkable contrast in event turnout and crowd enthusiasm between the two candidates.
Not buying Jeff. Lay off the anti-HRC/GOPe Kook Aid.The Donald was born on 3rd & when he got walked in, not only did he claim he hit a homer, he proclaimed himself to be a better slugger than Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron & any Juiceball era slugger you care to name combined.He is an ass who hasn’t built jack in 20 years. His craven lust for attention led him to politics and the idea of a Presidential bid. He stumbled upon the wave of anger and has done almost everything in one person’s power to screw it up.The greatest attack on HRC’s Presidential bid would be to simply state that she cannot pound this fool into the ground like a scout hammers in a tent peg.
.You may want to update your database James; he just opened the Old Post Office Building renovation in DC around the corner from the White House — year early and under budget.He won the opportunity competing against 22 other developers.He has massive golf holdings in Scotland and just opened a course during the middle of the Presidential campaign. He has similar holdings in Dubai.To suggest the man is not an active business player, is just not true. Nonsense.The GOPe, by their feckless squandering of what the electorate gave them in 2014, created Trump. He owes his existence to their failure to follow up on the power they received.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
He’s not hands on with any of those gigs, none of which are new builds or even KDRs.He’s a distressed asset / licensing player mostly.
.His three kids and a son-in-law run the show. As a good CEO, he has put good people in place and let them run with his guidance.He went to the ground breaking, grand opening of all three of the projects I cited.The guy is 70 and knows how to run a business. He would, likely, do the same with the US.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
He is certainly more hands on with decisions than I would think most people in his position would typically be. No question he sweats the details if you are not down on the ground you can’t do that or manage it.
JLM, you don’t understand: Jess wants a concrete finisher for POTUS!
Come on Jeff.I am at least as big a non-fan of HRC as you are and the GOPe are the biggest bunch of clueless dumbasses on the planet.When Everyone Hates Me Ted, You Can See The Strings That Move My Arms Marco & I Have The Soul Of An Actuary But The Charisma Of An Accountant Jeb are the Big Three you bring to the table, you deserve to have a broken, egomaniac dilettante crash your party.But don’t leverage your estimable credibility here by trying to make a case for the guy.No one in America can say that they know what DJT or HRC believe in, other than:- DJT: I need attention and money is what I measure- HRC: I do what I do because I do what I doNotice the shared pronoun there.
It’s not really his fault. Either party could have nominated a guy in a gorilla suit and this comment thread would look the same. Such is the nature of two party politics.
.A gorilla pantsuit or a gorilla?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
It’s too late to spin up on a line of gorilla pantsuits for Halloween, dammit!
You have become hyper sensitive enough to strain over gnats and forget elephants.Net, Trump is terrific and Hillary is awful.For details, seehttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…
.Haha, the Republicans fielded a pretty good box of chocolates. I think John Kasich would have made a good President but he didn’t win.Part of governing is winning elections. I think this DJT guy will win.Any reasonably astute observer of the scene political can identify and repeat the platforms and policies of these candidates,DJT is going to be a tax cutter.HRC is going to enact huge new taxes.I use that only as an example which provides meaningful contrast between the two.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
DJT may cut taxes, but he is a profligate spender with a personal track record of not being able to balance the books. Working your way out of several bankruptcies is quite a feat, but less impressive than staying out of Chapter 11.There is no argument that can be made against the statement “HRC could care less about the financial state of America.”Kasich is the only Presidential candidate that seemed reasonable, in either field. 19:1 odds not very appealing (don’t give me Perry either – he’s a mannequin.)
.Trump WILL cut taxes. This is an immutable truth. He will cut both corporate and personal taxes while doing away with the notion of the “carried interest” being taxed as a capital gain. This is a specific and detailed plan.Every time in the history of the US when taxes were cut, Federal revenues went up. JFK knew this and did it.I have studied the Trump bankruptcies and he made them work by selling off personal assets (his yacht and Trump Air amongst other assets) and sacrificing equity to lenders. I applaud him for that as that is how the bankruptcy laws — Ch 11 Reorganization — are supposed to work.All of his bankruptcies were driven by the casino business in Atlantic City (one of the assets in the bankrupt estate was a NYC hotel but it was not a bad asset).He made a single bad bet — casinos. Of course, you know his top casino execs were killed tragically in a helicopter accident. Before that, he had no problems.HRC is a tax and spend, spend and tax liberal with no fiscal governance experience of any kind. The workings of the Clinton Foundation — less than 10% going to charities — are an insightg into how she’d operate the country. She has no bottom line experience. More than $6B remains unaccounted for since her Sec of State days.She will raise taxes of every type.For this alone, she should be avoided.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
No, I did not know about the tragic death of the key execs. Someone needs to make this case for him.He is a terrible retail candidate.I am much more down on HRC than many, I thought the Giuliani comments last night were taken wildly out of context. CNN ran a crawler that said ‘HRC too stupid to be President: Giuliana’ and then played the clip 5 minutes later, where he talks passionately about HRC’s treatment of Lewinsky and then says ‘After being married to Bill Clinton for 20 years, if you didn’t know the moment Monica Lewinsky said that Bill Clinton violated her that she was telling the truth, then you’re too stupid to be president.”
.He is a terrible retail candidate for guys like you and me. We want to hear about the issues and real policy.Don’t miss what he’s doing at his rallies. He is bringing in gargantuan crowds. Far, far, far bigger than HRC. In that regard, he is making himself known to the deplorables and their friends.Who crushed it at rallies? Barack H O’Bama, the Irish Campaigner.Know this — the 2014 mid-terms in which the Republicans administered the biggest reversal of fortune since 1920 was driven by the kind of people who are at those rallies and who are in the basket of deplorables.In the last month, I have been in Texas, Colorado, SC, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. Not one Hillary bumper sticker. One yard sign.Tons of Trump stickers and yard sign.HRC made the ridiculous claim that WJC’s conduct was a falsity put forth by the “vast right wing conspiracy” when it quickly became apparent it was simply ……….. TRUE.She and Sidney Blumenthal ran the “nut and sluts” attacks on Monica, Gennifer, Paula, Kathleen, Juanita, Carolyn and many others.Can you imagine what would have happened to Monica if she didn’t have WJC’s sperm on that blue dress?HRC was a vicious harridan who went after those women with a chainsaw.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I enjoy our friendship Jeff, although I think I learn more from it that you do. You should come up to CGY to go skiing this winter!USD going a long way up here right now.
.I’d love to but I am in SBS right now nursing a torn (not ruptured, just torn) Achilles tendon.I have to get an MRI when I get back and i think surgery is in my future. So, maybe not this winter.I’ve never skied there but I would love to.I’ve been there a few times in the summer and love it.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
he just opened the Old Post Office Building renovation in DC around the corner from the White HouseSee and that is actually my area of concern. He can be a savant when he wants to. So this is why it makes no sense that he isn’t putting in the effort to handle himself properly here. My only thought is (since we are way past the let Trump be Trump phase) is what I have mentioned before. Deep down inside he wants it but really doesn’t want it.You know there are many men who I think get caught cheating because they want to get caught cheating. Why? Because it’s an easy way to leave the relationship. Much easier in a way than going to your wife and saying “I want to end this”. From a practical standpoint it may not make sense (why wouldn’t you just go and say what is on your mind?) But operationally it is actually much easier and beside during that time period you get to have fun as well and also line up another option. If that was not the case why would men make often such stupid mistakes while cheating? Smart men. (And women also obviously).Verdict: He is being careful for what he is wishing for.
.Anything could be true but I note that he made some expert personnel changes — Lewandowski (out), Manafort (in/out), Bannon (shored up the right and the right blogosphere), Kellyanne Conway (brilliant hire), and Mike Flynn (military inoculation and intel expert).I think Trump is very thoughtful. He may still be a lunatic but he is a thoughtful lunatic.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Talking lunatics, how about that other person on the stage last night, a compulsive, neurotic clinical psychology case, totally devoid of sympathy and empathy, unable to form normal human bonds, totally self-centered, amoral, guiltless, even psychopathic?
> So this is why it makes no sense that he isn’t putting in the effort to handle himself properly here.His efforts look from fine, to good, to fantastic to me. His rallies look terrific. As of Sunday the numbers have him winning in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. His papers and speeches on plans and policies, his list of candidate SCOTUS nominees, his lists of advisers, etc. look terrific.His speech style depends on his audience, as it should. In this campaign, he has given speeches good for everyone from a jackhammer operator to a college professor.That there is anything seriously wrong with what he is doing — I can’t see solid evidence — looks like just MSM and Hillary propaganda.That such nonsense propaganda on silly, irrelevant stuff is the worst his enemies can throw at him makes him look terrific.As voters, very much we need to set aside such propaganda — likely intended just to change the subject to something irrelevant — and get on the real, crucial issues.The crucial issues are super-serious. The propaganda stuff is less solid than warm jello. A little balance of judgment, here, right? You want to buy a rusty pile of junk instead of a new Rolls Royce, at the same price, because of some scam claim of some dust on the dashboard?
I know there’s bias here JLM, but w/ respect the notion that a person who successfully runs a RE org or built a 100 story building qualifies him/her for the Presidency is crazy. There are lots of complex industries and verticals where CEOs have demonstrated a track record for success and sound biz management, negotiating skills, etc. Are they any more or less qualified than Trump? What precedent is there for your POV? In the modern era, Bloomberg comes to mind as someone who has made a successful transition from biz to politics on a national scale, but his pragmatism is what really elevates him in my mind. Perhaps the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And in the case of Trump, his biz acumen is questionable with numerous bankruptcy filings and slews of disgruntled employees, contractors, partners, etc. You have a developer background, do you honestly know of any high quality developers that have remotely filed as many bankruptcies as Trump, even taking into consideration, tenure in the biz, project scale, etc.?
> slews of disgruntled employees, contractors,Evidence? References? Or just more Hillary campaign propaganda?
Well, for starters, there’s this:http://www.usatoday.com/sto…Your browser must have a diff filter setting when accessing gen media than mine. Everything you purport to be fabrication about Trump exists, and often in spades. It’s all there and it’s not part hard to find.
Nice reference. The first I’ve seen of such. Kept it.There is likely more to the story, e.g., from the other side.E.g., when I was a prof, a law firm wanted me to do some data analysis to help on one of their legal cases. So, I collected a lot of data, did some first-cut analysis, produced a lot of graphs, and submitted them to the law firm and the firm’s clients. Then I submitted my bill.No check came.Eventually I got a lawyer who wrote a letter to the law firm that hired me. The lawyer’s main line was: “A court may well hold that you own the money.” or some such.I got a nasty letter back from the law firm that hired me accusing me of asking their firm to be a “bill collector” for me.Well, soon I did get checks from all the clients of the law firm, the clients that really wanted the analysis.Lesson: Commonly in business, it can be difficult to get paid. There are a lot of people who stiff people.Just now I have a bill with a huge company where I’m supposed to get paid. I may yet go to small claims court.Once a guy trying to be helpful told me “There is an art to billing.”For a vendor, apparently part of the art is to continually touch base with the customer to make sure all are in agreement about both the work and the billing.Apparently the situation on getting paid is flexible or poorly defined. Really, it appears that, net, often the supplier has to make some special efforts to get paid.For a vendor, maybe one of the keys to getting paid is, if the customer doesn’t pay, then don’t work for that customer again. So, the first bill the customer doesn’t pay is the last bit of free work they get. If bill frequently, then can limit how much can lose.So, maybe on a job, it is common not to pay the last bill.Some of the examples in the article sound not so good: E.g., going for overtime payments going back several years is not so good. As a practical matter and as a solid case, the worker should have been complaining, hopefully with a good paper trail, right along.In Atlantic City during the casino boom, no doubt each of the casino operators had a reputation for how well they paid. A casino that was really nasty would not be able to get work done unless they, say, paid in advance. If Trump was able to get work done, then his reputation could not be the worst. In general, if Trump failed to pay too often, then he wouldn’t get more work done, at least not good work from the best vendors.Really, both sides of the table have to be happy both at the moment and on-going. Whatever some contract says, both sides have to be happy; else end up in legal battles where only the lawyers win.For more on the claims in the article, that is, that Trump was nasty in business, we would have to have more data. That is, so far the article has only what is called anecdotal data. Or, for how much work Trump hired in NJ during the casino boom, thousands of vendors, jobs, etc., finding a few dozen unhappy vendors, dishwashers, etc. stands to be easy, and we still don’t know who is at fault.So, that anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much. What would be more meaningful would be enough data to establish a pattern.Also, for a view from 10,000 feet about the realities of such business, might want to talk with some lawyers and judges who have heard a lot of such stories and cases and see what the general situation is.Maybe vendors should have a contract where disputes are to be settled by arbitration. For a vendor to put a lien on some property can be serious. Maybe a vendor should have a contract that specifies some significant interest for late payment.But, again, if too often and too commonly Trump didn’t pay, then the word would get around, and good vendors would ask for up front money, progress payments, say, each week, up front money for any supplies the vendor was responsible for, really severe contract details, etc. Else the vendor would work for other developers, get into a new line of business, or move to another location.So, really the article, an okay start on the subject, did not actually make much of a case that Trump was a bad ass and an a-hole.Instead the article looks like liberal MSM and Hillary campaign propaganda.Maybe Trump was a bad ass and an a-hole, but so far I tend to say the article was more propaganda than honest journalism.If we are talking propaganda, then the article is about Trump versus Hillary. Well, in that case, much, Much, MUCH, MUCH worse, with much more solid information, is the bribery scam Bill and Hillary executed while Hillary was Secretary of State. For references, see my post here earlier today athttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…
You pull up evidence on demand when it supports a case you want to make, but fail at the simplest of google searches when it does not fit your narrative. Come on..
nu. come on isn’t appropriate to talk to people
And anyway mathematically what number is “a slew”?
It’s between the cardinality of the real numbers and the power set of the integers!
.Salt, you attempt to put words in my mouth. I was rebutting the notion he was a buffoon, not suggesting he was “qualified” for the job.No man is qualified to be the President of the US. It is a job without precedent. A governor of a big state may have similar governing experience but not the nuclear football and not a national Congress.Your suggestion that he has “slews of disgruntled employees” and other pejoratives is simply not consistent with the size of his operation — more than 500 operating entities which have unique EINs.Your frame of reference as to his corporate subsidiaries filing bankruptcy is flawed. They were casinos and not pure real estate developments. Everybody in the casino business has gone through cyclical ups and downs.I don’t know any big time real estate developer who did not return an asset to a lender, file bankruptcy, endure a foreclosure, or have an untoward financial event.I, personally, was very lucky not to have any of those thing in my personal career. I did have some very tough conversations with lenders which I was able to “work out.”Fred Wilson has had slews of unsuccessful investments, by his own admission, and yet one would consider him a man of great investment wisdom and meaningful talent in VC and other endeavors.When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
With all due respect to Fred, who seems more mensch than not, I don’t hold the VC industry in such regard. To the contrary. Yes, it’s risky biz, no doubt, but w/ roughly a 20% success rate, combined w/ 2.5% in annual management fees and 20-30% in premium carry, a VC’s downside is covered quite nicely. Picking winners is indeed a tough slog but it’s not like they’re fully “out there,” sans one’s reputation, of course. (Very much a sideline POV, btw).In regards to Trump, perhaps I’m mistaken, but haven’t you touted on several occasions his RE development background and the requisite skills that come w/ such a position as great credentials for the Presidency?
.Indeed running a big successful enterprise is a “credential” but, as I said, no man is “qualified” for the Presidency.Every President grows into his job.Building 100-story buildings in multiple countries is not chicken feed but, no, it does not “qualify” one for the Presidency.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
He’s not winning, nor has he been since he started the race with HRC. He’s tied or losing via most polls.He has left a trail of lawsuits in almost every major business he owns. Unlike some developers with morals, he screws small contractors because he knows they can’t fight him in court to get the pay they are owed. That’s something you would never do JLM, and if there was another developer across town in Austin who did stuff like that, you would find that person reprehensible.
.Sachmo, you need to review the law as it relates to mechanic’s and materialman’s liens.Any contractor or vendor who incorporates labor or materials in real property has a priority lien on the property as long as he files the right paperwork.The allegations against Trump pertain to properties which he bought out of bankruptcy (Doral Country Club in Florida) or properties which he put into bankruptcy (Atlantic City casinos).In all instances, these matters were subjected to Court supervision and such payment plans were approved by the same Court.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
RE development 101 for gullible, naive newbys!
I think you must still have a migraine or something from our climate change discussion… have you ever directed a multi-million dollar construction project or negotiated $1M+ contracts on behalf of a building? https://uploads.disquscdn.c… https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
I’m the president of a condo association (fine, not the same thing as a developer), but we’ve done a ~$3.5 million dollar 40 year recertification involving concrete restoration for my building. I know all about liens, and have personally negotiated contracts with various contractors including – roofers, electricians, plumbers, etc etc.Liens are not guarantee of compensation. They take YEARS of court litigation to pay out or force into foreclosure.In a real life example, a property one island over did a similar type of concrete restoration project in 2006, very similar size building and # of unit. They blew their budget and spent $20 million on a similar scope of work — total mismanagement.The various plumbers / electricians / etc put liens on common areas and a whole bunch of the units. 5 YEARS later, when I was buying my current unit I looked at this building and ran in the other direction — because of the uncertainty regarding the liens still playing out in the courts.I purchased in my current building, got a seat on the board, and began fixing the place up.As I said before, Trump *screws over* small contractors, b/c he knows that they don’t have enough money to have a protracted court fight. He simply doesn’t pay them.This kind of behavior goes beyond playing a good game in the business world and really crosses a line of personal integrity.I think you know the difference between playing hardball in business and screwing over innocent people. Trump is doing the latter. It shows his values and what type of president he would be.
.I was a developer of high rise office buildings and what you describe may be unique to you. It is certainly not what is either the routine process or law indicates.In the real world, when a sub/vendor issues an invoice and the general contractor approves it, he provides a Release of Lien (unsigned) as part of the invoice.The GC provides his invoice to the owner with a Release of Lien (unsigned) with a copy of all of the sub/vendor invoices and Releases of Lien.A bank (any lender) will not issue payment to the developer until and unless all Releases of Lien are in order. The GC/sub/vendor liens are superior to that of the bank and they are very strict.A bank will not issue the payment until the lien records are in order. When the payments are delivered, the Releases of Lien are executed.A sub/vendor has a statutory and a contract lien on real property.It is not even remotely difficult to foreclose upon a failure to pay in a timely manner. You file at the courthouse and you get a judgment and a right to foreclose upon real property.I did this, literally, thousands of times.The projects which gave rise to these allegation were the Doral CC acquisition in which Trump bought it out of a Bankruptcy Court as well as the bankruptcies in Atlantic City.In fact, Atlantic City contractors did not receive 100 cents on a dollar but they had to agree to that in the bankruptcy case.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Nice Business Law 101 and total cut off at the knees MSM/Hillary propaganda. NICE!
I believe you when you say that it is a straightforward manner in your state to foreclose on a mechanics lien.In FL that must not be the case.This is the particular group of buildings I’m talking about so that this is not an obscure discussion point:http://www.condovultures.co…I personally looked up the court records for numerous units in the building. I actually had a unit under contract for purchase and decided not to do so when a title search came up with various liens. I also looked at court records for a number of other units and came up with a number of liens.I even personally called the other party in the lien to ask them what was up with the building, and he basically told me that his case was still going through FL court system. The work in question was performed in 2006.Now maybe in 2010, FL courts were inundated with such a backlog of cases where they could not prosecute liens effectively – but at least in my state, and in my municipality, these contractors got screwed.You may be right that Trump’s only dealings where payments weren’t made were in Atlantic City in a bankruptcy…. But the sheer number of litigations on the vast *majority* of his several hundred LLCs and Corporations make me doubt that.I think a major part of his business strategy is lawyering up and getting away with what he can.
.Ahh, I see the problem and the differences.Some states (Florida) have judicial foreclosure while other states (Texas) have statutory foreclosure.In Texas, you give a debtor 30 days notice and on the first Tuesday of the month following the 30 days the bank (or other lien holder) conducts a public foreclosure auction on the steps of the County Courthouse to sell the property.In Florida, you have to go to Court and obtain a judgment and then foreclose/collect on the judgment. Huge difference.In addition, you are exactly correct, there was and has been a glut in the courts which backlogged things for more than 6 years which is the reason it has taken Florida so long to flush through the real estate bust.I was just in Destin and real estate prices are still depressed.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I have never seen Clinton make an argument that she should be President “because”. She has made an argument–numerous times–that her 30+ years of experience in public service, deep foreign policy experience and long history of getting things done by negotiating bipartisan agreements qualify her for President. That is not arrogance; it’s experience.But it doesn’t surprise me to see a woman with ambition labelled as “arrogant.” Personally I consider presuming to run for President with zero experience of any kind in public service, no knowledge of foreign policy or plans to acquire any, and swaggering self-assurance that you’re the only person who can fix US policy problems because you’re “a winner” pretty much the height of arrogance, but Trump gets away with it. I cannot imagine a female politician who would.
.I agree with you on both accounts.Unfortunately, as to HRC’s “experience” it is universally bad.Whether being a grifter pretending to trade cattle futures, or as an antagonist to the many women being sexually abused by her husband, or screwing up HillaryCare, or putting forward only 3 pieces of legislation in her entire Senate career, running under sniper fire, lying about the email server, the jug fuck in Benghazi, destroying the Middle East, or lying about her support for TPP last night — her experience is universally bad and always tainted by a level of dishonesty and bad outcomes.So, give me a bit of inexperience from a guy who is able to build a 100-story high rise any day of the week.Particularly, on 8 Nov 2016.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Check yourself Elizabeth. Ask around about my rep re: comfort with powerful women. I am personality & maturity based , not gender.Experience means jack. Preparation for office means jack. That’s proof, not a promise.What is it that HRC is asking Amefica to believe in? There is no answer.HRC’s experience has created exactly ZERO signature achievements. List them, the ones that resonate with the American public as an HRC based benefit to AmericaYou are 100% right about The Donald having no proof to back up the promises. But, across America, he’s selling CHANGE ( all caps purposeful ). Read Chris Arnade on Twitter – huge chunks of America are so broken, unhappy & hopeless, that they will take a massive risk if it promises change…..because they are losing their shirts in the current system.
Where is this proof you’re talking about? Experience means nothing? Are you kidding? And zero signature achievements? I mean, you have to really be sticking your head in the sand to believe (or propagate) that. You also seem to overlook the fact that change is not inherently good. If Trump’s elected we’d definitely have change, but it would be the sort of the change that dismantles decades of progress.
Clinton also outmaneuvered Trump’s attempts to portray himself as an agent of change by tying him in with the same-old Republican policies.Clinton: “Well, let’s stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.Nine million people — nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. So we’re now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy, but the last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place.Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession.They’ve looked at my plans and they’ve said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy.”@JLM:disqus — Again, this is an example of Trump not being clear or articulate or strong enough about HOW HE’D CHANGE the prospects for the working classes.
I’ve been through peices of what’s she’s been though. I apparently have a more “gender neutral” personality, especially compared to the hyper-feminine norms of where I grew up. And I got teased a lot at certain ages for that personality, especially by boys.I still don’t get it. I don’t think there is something fundamentally wrong with me, or Hillary, or anyone who displays more gender neutral personality characteristics. We’re all different, that’s what makes people interesting and a pleasure to be around and learn from.While I have a vague understanding of why, in my case, gendering and personality was a contentious issue, I don’t get why that is the case overall in US society.I wish I did
:Off Topic:Have you ever considered starting a group for INTJs? I have never heard/known of another until you and quite frankly, I’ve never really gotten along with most women; they all seem so very different from myself. NP had a book out called “Know Your Power” and I suspect she’s probably one too. But of course, I can’t exactly ask her over for virtual tea. I’ve got a lot on my plate at the moment and starting groups like this isn’t exactly my thing, but it would seem to be a better fit for you, imho. If you do decide to do so, I’d like to hear about it. I can think of several interesting monetization ideas right off the bat..especially around start-ups/vc.Just a thought.
“Buffoon” ?That’s just campaign propaganda from the Hillary campaign.The only hint of evidence is that at many of his rallies, especially early in the Republican primaries, he was plain spoken, showed determination, used some colorful but effective terminology, and spoke with a fourth grade or so vocabulary. Net, he was speaking to his audience.Does he always speak that way? Heck no. Has he always spoken that way in this campaign? Heck no. Instead, on specific topics, he has given some nicely polished, mature, prudent speeches. And his FNC speech was fine, really a lot better than just fine, really an excellent acceptance speech.You have taken in some Hillary manipulative propaganda for no good reason.The flip side is terrific for Trump: That propaganda, name calling, “Buffoon”, is the worst criticism Hillary/MSM have. So, Hillary has nothing substantive, about plans or policy, about the POTUS.
http://www.dictionary.com/b…As Will Ferrell told his son, ” I am not a joke; I am a buffoon. “
“Buffoon” ?That’s just campaign propaganda from the Hillary campaign.The only hint of evidence is that at many of his rallies, especially early in the Republican primaries, he was plain spoken, showed determination, used some colorful but effective terminology, and spoke with a fourth grade or so vocabulary. Net, he was speaking to his audience.Does he always speak that way? Heck no. Has he always spoken that way in this campaign? Heck no. Instead, on specific topics, he has given some nicely polished, mature, prudent speeches. An his FNC speech was fine — really, an excellent convention speech.You have taken in some Hillary manipulative propaganda for no good reason.The flip side is terrific for Trump: That propaganda, name calling, “Buffoon”, is the worst criticism Hillary has. So, Hillary has nothing substantive, about plans or policy, about the POTUS.Really, the serious attention should be on Hillary — serious violations of US laws and damage to US national security.
Louis CK has him pegged: he has a massive hole in his heart where a productive relationship with his father is supposed to go. He tries to fill the hole with attention (what he did not get from his father) and money (what his father valued).He is a broken person with no business leading the fading glory that is the greatest country in the history of humanity.
A lot of people had some bad emotional relationships with their parents. For a clinical psychologist, one of the first topics is the patient’s relationships with their parents.The standard analysis of Hillary is that she believed that her father didn’t want her and, instead, wanted a son. So, since then she has tried to be as much like a man as she could. So, she has a ‘fake’ marriage, a power partnership where love making is irrelevant.She has tried to show that she can beat the men at their own game, including being mean and crooked.But, she still thinks like a woman, that is, heavily just in emotional terms. And all her speeches are just attempts at emotional grabbers with nothing analytical or even rational.Whatever Trump went through with his father, obviously he learned a lot from his father and, in following in his footsteps, wanted to please his father. Indeed, in going for Manhattan real estate development he wanted to exceed his father’s expectations. Net, I doubt that his relationship with his father was really bad.Whatever his relationship with is father was, by now he has had a lot of time to heal from it. He is NOT naive about emotions or human psychology.And, he has built a good family. For his two divorces, it’s always tough to know whom to blame. But by now he seems to have done well.Whatever, mostly we have to judge people by results. Theories about their basic psychology is always difficult — on any patient, any three clinical psychologists can give at least four quite different analyses. A remote analysis is especially suspect. What CK says about psychology is essentially public sewage.Really, all the attention on Trump is really just to divert attention from Hillary where point by point from temperament to anything else of importance she deserves MUCH more critical attention than Trump.A good future for Hillary would be as a crazy aunt in the basement. Otherwise she should be in court and then, jail.
Complete rubbish on almost all fronts.Never heard that standard analysis of Hillary.Never seen any instance / evidence that she tries to best men by being like them.Your comments on women’s decision making processes are from the stone age.There are a variety of well researched articles that show his Dad was a total prick, demeaning and uncaring. You don’t get over that without putting in the work and he has shown no signs of doing so.No evidence his children are not cretins. They have stayed out of jail but none are successful outside of his circle of influence.Just because you cannot pattern match people’s history to their motivation does not make it possible. After 40 years in a criminal court room, I watched my father stare into people’s souls and pull their essence out of them. Not pretty, but it happened too often for it to be coincidence.They are both unpalatable. His lack of serious effort towards the task disqualifies him. She is likely not disqualifiable, just unpalatable.To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
In a previous thread, you suggested this election would be about emotions more than policy. I tend to agree with you because people are emotional and don’t necessarily do what’s rational — as Daniel Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 research has shown.Before the debate, Sky News had some US political pundits on to give their analysis of how things might go. One of them said this election would be about which of the candidates can present themselves as “anti-Establishment”.If this election is about emotions, Trump didn’t push the right ones. AND he also let Clinton corner him as part of the Establishment. She referred to the $14 million he inherited from his father and contrasted that with her small business draper father. She called him out on his relationship with Wall Street and how his policies would just reward his rich friends.She noted he hadn’t paid the taxes needed to build the schools, hospitals and roads.So she managed to show he’s not an agent for change and doesn’t care about the ordinary worker.————Trump needs better advisors for sure.
.Fifty percent of Americans don’t pay taxes. The half who do — HATE IT.The folks at the top applaud his ability to manage his tax liability to the lowest level possible.He’s being audited and the IRS says he “can release them.” I doubt DJT takes legal tax advice from the IRS.This tax business is way overplayed. It is meaningless.Quick, tell me what you learned from the tax returns of the last four Presidential candidates?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
That’s the worst argument I have ever seen you make.His first #1 adviser – Monafort – is a soulless Putin bagman. His taxes have Easter Eggs for sure.
Monfort was a political consultant.No more and no less. He was a hired consultant like most hired consultants.Not the nicest job, but he was paid for his advice. That doesn’t mean much about his beliefs or loyalties.
.Paul J Manafort, Jr. worked for Viktor Yanukovych, who was a Ukrainian (Russian favoring) Presidential candidate who supposedly was in league with Putin.In fact, Putin overthrew his election in the Orange Revolution thereby exposing the true nature of their relationship.Manfort never worked with or for Putin. All of his involvement in that part of the world was in the Ukraine.OH and just for the record, Manafort resigned from the campaign some time ago. So, there is that.My point is that nobody cares about Trump’s taxes.I suspect he paid almost nothing because he has the benefit of the offset of depreciation and interest deductions — which is exactly why one goes into the real estate business in the first place.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
If you wanted to place a Russian agent in a key fulcrum point in Ukraine, Manafort is what that would look like. If you wanted to have a Russian agent influence one of the mainstream candidates, and pull the US towards Russian interests, Manafort is also what that would look like.Now the guy may not be a Russian agent, but he certainly acts like one. Trump insinuating that he wouldn’t come to certain NATO allies defense? Where is your sense of outrage at Putin…. weren’t you the guy that called Crimea Part 1 of a 6 part act? Did you suddenly have a change of heart and realize Putin is just a swell guy?Or are you giving the Donald a massive pass on a real issue here?
> Trump insinuating that he wouldn’t come to certain NATO allies defense?I have heard this claim as a distortion, fabrication, as propaganda, etc. from the MSM and Hillary campaign.I’ve seen no refernces to credible sources in support of this claim.I did hear Trump say that our NATO allies should pay us what they agreed to pay us for our part in their defense.
What rock have you been hiding under?He has said that US defense is conditional on if NATO allies had paid.Summary of Interview here:http://www.nytimes.com/2016…Full Transcript here:http://www.nytimes.com/2016…
There is no contradiction.
.The US pays 73% of the Nato budget while providing the only real deterrent forces against the Russians.It is long past due that every country in Europe invest 2% of their GDP to their own defense and pick up their prorata piece of the cost of running Nato.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Manafort took a cut from natural gas revenues from Russia. He’s a bagman’s bagman on a global scale. I don’t have time to find the reference. Esquire article maybe.DJT ran out of NA bankers / family offices to burn. He’s gotten credit form some places that have serious bad optics. That’s why there are no tax returns being released.
Must be more than that the way you talk with pride about that building you built
.I built a whole lot of buildings and you are right that I loved doing it. Still, the tax treatment of depreciation and interest was a very nice thing, For active participants like me, even after the 1986 tax reforms it was good.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
The three things that people say they want to know from his tax returns are:a) Amount in income that he really makes. They call this “is he really that rich or is he lying”. As you know tax returns don’t disclose assets other than interest income or dividends where you can infer the assets and likewise.b) Is he as charitable as he says he is. Basically who cares. I don’t care if he gives $0 to charity period. What does that have to do with keeping the North Koreans in line or getting Nato to shoulder more costs.c) What is the tax rate that he pays. Once again, who cares.d) He’s hiding something about his business dealings. If this was the case he would just release the first few pages and say fuck you to releasing the rest of course.I actually thought it would have been good for him to bring the returns out that night in the open and release some things right then (but not the entire returns). Maybe he will do that later during the last debate perhaps. At that point he will have the most impact since strategy wise in negotiation timing is a large part of wining.
It’s just a very simple, old manipulation going back to grade school:”What are they DOING in there? What is going on? What are they hiding? What evil stuff are they cooking up? Why won’t they tell us? If they are doing nothing wrong, then why won’t they tell us what they are doing? In case they are doing something wrong, we have a right to know. Why won’t they open up and tell us everything?Hillary pulled this one last night, went on and on with totally cooked up nonsense about what might be “wrong”. She likely did a lot of that before the fourth grade.
We both agree on this: “Trump underperformed even his own low expectations and missed many fertile opportunities to guide the conversation to explore sensitive elements of his opponent.”She defused his “I’ll show my tax returns when she shows her 33,000 deleted emails” by admitting she’d made a mistake and shutting off any further avenues of probing from him on that.Yet he gave her a wide open goal to use his lack of tax return disclosures against him.It was the fact that she could then portray him as someone who doesn’t pay their share of tax that would pay for schools, hospitals etc. and so doesn’t care about the economic infrastructure of the working class people he’s supposed to represent and appeal to.He made himself seem weak, not properly prepped and outmaneuvered.
.Her characterization as to what was in his tax returns was slander. She knows nothing.The moderator should have injected: “For the record, Mrs. Clinton, you don’t have any knowledge as to what is or is not in Mr. Trump’s tax returns, do you?”Trump has made a mistake letting the tax return issue fester this long. He should have let some reporters take a look at his returns in the first month of his candidacy.Having said that, the entire issue of tax returns, in general, is MSM and HRC fabricated. Not a single person really cares.Quick, what was in HRC’s tax return? What did the MSM highlight?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
LOL, JLM. Trump’s campaign needs someone like you to advise them.What are the rules of slander in political debate situations like these?In the UK there’s Parliamentary Privilege where MPs speaking during debate sessions aren’t liable for defamation, apparently.
But, but, but, because we suspect that Trump is dirty, we need to see his tax returns, and because he won’t show us we are more convinced that he is a dirty dog and still more need to see his tax returns and, again, that proves that he is a dirty dog — the evidence that he is a dirty dog is pilling higher and higher all the way to the sky!!!!!!Gee, someone thinking like that should get a job with the MSM/Hillary campaign!Oh, wait: The MSM/Hillary campaign is awash in such people.They are trying to fool naive, gullible voters!
Apparently he was expecting a frail Clinton that would crumble under her own weight as in that unfortunate video. That may explain why he was mild, he underestimated his opponent the same way he thinks the rest of the world is stupid.
.HRC came out in full beast mode, which I love.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I’m not sure what the moderator could have done. Interestingly, he wrote the questions- and my bet is given his background, it’s a set of questions where there are still lots of unsaid questions in them (my read) and/ or low coverage compared to other issues in the media.Comparatively, Clinton went through a ton of media coverage about her several and Libya.As for Obamacare, he may have been instructed by the commission to leave it for another debate, because parts of that story are still developing
.He could have asked better questions and touched on more important subjects than the Birther issue?He could have asked HRC what she meant when she suggested that half of DJT’s supporters were “deplorables?” As a deplorable, I felt left out.He could have asked her what she intended to with offal of Obamacare?He could have asked her why five of her subordinates received either immunity or plead the 5th?He could have asked her about the conflict of interest, if any, the Clinton Foundation presented and why she intended to curtail her involvement if she were elected President but not when she was appointed Sec of State.He could have asked her why donors to the Clinton Foundation were granted an audience and why they met with her in the first place?He could have asked her why she refuses to allow a transcript of her speeches — $625K worth — to Goldman Sachs to be released?He could have asked her if the current Middle Eastern quagmire was her fault and, if not, whose?He could have asked her if she is the third Obama term or an agent for change? Which one?He could have asked her what role she played in the Iranian deal and whether she was in favor of it?Any of these consequential questions would have trumped the Birther issue.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
JLM, you aren’t a deplorable – howeverthe friend of my friend tweeting last night in favor of trump in russian about how he’ll be great because he’ll get rid of the dark people – yes, deplorable.Or that I have another friend of friend, a woman named bethany mandel, who bought a gun because of her trump tweets (she’s a political columnist/writer in NJ)http://forward.com/opinion/…The combination of watching him last night and knowing that saying certain things on the internet while also using my legal first name can put me in danger is frankly terrifying. It is scary enough for me that I’m investigating how to get a german/eu passport. I don’t know what to think/do if he became president – will he shut down the haters for his daughter and son-in-law?This election is the first time in my life where I know people who have experienced antisemitism in recent years outside of Israel. That’s crazy – and Trump hasn’t stopped them.I’ve personally voted in some really tough elections where things got nasty. The school board where I grew up is considered the prototype of Nasty Local Elections nationwide. Hell, those school board elections ended up with a Nationally Covered Lawsuit involving Google/Blogger before the case got thrown out of court.To be really blunt: What do you want to say to your perfect daughter and perfect son-in-law?___As to what’s with the servers. I’ve seen enough coverage of it over the past 2.5 weeks that I’ve read some of her emails. She also said “I was wrong” To me, that’s the stand up right thing to do especially given no charges were filed, and the FBI while thinking it was stupid she did what she did, can’t find anything illegal.As to the birther issue – it was a stupid question. His response was stupider.Re: Clinton Foundation – I expect this type of “corruption” on some level of all politicans. In fact, I don’t dislike it – I think we sometimes have too much sunlight in policy and with politicians that is making it hard for them to do their jobs (which is how we got to where we are today). Priority meeting doesn’t mean priority listening.Finally: A lot of my millenial friends who are not techies benefited under the Obama administration – many of them finally getting a pay raise because of the changes in rules about overtime. Some finally have health insurance. If you are poor, educated, and in an urban area, while a millennial you benefited from the Obama administration. If you aren’t any of these, life sucked hard.And I think that is fundementally the issue: the country is changing, and the people who benefited the most under the obama adminstration were the ones where they could be seen as “less real americans”, be it racial, newness, area they live in, education, or way they self identify. Basically, if you are the type of person who can relate to Hamilton’s casting choices as real and ok, you did well.We saw it up close with the “stop and frisk” part of the debate, and with the cyberterror part of the debate. Under the obama administration, people who understood the ways of the internet did well. Similarly, “stop and frisk” was a repudiation of previous techniques that did not work in NYC, benefitting minorities.____On a personal note: When people call her a liar/psychopath, I take it slightly personally. Not because I love her or her policies, I don’t.It is because I’ve experienced that sort of namecalling based on the way I behave to either moderate or highten the fact I’m female. There was even a mild version of this issue that appeared in my high school senior yearbook (which included all the class jokes).If I am too aggressive- veer towards pyschopathIf I am too listeny and warm/mothering – liar and/or hiding something and/or not a serious thinker.I’ll totally admit there are things I can do (and am still learning to do) to moderate that perception – none of them well. However, at the end of day, it is fully clear to me that the way I “woman” seem to cause problems because my underneath temperament/personality doesn’t fit gendering well (combo of a more extreme agressive streak when I am in pursuit of something, too friendly/outgoing to be not noticable, and the fact that I will be upfront about what I do and don’t care about both in my behavior and in what I expect from other people)When I see her in this position, and what she is doing (and not doing) to moderate those same “namecalling effects” I tend to sit their and wonder if she was a man would this be a thing. I know for chunks of my personality, having seen pieces of it in other people, tends to be perceived as a good thing in a man. I think the questions arising about her personality if they were in a man would dissipate, and we’d be talking more about her ability to ally with people. My maternal grandmother was on the kindertransport, and therefore it appears I qualify for german citizenship under the German Citizenship Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… ) Both here and in Israel, I’ve found that antisemitism and antisemitic tropes are more common among Jewish people than outsiders to Jewish people. The school district in question is Cedarhust -Lawrence Free Public School (district 15 in new york parlance). The Lawrence district, as they call it, is considered the model district in the US if you want to supress a minority population’s local advocacy and expand majority rights, even if it means probably breaking the law. See: “A Not So Simple Majority”, This American Life : http://www.thisamericanlife… The case referenced is Pamela Greenbaum vs In Re Orthomom, which by throwing out the case, was confirmed constitutionally you have the right to comment online/blog online/ect anonymously about politics and politicians. http://www.internetlibrary….
> FBI while thinking it was stupid she did what she did, can’t find anything illegal.Comey said with crystal clarity that Hillary was in massive violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act.
With questions like those, you would be drummed out of the MSM and all associated communities, organizations, societies, thereunto appertaining! More likely, somewhere in the second question there would be a sudden electric power failure, an announcement that you had taken ill and were on the way to a (psychiatric) hospital, and they would get some suitable moderator!
Change is subjective. Hurricanes are also the agent of change.
I thought Trump underperformed even his own low expectations and missed many fertile opportunities to guide the conversation to explore sensitive elements of his opponent.A lot of people told Trump that the main thing he needed to do was to look like a nice guy and not like people should be scared of his strength as a leader, his plans and policies for change, his determination, etc.So, I’m guessing that last night he tried that advice and many times, most times, declined to push back against total nonsense lies, distortions, accusations, etc. of the moderator and Hillary.So, he corrected some of the claims, rambled some, and otherwise let Hillary just do her usual that gets rally audiences of an average of about 200 versus Trump’s 20,000 or so.
.It appears that Trump lost the debate and is now winning the spin. The snap polls show that, clearly.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I don’t know who won the debate.My take is that Trump took the advice that he should look like a nice guy instead of scaring people that in making is great omelet he would break too many or the wrong eggs.So, Trump played nice guy.Hillary was wide open to attack: Trump could easily have blasted her with close range broadsides with something like all 9 of the 18″ guns of the Yamato and blown her all the way to the Azores, over and over.But he wanted to play nice guy.
http://blog.dilbert.com/pos… For a different perspective. Interesting to me-I thought Hillary mopped the floor with Donald. Yet, social media polls show him winning.
That’s an insane perspective. Hard to argue he won the election by doing what he did. Who knows exactly but my guess is that he hurt himself significantly in the eyes of the groups where he needs to win new voters.Any performance has to be really measured from the standpoint of swing voters in swing states. These are not non college educated males. More likely to be women, minority voters, and Republican leaning college graduates who are currently undecided.
Good job delivering the DNC talking points, Fred. (They must have been hot off the printing press?) While HRC was clearly more prepared and did a better job, she did not prove by any measure that Trump is “unfit”. (What does that even mean?) I thought he was pretty composed considering the biased questions and her personal attacks. His responses were disorganized at times, for sure.What is truly scary is how she can lie with such poise and professionalism. She is a professional liar – and it has been proven many times over in her emails. This should disqualify her immediately. But both Trump and Lester gave her a pass.To me “integrity” is more important than “temperament”. I can live with someone who gets emotional. I cannot live with someone who consistently lies and then covers up and then lies again.There are millions of American’s who don’t care if Trump is perfect in debates. They want to take back the country from career politicians. They want integrity – not temperament.
What is truly scary is how she can lie with such poise and professionalism.Agree. To borrow a phrase from Mark Suster, Hillary is a grin fucker. Someone who comes across one way and then will totally screw you or do what is in her best interest behind your back. Same as Bill Clinton. I mean seriously. Do you think that anyone gets to that point in life without being self serving and not a nice guy (or gal)? Even people who have a good public personality (like Warren Buffett) can and will do the nasty when it’s in their best interest.Every single thing out of her mouth is carefully considered and crafted in advance. It’s baked into her from being in politics so long.
“good job delivering the fox news talking points Dave. they must have been hot off the printing press.” that’s a dickhead comment which i am returning with a dickhead comment.this was a heartfelt post. from my most fundamental place. that you can’t see it and treat it as boilerplate is really upsetting to me.
I have read hundreds of your posts. This certainly did not come off to me as “heartfelt”. So for that I apologize.The entire media setup for this debate was to see if Hillary can prove Trump as “unfit” with “bad temperament.” And then, like clockwork, you post an almost exact replica of what every Liberal was concluding “Yes, see, bad temperament”. (As though there is any doubt about who you are going to support.) Even Fox was saying this. So for me it did not come across as thoughtful analysis. It did seem boilerplate.You are in a powerful position in many ways. What you say matters to a lot of people. And you routinely bash Trump and conservative principles – and go virtually unchallenged. You can launch a post – and leave us to slug it out in the comments. So you get to piss us off a LOT. But some of us feel just as passionate as you do in a different way. We don’t like being called racists, bigots, homophones, “crazy’ (etc) because we think differently. So don’t get too upset when the other side bites back. You put your ass on the line every day in AVC. Sometimes we just have to take a little nibble.
Fred is WAY too smart, rational, and analytical, with excellent judgment about people — he’s proven that, if only on his way to the bank but also at AVC. So, I’m looking for the real reason he is so eager to support someone likely guilty of bribery in office (UBS, Ericsson, Russia uranium deal), has massive violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act, lied to the FBI, to Congress under oath, to the voters, to rip off the poor people in Haiti after the earthquake, to lie to the families of those who died in Benghazi, etc. There HAS to be a reason.My guess: It’s an NYC thing, especially a southern Manhattan thing for business and social connections.It is based on a fact: That part of NYC is totally, 100% committed, died in the wool, locked in to the Democrats. That situation goes way back to some of the immigration to NYC 100+ years ago. The NYT is long part of it. It won’t change easily. Not my idea — I don’t know much about NYC. This was explained to me, in detail, by a friend who knows a LOT about NYC, the immigration, the NYT, etc.Certainly the Republican party of W, Romney, !Jeb, Cruz, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Reagan, the far right wing, with pure, rock ribbed, conservative principles, etc. won’t change it — and no wonder. Heck even I might take Hillary over that part of the Republican party — with a Republican Congress and Hillary, there would be big deadlocks.With Hillary, there would be some big dangers: (A) While often we can get by for a long time without a real POTUS, as Nixon and Obama have solidly proven, if there is a crisis, e.g., the Cuban missile crisis, we might actually need a POTUS, and with Hillary we’d be in deep, smelly, brown, sticky stuff. (B) The economy might get a bad case of the flu, from Hillary’s nonsense or something else, and again we’d be in trouble. (C) Hillary will mess up the SCOTUS for decades, maybe enough to create a violent revolution in the streets and a huge Constitutional crisis.You see, Hillary is wildly incompetent — she is unable to think at all effectively about anything real or important. All she has are her emotions, basically the same ones she had as a college sophomore. In public, Hillary puts on acts, and otherwise she has no control of her emotions. Hillary is seriously psychopathic with nearly all the expected consequences.But, if we don’t need a POTUS and Hillary never did anything, that would be better than any of the right wing Republicans WITH a Republican Congress.It’s a bad situation — the US is awash in people who are quite good, and, thus, light years ahead of Hillary.In wildly strong contrast, Trump will be from fine up to terrific, just what we need now, and a good shot at the best POTUS since Ike, FDR, …, Lincoln. Why? Trump has good plans and policies, is strong, determined, smart, sincere, an excellent manager and leader, and darned capable. And he can’t be bought.I have to believe that Fred sees all of this about Trump and all the dirt about Hillary but, still is going with the Democrats.I’m a NYS registered Democrat, and as inhttp://avc.com/2016/09/temp…Hillary is evil and Trump is terrific.It’s a free country, and Fred can write and vote as he wishes for any reasons or no reasons.But the rest of us can try to guess the reasons.
Certainly most of my friends who grew up in NYC are pretty much lifelong Democrats. Same with San Francisco. I certainly have no clue. (and i have a bunch on both coasts)The Democrat party is also heavily linked to “big finance” – which is also an integral part of NYC, and “big media” with is part of NYC. Unfortunately, I am part of neither. I get to live momentarily in the orb of the blog comment section of others.
>>To me “integrity” is more important than “temperament”. Really? Every factchecker has concluded that Trump lied atleast 4-5 times more than Hillary. I am no fan of Hillary. But Trump is on both side of every issue. On Iraq war literally hundreds of fact checker have looked at it and concluded that Trump supported Iraq war from beginning. When asked he either deflects and created new controversy or lies upfront.
So I’ll try to be more specific: HRC has been caught lying on matters of national security, and of abusing her office for personal gain. These are no “he said, she said” political gotchas. These are criminal acts.The “factchecker” business is completely bogus. (They are run by Liberals and they concluded that Obama was the most honest President in history.) Nobody cares about Iraq or Miss Universe. These are distractions from the real issues – which is what HRC has to do or lose badly. People care about jobs and national security. Her strategy is clear: Try to attack him personally because she has no winning policy stance on anything.
>> HRC has been caught lying on matters of national security, and of abusing her office for personal gainEvery ex-Republican had done the same. Ask Colin Powell, Bush Jr and Sr.>>The “factchecker” business is completely bogus.I am no fan of HRC. I was fan of Ron Paul in last election and was Ted Cruz fan this election. So I get when you are saying liberal talking points. But problem with Trump supports is they dont believe in FBI, they dont believe in Media, they dont believe in fact checkers, they dont believe in Judges and court, they dont believe in IRS, they dont believe in election, they dont believe in releasing tax returns, they dont believe in pope, they dont believe in debates, they dont believe in opinion polls (list goes on and on…) unless they PRAISE TRUMP OR FAVOURS TRUMP. Fantasy of trump supporter that he will fix the rigged system is like saying that if Al-Qaeda leader if name US army chief will fix the terrorism in world. Its unfortunate that there is no viable option apart from HRC. Stakes are too high in this election. If Trump is elected he will blow up world with necular code if some country dont praise him. Trump is American version of Kim Jong Un.
I was a Cruz guy myself. So I get it that Trump is not nearly the perfect candidate. He frustrates the hell out of me. But if you liked Cruz, you have to realize the HRC is essentially another Obama term? I challenge you to skip all of the media-generated hype about him being “crazy”. (He cannot order a strike on his own) Please try to focus in the issues. If we don’t create jobs and secure our borders – we are screwed. With Trump there is a chance. With HRC there is none. I think it is that simple.
I agree, Fred. I’m with her, too. 100%.
Fred, thank you for pushing CS to be part of our kids education, but far more importantly we need to add Critical Thinking and its subset of logic.I spent hours last night perusing the Web trying to understand how anyone thought Trump did well last night. The best explanation was the Daily Show’s piece talking with Trump supporters at a Trump rally. The brutal truth is that a large number of Americans never learned how to reason. “That makes me smart” is all the evidence they need that the man is smart. “You’re wrong” is all they need to believe everything Hillary says is a lie.When our grandkids get an education that goes beyond the 19th century 3R’s we have today, we’ll stop seeing bafoons thinking they have a chance to run for office.
And of course Hillary lost the 33k emails on purpose. She saw what happened to Nixon and the tapes. Better to be thought a fool then to open up your mouth and remove all doubt.
.Temperament is one of those bullshit characteristics one throws into the debate after having exhausted — or being unwilling to explore — the important ones — integrity, results, ability to actually get things done, character.What America needs right now is a leader who can change the trajectory of what even HRC acknowledges is a flawed pathway into the future. She has risen from her seat at the head table and taken a seat in the audience while singing the hymn of “change.”She was one of the authors of the status quo she decries,The person who is able to do that — actually make changes — is unlikely to win Miss Congeniality. He is likely to be a demanding bastard who clearly sees the problem (which requires one to not be part of the problem or the cause of the problem), gets angry about the problem, and is willing to forego their own personal considerations to solve the problem (perhaps sacrificing his future in the resolution of the problem).Temperament is a fop one throws out to disguise the issues of results. Getting results trumps all other considerations. Take as an example the Middle East — can anyone imagine a worse outcome than what has transpired?The Iranians — the largest funders of terror including Hamas and Hezbollah — are on their way to a nuclear weapon with purse stuffed full with American supplied Euros and Swiss Francs.The Russians have become the dominant player after US diplomacy had sent them to the ash heap of history post-1973 Yom Kippur War when their client states (Egypt and Syria) were bested by the American client state, Israel.Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Turkey — all in chaos. Jordan in an unenviable position. The Kurds — the only real fighters in the region — having to fight Turkey, Iran, Iraq while also fighting ISIS.ISIS now active in more than three continents and has military operations underway in Iraq and Syria while having operational cells in more than 30 countries while exporting terror to the US, Europe, and Asia on a routine basis.This threat is the result of the failure to obtain a SOFA (status of forces agreement) in Iraq which created the void and witches cauldron from which it was spawned.The Saudis don’t trust us which puts them on the same side of the bedcovers as the Israelis.This was all created by a man and a woman — you may guess to whom I refer — who, apparently, have a great temperament,So, count me amongst the folks who value results, character, integrity ahead of the bogus, talking point, focus grouped issue of “temperament.”Most people, literally, cannot spell the word. At this stage of the game, the issue of temperament is tantamount to licking the box the chocolates came in.I will focus on the results while y’all focus on temperament.If you will indulge me one of my tiresome military fables:I always found the most effective leaders — as measured by the resultant body count — were the bastards. The guys who injected their anger into a situation to right it. The common trait amongst MOH winners is their ability to get mad and channel that anger into action.Right now, America desperately needs a bastard to right some things — in both parties, mind you — which are not going to be righted by a member of the club.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
sounds like you should run for president. you have all of those qualities in spades.
.High compliment considering the source. Maybe we run together?You be President in the even years and I’m VP.I’m President in the odd years and you’re VP.Best of wishes to all of us.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I would root for you both.”Albert Weissmann” is a fictional character in a parallel universe, of course.
.Haha, that’s funny! It being an even year, Fred is the appropriate President. I will swing a Cabinet position for you, friend.Tell Fred to get a pocket square. A gentleman is not dressed without a bit of linen in his pocket.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
That would be a sign for the campaign. Campaign even, first year odd. You will be first. Hmm.. have to remake the signs.Would you reverse what he made in his years or re-redecorate the White House? I guess not, in your years you will be out in the field enjoying being the Commander in Chief. 🙂
.Actually Fred and I would get along just fine. It is the Congress which has to pass the laws.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I know you would.You are both in the dream Board of Directors of the company of my dreams.
It was very difficult watching those two old ladies bicker…
I wish it was easy as saying this candidate has a bad temperament so obviously we should vote for the one with the better temperament.
Fred wants someone like Bloomberg but with a little more excitement and panache.Honestly this is really getting back to old school business. Kind of brings a tear to my eye. I was getting sick of all of the joking and goofiness that goes on in the startup world and lack of paying (outwardly anyway) serious attention to business that I was brought up with. Annual reports with white men, gray hair who seemed in control (until they weren’t). Never any joking silliness meant death.Remembering of course that the guy who sailed the Titanic probably had exactly the right temperament and was well trusted until he fell asleep at the switch. (Ditto for those who put him in charge). Or so many other white men in the past with gray beards.
I wonder how Hillary’s kidneys are doing? I wonder if Trump was wearing depens? Hillary drank no water (and we know she should have). Trump constantly sipped water (where did all of it go?). His prostate must be world class.  For Kristen so I can show that I have lightened up.
Wonder if Jeb, Mitt and even Biden had a sleepless night. Still scratching their heads on how it all went south for them. (Sans JB and his personal tragedy, of course.)
CONTRIBUTORS:Astonished the Alt-Right and main stream Conservatives attempt to defend the indefensible by the usual attack attack deflect and attack. It must be apparent to them down goes Frazier down goes Frazier.http://youtu.be/DVETXpz3k4g
Not entirely unrelated but how strange is this image? and what does it say about politics and technology these days… https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Awesome photo1) The age of the self-ish?2) Who is the media?3) We are as important as them.4) Hillary appears taller than she really is.stamina-stamina-stamina
I LOVE this image. She obviously encouraged everyone to take a selfie.
Not really.. This one is a blonde’s fetish. When one blonde turned around for a selfie, all other blondes out there did the same, regardless of whether Hill appears in the selfie or not.
Good picture! From the picture, it looks to me like suddenly she just suffered a massive Depends failure, through all three layers, and everyone was running to get away from the stench and the flood!
.Well played. One of the funniest pics I have ever seen.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
=== 1.0 IntroductionOn Trump, I’ve tried to be relatively well informed and have found a lot of spectacularly good things and no serious evidence of anything significantly wrong on anything significant having to do with his being POTUS.To me Trump looks totally sincere, with much needed plans and policies, very capable and determined, a good manager and a good leader.In summary, my view is that Trump is well on his way to being the best POTUS since Ike, FDR, …, Lincoln. The US is very lucky to have him running.On Hillary, I’ve collected several points that seem to rule out Hillary for any public office including sidewalk sweeper — literally.Net, Hillary looks like a grand disaster, by a wide margin the worst candidate for POTUS in US history, so bad she makes the worst of Nixon look like a choir boy, totally unqualified for any public office, even sidewall sweeper (she would likely find a way to cheat). She has horribly bad temperament, judgment, and health and is nasty, some wicked witch, a flagrant liar with zero credibility on anything she says, cruel and heartless, irrationally compulsively selfishly ambitious, totally contemptuous of the voters, a serious crook, a grand insult to women, a horrible example for young women, a humiliating embarrassment to the US around the world, a grand US national security disaster, and a serious clinical psychology case.I will cover some of the Hillary points next:=== 2.0 Hillary2.1 TemperamentSince the thread today is heavily about temperament, I will start with points about Hillary’s:There is a lot of first-hand information about Hillary’s temperament in the book:Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate, Gary J. Byrne, June 28, 2016.From that account, out of the public eye but still in front of her staff, etc., Hillary commonly screams and throws things, hates and insults anyone in a uniform, etc.There is much more evidence that Hillary has a really awful temperament, really is a some Wicked Witch of the East, a She-Devil.=== 2.1 ActressIMHO, Hillary is a good actress, at times maybe a great actress. E.g., in public she is really good at using smiles and tone of voice.Just by acting and without substance, she can have a presentation of herself (as in I. Goffman) of some Angel of compassion, sympathy, empathy, and charity.=== 2.2 LiarHillary lies, a lot, way too much.For example, from July 7th, 2016, athttps://www.c-span.org/vide…isHouse Oversight and Government Reform CommitteeFBI Director James Comey and the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation by the FBIwith video and transcript.The video starts with Committee Chair, Representative Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and soon has Chaffetz statement:IT SEEMS TO A LOT OF US THAT THE AVERAGE JOE, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, THAT IF THEY HAD DONE WHAT YOU LAID OUT IN YOUR STATEMENT, THAT THEY’D BE IN HANDCUFFS AND THEY MIGHT BE ON THEIR WAY TO JAIL AND THEY PROBABLY SHOULD. Later Representative Trey Gowdy of that committee questions Director Comey and had FBI Director Comey confirm each of a list of lies by Hillary; the video is athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…The strong evidence is that Hillary uses her acting ability to be an effortless, habitual, flagrant, shameless, guiltless liar on small things to large ones.For some of the large things, she lied to (A) the families of the US citizens killed in Benghazi, (B) to Congress about her e-mail, (C) to the FBI about her e-mail, (D) to the public about her e-mail, and much, much more.Hillary lies so much that she has no credibility at all on anything. In particular, all of her statements about what she would try to do as POTUS have to be just thrown away as meaningless.=== 2.3 ArticulateHillary is articulate, has good facility with the English language. I can believe that her Verbal SAT scores were well over 600 and that in college she did well writing term papers in humanities subjects and speaking about various vague issues in front of other students.She is good at saying things. Having something important to say is different; from my reading of her record of public statements, she has next to nothing of importance to say. Believing anything she says is very different; she is such a flagrant liar that really there is nothing important she can say about anything.=== 2.4 NastyHillary is nasty, a really nasty person. The Byrne book is one good source of evidence.An outrageous example of nasty Hillary, even cruel and cold-hearted, is when on the ramp of the airport next to the coffins from Benghazi she told the families that the cause was “that awful video” when the e-mail record shows that she knew the cause was (at least first-cut, although there may be more to it, e.g., covering up some unsuccessful gun running) a 9/11 anniversary terrorist attack.Later when some of the family members objected to the nasty lie, Hillary gave another nasty lie.Another good source on nasty Hillary ishttps://www.youtube.com/wat…where Hillary is laughing at how she used a technicality to win a legal case for a man who had violently raped a 12 year old girl, raped her so violently that she had internal stitches and was rendered never to be able to have children. That girl, now a woman, is still alive and was seriously hurt for life by that rape. And Hillary’s reaction was to laugh.For more, as ofSeptember 9th, 2016athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…there is nasty Hillary’s:“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”That’s really nasty: Since there are about 50 million US citizens supporting Trump, nasty Hillary is claiming that about 25 million US citizens are her “deplorables”. That’s REALLY nasty.Also nasty Hillary gave no evidence; one big reason is, there is no such evidence.Moreover, nasty Hillary’s claim is wildly false.For more on nasty Hillary going back 30+ years, see the old movie ‘Hillary Clinton Exposed’ athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…has much more.Hillary long has been and is one very nasty person.=== 2.5 Crooked Hillary=== 2.5.1 Crooked HillaryFor crooked Hillary, we have as US Secretary of State she did favors for money given to Bill or their so called foundation. As in the movie Clinton Cash athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…those favors were for Ericsson, UBS, and others. Since the favors were paid for, they were bribes. Mayor Giuliani has said that he would LOVE to prosecute Hillary for the UBS favor.For example, in more detail for the UBS event, athttp://thehill.com/blogs/co…is in part:In March 2009, after meeting with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intervened with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of Switzerland’s most powerful banking institution, UBS. The IRS, which at that time was seeking the identity of wealthy Americans who had stashed some $20 billion in 52,000 tax evading UBS accounts, then agreed that the Swiss bank need only turn over information on 4,450 accounts. Afterwards, UBS increased its previous $60,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation ten-fold. By the end of 2014, UBS donations to the Clinton Foundation totaled $600,000. UBS also “paid former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House. So, Bill and Secretary of State Hillary worked together to do favors for money; Hillary delivered the favors and Bill collected the money personally and/or for Clinton foundation. That is bribery.So Bill and Hillary are guilty of bribery.In addition Mayor Giuliani has stated that Bill and Hillary are guilty of violations of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO. Giuliani brought a lot of successful RICO cases and is an expert on RICO.Crooked Hillary recently stated that there was no conflict of interest with her foundation. Well likely there was no conflict of interest with her cookie recipe, either.But there definitely was a HUGE conflict of interest for her as US Secretary of State: The conflict was, day by day, should she (A) do her job for the US or (B) do favors that hurt the US to get money for Bill and their foundation’? Well, as in the movie Clinton Cash’ and more evidence since then, in that conflict she often did (B), ripped off the US for money.So, as Hillary claimed that there was no conflict of interest with her foundation, again she was trying to fool people with tricky wording.=== 2.5.1 Crooked HillaryIIRC, Hillary received a subpoena from Congress for all her e-mail data. After receiving the subpoena, she deleted a lot of her e-mail data. IIRC, such behavior is destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.While IANAL, athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wi…there is about the crime of obstruction of justiceObstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters, destroys, or conceals physical evidence, IANAL, but that Web page does mention felony.=== 2.5.1 SummaryI looks like Hillary is vulnerable to some serious criminal charges, a court case, conviction, and jail time.=== 2.6 National Security Disaster Hillary=== 2.6.1 Home-brew E-MailAs in the presentation by FBI directory Comey on security disaster Hillary’s e-mail usage at,http://www.c-span.org/video…security disaster Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling US classified information. What does this mean? There is a lot of discussion athttp://mediamatters.org/res…with Kimberly Guilfoyle and Mayor Rudy Giuliani covering a lot of details.Basically, in a law dictionary, “extremely careless” is the first example of “gross negligence”, and that is the sole, sufficient criterion for violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act as athttps://www.law.cornell.edu…So, security disaster Hillary is guilty of massive violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act.=== 2.6.2 Blackberry UsageApparently security disaster Hillary liked to use a Blackberry to use e-mail, was told not to use a wireless device inside the State Department building, so to use her e-mail routinely walked to a balcony open to the outside.Well from the debate last night, Hillary claims interest in computer security. And IIRC she did have lots of lectures on not using a Blackberry in a foreign country.IIRC, a Blackberry is a wireless device that does not encrypt its communications.So, easily, each time Hillary was on the balcony using her Blackberry to use her e-mail, any hacker with a suitable wireless receiver got the domain name of her home-brew e-mail server, her login user ID, her login password, and the e-mail messages she sent or received.Then the hacker from anywhere on the Internet knowing Hillary’s e-mail server domain name, her login user ID, and her login password, logged in as Hillary and downloaded ALL of Hillary’s e-mail.Some of the e-mail contained US national security information classified as NSA Special Access Program much higher than Top Secret.No doubt China, Russia, Iran, etc. got it all, everything Hillary later deleted, etc.So, in her use of her Blackberry, US Hillary was a grand, US national security disaster, a computer security newby fool, and worse.=== 2.6.3 National Security SummaryAgain, I looks like Hillary is vulnerable to some serious criminal charges, e.g., violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act, a court case, conviction, and jail time.As a result of the FBI’s findings of “extremely careless”, there is no way Hillary could ever pass an FBI background check for handling classified information.E.g., Hillary could be subject to blackmail from US enemies.So, there is no way Hillary could be permitted to be US Commander in Chief. So, there is no way Hillary should be POTUS.=== 2.7 Prosecution or ImpeachmentIt appears that even if Hillary was elected POTUS now, during her term in office she would be at serious risk of being driven from office by impeachment by Congress or conviction via a special prosecutor. What Hillary has done is much, Much, MUCH, MUCH worse than what drove Nixon from office.=== 3.0 TrumpTo me, Trump looks terrific:Some of where his plans and policies look good include, enforcing long standing US laws and procedures on immigration, stopping illegal immigration from Mexico, stopping immigration from countries with a lot of influence from radical Islamic terrorism, getting on with legal immigration with “extreme vetting” of people who will love the US, adopt US norms and values, assimilate, be able to do well in the US and not be a welfare burdens, be able to contribute to the US, growing the US economy, keeping US companies and jobs in the US, bringing back companies and jobs that left the US, otherwise growing US companies and jobs, e.g., encouraging the trillions of dollars of earnings of US companies to return to the US, getting jobs, reconstruction, medical care, eduction, and policing in the blighted central cities, rebuilding US infrastructure, unleashing US energy development, everything that can work, getting US steel going again, renegotiating trade deals, enforcing trade deals, reversing bad regulations that are slowing, stopping, or shrinking US economic growth (such regulations look like opportunities for Hillary and Bill to do shakedown scams), tax proposals to get the US economy going again (much as Walter Heller did for JFK and what Reagan did), getting a lot of the 95 million US citizens back to work, getting enough economic growth and associated Federal revenue to pay for his various spending plans and paying off the national debt (in his NYC economic speech, he claimed that the “math works”, and IIRC he just published an economic plan — sorry, I don’t have the URL yet), fixing the VA, rebuilding the US military, rebuilding our relationships with our allies, getting our allies to pay what they agreed to pay for our part of their defense, getting China to get North Korea to behave, renegotiating NAFTA, generally having trade deals one to one instead of big packages like the TPP, generally going slow on the current EU fad of globalism, and much more.While I’ve tried to be well informed on Trump, so far I have seen no solid evidence of anything at all seriously wrong with Trump on anything at all serious and at all relevant to his being POTUS.I believe that the US is very, very lucky to have Trump running.=== 4.0 Huge ManipulationOften in life, we need some balanced judgment. Part of this is seeing the difference between gnats and elephants.On the one hand, for Trump, at times he talks much like he would with workers on a construction site.On the other hand, for Hillary, due to some very serious crimes, she belongs in court and, then, likely jail.So, a pro-Hillary manipulation is to point to some of Trump’s construction worker communications style, note that in public good actress and articulate Hillary can be more polished, and then to talk people into ignoring the HUGE problems with Hillary to keep any hint of Trump’s style out of the White House.So, this pro-Hillary manipulation looks like an effort to condemn a gnat, even a largely imaginary one, in order to have people accept the huge problems of a rogue elephant.It looks like Hillary wants to ride into the White House based on (A) some acting with a lot of tactical smiling, (B) some articulate but meaningless words, (C) a lot of totally unjustified accusations, especially racist and sexist, (D) being the first female POTUS, (E) a very expensive negative ad campaign, (F) lying whenever convenient assuming that lies will never hurt her, (G) the liberal media totally in the tank for the Democrats and Hillary, (H) influence from special interests that want to buy favors that Hillary is very willing to sell, (I) a strong assumption that voters will quickly forget whatever bad Hillary does, and (J) whatever is left of the Democrat machine.E.g., this whole topic of temperament is at best next to trivial, vague, ill-defined, with less substance and relevance than fashion frock styles for teen girls, with no real criteria, with no more rational and solid support than warm jello, essentially just a cooked up, manipulative diversion to avoid considering huge, rock solid points of reality.The suspicion has to be strong that this focus on temperament is to cover up real reasons in a hidden agenda.Maybe political correctness, maybe a brilliant sabotage by some very bright Russian of US society, has the US totally terrified of any hint or charge of racism or sexism, so terrified they are willing to accept as POTUS someone in very strong violation of section (f) of the US Espionage Act, guilty of bribery in high office, lying to the voters, Congress, and the FBI, nasty, very sick, generally incompetent, a clinical psychology basket case, etc.
.The quick snap poll numbers are in and they show that Trump was a disaster:CNN T – 27% C – 62% << an old fashioned barbed wire enema?NBC/WSJ T – 40% C – 45% <<< pretty close?Wait, there are some others, let’s see, shall we.Time T – 58% C – 42%Fortune T – 51% C – 49%CNBC T – 51% C – 49%Variety T – 52% C – 49% <<< shockingSlate T – 54% C – 46% <<< shockingNews 2 T – 63% C – 37% <<< NashvilleCNPO T – 60% C – 35% <<< Cincinnati, OHIOStar Trib T – 64% C – 30% <<< JerseyNJ.com T – 54% C – 42%SD Union T – 66% C – 34% << CaliforniaLV Sun T – 81% C – 19% <<< Las VegasCBS NY T – 24,000 C – 18,000FOX 5 NY T – 61% C – 34%And, then, there are:Drudge T – 82% C – 18%Breitbart T – 76% C – 24%OK. so maybe I was a little hasty. I don’t consider any of these polls to be very scientific but they are a fabulous measure of enthusiasm and the wisdom of the crowd. The crowd is going to be at the polling places.What do you think? Cause, apparently, HRC didn’t skin the old boy after all.JLMwww.themusingofthebigredcar…
I noticed this just after the debate yesterday, in Twitter and online the perception was some T 60% – C 40%. I was and am puzzled. Most people don’t see what you and I and almost everybody in this bar saw. What side of the Dunning-Kruger effect are we?Don’t be disenchanted yet, you still can have the mad king living in the castle. 🙂
.The MSM and the cable talking heads tried to cast the debate to their own biases.Apparently, the little people and the deplorables didn’t get the memo.This is EXACTLY what happened in 2014. Everybody got it wrong but the voters.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
JLM:we are not going to even try and win an Emmy or Oscar attempting to present a unbiased opinion on Trump’s peddling. And you don’t need to defend all what Trump presents you believe and embrace. We do understand the motivation with the educated deplorables that see the woods beyond the Forrest with the only chance to appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices that continue the Citizens United type decisions.The Democrats are mooted and not a vocal group in what they stay they believe in. The Republicans are loudly saying what they are against with no policy or governing to support it. The last eight years of obstruction. The only high profile legislation is the 911 bill allowing surviving families of the tragedy to sue a soveign country against international law and treaties.We realize the two party system is working for the two parties to fund raise. No solutions to the problems of everyday working people. A third party would most likely add to the mess. (The example of other countries relying on coalitions to govern. A mess)#Twopartysystemsucksbutisallwehave#UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent
We elected little W because Bush 41 was from not so bad up to good enough to tell Powell and Schwarzkopf just to win the damn war. Next we elected a Democrat because silly, weak, little W messed up Gulf War II, Akrapistan, and the housing market. Then with raging political correctness, we got an affirmative action POTUS who, IMHO, actually hates nearly everything about the US except the golf courses and Air Force One. We knew a lot about Obama — no way was it rational to elect him. Now with Hillary, the PC MSM want an affirmative action woman POTUS, no matter how bad she is.Thankfully Trump came along. He sees the problems, too. And it’s his country, too.
One of the things I saw was people thought on twitter he was a successful debater because of his tactics, but that they also thought it was a play to specific audiences/voters.”winning in a bad way”/keynesian beautiful baby effect.And I wonder how much the polling results are displaying that.
Can’t avoid the image of a group of dodos walking in line and straight into a cliff. But well, the same as the British did the next day after Brexit, it is a new day and life continues as usual, just a bit more f…..d up.
The online and instant polls are self selected samples and likely to be grossly wrong. For a poll to have any chance of reflecting the broader electorate, it has to be a random sample, and the weighting / distribution has to be be in line with likely voter demographic distribution (for example, 65% white / 13% black / 13% hispanic, 52% female / 48% male, etc.). Which is why it is far better to trust a real poll where you know there are real people, and the sample has been randomly selected and the distribution / weighting is deliberately managed in line with the likely general electorate.
.Of course, you are absolutely correct. Having said that, they are a fair measure of enthusiasm and they were right on the money in the Republican primary.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
I owe you a sack of Skittles. I need a US mailing address!
Of course yo do. *laughs*Will add a temporary link when you notify me
2 thoughts.1) I wonder how closely “winning the debate” correlates to “winning a vote”.2) I would like to see any numbers on folks who will be changing their vote after the debate.
http://www.dailydot.com/lay…I wouldn’t trust them at all, apparently there was a coordinated effort to stack the polls
Hi, the real question is did he make progress with the audiences he needs to make progress with. That is college educated conservative Republicans, women, blacks and Hispanics. I think not and in fact believe he retrogressed. But we will see.
.If DJT is leading in Ohio/Florida/North Carolina — how much better does he need to do?In much of what DJT does from here on out, he just needs to keep feeding the beast.Pennsylvania in play? Game over. Virginia? Very real possibility,Colorado/Nevada all looking good.DJT needs to stay on course. Maintain the momentum.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
JLM, people want change and they are definitely giving him a look. Which is why the polls are tightening, but the undecideds are also very fluid and all swing states are pretty much up for grabs for both candidates.The fundamentals of the race favor an insurgent candidate. That is why he is doing well. But his personal favorability is so bad and he is so undisciplined that instead of capitalizing on the conducive environment for a change candidate, he is stepping on his own progress. He is his biggest enemy.
Yes, but I want Trump to run the table, 8 ball two rails in the corner pocket — PLOP.
> conservative RepublicansNow, if not Trump, just who are they going to vote for? Oh, I have the list — Superman, Batman, Captain America, or John Wayne. Because Trump is not !Jeb they want Hillary? They are not that stupid!
Terrific! Apparently the advice Trump followed worked really well!
Splitting into two comments, one about Clinton v Trump as itself, and one about some outside issues(Outside issues)1) I’m currently super proud of everyone here that we’re talking nicely about what is a super-contentious debate. Y’all deserve all the likes/bonus points. (please keep it that way)2) Looking back after sleep and thinking, one of the wierd winners of the debateWorking Families Party (totally a northeast thing)https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…a lot of their platform/issues were featured in the debate, and appear to be featured in outside policy discussions by the candidates.That’s surprising, and I’m wondering if they are going to go national as a not libertarian, not green party and work their way up into fielding a president
CONTRIBUTORS:The most retweeted tweet. (Can’t believe we are citing a Twitter entry) One of many of Trump lies. And they will still make excuses, deflect, attack and deny his is a lying huckster.http://venturebeat.com/2016… https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Comment 2That debate was a disaster due to temperament and how to respond. it wasn’t a debate, it was a trainwreck. I have never seen a candidate heckle another one during the debate before this. it is as if the debate was about who has respect for the office and for government vs notI don’t see this as a “Trump Temperament” issue. I also don’t see this as a “Trump as change candidate” issue. The heckling framed this as “do we like how our government functions, not because of politics, but because of poli-sci/philosophical choices about what a government should look like in general, as a 2 party republican democracy with a congress and a president and a judiciary”That disturbed me to watch, because it makes me feel that voting in this election is voting if I like the constitution – and I don’t want to vote in an election like that. is that where we are as a country
There is no doubt a certain elegance that goes along with being the commander-in-chief…. however, if you asked me to choose between being elegant & looking the part as opposed to simply ‘getting things done’…. I’ll take the latter every time… she’s been in public office for 30 yrs…. hasn’t moved the needle….. let’s give a guy with a record of ‘getting things done’ a chance…. I have a sneaking suspicion that if he makes significant improvement to our country this ‘temperament’ stuff will be moot….
Listening to Trump is like listening to the Beatles “Revolution #9”. It’s a perpetual sound loop with often the same words, phrases and thoughts repeated continually, and, sadly, often in the same sentence.No amount of media training, prep, etc., is gonna change Trump’s delivery in debates 2 & 3. He excels with TWTR and in the early GOP debates cause he wasn’t asked to carry a heavy load. A short, staccato delivery layered w/ a sound bite or two sufficed. A few details is all he can handle. Later on his team pushed him to use a teleprompter when it was obvious he lacked the skills to deliver a well crafted, well spoken narrative w/ out it. It frankly made him look weak cause he was a poor reader. Lacking in basic communication skills is not a good quality for a Commander in Chief, second perhaps to his unwillingness (or inability) to immerse himself in details.
The only statement I disagree with is “He’s a successful entrepreneur and businessman”. No successful entrepreneur and/or businessman files for bankruptcy 6 times or starts a business with $14 million from his daddy in seed capital with no real commitments. You got to be a pretty big moron not to scale a company if you start with $14 million at time zero. It is scary DJT got that far, really scary….
Val Tsanev:can understand the educated Republicans realizing the only way they can gain Supreme Court Justices is by hitching to Trump road to no where train or not being able to stomach the policies of HRC at any cost. But to actually think he is Presidential or competent adds to ones personal incompetence.Only thought is do supporters of Trump really think that way. Gheez.
.Trump companies which filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) are as follows:Trump Taj Mahal Associates, Atlantic City casino — 1991Trump Castle Hotel & Casino, Atlantic City casino — 1992Trump Plaza Associates, Atlantic City casino — 1992Plaza Operating Partners, Manhattan hotel — 1992Trump Casino Holdings, Atlantic City casinos — 2004Trump Entertainment Resorts, Atlantic City casinos — 2009Five of these actions — again, reorganizations — were related to Atlantic City casinos. The hotel deal was reorganized with everyone being paid 100 cents on a dollar.Trump made some bad bets in the casino biz. He had his three top casino execs get killed in a helicopter crash.It is not that big a deal for a guy with over 500 operating entities,JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Out of these 500 operating entities probably 480 are just “phantom” LLC and companies losing money Trump Vodka (nobody drinks that), Trump Stakes (are you kidding me?) Trump Whatever IS NOT PROFITABLE. After this presidential fiasco his name will not only be worth nothing but people will pay to NOT be associated with him. He is a complete disaster, failure and a con artist.
.Val, come on, the guy has been a real estate developer for a long, long, long time.He owns directly or an interest in a huge number of properties, hotels, and golf courses.Hate on the guy, to be sure, but get the facts close to right. Rant on.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
JLMI have been running a real estate startup for 2.5 years and I am intimately familiar with real estate development and actual developers here in NYC. Trust me when I tell you there are a ton of real estate developers who are much more successful than DJT, he is just an amazing marketer and makes you and everyone else believe that he is extremely successful, he is not. Many of these golf courses, hotels and properties he does not even own or has built, there are just licensing deals for his name. Not to mention that it is all debt, all real estate developers operate at 95-97% debt leverage but the average American does not know all these facts and they think that DJT is extremely accomplished developer, he is average at best. You want a name of a successful real estate developer check Stephen Ross, this guy is the real deal, not DJT. One great quality that DJT has is a sense of where the next real estate boom is going to be from a neighborhood standpoint and he is an amazing marketer, these two qualities have gotten him to where he is today but he is nothing to admire and try to replicate. You should watch on YouTube Warren BuffetT’s view on DJT and see what I mean. Warren Buffett analyzed what yield his businesses have returned over the years and the % is catastrophic, if a monkey had picked stocks in 1976 or whenever he started his business that monkey would have done much better from rate of return standpoint, which is the only thing that matters in business.
.Val, not to get ugly on an ape with you but you’re running a residential real estate company — WTF would you know about the commercial real estate business in NYC?I was building high rises before you were born and have deployed more than a billion $$$ of capital of all forms. I went to school with one of DJT’s former CFOs.DJT is a brand and his brand, even by your admission, is alive and well. If you looked at publicly available information, you would learn that DJT owns interests in a ton of landmark properties.As a real estate developer doing business with some of the largest pension funds and financial services in the country, my company often owned only 50% of any given property having raised the equity from an outside entity.I often elected to own 25% in return for a 4% developer fee, 4% annual property management fee, no equity from me, 100% of the funding at a P – 1% fixed rate, and non-recourse financing.That is the way the game is played and your comment demonstrates your naivete.This isn’t residential real estate, Val.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
JLMGreat points and you are absolutely right you clearly know more than I do. You seem to be running your business the right way but I still believe most developers do not follow your approach. I guess you are a supporter of Trump and that is totally fine, I am not and never will be. Whether he is a good real estate developer or not in my mind is almost an irrelevant point and has nothing to do with what he is trying to do now which is run for President. The first debate made it clear that he is not fit to be President, The whole argument that his skills as a successful developer are transferrable to the White House is laughable and you seem to be a smart guy I hope you would agree with that. The fact remains that his shareholders, investors and employees over the years have gotten about $0.10 cents on the $1 and no matter how you look at that, it is not a successful business enterprise. You are right I don’t anything about commercial real estate but I do know a few things about rate of return having spent 10 years on Wall Street and forget me just listen to Warren Buffett, it is really tough to argue against the Oracle of Omaha.
.Who are his shareholders? Other than himself and his family?He may have some JV partners.I can’t imagine you or anyone else really knows what kind of returns he’s been able to generate. I was private and never published any info.As to your opinion as to his fitness to be President — Salut!We have different opinions but I respect yours even though we disagree. I cannot support a dishonest person like HRC, so for me it is very easy to vote for him by binary disqualification.Of course, his skills are transferable. No man is really qualified to be President but anyone’s skills — yours included — would be transferable to any new undertaking.I don’t know of any real estate expertise that Warren Buffet possesses. Do you? He is a die hard Dem.Good luck with your venture, Val. If I can help you, let me know.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Thanks JLM, I appreciate to see an intelligent supporter of Trump, most definitely not the norm. I respect your view as well.DJT took one of his casinos public so by definition he had a ton of shareholders and all of them essentially got screwed when he filed Chapter 11. Also you can’t be naive enough to think that in his 500+ companies and interests the only shareholders are his kids and himself, it is virtually impossible he is not that rich, he is not Bill Gates, he most definitely has other investors, shareholders, JV partners who are in the hundreds, he has to.Warren Buffett does not have real estate expertise and he never commented on that he commented on the business practices of DJT and the business acumen and I am sure you will not argue against the fact that the third richest person in the world and the most successful investor of all times has a better business acumen than DJT. Warren Buffett can buy and sell DJT 10x over and still have a few billion left. But you are right he is a Democrat and he will always support the Democratic party, although he is most definitely not political.I am getting out of real estate, my next venture will be in a whole different space.Good luck to you and I appreciate the intellectual and respectful exchange we had.
.As to ticker DJT which became TRMP through Ch 11, no question shareholders got screwed. That was a corporate entity and not personal. His entire foray into casinos was a disaster — all of Atlantic City has been a disaster.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
As I sit here 24 hours later, the following things are on my mind:- I need to turn off email during the day (hat tip to slack)- On one hand, I wish that I weren’t so invested in this, but on the other I am happy that I am- I didn’t have an appreciation for how much of a bottom to top climb HRC made in her life. She wasn’t born with a silver spoon in her mouth. DT has a gold plated penthouse and has never known anything different. If you vote for him, realize that he is doing this for one reason, to make more money for team Trump.- If someone came to me with the attitude that DT has as an entrepreneur, I wouldn’t invest one dollar in his business. And for the record, I don’t think there are any women with his attitude.- The most important realization of the debate for me is that “Twitter Live” is the best thing to happen to Twitter ever! But, they were up to 30 seconds behind the live event. They need to fix that somehow. If they sell, they will do so right in front of their greatest value creation event of their existence and that would be bad for the current shareholders. (FD: I am not one personally)
Thank you, Fred. This needed to be said.
The debate was disappointing, neither candidate communicated a vision for the future nor painted a clear path towards needed change. Comes down to your value system – decisions become much easier when you know your values. I care less about the debate competition, blow me away with real ideas and plans that improve our lives, increase our opportunities and secure our kids future. Not buying into the show and spin – I value solutions, that’s my end point.
CONTRIBUTORS:the tone of the Democrats is like listening to cricket’s. Meek, scared, tip towing when the Republicans disrespect their leaders. When a Democratic surrogate attacks in kind they ask her/him to apologize.Governing will be obstructed if your Democratic Candidate (HRC) wins the Presidency. We realize a vote for another party is a vote for returning to high inflation, high interest rates, high fuel prices, regression of the current record numbers on the equity markets and keeping money concentrated in the hands of a few.The only part of any underestimating we wouldn’t want to be on is when Obama is sending a drone. That is the only quiet but deadly end we would not underestimate.
Gee, we were talking about Hillary’s temperament.Well, this just in:http://www.breitbart.com/20…Net, likely by a wide margin, Hillary has one of the worst temperaments of anyone in high office in DC now, recently, and likely ever. She’s unstable — goes wacko over tiny things, especially misunderstandings. She screams. She wears out all the standard four letter words plus some. She throws things and hits people. She is really nasty to people for no good reason, especially anyone in a uniform. She is a total abusive terror to any and all subordinates. All or nearly all of these are from the URL above. From other sources, e.g., see Google search terms below, she gets into screaming matches with Bill.Hillary has a pattern in this campaign: She picks one of her serious faults and then accuses Trump of that fault.Here the example is temperament.Another example is abusing women — Trump doesn’t, but Hillary does, e.g., just any woman around and especially the women Bill attacked.In the debate, she said that Trump would need fact checking. Well, she is the one that was lying and needed fact checking, e.g., on the Miss Universe claim.Google searchBill Hillary elevator screamingshows lots more references of Hillary screaming.Outside of a psychiatric hospital, Hillary’s temperament is about as bad as it gets.Anyone who cares anything at all about the US should avoid voting for Hillary under any circumstances.
You are too good at these speeches.
That’s from when he was wandering around, trying to pass the time, and not say much. Why? Because he was trying just to be likable. He had gotten lots of advice that that was enough.The theory is that millions of people know that the US has made a mess since Gulf War II and that we need to do better, that Trump is strong, determined, capable, with good plans and policies, but they are afraid that in making his big omelet he would break too many or the wrong eggs.So, with this theory, the idea was that the voters already know he can make the big omelet but are only concerned, afraid, about the eggs.So, the next theory is that last night he should look like a really nice guy.Sure, he could have blasted Hillary into orbit around Jupiter, several times, but then he would look scary again, what the theory said he should not do.That’s my take.
absolutely, and it is a real shame the DNC was so rigged for hillary — and the electorate kept sleeping with the “hillary is the only candidate with a chance so i have to vote for her” logic.
Exactly. I side with you in this kosher beef.Actually don’t forget the Republicans and their love for Jeb (and the media) in thinking he was the right candidate. Somewhat scary when you think about how poorly he did.The media (and the power brokers) have a very limited way of looking at things.Things that they care about in no order:1. Family name2. Good looks3. Speaks well4. Name recognition.5. Rising star (some agression that reminds them of someone else).It’s kind of their version (sans the family name) of Silicon Valley going for the Zuckerberg clone (add Ivy college to that one of course).I mean seriously how big of a fuck up in this country do you have to be if you are a Kennedy and can’t get elected to public office?
It was tremendous!
Charlie, I don’t think he’s a lightweight at all. I think his poll numbers are remarkable. He has the highest voter support of any third party candidate in the last dozen elections. I think his success reflects a combination of his attractiveness as a candidate and the dissatisfaction voters have with the two party alternatives. If Johnson were provided a seat at the Presidential debates and garnered more national exposure, his poll numbers would be much higher and, I believe, would be a more viable contender to be President.
Charlie, you’re correct about Perot, so Johnson has the greatest support of third party candidates in 11 of the last dozen elections (maybe even more). Keep in mind a couple of things about Perot’s Prez bid in ’96: 1) he had been a Republican candidate during the primary before switching to the Reform Party for the general so he had national exposure, 2) he spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising and his campaign and 3) he participated in the Presidential debates. Johnson polls consistently between 6-10% without spending much money ($8.5 million to date) and no participation in the Prez debates. I contend his support would easily double if he were given a national platform. So, no, not a lightweight and a better alternative than Donald and Hillary.
My point is that he’s ‘earned’ the right to participate in the debates.